The other part, readings, are not necessarily available to the general public.
Who told you that? Could it have been someone with a vested interest in you paying for college?
I know that you didnt think that you were claiming a conspiracy to keep information from you until you hand money to a university, but that is it is fact exactly what you just claimed.
For someone with such a low UID, how is it that you are so astonishingly stupid not to think that backing up 100% of all email the IRS has ever received is a "laugh" ??
How ??
1 hard drive ca hold *billions* of emails. End of the fucking discussion with the ignorant low UID noooooob.
Do you also propose that they maintain the hardware to restore these backups forever on whatever medium they were originally stored, or do you advocate they re-archive them to a newer format every 5 years until the eventual heat death of the universe?
Yes.
We are talking about email here, not a library of congress per day.
To the right wing nutters that may misinterpret the above, I'm not advocating we throw away capitalism
Clearly, since your example begins with government having a power plant built and then selling its capacity at cost.
This sort of thing is highly unlikely in real capitalism where the owner of the power plant would want to justify this particular use of the money over other particular uses. It is only through force of government, with specific government action, that your example exists at all.
But yes, the Statist might try to pass off your example as an "anti-capitalism" thing.
The only group that was actually denied was a "liberal" group, the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. So boo on anyone that is trying to keep the story alive.
They were "denied" after they were first approved. Meanwhile the enemies of the current administration were neither denied nor approved, a fate worse than either.
I think we should keep the biosphere in a livable condition at any cost, though
So lets kill all humans, and thus the biosphere remains livable. Thats one of those 'costs' that complies with the 'any' requirement.
Oh... you actually think a solution should be reasonable? Hence why some of us feel that its important that fucktards that are abusing the issue are change the economics of it. We dont want 'any cost' and neither do you (although clearly we see that you refuse to admit it.)
However if you go read the bills that have been proposed for net neutrality you will see that ISP that did implement QoS would be breaking the law.
They've already been told that the net neutrality bills and fcc regulations dealing with the same were complete shit. They just wont listen, because apparently the two words, "net neutrality", when put together are so awesome as to completely overpower the actual wording of these laws and regulations.
Opposing "Net Neutrality" seems to be opposite-ville to me. I see the goal of ending net neutrality being for ISPs to force payment from large real-time content providers in order to keep that content flowing with enough priority to make watching it practical. Even though the customer is already paying for enough bandwidth to receive everything if the ISP doesn't intentionally break it.
Some customers are on the lowest tier while others pay more money for priority access. The big "net neutrality" lie is the omission of this basic fact while insisting that some entities should not be able to pay for priority access on the very networks that we ourselves pay extra to have priority access on.
Yeah, ISP's like comcast shouldn't be allowed to throttle their video service competition out of existence, but the solution isnt hypocritical feel-good bullshit that is completely blind to the consequences.
Im not sure where people are getting these "facts" about the dismantled middle class but theyre terribly wrong. All of this talk about class warfare can only be made by one completely oblivious to reality and history.
Its far worse than just not knowing the facts - they get simple reasoning wrong too. For instance they think that if say 90% of people were only making 0.001% of the money, that 90% of the people would be doing badly. It is the "inequality" that leads them to this hair-brained completely illogical conclusion. If 9 out of 10 people made $10 per day, then $10 per day would buy a lot of goods and especially services (do they really think that the top 10% provide services?) This is obviously so if you take currency out of the equation and reduce your arguments to a pure barter system instead of economy by proxy. If I could trade 8 hours of my labor for 8 hours of yours on simple barter, than whatever amount of money we make as a proxy to avoid direct barter is irrelevant.
This is convincing proof that the people people that complain about "income inequality" really and truly are completely ignorant about economics. They've been told before that the measure of wealth is the goods and services that you can enjoy and not the specific number of currency units you command, but it simply doesnt sink in. They keep talking about the "inequality" rather than anyones wealth. If they had to actually talk about wealth, they would have to admit that most folks are doing really well compared to pretty much any other point in history, be it 20 years ago or 50 years ago.
They think things must have been "better" in the past because... what? There are some likely outlying culprits as to why its so easy for these ignorant twats to convince themselves.. such as the price of a house, or of an education, but explain to them how government has fucked up both markets greatly distorting prices upwards to completely irrational levels, well they simply dont want to accept it. Those programs that fucked up those markets have good intentions, so instead it must be some 1%'re conspiracy against the populous.
$18k was middle class black in 1950, but once you adjust for inflation, that means in 2004, they should be making about $54k assuming a low 2% inflation,
Is your bias so thick that you didnt even bother to see if the number was already inflation adjusted?..or are you so uneducated that you think $18K was a middle class income in the 1950's? Which is it? Disingenuous bias or tragic ignorance?
