and software development grinds to a halt. opensource vanishes who's going to donate time to a liability.
From TFA:
Clause 1. If you deliver software with complete and buildable source code and a license that allows disabling any functionality or code by the licensee, then your liability is limited to a refund.
So if you're distributing the source code (and license it correctly) the most you'll be out (aside from malicious intent) is a refund.
What makes the fact that Jesus said something imply that thing is the most important bit in the Bible true?
May I interrupt on that?
All that can be established is whether a certain verse is (or is not) in a specific translation of a specific version of The Bible.
Not whether it was actually said. Not who actually said it (if it was actually said). (and not whether it was contradicted/clarified in a different document that was not included in that version of The Bible because of whatever reason.)
I agree with your post, but the circular logic stuff starts even sooner than that.
Again, you're missing the fact that Jesus himself said it was the most important thing in the Bible. You're confusing what I say and believe with what is empirically verifiable as being in the Bible.
No I am not. You are the one who keeps confusing your beliefs with with reality.
That is how you "know" that others are "wrong". You have confused your beliefs with reality.
That is how you can claim that all those other interpretations are "wrong" and that all the people who believe those interpretations to be "wrong" and that YOU have somehow managed to find what is "right".
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't know the above verse existed in the Bible, so that you were "assuming" that I was putting my own, personal, imprimatur on a specific verse in the Bible and saying it was the most important.
Again (how many times have I said that?), no.
I can tell the difference between your BELIEF and the BELIEFS of others.... but... As I said, God / Jesus / whatever has NOT spoken to be directly so I do NOT KNOW what God / Jesus REALLY meant therefore I cannot say what is right or wrong about what others BELIEVE God / Jesus / whatever really meant.
But YOU don't like that so YOU keep claiming that the statements YOU BELIEVE take precedence do take precedence over the other statements and that anyone who does NOT agree with YOU is "wrong".
YOU cannot address that issue so YOU keep trying to claim that the issue is whether those statements are in the Bible or not. But that is not the issue. And that has been pointed out to you over and over again.
Keep it going! This is a great demonstration of how a believer really thinks.
And now you're off on a D&D tangent. Congratulations.
The words I chose are typical nonsense words used to test logical equivalencies.
Again, that only makes sense to a believer.
To a non-believer, Klingons are a fictional race. So claiming that you "know" anything about them AND that people who disagree with you are "wrong" is strange.
If the Bible says that X, Y and Z are the most important things, then I can safely say that *the Bible says* that X, Y and Z are the most important things. And yes, that people that disagree with me are wrong.
And you just made my point for me again. But you won't see that because you are a believer.
This is a logical tautology - it's quite odd that you are so fearsome in disagreeing with it.
No, it's not. Unless you are a believer.
And, as I pointed out before, other believers believe that those statements do not have precedence over other statements in the Bible.
Which is why there are so many sects.
But, as a believer, you "know" what God / Jesus REALLY meant and that those other people are "wrong".
But, again, you will not understand what I just wrote because you are a believer and "know" what is "right" and what is "wrong".
I love your quotes. They make you sound much more of a know it all than the one you claim I am.
Yes, in fact, sometimes people are wrong. If you don't believe that, then you believe in nothing.
Like I said, maybe (against all statistical likelihood) you are correct about what God / Jesus actually meant in the precedence of the statements in the translation of the Bible that you referenced.
And all those others are wrong because they don't agree with you.
I don't know because God / Jesus / whomever has not spoken to me about what he / she / them/it / whatever REALLY meant to be published.
But you claim that you do "know".
I can read a fucking book.
Yes, I'm sure you can.
The issue is why do you believe that certain statements in that book take precedence over other statements in that book and how do you "know" that others who do not agree with that are "wrong".
If a book says that all Quarks are Jaguars, and all Jaguars are Klingons, then I can very firmly say that all Quarks are Klingons, and that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.
I would be very surprised to learn of the existence of Klingons.
Not that I know they don't exist. I think I understand that they are a fictional race/species from a TV show. Maybe the writer who "created" them accidentally identified an existing race/species. Statistically, though, it seems very, very unlikely.
Despite what you "know" from the book you might have read.
When atheists claim that Christians worship a zombie, for example, I point out that they are confusing True Resurrection (Level 9 Cleric Spell) with Animate Dead (Level 3 Cleric Spell).
I'm guessing that you couldn't keep up with the discussion. Whatever.
