Well, if the Google evidence was the sole evidence used to try to convict someone, I'd hope that the accused would walk free.
Would you include all evidence on this persons personal devices that may have originated from Google?
If you have a gmail account google could bomb your computer with tons of child porn the next time you check your email. They could also serve up search results from their search engine with hidden images that your browser will cache. If you've got google drive or whatever its called then quite clearly you are fucked if google wants you to be fucked.
Israel's response to the kidnapping was to start making arrests and restricting access to Gaza
So they got the people that did it then? oh... they were arresting people that didnt do it? yeah...
What would the people in your county do if a government that didnt represent you were to go around "making arrests" and demanding "papers please" -- you should think about that awhile.
An extraordinary claim would be that people didn't die because of delays to market of drugs that save lives.
Since its you that seems to be making that claim, it is also you that needs to provide evidence that people do not die while the FDA delays the availability of life saving drugs.
(we know you cannot do that, but maybe not everyone knew that you were the one with the extraordinary claim, not the guy you accused of having an extraordinary claim)
In fact, everyone acts in their own best interest.
True on average I suppose, but not in general. Morality and/or integrity frequently trumps self-interest... at least this is true for people with morals and/or integrity.
In this case I think we see an illustration of the fact that the notion of a particle as a mathematical point in space - something with zero dimensions - is an abstraction; an approximation that works well enough because we can't in that much detail any way, and it makes the equations so much easier.
All that we ever really measure after all is interactions (not exactly the same as 'forces' but 'force' is the macroscopic equivalent.) Both the notion of particles as either something with zero dimensions, something with many dimensions, or perturbations in some theoretical 'field' is an abstraction.
Take the leptons such as the electrons. In our observations we frequently take several interaction measurements of 'an electron' that together happen to be consistent with a mathematical description of a 'distinct thing' but that doesnt make it so - all we actually witness are the interactions, and in actuality its the interactions many times removed that we are witnessing but thats another topic.
'Electron' is just a label to help describe some interactions that we observe. There is a difference between knowing somethings name and knowing what that somethings is. The most truthful statement that can be made is that the universe appears to preserve some quantities in between interactions. We have given names to these quantities (charge, mass, spin, momentum,...) as well as names to the sets of these quantities (electron, up quark,..) that appear to be linked in some fashion.
Richard Feynman cared about the interactions. He didnt bother with the notions of what particles actually are, or even what the quantities preserved actually are (or why they are preserved.). In one interview he notes, when talking about inertia, that there is a difference between knowing something and knowing the name of something. We have a word for a phenomenon we observe called inertia, but we havent a clue why it is so.
if he used only about 60% of his available credit line each month, and left 15 or 20 dollars per month in carryover balance
Passes the smell test. Remember that the credit score is a measure of expected value, not a measure of worthiness.
Someone that pays down to 0 every month presents the minimum of risk to the creditor, but they also arent paying any additional interest from a balance due.
Someone with a large balance due pays a lot of interest, but they also present significantly more risk to the creditor.
The maximum expected value for the creditor is somewhere in the middle of those.
IIRC, the Drake equation was also a 'spitball' solution whipped off the cuff to address an inconvenient interviewer question. Subsequent tweaks have made it as accurate and reliable as when it was first spat out upon the world - and about as useless.
At least the Drake equation attempts to count something. I think people are missing this important fact about this bullshit compression rating: It isnt counting anything.
Yes, if anyone should be paying anyone, it is Verizon/Comcast that should be paying Netflix, as Netflix is providing the content that Veriz/cast sell to their subscribers.
So then Verizon turns to their customers and says "oh you want the Netflix package? Thats $20 more per month than our basic service"
Werent you guys just arguing that ISP's shouldn't be allowed to do that? But now you are arguing that they should be forced to do it?
I will be an ISP that starts requesting random files from everybody else and CHARGE them if they are dumb enough to send them!!!
Thats better than the alternative, where you can just send unrequested data out to arbitrary IP addresses and then expect payment. In the scenario you suggest, the sender can at least opt out and stop sending if someone is abusing them.
