Well you're also forgetting that he's only 3 years old - if he puts that money in the bank and doesn't touch it until he turns 18, even at a low interest rate of 2% per year he'll have $5,383,473.35. If he gets a 3% interest rate (not that hard to do), it would be $6,231,869.67 by the time he's 18. So yes, especially if he did that and then spent wisely (not frugally, but not blowing his money) he could easily get by never having to work again. Though, this is the UK, so I'm sure he'll take a hefty raping on the profits of that sale (he'd take a good raping in the US, just even worse in the UK with their higher tax rates). Realistically he'd probably get about $2 million after taxes (or less) so that's more like $3,115,934.83 by the time he's 18.
Exactly - I'd LOVE to see some games (such as the Baldur's Gate series) remade using modern graphics engines like in Dragon Age but with everything else kept the same. Another game I'd love to see remade with modern graphics is TIE Fighter.
*sigh* No, Economists rarely disagree about what a given policy will do. They disagree about things such as what the governments role is (should the government provide health care or should it be left to private individuals) but not the economics effects of such a policy.
You are a perfect example of why it's pointless to try to discuss anything related to Economics on Slashdot - because virtually no one on here has any understanding of it (I've only come across one other person who has a degree(s) in Economics other than myself) yet you think you're an expert because you heard the term "supply and demand" once.
They collapsed due to government spending exceeding tax revenue and private debt being too high (same reason for pretty much every economy that's in trouble). You can have 90% income and corporate tax and still have the government spend more money than it brings in and people rack up more in credit cards than they make in a year.
And it's not a "theory", it's fact - Economists have studied exactly these effects for decades.
I think you're confused about what he did. Generally anything bought for a business (such as a computer) is tax deductible so that you only pay tax on your profits (to help promote businesses investing in their physical capital). If you tax that money first, then you have less money to spend on buying machines, paying rent for office space, etc.
I'm not an expert on small business law, but I'm fairly certain that any corporate tax is paid in addition to the income tax for the owner (the amount of small business profit that he claims as his and not belonging to "the business" is taxed at the income tax rate, any profit he claims as belonging to the business for however the business wants to is taxed at the corporate tax rate). This is why most small business owners aren't "rich", because instead of taking all of the profit for their personal income, they typically keep most of it as profit for the business to use in expanding their business. So they have "wealth" (the value of the company that they own which they could sell and would pay income tax on the profit from the sale) but their income isn't nearly as high as the profits of the business.
You clearly don't understand corporate taxes. If you want a good economy, you don't want corporate taxes - that's why most economists will tell you that the best policy is no corporate tax. Why? Because the lower corporate taxes are, the lower their cost to operate and the lower a price they can charge for their product. That means they sell more, which means they hire more people, which means they produce more....
Then there's the fact that, depending on the demand for a product, companies don't pay all taxes - there's always a portion that is shifted on to consumers in the form of higher prices (the incidence of the tax depends on how elastic demand is). If it's something deemed vital, like food, consumers will pay the full amount of the tax in the form of increased prices. If it's something less vital but still in high demand (say an iPhone), then it'll be split with the company paying some money in taxes and the consumer paying some in the form of a higher price, but not as high as if they were paying the full amount of the tax.
For every person who cries about the evils of outsourcing, which given your attitude towards businesses, I'll wager you're one, you fail to realize that the higher the corporate tax rate is, the more incentive companies have to move their operations to a country with lower corporate taxes. That was actually the primary reason why when Daimler bought Chrysler a decade ago they kept the global HQ in Germany - because Germany had a lower corporate tax rate than the US, which means that there were fewer jobs in the US (we lost out on jobs for building a new HQ and staffing it with secretaries, janitors, low level employees, etc) and less income tax revenue coming in than there would have been if the US had a lower corporate tax rate.
Yes. I have several games from Avalon Hill, including several different Axis and Allies games - quality stuff that even a kid in late elementary school can understand.
Well if you're ever going to take your kid on a plane in the US, then My First Cavity Search (http://boingboing.net/2010/11/11/tsas-new-book-for-ki.html) is good for all ages!
A FREE market requires strict controls and enforcement in order to stop stagnation and monopoly.
Wow. A free market requires SOME controls to prevent monopolies (in the cases where a monopoly isn't the best option, and to regulate the monopoly when it is the best option, such as for water / power lines). STRICT controls are the exact opposite of a free market.