Your arrogance, again, though, is quite appalling, claiming I am "mistaken", especially when you don't know me very well at all (as is obvious) and that, in fact, what I was taught is very different from what I believe.
Hey, I'm the one who said that you MIGHT be right.
As unlikely as that is. Statistically speaking. With the thousands of other religions out there and the billions of people who don't believe as you do. Over the You might still be right. Maybe.
I said that I did not know because God has never spoken to me (nor has Jesus) to tell me that X and Y are the most important verses in the Bible (which is the correct Word of God and correctly dictated and correctly translated) and that the other verses can be discarded.
I love how you always throw quotes around the word "know" when referring to other people. You can't begin to imagine how misguidedly arrogant it makes you sound.
I'm not the one claiming that I "know" which verses are more important than which other verses in the Bible or that people who do not agree with me are "wrong".
Don't believe me? Let me close with this quote from you.
If the verse is in the CVS respository, so to speak, of your religious fork of choice, it certainly matters. All of your forks above (even Jews) believe in the two principles that I outlined above. Or, well, are supposed to, anyway.
Nice. They're "supposed to". Yet there are "wrong" if they don't agree with you. And you "know" that to be.
Like I said, you "know" that you are "right" and that they are "wrong". But you want to argue about whether you said that or not. Whatever.
I paraphrased the Bible, which you said was "my" statement of fact which millions or billions of people disagreed with (with "their" statements of fact).
Here's your original post (aside from the bit you quoted from someone else:
You're a bit out of date.
The Old Testament which has been superseded by the New. There's basically two laws you have to follow these days: 1) Love God 2) Love Other People As Much As Yourself.
Everything else is details.
Do you want me to quote the post you were replying to?
Now you can try to claim whatever you want to about what you posted. It doesn't matter to me.
As I've posted elsewhere, it isn't whether those statements are in the Bible. In this instance, it is whether those statements supersede all the other statements in the Bible.
In your personal religion, you "know" that they do. Others do not believe that they do. Lots of others. For many centuries. You claim that you know that those others are wrong.
My point is that you cannot know that without direct guidance from God or Jesus.
And that certainty from the believers is why there are problems such as wanting to teach "intelligent design" along with evolution.
Let's start with the Jews. They have a religion. Which forks into Christianity. Which forks into Catholicism (East and West). Another fork for Islam. Back to Catholicism - fork for the Protestant Reformation. Lots of forks for lots of different Protestant sects. Fork one of those into Mormonism.
Yep! Arguing about whether statement X is in book Y is meaningless. Because it is only the BELIEVERS who look to that book as an authority in the first place. Some of those religions have additional holy books. Some don't.
And amongst the believers, whether statement A takes precedence over statement B in the holy book... it's only important to the person who BELIEVES that it does.
And, more importantly, the person who "KNOWS" that the others who do not agree that his beliefs and religion and holy book and translation and precedence of statements is "wrong".
Nice point on Scientology, by the way. I hadn't thought about it in those terms before. I'm totally stealing that.
But I also don't pretend that certain facts don't exist, like you apparently do. You may or may not believe God doesn't exist, but you cannot argue that the *Bible* doesn't exist, and the Bible says certain things.
Here is what you had previously posted:
It's not my problem if they're wrong. =)
So it seems like you DO claim that they're wrong.
I do not claim that the Bible does not exist. I do not claim that certain statements are not in the Bible.
One of these things is that the two most important commandments are to love God, and to love others as yourself.
Don't be facetious and pretend that that verse comes from "my personal religion" and doesn't exist anywhere outside of my head.
I did not say that. What I said was not to confuse your personal religion with anything other than your personal religion.
Except you're stating with apparent certainty that I'm wrong (even though I'm simply quoting something that can empirically be shown to exist - just give me a Bible), which sort of deep-sixes your claim that you cannot say anything with certainty.
And that is the problem. To a non-believer that does not make sense. It's circular logic.
The question isn't whether the Bible exists or not. And your claim that its existence demonstrates anything about your religion is just more evidence for my position.
I'm not saying that you are wrong. Maybe you are right. Maybe, just maybe, you managed to understand God where billions upon billions of people failed to do so. Whole civilizations have fallen without the blessing of the insight YOU have.
I'm saying that God has not told me anything. And I kind of doubt that God has spoken to you, either.
So what you're ACTUALLY saying is that what you were taught is what you believe and you are mistaking belief for knowledge and claiming that others are wrong because they believe something that you "know" to be different.
