Who gets to choose? The rich are going to survive? While we "grunts" get to perish?
What makes you think that when push comes to shove, that the handful of ultra rich folks will be able to defend themselves against the hoards?
I seriously think that 9 out of 10 of you have been defeated already, but not because you are at all incapable, but merely because you think that you are incapable. The power of negative thinking.
The grass always looks greener on the other side, but its a fucking illusion. Don't base your outlook on a god damned illusion. We face problems. So did our parents. So did their parents.
We live epically great lives in our cushy western societies, but many dont even know that. They think negatively about it all while discussing the pros and cons of Android vs iOS for godsakes. These things would have been military secrets 25 years ago.. Its a fucking $30 million dollar super-computer, in your fucking hand.
People think that things suck, but in actuality its the way that they are thinking that sucks.
Too bad the U.S. is acting by inaction, instead of proposing a proper treaty that spells out our position, we just refuse to sign one that we don't like.
An opinion based on the unfounded assumption that there needs to be a treaty.
Why did the ITU propose a treaty that nobody noteworthy is willing to sign? To quote one article on this, the ITU Director General said that he was "surprised" by the dissent. The lesson we can take from this is that the ITU is obliviously out of touch.
You are, apparently, unaware that they don't do this any more.
You are, apparently, unaware that you have three options when you don't know what you are talking about.
A) Don't talk.
B) Talk anyways, but make it clear that you are guessing and making assumptions.
C) Talk anyways, but act like you know what you are talking about.
You blew right through both A and B and went right to C, the one that proves that you care more about looking like you know what you are talking about, than actually knowing what you are talking about.
Primarily that the number of machines remains static, that if 100 workers were replaced by 10 machines that requires 1 operator, that this is the way things will stay. This seems at best extremely questionable.
Secondly - well over half the people already work in the service industry.
They are unlikely to be displaced by robots any time soon.
Or you could actually RTFA, where the author provides actual evidence that worker income & employment have not increased as fast as output over the past 60 years.
Why the hell should income and employment increase as fast as output? You make the snide remark about facts, well here is a fact for you. There is a hard cap on employment numbers. Its 100%. There is virtually no cap on output. Given these FACTS it is insane to think that employment could, or even should rise linearly with output.
Translation: You don't know what the facts actually are, nor are you aware of what they would mean even if you knew them.
There is plenty of anger for them both and then some. Your argument is specious because those same corporations are buying those same politicians specifically to favor them with laws written by the corporation lobbyists.
I wonder if you feel the same way about union money and its influence on public representatives. Keep this in mind as more and more States start dealing with their public sector pension liabilities, because sooner or later they are all going to have to.
The problem here is that just like the so called "anti-union" folks, you are placing the blame on the wrong side of the equation. It isnt the corporations at fault, and it isnt the unions at fault. The fault is entirely on the representatives, for they are the ones in the position to legislate and/or to not legislate. As someone else has already pointed out, these representatives use the carrot and the stick to selectively reward and punish. If they did not do so, the corporations and unions would not have the sweetheart deals that they currently have.
The studies demand way too much money. Subscription fees would go up to $100/mo, not $8/mo.
I dont know if $100/mo is accurate, but I do know that if Netflix offered "nearly every movie ever made" for 24/7 on-demand streaming, that I would probably give them $100/mo for the service.
Obviously there will be some content that they just wouldn't be able to get at any price, but there are times when I am looking for a specific movie, and currently by me estimation Netflix streaming has fewer than 33% of the movies that I type into their search box.
In a recent slashdot story I showed that of the earliest 20 entries on wikipedia's list of dystopian movies, thats Netflix only offered 4 of them (a dismal 20%.) If they turned the experience around on its head, if 80% of the time when I search for a specific movie that its ultimately available immediately for streaming, then that $100 starts looking quite attractive.
But we could accidentally hit during a test of our anti-satellite rockets...
"On the morning of Thursday December 13 and 4am, a test of our SM-3 missile defense system tumbled out of control right into the ballistic path of the recently launched North Korean satellite. We would like to extend out sincerest apologies to the North Korean government."
Oh, one more thing.. in another store you said (about me:)
"Mod this idiot down please. The funding act he refers to is the wrong one."
Ask yourself why you thought that it was the wrong act, yet the person who first claimed that it was the wrong act later corrected himself and admitted that I had the right act?