The unadjusted figure for white males for the 1950's is $2,709
..but here you are, claiming that it was $18K before adjusting for inflation... disingenuous? ignorance? both?
There is a reason that "the right" is doing better financially, and its not because they are holding you down. You are holding yourself down by not giving a fuck about things like facts.
I thought the simplest explanation was that it was captured by Earths Gravity
Thats only simple until you figure out that that sort of thing isnt actually possible. In cases where gravitational capture is possible, it is the gravity of a 2nd body (such as a moon) that enables a 3rd body (such as an asteroid) to lose enough velocity to orbit a 1st body (such as a planet.) Conservation of energy means any body that wasnt in a planets orbit will by default have escape velocity if it ever approaches that planet, and this is true unless it is acted upon by a force external to the mutual gravity of the planet and would-be capturer.
trying to pass off a black and white binary as the only possible solutions speaks of incredible naiveté!
Naiveté is repeatedly trying the same thing, getting the same result again and again, only to expect that this time things will be different.
Again, learn some history, because you clearly haven't learned any if you think that doing the same thing again and again will somehow magically lead to different results.
How can you prove the leech on you neck is sucking blood?
Asking the wrong question.
There was always a leech. You have a choice between two different leeches, the new one demonstrably sucks less blood than the old one. You want the old one back?
Slashdot Mirror
The other part, readings, are not necessarily available to the general public.
Who told you that? Could it have been someone with a vested interest in you paying for college?
I know that you didnt think that you were claiming a conspiracy to keep information from you until you hand money to a university, but that is it is fact exactly what you just claimed.
But the fact that college is too expensive doesn't mean you need to turn college into merely a stepping stone to a job. That's misguided.
If its misguided then why is it true in practice? Observation trumps theory every time.
This is the problem with lofty feel-good goals that ignore reality. Reality doesnt give a shit that you are ignoring it.
For someone with such a low UID, how is it that you are so astonishingly stupid not to think that backing up 100% of all email the IRS has ever received is a "laugh" ??
How ??
1 hard drive ca hold *billions* of emails. End of the fucking discussion with the ignorant low UID noooooob.
Do you also propose that they maintain the hardware to restore these backups forever on whatever medium they were originally stored, or do you advocate they re-archive them to a newer format every 5 years until the eventual heat death of the universe?
Yes.
We are talking about email here, not a library of congress per day.
How many years of backups should they be required to keep?
In digital form? They should be required to have a backup of 100% of the years that they have done business, internal or otherwise, via email.
Which ISP is that, or are we now also writing poorly conceived laws to solve imaginary problems?
To the right wing nutters that may misinterpret the above, I'm not advocating we throw away capitalism
Clearly, since your example begins with government having a power plant built and then selling its capacity at cost.
This sort of thing is highly unlikely in real capitalism where the owner of the power plant would want to justify this particular use of the money over other particular uses. It is only through force of government, with specific government action, that your example exists at all.
But yes, the Statist might try to pass off your example as an "anti-capitalism" thing.
The only group that was actually denied was a "liberal" group, the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. So boo on anyone that is trying to keep the story alive.
They were "denied" after they were first approved. Meanwhile the enemies of the current administration were neither denied nor approved, a fate worse than either.
...or how about that space faring races would tend to travel towards the center of the galaxy, instead of way out here in a spiral arm?
If the project fails, what will happen?
Likely the same thing that would have happened if they didnt try, just maybe a little bit faster.
HP finds itself in shrinking markets, so the company itself is shrinking too, and there is no incremental solution.
Well, I think a solution should be reasonable before someone mentions it as one of the possibles.
What would you have said if you REALLY meant "at all costs?"
...clearly you couldnt have said "at all costs" because we find that thats not what you mean when you say that.
Whatever happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, your labored masses yearning to be free?"
We became a welfare state, and welfare states cannot have liberal immigration policies for very long.
I think we should keep the biosphere in a livable condition at any cost, though
So lets kill all humans, and thus the biosphere remains livable. Thats one of those 'costs' that complies with the 'any' requirement.
Oh... you actually think a solution should be reasonable? Hence why some of us feel that its important that fucktards that are abusing the issue are change the economics of it. We dont want 'any cost' and neither do you (although clearly we see that you refuse to admit it.)
Yup. So how about supporting your claim that tenure prevents parents from taking action?
I didn't make any such claim. Only one side here has made a claim, but since you agree with it you arent asking for any actual evidence...
You do know the difference between an open question and a claim, right?
Some people abusing an issue for their own ends doesn't change the validity of that issue
But it does change the economics of the issue....
...or are you one of those "at any cost" people?
No
Facts not in evidence. Things dont become true just because you have declared them to be.