This is the same reason that the sender pays the postage on snail mail and that it really cannot rationally be any other way except in rare circumstances that cannot be the general case.
Netflix pays Level3 a fee to send data to you. Verizon wants to be paid for handing data that originates from Level3's customers that is destined for its customers. In real terms Level3 should be charging Netflix a premium for destinations such as Verizons network so that Verizon can be reimbursed the expenses associated with handling the volume of traffic originating from Level3.
Well in the case of snail mail, thats exactly what happens. If you want to send a letter from Canada to the United States (or vise-versa) the regular local postage fee isnt enough. The sender has to pay a premium so that the other countries postal service can be reimbursed even in the case where the person its destined for requested the letter.
The exception is when its postage due, but we already know that everyone is against Verizon charging customers that use Netflix more than the customers that do not use Netflix.. "Net Neutrality" and all that.
Except Verizon here lets just some "low capacity" cables connect them to Netflix's provider on purpose
...because Netflix's provider (which is Level3) isnt paying for the bandwidth disparity between Level3 and Verizon on purpose.
Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.
You do know that Netflix uses Level3 because Level3 offered the best deal, and the only way they could offer the best deal is to skimp on their responsibility to pay for the packets originating on their network.
Or do you figure the militaries aren't paid for by taxes?
You seem to be missing the painful fact that spending is not taxes. It could easily be said that out military as paid for by borrowing.
Why will you not simply admit that when you take more money away from one company than another, the one that has less money taken from it can out-compete the one you took more money from?
Its clearly not hard to understand.. right? So you are just being willfully ignorant? Its a fact that you clearly refuse to ever admit, meaning that you are not being intellectually honest on purpose. That means your arguments are dishonest. Purposely being dishonesty is called lying...
So the question stands as to why you are lying.. why you refuse to simply admit something so basic.. is it because your economic philosophy is a religion rather than something based on rational thought, or do you have an agenda of some kind such as wanting to hurt corporations due to simple hatred? Doesnt matter what the answer is.. you are a dishonest fuck at this point. hatred or ignorant religion.. doesnt matter.
The falacy is related to destroying things to create work. It does not apply here.
The fallacy is related to making a decision by looking only at the parties directly involved in the short term, rather than looking at all parties (directly and indirectly) involved in the short and long term.
Thats a direct quote from the link that you do not understand but amazingly had to balls to act like an expert on. Dont open your mouth when ignorant unless its to ask questions to reduce your level of ignorance.
So...the rules designed to prevent spending more money than necessary that would end up in the pockets of people who'd have no business getting their hands on it in a sane world...cause more money than necessary being spent and ending in the pockets of other people who'd have no business getting their hands on it in a sane world?
Yes, thats why big government is bad. Bigger government means bigger amounts of money does this.
You also might want to consider that many of the countries with "lower" corporate tax rates than the US have higher personal income rates.
Yes, so they are business friendly whereas we are business hostile. You don't seem to be making the point that you wanted to make.
In addition, they don't spend anywhere near as much on a military.
What does that have to do with anything? It seems like you are just reaching for whatever data point you think can be sloppily spun into something that supports higher corporate tax rates, but your reasoning is so poor that you arent realizing that these data points are either irrelevant (a specific spending datapoint) or actually do the opposite of supporting your narrative.
If you think the corporate tax rate is high, compare it with the rates from the 1950s through 1980s.
Irrelevant without also comparing them to the tax rates of other countries over the same periods. I know why you arent doing that. Its because the United States never had the highest corporate tax rates until recently. Everyone else has figured out that having the highest corporate tax rates is bad for their respective economies. We havent yet, and its because of people like you that dont even know what the right questions to ask are.
No they arent. One term carries no content and is in fact wishy-washy shit that is purposely not specific about anything so that the goalposts can be arbitrarily shifted around. When 'green' is suggested to mean 'efficient' it frequently later gets altered to mean 'sustainable', 'carbon neutral', or even shit like 'a step in the right direction.'
However efficient generally implies the current style just being better at it.