And you're saying that you "know" that I'm "not right".
See how much fun it is to flip that around?
No. I did not say that. If there is a God, he (she? them?) has not taken the time to explain any of this to me. Therefore, I cannot say that I know which of thousands of religions in the world is right (and how the thousands that are wrong are wrong).
Black Pot, meet the moral relativist Kettle...
Again, don't confuse your personal religion with anything other than your personal religion. THAT is the problem. THAT is why around 50% of the people in the USofA feel that "intelligent design" should be taught along with evolution.
Exactly. They're "wrong" because YOU already "know" what is "right".
And if they don't agree with you...
As I said in another post, the two groups that feel science and religion are in conflict are fundies (which you'll see all over the place on sites like The Blaze) and logical positivists (found on sites like Slashdot). Most educated people do not.
And yet around 50% of the US population thinks that "intelligent design" should be taught in schools along with evolution.
It's not the "fundies" who are the problem. It's anyone who believes that his personal religion is "right" and that others are "wrong".
The majority of SCIENTISTS do not have a problem with science and religion.
It is the RELIGIOUS people who have a problem with science. Because it contradicts their religion.
The Old Testament which has been superseded by the New. There's basically two laws you have to follow these days: 1) Love God 2) Love Other People As Much As Yourself.
Nice statement of fact there. Too bad there are millions (billions?) of people who do NOT agree with you. Their statements of fact contradict yours.
Don't confuse our personal religion as anything other than your personal religion.
Well I'm sure that there's some utility service that the city runs that SOMEONE will find objectionable and claim that they (and 1,000 of their closest neighbors) can do cheaper or more effectively.
Slashdotters routinely make remarks like "who needs libraries when we have Google Books!" Libraries are trying hard to remain relevant. Free, public internet access is one of their real services to the community... but now on Slashdot, and at town budget meetings, people can stand up and shout "who needs libraries when Comcast offers free^H^H^H^H cheap(er) internet access to (some) poor people (in select markets)!"
I've been on/. for a while and I have never posted that we don't need libraries.
In my opinion, we need MORE libraries. And I'll be in the library today.
It doesn't matter how cheap Comcast offers their service. A free, public library is always needed.
Their spam filtering is pretty weak if it can categorize something as spam on the basis of a single URL. From what I understand, this was confirmed by different people with Yahoo! accounts.
khasim: Again, you are wrong. For an example of how wrong you are, look at LinkedIn's IPO. The people who invest in LinkedIn based their valuation of the company *entirely* on what they believe the company will make in profits. Read my previous example about the baseball. You are taxed on what someone estimates that ball will sell for.
Again, allow me to reiterate the things you are incorrectly conflating: capital gains earned income wealth job creation the stock market dividends BASEBALL and TAXES.
You had claimed that you were being "double taxed" on corporate profits that you received that had already been taxed.
Now you're conflating that with a baseball. Another weird tangent from you.
Then you went on about how stock price is linked to corporate profits. When I showed you a company with a high stock price and NO PROFITS you claimed it you were talking about some kind of possibly expected future profits (but not actual profits that can be identified today).
Again, another weird tangent from you that has NOTHING to do with your ORIGINAL claim of being "double taxed". Or baseball.
If it really is your money then you can go in and take it. Since you cannot, it is not your money. Therefore, when you do receive it, it will be taxed.
Do you mean that stock sales do not go into the corporate pool of money?
Do you really think that if I sold some IBM stock that IBM would get any of the money?
Wasn't that what you were talking about? You selling stock to get money that was "double taxed"?
Keep it going! This is GREAT!
No. Stock sold to stockholder A by stockholder B does NOT do ANYTHING for the corporate profits.
Allow me to continue repeating the items that you are incorrectly conflating: capital gains earned income wealth job creation THE STOCK MARKET and DIVIDENDS.
If you meant the other way around (I sincerely hope not), corporate profits have *everything* to do with stock price.
Again, you are wrong. For an example of how wrong you are, look at LinkedIn's IPO.
But that is just another irrelevant tangent from you. Your ORIGINAL claim was about being "double taxed".
And what did you think we were talking about?
Well you had CLAIMED it was about being "double taxed". But you keep conflating different items.
Stock prices, dividends, capital gains, they are all related! (ever... money).
Except you keep trying to incorrectly conflate them by talking about being "double taxed" and then claiming that you can sell stock and then trying to imply that the stock you sold increased the company's profits.
