And where does the power come from? It is granted by the government in the form of the stupid DMCA law.
I predict that instead of simply repealing the law, additional regulations will be layered on, each with more unintended consequences. Eventually the whole system will collapse under its own complexity.
The the end of Roman civilization, an ordinary citizen welcomed the invading barbarians because they were less hassle than dealing with the edicts and taxes of Rome, despite the notional stability and security.
Americans of Asian descent were very badly treated in the past. For a good example, read Robert Louis Stevenson's "Across the Plains", published in 1892.
"Despised Races
Of all stupid ill-feelings, the sentiment of my fellow Caucasians towards our companions in the Chinese car was the most stupid and the worst. They seemed never to have looked at them, listened to them, or thought of them, but hated them a priori. The Mongols were their enemies in that cruel and treacherous battle-field of money. They could work better and cheaper in half a hundred industries, and hence there was no calumny too idle for the Caucasians to repeat, and even to believe. They declared them hideous vermin, and affected a kind of choking in the throat when they beheld them. Now, as a matter of fact, the young Chinese man is so like a large class of European women, that on raising my head and suddenly catching sight of one at a considerable distance, I have for an instant been deceived by the resemblance. I do not say it is the most attractive class of our women, but for all that many a manâ(TM)s wife is less pleasantly favoured. Again, my emigrants declared that the Chinese were dirty. I cannot say they were clean, for that was impossible upon the journey; but in their efforts after cleanliness they put the rest of us to shame. We all pigged and stewed in one infamy, wet our hands and faces for half a minute daily on the platform, and were unashamed. But the Chinese never lost an opportunity, and you would see them washing their feetâ"an act not dreamed of among ourselvesâ"and going as far as decency permitted to wash their whole bodies. I may remark by the way that the dirtier people are in their persons the more delicate is their sense of modesty. A clean man strips in a crowded boathouse; but he who is unwashed slinks in and out of bed without uncovering an inch of skin. Lastly, these very foul and malodorous Caucasians entertained the surprising illusion that it was the Chinese waggon, and that alone, which stank. I have said already that it was the exceptions and notably the freshest of the three.
These judgments are typical of the feeling in all Western America. The Chinese are considered stupid, because they are imperfectly acquainted with English. They are held to be base, because their dexterity and frugality enable them to underbid the lazy, luxurious Caucasian. They are said to be thieves; I am sure they have no monopoly of that. They are called cruel; the Anglo-Saxon and the cheerful Irishman may each reflect before he bears the accusation. I am told, again, that they are of the race of river pirates, and belong to the most despised and dangerous class in the Celestial Empire. But if this be so, what remarkable pirates have we here! and what must be the virtues, the industry, the education, and the intelligence of their superiors at home!
Awhile ago it was the Irish, now it is the Chinese that must go. Such is the cry. It seems, after all, that no country is bound to submit to immigration any more than to invasion; each is war to the knife, and resistance to either but legitimate defence. Yet we may regret the free tradition of the republic, which loved to depict herself with open arms, welcoming all unfortunates. And certainly, as a man who believes that he loves freedom, I may be excused some bitterness when I find her sacred name misused in the contention. It was but the other day that I heard a vulgar fellow in the Sand-lot, the popular tribune of San Francisco, roaring for arms and butchery. âoeAt the call of Abraham Lincoln,â said the orator, âoeye rose in the name of freedom to set free the negroes; can ye not rise and liberate yourselves from a few dirty Mongolians?â
For my own part, I could not look but with wonder and respect on the Chinese. Their forefathers watched the stars before mine had begun to keep pigs. Gun-powder and printing, which the other day we imitated, and a school of manners which we never had the delicacy so m
6.7*10^12 / 4.1*10^9 = $1,634 per person. There is the incentive. Let's have the UN write each one of them a check for that amount and see what happens.
Or do you prefer to be paternalistic and do it for them? What does it cost to connect people who are not capable of doing it for themselves and who probably tolerate a government that keeps them that way.