Yes. A specific goal. "Green" isnt a specific anything unless you are talking about color and clearly you didnt mean the fucking color when you said it. You meant the nebulous catch-all goalpost-moving crap that all falls under the wishy-washy way-you-feel-about-it umbrella.
This is part of the reason why you find it so hard to accomplish anything. You wont narrow down what you want to accomplish to something specific enough that people can later on say "yeah, they accomplished what they intended" ---- why not just call these things slush funds and be done with it?
Tell that to voter fraud bills, the claim of "welfare queens" and not allowing female reproductive rights because "some use it to be promiscuous".
You missed gun regulation bills because "some use guns to murder", banking regulation bills because "the fraud laws that were violated arent good enough", gambling regulation bills because "some people gamble away their house",....
...pretty much everything they do... including all the liberal shit that you didnt want to mention and probably dont even realize is the exact same thing...
says that the most efficient and non-market distorting way to get the users to pay the cost of the externalities is to impose a carbon tax.
Hmm... please consider this statement carefully.
Lets assume that these two things are true:
(A) Carbon emissions has an "external cost" associated with it, and that this cost is born by the people of earth.
(B) A Carbon tax can be levied that is approximately equal to the "external cost" of (A)
Your statement is still not correct. Paying a tax to the government is not at all the same as paying the external cost born by people, even if the tax is exactly equal the cost.
Your argument is essentially the same as if I accidentally burned down my neighbors house, that instead of buying him a new house I have to hand over an equivalent amount of money to the government and then he gets whatever the government decides that he will get.
Do you feel that if I do pay the government an amount equal to a new home for my neighbor that I have paid my neighbors costs? Really? yeah, I didnt think so.
The problem here is that "external cost" is a nebulous thing which allows you to be equally nebulous with your thinking about what "paying external costs" actually means.
Carbon taxes do not pay the external costs of carbon emissions. Full stop.
Our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world, and that only happened recently (Japan's used to be higher, but they wised up.)
Now I'm sure you will retort that companies don't pay the actual tax rates - they get tax exemptions, subsidies, and so forth. This is true only if they are chosen to get those exemptions or subsidies. Plenty of businesses arent getting any of either. Plenty of businesses in the United States pay the highest corporate tax rates in the world with no exemptions or subsidies to easy the harm done to them.
Now, while you were reaching for the exemption and subsidy card did you notice that you skipped over part of the problem? There are two problems. One of them is those exemptions and subsidies, and the other is that without them its the highest corporate tax rates in the world. The industries that can capitalize on those exemptions and subsidies can compete in the global market, whereas the industries that are unable to capitalize on them are not only at a disadvantage on a global level but also on the local level because foreign competitors can easily drive them into oblivion.
It is the complete ignorance of whats going on that is part of the problem. We have this debate about taxes and regulation and some fool going off saying that taxes are down. Taxes arent down at all. You would know not to say such ignorant things if you werent so ignorant that you didnt know that America has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. A problem of course is that the statement "taxes are down" can later be justified by reaching for actual truths, but you arent knowledgeable enough to have led off with the truth itself. You just know that somehow there is a grain of truth to the statement.
You cannot rationally debate about the consequences of inaction nor can you debate about the consequences of proposed solutions if you arent leading off with the truth itself. You need to discuss whats actually happening, rather than bullshit hyperbole like "taxes are down", in order to discuss these things rationally.
Looking at the latest tax returns of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Texaco, it looks like they make about 7% return. I wouldn't call that insanely profitable at all...
Let me quote Hillary Clinton on the subject: "windfall profits"
When you say 7% it doesnt sound like much, but when you say "windfall profits" those evil oil companies are instead robber barons.
If you want to see real windfall profits, look at coffee retailers like Starbucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if the Google evidence was the sole evidence used to try to convict someone, I'd hope that the accused would walk free.
Would you include all evidence on this persons personal devices that may have originated from Google?
If you have a gmail account google could bomb your computer with tons of child porn the next time you check your email. They could also serve up search results from their search engine with hidden images that your browser will cache. If you've got google drive or whatever its called then quite clearly you are fucked if google wants you to be fucked.