Stock prices go down by exactly the amount of a dividend. Did you know that?
No I did not. Probably because I understand that the stock price is set by buyers and sellers and fluctuates throughout the trading day.
Looks like I found something else you didn't know but were willing to try to claim that you did.
There's nothing there about dividends, except that they can choose to issue dividends instead of keeping *their* money invested in the company.
Except you were claiming that a portion of their profit was YOUR money because you were an investor.
So when you got some of that profit, it had already been taxed and you should not have to pay taxes on it.
So unless you're now trying to claim that you were talking about stock sales the whole time (which have NOTHING to do with corporate profits as you would know if you understood this) and just managed to use the completely incorrect terminology...
What was that I've been saying? Oh yeah! It was that you are incorrectly conflating: capital gains earned income wealth job creation THE STOCK MARKET and DIVIDENDS.
Company profit is NOT owed you via increased stock prices. Do NOT try to conflate those items.
But keep posting. This is turning into an excellent educational thread for anyone else claiming "double taxation".
Oh, but I can! assuming x% is the percent that I own.
Then do it. Wait, there's going to be some caveat to that statement, isn't there?
All I have to do is sell some of my shares, and since the company made a profit in your example, the price of my shares probably went up (excluding external changes), meaning I can hold just as much money in the company as before, but still take my share of the profit.
And now you cannot tell the different between DIVIDENDS and capital gains from selling stock.
You lose.
For a comparison, I own the money in my bank account. I OWN it. It is mine. When I go to the bank and say I want $X from my account, they give it to me.
You do NOT own any of the profit that the company makes OTHERWISE you could go and claim it from the company.
I'll expand my earlier statement about the things you are incorrectly conflating: capital gains earned income wealth job creation THE STOCK MARKET and DIVIDENDS.
When you get pizza, that money is exchanging hands (again). Therefore it gets taxed.
At least you got that partially right.
When I pay capital gains tax, that money is not exchanging hands a second time.
Yes it is "exchanging hands a second time". It is a asset of the company's. It is NOT an asset of yours until the company pays a dividend (and is taxed).
You are a stockholder. That is all. That gives you certain rights in certain situations but that does NOT mean that a portion of the profit that the company makes is yours.
Here's a simple experiment to prove that. Buy stock in Microsoft and then go there and demand x% of their profits as your right by stock ownership.
Your pizza example is extremely flawed. Corporate earnings are taxed.
As is my pay. As is every dollar in my wallet. The taxes have been paid.
What's left over *belongs* to the investors.
And once I have paid the taxes on my income, what is "left over *belongs*" to me.
Therefore, the taxes have been paid and the pizza delivery guy does NOT owe any taxes (by your logic) on the money I pay him.
What I think would make much more sense is this money being taxed once. Either as personal income tax for the investors (like in an LLC), or as corporate income tax. Having both allows people like you to misunderstand what's really happening.
No. I understand it. Again, you are the one incorrectly conflating: capital gains earned income wealth job creation but they are NOT the same.
Yeah, and so the pizza delivery guy shouldn't have to pay taxes because the money I use to buy the pizza has already been taxed before I use it to buy the pizza.
And besides, do you really want to encourage people to put their money under a mattress instead of investing it in companies that give people jobs?
They aren't the same. I can invest money in a publicly traded company that opens an office in China and hires Chinese workers. How does that help jobs in the USofA? How does that get people earning money by their labor in the USofA?
But if you ask for 16 character passwords, youll get them written down, self-sent by email, and so on.
First off, I can easily remember my passwords. Even the ones that are more than 16 characters long.
Secondly, if you cannot, what's wrong with writing them down and keeping them in your wallet?
In practice, making it harder for the user does not increase security, because work-arounds increase proportionally.
No. The point was that it will ALWAYS be easier for the user to ignore the security (if that is an option).
Even if "easier" is as minor as having a 16 character password instead of a 5 character dictionary word.
As others here have noted, once you introduce "easier" you end up with situations where the janitor has keys to the secure area because it is "easier" that way than to take the garbage out yourself.
Or, more currently, when the CA was cracked because there was one password (easily cracked) used on multiple servers.
Yes, having one easily cracked password on multiple servers is EASIER than having multiple, complex passwords.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
So if you're distributing the source code (and license it correctly) the most you'll be out (aside from malicious intent) is a refund.