Thanks for the lucid reply. I only wish that I could agree with your last sentence, and that your three adjectives were all accurate. Global warming has been studied to death, but these have not received enough attention.
Playing devil's advocate here, who is to say that doing nothing is not the best alternative? Probably not, but there is not enough science to say for sure.
There there are those that say that even if emissions are eliminated, that it is already to late. What then?
You are a perfect example of the problem. You are fixated on reducing carbon emissions. You mention "alternative technologies". I bet that the technologies you are thinking about are all for reducing carbon emissions.
The clincher is the two alternatives you would have me choose: 1. Curbing emissions. 2. Mass starvation.
How about alternatives 3, 4, 5...? Think outside the box!
The trouble is that all this new technology comes down to reducing carbon. No alternatives are conceivable. All the incentives mandate means, not the end.
Do they want to "slow the rise of harmful greenhouse gases"? Or, do they want to limit "global warming by 2100 to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F), as compared to pre-industrial levels"?
I think the latter is more desirable, and the former is not the best way to achieve it. However, there is no scientific consensus that either are more desirable than any of a host of alternatives.
Nevertheless, it seems they have made their futile decision.
Bernie Sanders' Tax Return Has Some Odd Deductions
Late on a Friday afternoon, Bernie Sanders finally released his tax returns. For the most part, they are (to use his term) âoeboring.â But as Jim Geraghty writing for NRO pointed out, thereâ(TM)s more than a little hypocrisy to be found in that âoeboringâ 1040.
While Jimâ(TM)s piece was very well-researched and exhaustive, thereâ(TM)s a few more nuggets I would add on. Besides doing tax writing and policy activism, I have owned my own tax preparation business in the Washington, D.C. area for the past dozen years and Iâ(TM)m an IRS âoeEnrolled Agentâ (think a tax-only CPA).
So the nerdiness is strong here.
Below are three more weird parts of Bernie Sandersâ(TM) tax return:
Social Security benefits taxation
Bernie Sanders is, to put not too fine a point on it, old. As a result, he collects Social Security benefits. In 2014, he collected $46,213 in Social Security benefits. Because of his income level, 85 percent of this ($39,281) is taxable. So heâ(TM)s following what the tax law calls for.
But Sanders has quite a strong position on Social Security. He is adamant that âoethe richâ pay their âoefair shareâ into Social Security. Now, by that he means taxing all wages and self-employment profits with the Social Security payroll tax (right now just the first $118,500 in wages and self employment earnings are liable).
But there is no reason why he canâ(TM)t apply this principle on the other end. He should be for âoerichâ seniors like him paying taxes on all their Social Security benefit, not just 85 percent of it. According to the Social Security Administration, these taxes are earmarked for the Social Security and Medicare âoetrust funds,â so it would be a direct benefit to the programs he loves so much. And it certainly seems more âoefairâ to tax wealthy retirees with empty nests and paid off mortgages than it does to tax people raising families earlier in life.
There is nothingâ"absolutely nothingâ"stopping Sanders from adding in the rest of his Social Security benefit as taxable income. At his marginal tax rate, it would generate another $1733 in taxes if he did, taxes which would pay directly for Social Security and Medicare benefits for seniors poorer than he.
Business meals
Sanders also deducts $8946 in business meals. Most Americans donâ(TM)t get to write off their lunch, but Sanders chose to.
Assuming each meal averaged around $100, thatâ(TM)s about 90 business meals throughout the course of the year. Now, this is probably legitimate and legal. The IRS standard for a business meal can be found in IRS Publication 463. In it, we find that a business meal must be an ordinary and necessary expense in your line of work. In addition, the meal must basically have a direct business purpose thatâ(TM)s substantial and is expected to lead to business activity. Itâ(TM)s not a high standard.