However if you go read the bills that have been proposed for net neutrality you will see that ISP that did implement QoS would be breaking the law.
They've already been told that the net neutrality bills and fcc regulations dealing with the same were complete shit. They just wont listen, because apparently the two words, "net neutrality", when put together are so awesome as to completely overpower the actual wording of these laws and regulations.
Opposing "Net Neutrality" seems to be opposite-ville to me. I see the goal of ending net neutrality being for ISPs to force payment from large real-time content providers in order to keep that content flowing with enough priority to make watching it practical. Even though the customer is already paying for enough bandwidth to receive everything if the ISP doesn't intentionally break it.
Some customers are on the lowest tier while others pay more money for priority access. The big "net neutrality" lie is the omission of this basic fact while insisting that some entities should not be able to pay for priority access on the very networks that we ourselves pay extra to have priority access on.
Yeah, ISP's like comcast shouldn't be allowed to throttle their video service competition out of existence, but the solution isnt hypocritical feel-good bullshit that is completely blind to the consequences.
It would only take a few motivated parents to vote in new school board members to remedy that.
Which is relatively rare.
Maybe one of the reasons its rare is because of tenure. Why get involved when there is nothing that you can do about bad teachers.
Im not sure where people are getting these "facts" about the dismantled middle class but theyre terribly wrong. All of this talk about class warfare can only be made by one completely oblivious to reality and history.
Its far worse than just not knowing the facts - they get simple reasoning wrong too. For instance they think that if say 90% of people were only making 0.001% of the money, that 90% of the people would be doing badly. It is the "inequality" that leads them to this hair-brained completely illogical conclusion. If 9 out of 10 people made $10 per day, then $10 per day would buy a lot of goods and especially services (do they really think that the top 10% provide services?) This is obviously so if you take currency out of the equation and reduce your arguments to a pure barter system instead of economy by proxy. If I could trade 8 hours of my labor for 8 hours of yours on simple barter, than whatever amount of money we make as a proxy to avoid direct barter is irrelevant.
This is convincing proof that the people people that complain about "income inequality" really and truly are completely ignorant about economics. They've been told before that the measure of wealth is the goods and services that you can enjoy and not the specific number of currency units you command, but it simply doesnt sink in. They keep talking about the "inequality" rather than anyones wealth. If they had to actually talk about wealth, they would have to admit that most folks are doing really well compared to pretty much any other point in history, be it 20 years ago or 50 years ago.
They think things must have been "better" in the past because... what? There are some likely outlying culprits as to why its so easy for these ignorant twats to convince themselves.. such as the price of a house, or of an education, but explain to them how government has fucked up both markets greatly distorting prices upwards to completely irrational levels, well they simply dont want to accept it. Those programs that fucked up those markets have good intentions, so instead it must be some 1%'re conspiracy against the populous.
$18k was middle class black in 1950, but once you adjust for inflation, that means in 2004, they should be making about $54k assuming a low 2% inflation,
Is your bias so thick that you didnt even bother to see if the number was already inflation adjusted? ..or are you so uneducated that you think $18K was a middle class income in the 1950's? Which is it? Disingenuous bias or tragic ignorance?
..but here you are, claiming that it was $18K before adjusting for inflation... disingenuous? ignorance? both?
The unadjusted figure for white males for the 1950's is $2,709
There is a reason that "the right" is doing better financially, and its not because they are holding you down. You are holding yourself down by not giving a fuck about things like facts.
I thought the simplest explanation was that it was captured by Earths Gravity
Thats only simple until you figure out that that sort of thing isnt actually possible. In cases where gravitational capture is possible, it is the gravity of a 2nd body (such as a moon) that enables a 3rd body (such as an asteroid) to lose enough velocity to orbit a 1st body (such as a planet.) Conservation of energy means any body that wasnt in a planets orbit will by default have escape velocity if it ever approaches that planet, and this is true unless it is acted upon by a force external to the mutual gravity of the planet and would-be capturer.
trying to pass off a black and white binary as the only possible solutions speaks of incredible naiveté!
Naiveté is repeatedly trying the same thing, getting the same result again and again, only to expect that this time things will be different.
Again, learn some history, because you clearly haven't learned any if you think that doing the same thing again and again will somehow magically lead to different results.
How can you prove the leech on you neck is sucking blood?
Asking the wrong question.
There was always a leech. You have a choice between two different leeches, the new one demonstrably sucks less blood than the old one. You want the old one back?
The spreads are smaller because of computerized trading, *NOT* because of HFT.
Spreads went down to 0.17% in 1994 (computerized trading in full swing) to 0.025% in 2004 (HFT in full swing)
There was always a middle ma - now the middle man makes less. Don't like it? Change universes, because in this one you are wrong.