Israel's response to the kidnapping was to start making arrests and restricting access to Gaza
So they got the people that did it then? oh... they were arresting people that didnt do it? yeah...
What would the people in your county do if a government that didnt represent you were to go around "making arrests" and demanding "papers please" -- you should think about that awhile.
so we're right back where we're started, albeit with lower numbers of warheads
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
An extraordinary claim would be that people didn't die because of delays to market of drugs that save lives.
Since its you that seems to be making that claim, it is also you that needs to provide evidence that people do not die while the FDA delays the availability of life saving drugs.
(we know you cannot do that, but maybe not everyone knew that you were the one with the extraordinary claim, not the guy you accused of having an extraordinary claim)
It is not about removing decisions from the weakest among us.
It is about limiting the power of the most powerful among us.
Is there something I am not understanding here? Looks to me like your second statement is the excuse to implement the first.
In fact, everyone acts in their own best interest.
True on average I suppose, but not in general. Morality and/or integrity frequently trumps self-interest... at least this is true for people with morals and/or integrity.
In this case I think we see an illustration of the fact that the notion of a particle as a mathematical point in space - something with zero dimensions - is an abstraction; an approximation that works well enough because we can't in that much detail any way, and it makes the equations so much easier.
All that we ever really measure after all is interactions (not exactly the same as 'forces' but 'force' is the macroscopic equivalent.) Both the notion of particles as either something with zero dimensions, something with many dimensions, or perturbations in some theoretical 'field' is an abstraction.
...) as well as names to the sets of these quantities (electron, up quark, ..) that appear to be linked in some fashion.
Take the leptons such as the electrons. In our observations we frequently take several interaction measurements of 'an electron' that together happen to be consistent with a mathematical description of a 'distinct thing' but that doesnt make it so - all we actually witness are the interactions, and in actuality its the interactions many times removed that we are witnessing but thats another topic.
'Electron' is just a label to help describe some interactions that we observe. There is a difference between knowing somethings name and knowing what that somethings is. The most truthful statement that can be made is that the universe appears to preserve some quantities in between interactions. We have given names to these quantities (charge, mass, spin, momentum,
Richard Feynman cared about the interactions. He didnt bother with the notions of what particles actually are, or even what the quantities preserved actually are (or why they are preserved.). In one interview he notes, when talking about inertia, that there is a difference between knowing something and knowing the name of something. We have a word for a phenomenon we observe called inertia, but we havent a clue why it is so.
Particles are just labels.
if he used only about 60% of his available credit line each month, and left 15 or 20 dollars per month in carryover balance
Passes the smell test. Remember that the credit score is a measure of expected value, not a measure of worthiness.
Someone that pays down to 0 every month presents the minimum of risk to the creditor, but they also arent paying any additional interest from a balance due.
Someone with a large balance due pays a lot of interest, but they also present significantly more risk to the creditor.
The maximum expected value for the creditor is somewhere in the middle of those.
IIRC, the Drake equation was also a 'spitball' solution whipped off the cuff to address an inconvenient interviewer question. Subsequent tweaks have made it as accurate and reliable as when it was first spat out upon the world - and about as useless.
At least the Drake equation attempts to count something. I think people are missing this important fact about this bullshit compression rating: It isnt counting anything.
Yes, if anyone should be paying anyone, it is Verizon/Comcast that should be paying Netflix, as Netflix is providing the content that Veriz/cast sell to their subscribers.
So then Verizon turns to their customers and says "oh you want the Netflix package? Thats $20 more per month than our basic service"
Werent you guys just arguing that ISP's shouldn't be allowed to do that? But now you are arguing that they should be forced to do it?
I will be an ISP that starts requesting random files from everybody else and CHARGE them if they are dumb enough to send them!!!
Thats better than the alternative, where you can just send unrequested data out to arbitrary IP addresses and then expect payment. In the scenario you suggest, the sender can at least opt out and stop sending if someone is abusing them.
This is the same reason that the sender pays the postage on snail mail and that it really cannot rationally be any other way except in rare circumstances that cannot be the general case.