If a legitimate business meal deduction was on a Republicanâ(TM)s tax return, you can bet that Sanders would be railing against it as just another âoefat catâ ripping off the U.S. Treasury. So why is he deducting almost $9000 worth of business meals himself?
Tax me more fund
Thereâ(TM)s good news for Bernieâ"itâ(TM)s not too late. He can either amend his 2014 return to include his missing Social Security benefits and exclude his business meals, or he can write a check to Uncle Sam directly.
Americans for Tax Reform has long documented how guilt-ridden rich people like Bernie Sanders can very easily give more of their own money to the federal coffer. They can either make a gift to the United States, or they can make a voluntary payment toward the national debt. Itâ(TM)s up to Bernie.
You, and many others, are not getting it.
The police had suspicion (we give them the benefit of the doubt that they were not simply trying to harass).
The police must then present their suspicion, together with all relevant information, to the judge. It is the judge's job to decide whether the suspicion is reasonable. If so, then to issue a warrant.
But if the judge is deliberately not told everything about the case, he does not have complete information to make the determination.
The judge is the one who gets to decide what is relevant, and on that basis, what is reasonable. The police do not have that discretion - they must provide everything, even if it is exculpatory.
One of the reasons for the existence of the SNP is to capture the income from the offshore fields that has been "stolen" by Whitehall. Does this mean they are making progress?
Slashdot Mirror
And where does the power come from? It is granted by the government in the form of the stupid DMCA law.
I predict that instead of simply repealing the law, additional regulations will be layered on, each with more unintended consequences. Eventually the whole system will collapse under its own complexity.
The the end of Roman civilization, an ordinary citizen welcomed the invading barbarians because they were less hassle than dealing with the edicts and taxes of Rome, despite the notional stability and security.
Americans of Asian descent were very badly treated in the past. For a good example, read Robert Louis Stevenson's "Across the Plains", published in 1892.
"Despised Races
Of all stupid ill-feelings, the sentiment of my fellow Caucasians towards our companions in the Chinese car was the most stupid and the worst. They seemed never to have looked at them, listened to them, or thought of them, but hated them a priori. The Mongols were their enemies in that cruel and treacherous battle-field of money. They could work better and cheaper in half a hundred industries, and hence there was no calumny too idle for the Caucasians to repeat, and even to believe. They declared them hideous vermin, and affected a kind of choking in the throat when they beheld them. Now, as a matter of fact, the young Chinese man is so like a large class of European women, that on raising my head and suddenly catching sight of one at a considerable distance, I have for an instant been deceived by the resemblance. I do not say it is the most attractive class of our women, but for all that many a manâ(TM)s wife is less pleasantly favoured. Again, my emigrants declared that the Chinese were dirty. I cannot say they were clean, for that was impossible upon the journey; but in their efforts after cleanliness they put the rest of us to shame. We all pigged and stewed in one infamy, wet our hands and faces for half a minute daily on the platform, and were unashamed. But the Chinese never lost an opportunity, and you would see them washing their feetâ"an act not dreamed of among ourselvesâ"and going as far as decency permitted to wash their whole bodies. I may remark by the way that the dirtier people are in their persons the more delicate is their sense of modesty. A clean man strips in a crowded boathouse; but he who is unwashed slinks in and out of bed without uncovering an inch of skin. Lastly, these very foul and malodorous Caucasians entertained the surprising illusion that it was the Chinese waggon, and that alone, which stank. I have said already that it was the exceptions and notably the freshest of the three.
These judgments are typical of the feeling in all Western America. The Chinese are considered stupid, because they are imperfectly acquainted with English. They are held to be base, because their dexterity and frugality enable them to underbid the lazy, luxurious Caucasian. They are said to be thieves; I am sure they have no monopoly of that. They are called cruel; the Anglo-Saxon and the cheerful Irishman may each reflect before he bears the accusation. I am told, again, that they are of the race of river pirates, and belong to the most despised and dangerous class in the Celestial Empire. But if this be so, what remarkable pirates have we here! and what must be the virtues, the industry, the education, and the intelligence of their superiors at home!