May I interrupt on that?
All that can be established is whether a certain verse is (or is not) in a specific translation of a specific version of The Bible.
Not whether it was actually said.
Not who actually said it (if it was actually said).
(and not whether it was contradicted/clarified in a different document that was not included in that version of The Bible because of whatever reason.)
I agree with your post, but the circular logic stuff starts even sooner than that.
I think I may have broken your mind.
D&D is the Bible now?
No I am not. You are the one who keeps confusing your beliefs with with reality.
That is how you "know" that others are "wrong". You have confused your beliefs with reality.
That is how you can claim that all those other interpretations are "wrong" and that all the people who believe those interpretations to be "wrong" and that YOU have somehow managed to find what is "right".
Again (how many times have I said that?), no.
I can tell the difference between your BELIEF and the BELIEFS of others. ... but ...
As I said, God / Jesus / whatever has NOT spoken to be directly so I do NOT KNOW what God / Jesus REALLY meant therefore I cannot say what is right or wrong about what others BELIEVE God / Jesus / whatever really meant.
But YOU don't like that so YOU keep claiming that the statements YOU BELIEVE take precedence do take precedence over the other statements and that anyone who does NOT agree with YOU is "wrong".
YOU cannot address that issue so YOU keep trying to claim that the issue is whether those statements are in the Bible or not. But that is not the issue. And that has been pointed out to you over and over again.
Keep it going! This is a great demonstration of how a believer really thinks.
And now you're off on a D&D tangent. Congratulations.
Again, that only makes sense to a believer.
To a non-believer, Klingons are a fictional race. So claiming that you "know" anything about them AND that people who disagree with you are "wrong" is strange.
And you just made my point for me again. But you won't see that because you are a believer.
No, it's not. Unless you are a believer.
And, as I pointed out before, other believers believe that those statements do not have precedence over other statements in the Bible.
Which is why there are so many sects.
But, as a believer, you "know" what God / Jesus REALLY meant and that those other people are "wrong".
But, again, you will not understand what I just wrote because you are a believer and "know" what is "right" and what is "wrong".
Like I said, maybe (against all statistical likelihood) you are correct about what God / Jesus actually meant in the precedence of the statements in the translation of the Bible that you referenced.
And all those others are wrong because they don't agree with you.
I don't know because God / Jesus / whomever has not spoken to me about what he / she / them /it / whatever REALLY meant to be published.
But you claim that you do "know".
Yes, I'm sure you can.
The issue is why do you believe that certain statements in that book take precedence over other statements in that book and how do you "know" that others who do not agree with that are "wrong".
I would be very surprised to learn of the existence of Klingons.
Not that I know they don't exist. I think I understand that they are a fictional race/species from a TV show.
Maybe the writer who "created" them accidentally identified an existing race/species.
Statistically, though, it seems very, very unlikely.
Despite what you "know" from the book you might have read.
I'm guessing that you couldn't keep up with the discussion. Whatever.
Hey, I'm the one who said that you MIGHT be right.
As unlikely as that is. Statistically speaking.
With the thousands of other religions out there and the billions of people who don't believe as you do. Over the
You might still be right. Maybe.
I said that I did not know because God has never spoken to me (nor has Jesus) to tell me that X and Y are the most important verses in the Bible (which is the correct Word of God and correctly dictated and correctly translated) and that the other verses can be discarded.
I'm not the one claiming that I "know" which verses are more important than which other verses in the Bible or that people who do not agree with me are "wrong".
Don't believe me? Let me close with this quote from you.
Nice. They're "supposed to". Yet there are "wrong" if they don't agree with you. And you "know" that to be.
Like I said, you "know" that you are "right" and that they are "wrong". But you want to argue about whether you said that or not. Whatever.
Here's your original post (aside from the bit you quoted from someone else:
Do you want me to quote the post you were replying to?
Now you can try to claim whatever you want to about what you posted. It doesn't matter to me.
As I've posted elsewhere, it isn't whether those statements are in the Bible. In this instance, it is whether those statements supersede all the other statements in the Bible.
In your personal religion, you "know" that they do.
Others do not believe that they do. Lots of others. For many centuries.
You claim that you know that those others are wrong.
My point is that you cannot know that without direct guidance from God or Jesus.
And that certainty from the believers is why there are problems such as wanting to teach "intelligent design" along with evolution.
Let's start with the Jews. They have a religion.
Which forks into Christianity.