The answer is obvious. You simply accept unsubstantiated claimed unquestionably if they reinforce your preconceived notions, and are also willing to make unsubstantiated claims and act like they cannot be questioned (as if they are facts.)
This is not the behavior of a free man that thinks for himself. This not the behavior of someone who while highly critical of the claims of others at every single step, is even more critical of his own thought and puts effort into not acting like he knows what he is talking about when he doesnt.
Your behavior is the behavior of a sheep. A follower. A zealot willing to ignore reality, a broken way of thinking where beliefs are more important than veracity.
We are talking about a college student, which means young inexperienced and unlikely to have any real skills.
We are talking about $16.40/hour average retail jobs, so why are you injecting experience and skills?
Let me tell you how this works. You pick a hypothesis, and before you act like its a fact, you try to disprove it yourself. You examine shit like your assumptions, perhaps even look at an official reference or two where data is available (its Google wonderful? Not on your case, eh?)
You have made assumptions after assumptions that have either been trivially shown to be wrong, or not at all relevant (skills? retail? really?) Things you could have discovered if you followed that one simple step between the forming a hypothesis and the acting likes its fact.
I question some of your statements and assumptions.
First you define $5K as a "living wage" and hypothesize people making various amounts above this value, but later you add additional expenses (childred) to these people and show that they cannot afford those additional expenses. I'm here to say no sir, thats not how it works. You don't get to keep adding expenses until $5K isnt a living wage anymore and then draw an conclusion about tax fairness. The proper conclusions to be drawn are either that $5K wasn't a living wage after all, or that those additional expenses were optional and that maybe its not the tax rates that arent fair, maybe its just that life isnt fair.
It could be argued either way.
Does Joe have a right to start a family even though he cannot afford one? Some would say yes, others would say no. Neither opinion however tells us anything about tax fairness. You show that Joe needs considerably more income than he currently has in order to afford a family, but that doesnt show that there needs to be a solution, or that the solution should be based on taxes.
Even at an effective 0% tax rate Joe couldn't afford a family, so the only way to get him into the can-afford-a-family group via adjusting tax levels is to give him a credit greater than he will be paying in and thus a refund similar to our Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC, where millions literally get "free" money from other tax payers.) Clearly some people believe that this is fair or we would have voted out supporters of the EITC and voted in people that would remove it.
However, many people still do regard the EITC as unfair, and some of those only do so because the people receiving the benefit are deciding what to spend the money on, that it would be another thing entirely if the money went to an agency that allocated specific benefits such as housing subsidies and food subsidies. What really pisses them off is that there actually are (multiple!) agencies giving out housing subsidies and food subsidies,..to the same people that get the EITC.
So the question of what tax rates are fair or not is also intrinsically linked to how that tax money is being spent once the government has it. It simply is not possible to tackle the fairness question without looking at who is benefiting from the spending allowed by the taxes, what form the benefit takes, and generally how much value skew we are willing to tolerate and why.
The article does not justify its arguments. We do not know how it should look, only the way it does in the various pictures. Seems to me that the ATI method, while offering "higher sharpness" will suffer from temporal aliasing artifacts much like you see on distance surfaces when using high resolution textures in minecraft.
I think what he's referring to is if I make $100 and you make $10,000. I'm going to pay $20 in income tax while you'll pay $2000. On the surface that seems fair, but when you factor in other necessities are a fixed cost you'll have significantly more purchasing power than me after taxes are taken away.
If purchasing power is your fairness metric then the only fair tax rates are $0+X for the first guy and $9900+X for the second, so afterwards they both have the same $100-X purchasing power.
The question you have to ask yourself is do you really think that Purchasing Power is the correct metric to be using to judge fairness here. My guess is that when its explained to you this way that no, in fact you do not now think that Purchasing Power is the correct metric for determining tax fairness.
If you have to choose between rent, heating oil, and food, then your situation sucks well before taxes. There is no reason to believe that tax fairness should be measured based on the shitty situations that people find themselves in, because that would just be symptom management using a blunt instrument.
So you upgraded minimum wage to $10/hour, as if you are making a point?
While you are pulling numbers out of your ass, why not at least look at real ones?