Awhile ago it was the Irish, now it is the Chinese that must go. Such is the cry. It seems, after all, that no country is bound to submit to immigration any more than to invasion; each is war to the knife, and resistance to either but legitimate defence. Yet we may regret the free tradition of the republic, which loved to depict herself with open arms, welcoming all unfortunates. And certainly, as a man who believes that he loves freedom, I may be excused some bitterness when I find her sacred name misused in the contention. It was but the other day that I heard a vulgar fellow in the Sand-lot, the popular tribune of San Francisco, roaring for arms and butchery. âoeAt the call of Abraham Lincoln,â said the orator, âoeye rose in the name of freedom to set free the negroes; can ye not rise and liberate yourselves from a few dirty Mongolians?â
For my own part, I could not look but with wonder and respect on the Chinese. Their forefathers watched the stars before mine had begun to keep pigs. Gun-powder and printing, which the other day we imitated, and a school of manners which we never had the delicacy so m
Apart from everything else, it seems the realization is slowly taking hold among the general public that IP =| ID. This is heartening.
6.7*10^12 / 4.1*10^9 = $1,634 per person. There is the incentive. Let's have the UN write each one of them a check for that amount and see what happens.
Or do you prefer to be paternalistic and do it for them? What does it cost to connect people who are not capable of doing it for themselves and who probably tolerate a government that keeps them that way.
Arithmetic. Americans seem unable to tell the difference (no pun intended).
This is not a threat, it is a prediction. Sheesh!
Thanks for the lucid reply. I only wish that I could agree with your last sentence, and that your three adjectives were all accurate. Global warming has been studied to death, but these have not received enough attention.
Playing devil's advocate here, who is to say that doing nothing is not the best alternative? Probably not, but there is not enough science to say for sure.
There there are those that say that even if emissions are eliminated, that it is already to late. What then?
"There are no solutions that do not involve cutting it."
How do you know this?
"You however should please remain firmly inside the box."
The very definition of narrowmindedness.
Calling me dumb for wanting to be creative, innovative and rigorous means that I shall not bother to respond to your posts in future.
How about some other cures that do not involve higher electricity prices? Have you considered any? Think outside the box.
The trope that our environment is worse than it was a century ago, really needs to die. Sheesh.
You are a perfect example of the problem. You are fixated on reducing carbon emissions. You mention "alternative technologies". I bet that the technologies you are thinking about are all for reducing carbon emissions.
The clincher is the two alternatives you would have me choose: 1. Curbing emissions. 2. Mass starvation.
How about alternatives 3, 4, 5...? Think outside the box!
The trouble is that all this new technology comes down to reducing carbon. No alternatives are conceivable. All the incentives mandate means, not the end.
To be clear, I am not a denier. But I do think science is needed unless we find the cure is worse than the disease.
Reducing carbon emissions, is that the most singleminded meme ever?
Strange. Smells like Teletubbies to me.
Do they want to "slow the rise of harmful greenhouse gases"? Or, do they want to limit "global warming by 2100 to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F), as compared to pre-industrial levels"?
I think the latter is more desirable, and the former is not the best way to achieve it. However, there is no scientific consensus that either are more desirable than any of a host of alternatives.
Nevertheless, it seems they have made their futile decision.
Silly me, I thought his oath was to uphold the Constitution.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ry...
Bernie Sanders' Tax Return Has Some Odd Deductions
Late on a Friday afternoon, Bernie Sanders finally released his tax returns. For the most part, they are (to use his term) âoeboring.â But as Jim Geraghty writing for NRO pointed out, thereâ(TM)s more than a little hypocrisy to be found in that âoeboringâ 1040.