Yeah, but wouldn't that then make Android/Google just as "evil" as Apple?
No because Apple cuts people off to keep them from giving you access to something Steve Jobs doesn't like; Google would be cutting carriers off because they were preventing you from having access to more things.
Are you asian or do you have asian relatives? No? I do have asian relatives who grew up in their native countries before moving to the US, so I'm aware of how they're expected to act, and yes, it IS like a robot - someone who unthinkingly does what they're told by their boss / parent / spouse and "brings shame" if they dare to do what they want instead of what they're told.
If we all followed traditions, women would be stuck in the kitchen or relegated to only jobs like being a teacher, nurse, or secretary. Blindly following tradition is the exact opposite of thinking freely. A free thinker says "why" and rejects the notion of tradition for the sake of tradition. You don't understand this though and think that it's somehow possible to combine "no free will" with "free thinking". If you give people free will, some people WILL choose to break the law (for various reasons) and some people WILL choose to break tradition. You cannot tolerate the notion that someone might choose differently than you do and thus try to insult them and call them moron's simply because they don't bow to your infinite wisdom.
The fact that you have to resort to childish insults regarding my signature only further proves that you have no point.
I agree that it's about culture and not weapons. However,
The Japanese *do not tolerate* those who break with tradition or societal rules. We Americans practically worship the rebels.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a society with the occasional violence and people are free to do what they want and have their own thoughts an opinions that one that's violence free and everyone is an unthinking robot.
I have this thing called "a full time job" and this other thing called "full time grad school". I don't have time to read through his papers to see if he's doing the same bogus "research" as everyone else. Given that your goal is to defend his study, I'm going to assume that he's doing the same old crap or else you would have shown evidence that he's not to refute my point.
That is what the research says: your reactions are delayed due to distraction. And then it's too late to drop your phone.
Bullshit. What it says is that SOMETIMES your reactions are too late. Other times they're not. This applies regardless of distractions - if someone cuts you off, sometimes you'll react in time and avoid hitting them, other times you won't.
Except every other test I've seen is a person in a "real car in a simulated environment" and they were instructed that they MUST keep the phone in their hand and they MUST keep talking. So there's no reason to "presume" that at all.
THAT is my complaint here - that they don't test under a variety of situations (no phone, phone and being allowed to stop talking / drop the phone, being forced to hold the phone and keep talking) and compare the results. Picking the one that's guaranteed to always give the worst result is NOT scientific at all and if a grad student tried such a test, they'd get in serious trouble for doing bogus research.
Don't you find it just a little odd that they all pick the option that's always going to show cell phones as bad instead of being objective about it and testing under all circumstances and seeing what the outcome is?
It's interesting though that you mention comparing cell phones to alcohol - Car and Driver did their own test regarding this several months back and the findings were quite surprising - they tested two people, one mid-20's the other mid-40's. They tested stone sober and no phone, with a phone, and drunk - the person in their mid-20's did better both on the phone AND drunk than the person in their mid-40's did stone sober with no phone. So if you want to start banning based on reaction times, it's more reasonable to ban people over 40 from driving than banning people from talking on phones, which seem to be younger (and thus have better reaction times). Now, I'm not saying we SHOULD ban people over 40, merely pointing that making decisions such as this purely on reaction time is a pretty bad metric to use.
Your link provides little data on how they actually conduct the test. I've seen documentaries / reports on several of these tests that "prove" cell phones cause you to be in more accidents - however, there's always been one consistent flaw in all of these tests. Every test I've seen FORCES the person driving to keep talking instead of pausing, hanging up, or just flat our dropping the phone on the floor if necessary to avoid an accident.
In real life, the majority of people WILL stop talking if they need to concentrate for a busy intersection / dangerous road and if there's an "OH SHIT!" situation, they won't keep holding the phone, they'll drop the phone and grab the wheel (or wheel and shifter for those of us who drive real cars) with both hands to take whatever measures are necessary.
It's an unrealistic element to the test that is guaranteed to dramatically decrease driving performance to require the drivers to always have the phone in their hand and to talk constantly.
Exactly. I'm not sure why people are for blanket bans instead of punishing people who do cause an accident.
Accidents happen - hence them being called accidents. However, if you were doing something while driving (shaving, talking on the phone, whatever) that helped cause that accident, you should get a stiff penalty (if someone dies, jailtime, otherwise a significant fine and a suspended license).