The lowest sub-categorized figures here as of Nov 2012 is $13.38/hour, the next lowest is $16.40/hour, and the 3rd from the bottom is $20.85/hour. These are "Leisure and Hospitality", "Retail Trade", and "Other Services" in that order. Above those are all forms of manufacturing, where the lowest average is $21.86.
People who make $10 an hour, just like the people who make minimum wage, are suckers and people that screwed up their lives.
Is it really so hard for you people to not pull demonstrably insane numbers out of your ass while you are trying to justify your preconceived notions?
Even when I went to college the yearly cost exceeded what someone making minimum wage or near it would have for a gross income.
Why is minimum wage part of your consideration here? Anyone that doesnt have a BAD work history (not the same as NO work history) and no criminal record can typically get quite a bit more than minimum wage in the service industry with no prior experience as long as they have a high school diploma or a GED. Granted we are in a recession right now, and the jobs in question wont be in your chosen field, but that doesnt defeat the point.
Minimum wage is for suckers and people that screwed up their lives.
still information has to travel from one end to the other (to get informationfrom one exchange and place an order on the other) irrespective of where you are located on the path..
Consider the following 3..
Allen is 0T away from exchange A and 2T away from exchange B.
Billy is 2T away from exchange A and 0T away from exchange B.
Chris is 1T away from exchange A and 1T away from exchange B.
Chris always sees arbitrage opportunities on A before Billy does.
Chris always sees arbitrage opportunities on B before Allen does.
Chris also sees some arbitrage opportunities before either Allen or Billy can see them.
Slashdot Mirror
There you go with the hunger stuff again...
Do you know how many people are on food stamps in the U.S. right now?
Who gets to choose? The rich are going to survive? While we "grunts" get to perish?
What makes you think that when push comes to shove, that the handful of ultra rich folks will be able to defend themselves against the hoards?
I seriously think that 9 out of 10 of you have been defeated already, but not because you are at all incapable, but merely because you think that you are incapable. The power of negative thinking.
The grass always looks greener on the other side, but its a fucking illusion. Don't base your outlook on a god damned illusion. We face problems. So did our parents. So did their parents.
We live epically great lives in our cushy western societies, but many dont even know that. They think negatively about it all while discussing the pros and cons of Android vs iOS for godsakes. These things would have been military secrets 25 years ago.. Its a fucking $30 million dollar super-computer, in your fucking hand.
People think that things suck, but in actuality its the way that they are thinking that sucks.
so that the unemployed are often not literally starving
So instead of saying something accurate, you said something else instead.
What objective did you hope to accomplish by being dishonest?
Too bad the U.S. is acting by inaction, instead of proposing a proper treaty that spells out our position, we just refuse to sign one that we don't like.
An opinion based on the unfounded assumption that there needs to be a treaty.
Why did the ITU propose a treaty that nobody noteworthy is willing to sign? To quote one article on this, the ITU Director General said that he was "surprised" by the dissent. The lesson we can take from this is that the ITU is obliviously out of touch.
You are, apparently, unaware that they don't do this any more.
You are, apparently, unaware that you have three options when you don't know what you are talking about.
A) Don't talk.
B) Talk anyways, but make it clear that you are guessing and making assumptions.
C) Talk anyways, but act like you know what you are talking about.
You blew right through both A and B and went right to C, the one that proves that you care more about looking like you know what you are talking about, than actually knowing what you are talking about.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Come on, the summary already said it twice!
You people keep saying that the unemployed are starving.
Care to enlighten us about which country you are talking about?
You're assuming a whole bunch of things in that.
So are you.
Primarily that the number of machines remains static, that if 100 workers were replaced by 10 machines that requires 1 operator, that this is the way things will stay. This seems at best extremely questionable.
Secondly - well over half the people already work in the service industry.
They are unlikely to be displaced by robots any time soon.
Or you could actually RTFA, where the author provides actual evidence that worker income & employment have not increased as fast as output over the past 60 years.
Why the hell should income and employment increase as fast as output? You make the snide remark about facts, well here is a fact for you. There is a hard cap on employment numbers. Its 100%. There is virtually no cap on output. Given these FACTS it is insane to think that employment could, or even should rise linearly with output.
Translation: You don't know what the facts actually are, nor are you aware of what they would mean even if you knew them.