While Jimâ(TM)s piece was very well-researched and exhaustive, thereâ(TM)s a few more nuggets I would add on. Besides doing tax writing and policy activism, I have owned my own tax preparation business in the Washington, D.C. area for the past dozen years and Iâ(TM)m an IRS âoeEnrolled Agentâ (think a tax-only CPA).
So the nerdiness is strong here.
Below are three more weird parts of Bernie Sandersâ(TM) tax return:
Social Security benefits taxation
Bernie Sanders is, to put not too fine a point on it, old. As a result, he collects Social Security benefits. In 2014, he collected $46,213 in Social Security benefits. Because of his income level, 85 percent of this ($39,281) is taxable. So heâ(TM)s following what the tax law calls for.
But Sanders has quite a strong position on Social Security. He is adamant that âoethe richâ pay their âoefair shareâ into Social Security. Now, by that he means taxing all wages and self-employment profits with the Social Security payroll tax (right now just the first $118,500 in wages and self employment earnings are liable).
But there is no reason why he canâ(TM)t apply this principle on the other end. He should be for âoerichâ seniors like him paying taxes on all their Social Security benefit, not just 85 percent of it. According to the Social Security Administration, these taxes are earmarked for the Social Security and Medicare âoetrust funds,â so it would be a direct benefit to the programs he loves so much. And it certainly seems more âoefairâ to tax wealthy retirees with empty nests and paid off mortgages than it does to tax people raising families earlier in life.
There is nothingâ"absolutely nothingâ"stopping Sanders from adding in the rest of his Social Security benefit as taxable income. At his marginal tax rate, it would generate another $1733 in taxes if he did, taxes which would pay directly for Social Security and Medicare benefits for seniors poorer than he.
Business meals
Sanders also deducts $8946 in business meals. Most Americans donâ(TM)t get to write off their lunch, but Sanders chose to.
Assuming each meal averaged around $100, thatâ(TM)s about 90 business meals throughout the course of the year. Now, this is probably legitimate and legal. The IRS standard for a business meal can be found in IRS Publication 463. In it, we find that a business meal must be an ordinary and necessary expense in your line of work. In addition, the meal must basically have a direct business purpose thatâ(TM)s substantial and is expected to lead to business activity. Itâ(TM)s not a high standard.
If a legitimate business meal deduction was on a Republicanâ(TM)s tax return, you can bet that Sanders would be railing against it as just another âoefat catâ ripping off the U.S. Treasury. So why is he deducting almost $9000 worth of business meals himself?
Tax me more fund
Thereâ(TM)s good news for Bernieâ"itâ(TM)s not too late. He can either amend his 2014 return to include his missing Social Security benefits and exclude his business meals, or he can write a check to Uncle Sam directly.
Americans for Tax Reform has long documented how guilt-ridden rich people like Bernie Sanders can very easily give more of their own money to the federal coffer. They can either make a gift to the United States, or they can make a voluntary payment toward the national debt. Itâ(TM)s up to Bernie.
Finally, some intelligent info.
Mod up, mod up!
The CIA having a business arm is a very dangerous thing.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
One thing we do know for sure - nobody is going to get in any trouble whatsoever over this, except the luckless couple.
You, and many others, are not getting it. The police had suspicion (we give them the benefit of the doubt that they were not simply trying to harass). The police must then present their suspicion, together with all relevant information, to the judge. It is the judge's job to decide whether the suspicion is reasonable. If so, then to issue a warrant. But if the judge is deliberately not told everything about the case, he does not have complete information to make the determination. The judge is the one who gets to decide what is relevant, and on that basis, what is reasonable. The police do not have that discretion - they must provide everything, even if it is exculpatory.
I'm gonna sic Posse Comitatus on you GI ass.
One of the reasons for the existence of the SNP is to capture the income from the offshore fields that has been "stolen" by Whitehall. Does this mean they are making progress?
Should include:
ISP packet inspection practices
Ports blocked
Protocols blocked
Prioritization and/or throttling policies
Double NATing
IPv6 availability