People are idiots and, unfortunately, we can't outlaw stupidity.
There were idiotic distracted drivers long before cell phones were invented - we have morons trying to shave, put on makeup, read the newspaper, turn their head completely away from the road to talk to a passenger, messing with the radio, reading a map, etc.
Given all the other things that people do that distracts them from driving, I've never understood the witch hunt against cell phones....
It was rumored to be a great movie and Clive Owen is awesome, so I watched it when it came out on DVD - good god, I don't think the movie could've been more boring and lifeless.
Yes, organization and outreach is necessary - and then you use that to STOP THEIR INCOME. Sitting there complaining while you gladly hand over your money is useless and only shows them what an utter moron you are.
It's like with DRM - buying games with DRM while going "God, I wish you didn't put DRM in, but I'll still give you my money anyways" gives them no reason to stop. The same goes for this - being a good little servant and putting up with all the shit while going "God, I wish you didn't anally rape me before flying, but I'll still keep flying" gives them no reason to stop.
Make them aware that it's "Cut this bullshit out or you'll be unemployed and living on the streets" and they'll end it pretty quick.
It makes a big difference. If all of the sudden 90% of airline passengers stopped flying, the airlines would bleed money so fast that they'd have no choice but to ditch the TSA. Even if the government did a bailout, it would have to be a continuing bailout and it would be an EXTREMELY politically unpopular one that would only last until the next election when those who voted for the bailout would get voted out and people running on "end the bailout and end the TSA" would get voted in.
Slashdot Mirror
After the final verse they promptly ran out and legally changed little Jimmy's name to "Charlie".
Well you're also forgetting that he's only 3 years old - if he puts that money in the bank and doesn't touch it until he turns 18, even at a low interest rate of 2% per year he'll have $5,383,473.35. If he gets a 3% interest rate (not that hard to do), it would be $6,231,869.67 by the time he's 18. So yes, especially if he did that and then spent wisely (not frugally, but not blowing his money) he could easily get by never having to work again. Though, this is the UK, so I'm sure he'll take a hefty raping on the profits of that sale (he'd take a good raping in the US, just even worse in the UK with their higher tax rates). Realistically he'd probably get about $2 million after taxes (or less) so that's more like $3,115,934.83 by the time he's 18.
Exactly - I'd LOVE to see some games (such as the Baldur's Gate series) remade using modern graphics engines like in Dragon Age but with everything else kept the same. Another game I'd love to see remade with modern graphics is TIE Fighter.
*sigh* No, Economists rarely disagree about what a given policy will do. They disagree about things such as what the governments role is (should the government provide health care or should it be left to private individuals) but not the economics effects of such a policy.
You are a perfect example of why it's pointless to try to discuss anything related to Economics on Slashdot - because virtually no one on here has any understanding of it (I've only come across one other person who has a degree(s) in Economics other than myself) yet you think you're an expert because you heard the term "supply and demand" once.
They collapsed due to government spending exceeding tax revenue and private debt being too high (same reason for pretty much every economy that's in trouble). You can have 90% income and corporate tax and still have the government spend more money than it brings in and people rack up more in credit cards than they make in a year.
And it's not a "theory", it's fact - Economists have studied exactly these effects for decades.
I think you're confused about what he did. Generally anything bought for a business (such as a computer) is tax deductible so that you only pay tax on your profits (to help promote businesses investing in their physical capital). If you tax that money first, then you have less money to spend on buying machines, paying rent for office space, etc.
I'm not an expert on small business law, but I'm fairly certain that any corporate tax is paid in addition to the income tax for the owner (the amount of small business profit that he claims as his and not belonging to "the business" is taxed at the income tax rate, any profit he claims as belonging to the business for however the business wants to is taxed at the corporate tax rate). This is why most small business owners aren't "rich", because instead of taking all of the profit for their personal income, they typically keep most of it as profit for the business to use in expanding their business. So they have "wealth" (the value of the company that they own which they could sell and would pay income tax on the profit from the sale) but their income isn't nearly as high as the profits of the business.
You clearly don't understand corporate taxes. If you want a good economy, you don't want corporate taxes - that's why most economists will tell you that the best policy is no corporate tax. Why? Because the lower corporate taxes are, the lower their cost to operate and the lower a price they can charge for their product. That means they sell more, which means they hire more people, which means they produce more....