There is plenty of anger for them both and then some. Your argument is specious because those same corporations are buying those same politicians specifically to favor them with laws written by the corporation lobbyists.
I wonder if you feel the same way about union money and its influence on public representatives. Keep this in mind as more and more States start dealing with their public sector pension liabilities, because sooner or later they are all going to have to.
The problem here is that just like the so called "anti-union" folks, you are placing the blame on the wrong side of the equation. It isnt the corporations at fault, and it isnt the unions at fault. The fault is entirely on the representatives, for they are the ones in the position to legislate and/or to not legislate. As someone else has already pointed out, these representatives use the carrot and the stick to selectively reward and punish. If they did not do so, the corporations and unions would not have the sweetheart deals that they currently have.
The studies demand way too much money. Subscription fees would go up to $100/mo, not $8/mo.
I dont know if $100/mo is accurate, but I do know that if Netflix offered "nearly every movie ever made" for 24/7 on-demand streaming, that I would probably give them $100/mo for the service.
Obviously there will be some content that they just wouldn't be able to get at any price, but there are times when I am looking for a specific movie, and currently by me estimation Netflix streaming has fewer than 33% of the movies that I type into their search box.
In a recent slashdot story I showed that of the earliest 20 entries on wikipedia's list of dystopian movies, thats Netflix only offered 4 of them (a dismal 20%.) If they turned the experience around on its head, if 80% of the time when I search for a specific movie that its ultimately available immediately for streaming, then that $100 starts looking quite attractive.
You think that torrent isnt compressed?
You do realize that an uncompressed 1920x1080x32bppx30fps video is about 1.8 terabytes, right?
But we could accidentally hit during a test of our anti-satellite rockets...
"On the morning of Thursday December 13 and 4am, a test of our SM-3 missile defense system tumbled out of control right into the ballistic path of the recently launched North Korean satellite. We would like to extend out sincerest apologies to the North Korean government."
Oh, one more thing.. in another store you said (about me:)
"Mod this idiot down please. The funding act he refers to is the wrong one."
Ask yourself why you thought that it was the wrong act, yet the person who first claimed that it was the wrong act later corrected himself and admitted that I had the right act?
The answer is obvious. You simply accept unsubstantiated claimed unquestionably if they reinforce your preconceived notions, and are also willing to make unsubstantiated claims and act like they cannot be questioned (as if they are facts.)
This is not the behavior of a free man that thinks for himself. This not the behavior of someone who while highly critical of the claims of others at every single step, is even more critical of his own thought and puts effort into not acting like he knows what he is talking about when he doesnt.
Your behavior is the behavior of a sheep. A follower. A zealot willing to ignore reality, a broken way of thinking where beliefs are more important than veracity.
We are talking about a college student, which means young inexperienced and unlikely to have any real skills.
We are talking about $16.40/hour average retail jobs, so why are you injecting experience and skills?
Let me tell you how this works. You pick a hypothesis, and before you act like its a fact, you try to disprove it yourself. You examine shit like your assumptions, perhaps even look at an official reference or two where data is available (its Google wonderful? Not on your case, eh?)
You have made assumptions after assumptions that have either been trivially shown to be wrong, or not at all relevant (skills? retail? really?) Things you could have discovered if you followed that one simple step between the forming a hypothesis and the acting likes its fact.
I question some of your statements and assumptions.
..to the same people that get the EITC.
First you define $5K as a "living wage" and hypothesize people making various amounts above this value, but later you add additional expenses (childred) to these people and show that they cannot afford those additional expenses. I'm here to say no sir, thats not how it works. You don't get to keep adding expenses until $5K isnt a living wage anymore and then draw an conclusion about tax fairness. The proper conclusions to be drawn are either that $5K wasn't a living wage after all, or that those additional expenses were optional and that maybe its not the tax rates that arent fair, maybe its just that life isnt fair.
It could be argued either way.
Does Joe have a right to start a family even though he cannot afford one? Some would say yes, others would say no. Neither opinion however tells us anything about tax fairness. You show that Joe needs considerably more income than he currently has in order to afford a family, but that doesnt show that there needs to be a solution, or that the solution should be based on taxes.