Which forks into Catholicism (East and West).
Another fork for Islam.
Back to Catholicism - fork for the Protestant Reformation.
Lots of forks for lots of different Protestant sects.
Fork one of those into Mormonism.
Yep! Arguing about whether statement X is in book Y is meaningless. Because it is only the BELIEVERS who look to that book as an authority in the first place. Some of those religions have additional holy books. Some don't.
And amongst the believers, whether statement A takes precedence over statement B in the holy book ... it's only important to the person who BELIEVES that it does.
And, more importantly, the person who "KNOWS" that the others who do not agree that his beliefs and religion and holy book and translation and precedence of statements is "wrong".
Nice point on Scientology, by the way. I hadn't thought about it in those terms before. I'm totally stealing that.
Here is what you had previously posted:
So it seems like you DO claim that they're wrong.
I do not claim that the Bible does not exist.
I do not claim that certain statements are not in the Bible.
I did not say that.
What I said was not to confuse your personal religion with anything other than your personal religion.
And that is the problem.
To a non-believer that does not make sense. It's circular logic.
The question isn't whether the Bible exists or not. And your claim that its existence demonstrates anything about your religion is just more evidence for my position.
I'm not saying that you are wrong. Maybe you are right. Maybe, just maybe, you managed to understand God where billions upon billions of people failed to do so. Whole civilizations have fallen without the blessing of the insight YOU have.
I'm saying that God has not told me anything.
And I kind of doubt that God has spoken to you, either.
So what you're ACTUALLY saying is that what you were taught is what you believe and you are mistaking belief for knowledge and claiming that others are wrong because they believe something that you "know" to be different.
No. I did not say that. If there is a God, he (she? them?) has not taken the time to explain any of this to me. Therefore, I cannot say that I know which of thousands of religions in the world is right (and how the thousands that are wrong are wrong).
Again, don't confuse your personal religion with anything other than your personal religion.
THAT is the problem.
THAT is why around 50% of the people in the USofA feel that "intelligent design" should be taught along with evolution.
Exactly. They're "wrong" because YOU already "know" what is "right".
And if they don't agree with you ...
And yet around 50% of the US population thinks that "intelligent design" should be taught in schools along with evolution.
It's not the "fundies" who are the problem.
It's anyone who believes that his personal religion is "right" and that others are "wrong".
The majority of SCIENTISTS do not have a problem with science and religion.
It is the RELIGIOUS people who have a problem with science. Because it contradicts their religion.
Nice statement of fact there. Too bad there are millions (billions?) of people who do NOT agree with you. Their statements of fact contradict yours.
Don't confuse our personal religion as anything other than your personal religion.
I meant the sewer service.
Oh, wait again.
Well I'm sure that there's some utility service that the city runs that SOMEONE will find objectionable and claim that they (and 1,000 of their closest neighbors) can do cheaper or more effectively.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I've been on /. for a while and I have never posted that we don't need libraries.
In my opinion, we need MORE libraries. And I'll be in the library today.
It doesn't matter how cheap Comcast offers their service. A free, public library is always needed.
Their spam filtering is pretty weak if it can categorize something as spam on the basis of a single URL. From what I understand, this was confirmed by different people with Yahoo! accounts.
Is it censorship or incompetence?
And why couldn't it be fix immediately?
Again, allow me to reiterate the things you are incorrectly conflating:
capital gains
earned income
wealth
job creation
the stock market
dividends
BASEBALL
and TAXES.
You had claimed that you were being "double taxed" on corporate profits that you received that had already been taxed.
Now you're conflating that with a baseball. Another weird tangent from you.
Then you went on about how stock price is linked to corporate profits. When I showed you a company with a high stock price and NO PROFITS you claimed it you were talking about some kind of possibly expected future profits (but not actual profits that can be identified today).
Again, another weird tangent from you that has NOTHING to do with your ORIGINAL claim of being "double taxed". Or baseball.
If it really is your money then you can go in and take it.
Since you cannot, it is not your money.
Therefore, when you do receive it, it will be taxed.
Do you really think that if I sold some IBM stock that IBM would get any of the money?
Wasn't that what you were talking about? You selling stock to get money that was "double taxed"?
Keep it going! This is GREAT!
No. Stock sold to stockholder A by stockholder B does NOT do ANYTHING for the corporate profits.
Allow me to continue repeating the items that you are incorrectly conflating:
capital gains
earned income
wealth
job creation
THE STOCK MARKET
and DIVIDENDS.