Netflix pays Level3 a fee to send data to you. Verizon wants to be paid for handing data that originates from Level3's customers that is destined for its customers. In real terms Level3 should be charging Netflix a premium for destinations such as Verizons network so that Verizon can be reimbursed the expenses associated with handling the volume of traffic originating from Level3.
Well in the case of snail mail, thats exactly what happens. If you want to send a letter from Canada to the United States (or vise-versa) the regular local postage fee isnt enough. The sender has to pay a premium so that the other countries postal service can be reimbursed even in the case where the person its destined for requested the letter.
The exception is when its postage due, but we already know that everyone is against Verizon charging customers that use Netflix more than the customers that do not use Netflix.. "Net Neutrality" and all that.
Except Verizon here lets just some "low capacity" cables connect them to Netflix's provider on purpose
Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.
You do know that Netflix uses Level3 because Level3 offered the best deal, and the only way they could offer the best deal is to skimp on their responsibility to pay for the packets originating on their network.
Or do you figure the militaries aren't paid for by taxes?
You seem to be missing the painful fact that spending is not taxes. It could easily be said that out military as paid for by borrowing.
Why will you not simply admit that when you take more money away from one company than another, the one that has less money taken from it can out-compete the one you took more money from?
Its clearly not hard to understand.. right? So you are just being willfully ignorant? Its a fact that you clearly refuse to ever admit, meaning that you are not being intellectually honest on purpose. That means your arguments are dishonest. Purposely being dishonesty is called lying...
So the question stands as to why you are lying.. why you refuse to simply admit something so basic.. is it because your economic philosophy is a religion rather than something based on rational thought, or do you have an agenda of some kind such as wanting to hurt corporations due to simple hatred? Doesnt matter what the answer is.. you are a dishonest fuck at this point. hatred or ignorant religion.. doesnt matter.
It stimulates the economy with relevant tech spending, inspires our children, and sets a rocket ahead of other nations.
So what you are saying is that if they were $400 billion short instead of only $400 million short, then that would be even better.
(translation: Your broken window fallacy isnt any more correct the second time that you post it)
The falacy is related to destroying things to create work. It does not apply here.
The fallacy is related to making a decision by looking only at the parties directly involved in the short term, rather than looking at all parties (directly and indirectly) involved in the short and long term.
Thats a direct quote from the link that you do not understand but amazingly had to balls to act like an expert on. Dont open your mouth when ignorant unless its to ask questions to reduce your level of ignorance.
So...the rules designed to prevent spending more money than necessary that would end up in the pockets of people who'd have no business getting their hands on it in a sane world...cause more money than necessary being spent and ending in the pockets of other people who'd have no business getting their hands on it in a sane world?
Yes, thats why big government is bad. Bigger government means bigger amounts of money does this.
It stimulates the economy
So we meet again.
The purpose of a carbon tax is to make carbon emitting-technologies more expensive
Then why do the people that push for carbon taxes always say the exact words: "pay the cost of [the] externalities"
You are admitting that they are lying in order to sell their carbon tax scheme. So why do you trust anything that they say then?
You also might want to consider that many of the countries with "lower" corporate tax rates than the US have higher personal income rates.
Yes, so they are business friendly whereas we are business hostile. You don't seem to be making the point that you wanted to make.
In addition, they don't spend anywhere near as much on a military.
What does that have to do with anything? It seems like you are just reaching for whatever data point you think can be sloppily spun into something that supports higher corporate tax rates, but your reasoning is so poor that you arent realizing that these data points are either irrelevant (a specific spending datapoint) or actually do the opposite of supporting your narrative.
If you think the corporate tax rate is high, compare it with the rates from the 1950s through 1980s.
Irrelevant without also comparing them to the tax rates of other countries over the same periods. I know why you arent doing that. Its because the United States never had the highest corporate tax rates until recently. Everyone else has figured out that having the highest corporate tax rates is bad for their respective economies. We havent yet, and its because of people like you that dont even know what the right questions to ask are.
The terms are similar.