Even at an effective 0% tax rate Joe couldn't afford a family, so the only way to get him into the can-afford-a-family group via adjusting tax levels is to give him a credit greater than he will be paying in and thus a refund similar to our Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC, where millions literally get "free" money from other tax payers.) Clearly some people believe that this is fair or we would have voted out supporters of the EITC and voted in people that would remove it.
However, many people still do regard the EITC as unfair, and some of those only do so because the people receiving the benefit are deciding what to spend the money on, that it would be another thing entirely if the money went to an agency that allocated specific benefits such as housing subsidies and food subsidies. What really pisses them off is that there actually are (multiple!) agencies giving out housing subsidies and food subsidies,
So the question of what tax rates are fair or not is also intrinsically linked to how that tax money is being spent once the government has it. It simply is not possible to tackle the fairness question without looking at who is benefiting from the spending allowed by the taxes, what form the benefit takes, and generally how much value skew we are willing to tolerate and why.
The article does not justify its arguments. We do not know how it should look, only the way it does in the various pictures. Seems to me that the ATI method, while offering "higher sharpness" will suffer from temporal aliasing artifacts much like you see on distance surfaces when using high resolution textures in minecraft.
On the face of it, it might not seem huge, but look how significant the invention of semiconductor material was.
Indeed, I never want to go back to a time before we had invented the 8th most common element in the universe.
I think what he's referring to is if I make $100 and you make $10,000. I'm going to pay $20 in income tax while you'll pay $2000. On the surface that seems fair, but when you factor in other necessities are a fixed cost you'll have significantly more purchasing power than me after taxes are taken away.
If purchasing power is your fairness metric then the only fair tax rates are $0+X for the first guy and $9900+X for the second, so afterwards they both have the same $100-X purchasing power.
The question you have to ask yourself is do you really think that Purchasing Power is the correct metric to be using to judge fairness here. My guess is that when its explained to you this way that no, in fact you do not now think that Purchasing Power is the correct metric for determining tax fairness.
If you have to choose between rent, heating oil, and food, then your situation sucks well before taxes. There is no reason to believe that tax fairness should be measured based on the shitty situations that people find themselves in, because that would just be symptom management using a blunt instrument.
They probably only wanted to show ISP's that the majority of Americans have access to.
That is surely why Google Fiber and FiOS are in there.
So you upgraded minimum wage to $10/hour, as if you are making a point?
While you are pulling numbers out of your ass, why not at least look at real ones?
The lowest sub-categorized figures here as of Nov 2012 is $13.38/hour, the next lowest is $16.40/hour, and the 3rd from the bottom is $20.85/hour. These are "Leisure and Hospitality", "Retail Trade", and "Other Services" in that order. Above those are all forms of manufacturing, where the lowest average is $21.86.
People who make $10 an hour, just like the people who make minimum wage, are suckers and people that screwed up their lives.
Is it really so hard for you people to not pull demonstrably insane numbers out of your ass while you are trying to justify your preconceived notions?
Even when I went to college the yearly cost exceeded what someone making minimum wage or near it would have for a gross income.
Why is minimum wage part of your consideration here? Anyone that doesnt have a BAD work history (not the same as NO work history) and no criminal record can typically get quite a bit more than minimum wage in the service industry with no prior experience as long as they have a high school diploma or a GED. Granted we are in a recession right now, and the jobs in question wont be in your chosen field, but that doesnt defeat the point.
Minimum wage is for suckers and people that screwed up their lives.
still information has to travel from one end to the other (to get informationfrom one exchange and place an order on the other) irrespective of where you are located on the path..
Consider the following 3..
Allen is 0T away from exchange A and 2T away from exchange B.
Billy is 2T away from exchange A and 0T away from exchange B.
Chris is 1T away from exchange A and 1T away from exchange B.
Chris always sees arbitrage opportunities on A before Billy does.
Chris always sees arbitrage opportunities on B before Allen does.
Chris also sees some arbitrage opportunities before either Allen or Billy can see them.
Why are there scroll bars on a touch device if they're not meant to be used as part of the navigation method?
Doesnt take a genius...
Right, but not without destroying millions of dollars in value
Your argument hinges on this supposed destroyed value, so surely you can discuss this with a little more depth than simply making the claim, right?
And the SEC getting involved isn't a 'problem,' this is precisely what a regulatory authority is supposed to do.
The SEC is supposed to undo transactions because an HFT lost money? Really? Are you fucking retarded?