Again, you are wrong. For an example of how wrong you are, look at LinkedIn's IPO.
But that is just another irrelevant tangent from you. Your ORIGINAL claim was about being "double taxed".
Well you had CLAIMED it was about being "double taxed". But you keep conflating different items.
Except you keep trying to incorrectly conflate them by talking about being "double taxed" and then claiming that you can sell stock and then trying to imply that the stock you sold increased the company's profits.
No I did not.
Probably because I understand that the stock price is set by buyers and sellers and fluctuates throughout the trading day.
Looks like I found something else you didn't know but were willing to try to claim that you did.
Except you were claiming that a portion of their profit was YOUR money because you were an investor.
So when you got some of that profit, it had already been taxed and you should not have to pay taxes on it.
So unless you're now trying to claim that you were talking about stock sales the whole time (which have NOTHING to do with corporate profits as you would know if you understood this) and just managed to use the completely incorrect terminology ...
What was that I've been saying? Oh yeah! It was that you are incorrectly conflating:
capital gains
earned income
wealth
job creation
THE STOCK MARKET
and DIVIDENDS.
Company profit is NOT owed you via increased stock prices. Do NOT try to conflate those items.
But keep posting. This is turning into an excellent educational thread for anyone else claiming "double taxation".
Of course you don't. As I said, you are incorrectly conflating:
capital gains
earned income
wealth
job creation
THE STOCK MARKET
and DIVIDENDS.
If you really owned part of the company's profit then you could go into the company and take the portion of the profit that you own.
You failed to understand that concept and instead you switched to a tangent about selling stock.
Selling stock is NOT the same as taking a portion of the company's profit (that you claim you own). But feel free to keep arguing that it is.
Here is what you posted:
Damned by your own posting. Looks like you lose ... again!
Then do it. Wait, there's going to be some caveat to that statement, isn't there?
And now you cannot tell the different between DIVIDENDS and capital gains from selling stock.
You lose.
For a comparison, I own the money in my bank account. I OWN it. It is mine.
When I go to the bank and say I want $X from my account, they give it to me.
You do NOT own any of the profit that the company makes OTHERWISE you could go and claim it from the company.
I'll expand my earlier statement about the things you are incorrectly conflating:
capital gains
earned income
wealth
job creation
THE STOCK MARKET
and DIVIDENDS.
Who cares about store fronts?
Instead, project your WoW avatar onto yourself. Increase your dating potential.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmVSQ2DrBUo
At least you got that partially right.
Yes it is "exchanging hands a second time". It is a asset of the company's. It is NOT an asset of yours until the company pays a dividend (and is taxed).
You are a stockholder. That is all. That gives you certain rights in certain situations but that does NOT mean that a portion of the profit that the company makes is yours.
Here's a simple experiment to prove that. Buy stock in Microsoft and then go there and demand x% of their profits as your right by stock ownership.
As is my pay. As is every dollar in my wallet. The taxes have been paid.
And once I have paid the taxes on my income, what is "left over *belongs*" to me.
Therefore, the taxes have been paid and the pizza delivery guy does NOT owe any taxes (by your logic) on the money I pay him.
No. I understand it. Again, you are the one incorrectly conflating:
capital gains
earned income
wealth
job creation
but they are NOT the same.
Yeah, and so the pizza delivery guy shouldn't have to pay taxes because the money I use to buy the pizza has already been taxed before I use it to buy the pizza.
You're conflating capital-gains / earned-income / wealth / job-creation.
They aren't the same. I can invest money in a publicly traded company that opens an office in China and hires Chinese workers. How does that help jobs in the USofA? How does that get people earning money by their labor in the USofA?
First off, I can easily remember my passwords. Even the ones that are more than 16 characters long.
Secondly, if you cannot, what's wrong with writing them down and keeping them in your wallet?
No. The point was that it will ALWAYS be easier for the user to ignore the security (if that is an option).
Even if "easier" is as minor as having a 16 character password instead of a 5 character dictionary word.
As others here have noted, once you introduce "easier" you end up with situations where the janitor has keys to the secure area because it is "easier" that way than to take the garbage out yourself.
Or, more currently, when the CA was cracked because there was one password (easily cracked) used on multiple servers.
Yes, having one easily cracked password on multiple servers is EASIER than having multiple, complex passwords.
But it is also insecure. As was demonstrated.