No they arent. One term carries no content and is in fact wishy-washy shit that is purposely not specific about anything so that the goalposts can be arbitrarily shifted around. When 'green' is suggested to mean 'efficient' it frequently later gets altered to mean 'sustainable', 'carbon neutral', or even shit like 'a step in the right direction.'
However efficient generally implies the current style just being better at it.
Yes. A specific goal. "Green" isnt a specific anything unless you are talking about color and clearly you didnt mean the fucking color when you said it. You meant the nebulous catch-all goalpost-moving crap that all falls under the wishy-washy way-you-feel-about-it umbrella.
This is part of the reason why you find it so hard to accomplish anything. You wont narrow down what you want to accomplish to something specific enough that people can later on say "yeah, they accomplished what they intended" ---- why not just call these things slush funds and be done with it?
Tell that to voter fraud bills, the claim of "welfare queens" and not allowing female reproductive rights because "some use it to be promiscuous".
You missed gun regulation bills because "some use guns to murder", banking regulation bills because "the fraud laws that were violated arent good enough", gambling regulation bills because "some people gamble away their house", ....
...pretty much everything they do... including all the liberal shit that you didnt want to mention and probably dont even realize is the exact same thing...
says that the most efficient and non-market distorting way to get the users to pay the cost of the externalities is to impose a carbon tax.
Hmm... please consider this statement carefully.
Lets assume that these two things are true:
(A) Carbon emissions has an "external cost" associated with it, and that this cost is born by the people of earth.
(B) A Carbon tax can be levied that is approximately equal to the "external cost" of (A)
Your statement is still not correct. Paying a tax to the government is not at all the same as paying the external cost born by people, even if the tax is exactly equal the cost.
Your argument is essentially the same as if I accidentally burned down my neighbors house, that instead of buying him a new house I have to hand over an equivalent amount of money to the government and then he gets whatever the government decides that he will get.
Do you feel that if I do pay the government an amount equal to a new home for my neighbor that I have paid my neighbors costs? Really? yeah, I didnt think so.
The problem here is that "external cost" is a nebulous thing which allows you to be equally nebulous with your thinking about what "paying external costs" actually means.
Carbon taxes do not pay the external costs of carbon emissions. Full stop.
Taxes are down
Our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world, and that only happened recently (Japan's used to be higher, but they wised up.)
Now I'm sure you will retort that companies don't pay the actual tax rates - they get tax exemptions, subsidies, and so forth. This is true only if they are chosen to get those exemptions or subsidies. Plenty of businesses arent getting any of either. Plenty of businesses in the United States pay the highest corporate tax rates in the world with no exemptions or subsidies to easy the harm done to them.
Now, while you were reaching for the exemption and subsidy card did you notice that you skipped over part of the problem? There are two problems. One of them is those exemptions and subsidies, and the other is that without them its the highest corporate tax rates in the world. The industries that can capitalize on those exemptions and subsidies can compete in the global market, whereas the industries that are unable to capitalize on them are not only at a disadvantage on a global level but also on the local level because foreign competitors can easily drive them into oblivion.
It is the complete ignorance of whats going on that is part of the problem. We have this debate about taxes and regulation and some fool going off saying that taxes are down. Taxes arent down at all. You would know not to say such ignorant things if you werent so ignorant that you didnt know that America has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. A problem of course is that the statement "taxes are down" can later be justified by reaching for actual truths, but you arent knowledgeable enough to have led off with the truth itself. You just know that somehow there is a grain of truth to the statement.
You cannot rationally debate about the consequences of inaction nor can you debate about the consequences of proposed solutions if you arent leading off with the truth itself. You need to discuss whats actually happening, rather than bullshit hyperbole like "taxes are down", in order to discuss these things rationally.
Looking at the latest tax returns of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Texaco, it looks like they make about 7% return. I wouldn't call that insanely profitable at all...
Let me quote Hillary Clinton on the subject: "windfall profits"
When you say 7% it doesnt sound like much, but when you say "windfall profits" those evil oil companies are instead robber barons.
If you want to see real windfall profits, look at coffee retailers like Starbucks.