Then there's the fact that, depending on the demand for a product, companies don't pay all taxes - there's always a portion that is shifted on to consumers in the form of higher prices (the incidence of the tax depends on how elastic demand is). If it's something deemed vital, like food, consumers will pay the full amount of the tax in the form of increased prices. If it's something less vital but still in high demand (say an iPhone), then it'll be split with the company paying some money in taxes and the consumer paying some in the form of a higher price, but not as high as if they were paying the full amount of the tax.
For every person who cries about the evils of outsourcing, which given your attitude towards businesses, I'll wager you're one, you fail to realize that the higher the corporate tax rate is, the more incentive companies have to move their operations to a country with lower corporate taxes. That was actually the primary reason why when Daimler bought Chrysler a decade ago they kept the global HQ in Germany - because Germany had a lower corporate tax rate than the US, which means that there were fewer jobs in the US (we lost out on jobs for building a new HQ and staffing it with secretaries, janitors, low level employees, etc) and less income tax revenue coming in than there would have been if the US had a lower corporate tax rate.
Yes. I have several games from Avalon Hill, including several different Axis and Allies games - quality stuff that even a kid in late elementary school can understand.
Well if you're ever going to take your kid on a plane in the US, then My First Cavity Search (http://boingboing.net/2010/11/11/tsas-new-book-for-ki.html) is good for all ages!
Dead on. I've had a Linux-only laptop for years, but it'll never go on my desktop because of my game collection.
A FREE market requires strict controls and enforcement in order to stop stagnation and monopoly.
Wow. A free market requires SOME controls to prevent monopolies (in the cases where a monopoly isn't the best option, and to regulate the monopoly when it is the best option, such as for water / power lines). STRICT controls are the exact opposite of a free market.
Yeah, but wouldn't that then make Android/Google just as "evil" as Apple?
No because Apple cuts people off to keep them from giving you access to something Steve Jobs doesn't like; Google would be cutting carriers off because they were preventing you from having access to more things.
Are you asian or do you have asian relatives? No? I do have asian relatives who grew up in their native countries before moving to the US, so I'm aware of how they're expected to act, and yes, it IS like a robot - someone who unthinkingly does what they're told by their boss / parent / spouse and "brings shame" if they dare to do what they want instead of what they're told.
If we all followed traditions, women would be stuck in the kitchen or relegated to only jobs like being a teacher, nurse, or secretary. Blindly following tradition is the exact opposite of thinking freely. A free thinker says "why" and rejects the notion of tradition for the sake of tradition. You don't understand this though and think that it's somehow possible to combine "no free will" with "free thinking". If you give people free will, some people WILL choose to break the law (for various reasons) and some people WILL choose to break tradition. You cannot tolerate the notion that someone might choose differently than you do and thus try to insult them and call them moron's simply because they don't bow to your infinite wisdom.
The fact that you have to resort to childish insults regarding my signature only further proves that you have no point.
I agree that it's about culture and not weapons. However,
The Japanese *do not tolerate* those who break with tradition or societal rules. We Americans practically worship the rebels.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a society with the occasional violence and people are free to do what they want and have their own thoughts an opinions that one that's violence free and everyone is an unthinking robot.
I have this thing called "a full time job" and this other thing called "full time grad school". I don't have time to read through his papers to see if he's doing the same bogus "research" as everyone else. Given that your goal is to defend his study, I'm going to assume that he's doing the same old crap or else you would have shown evidence that he's not to refute my point.
That is what the research says: your reactions are delayed due to distraction. And then it's too late to drop your phone.
Bullshit. What it says is that SOMETIMES your reactions are too late. Other times they're not. This applies regardless of distractions - if someone cuts you off, sometimes you'll react in time and avoid hitting them, other times you won't.
Except every other test I've seen is a person in a "real car in a simulated environment" and they were instructed that they MUST keep the phone in their hand and they MUST keep talking. So there's no reason to "presume" that at all.
THAT is my complaint here - that they don't test under a variety of situations (no phone, phone and being allowed to stop talking / drop the phone, being forced to hold the phone and keep talking) and compare the results. Picking the one that's guaranteed to always give the worst result is NOT scientific at all and if a grad student tried such a test, they'd get in serious trouble for doing bogus research.
Don't you find it just a little odd that they all pick the option that's always going to show cell phones as bad instead of being objective about it and testing under all circumstances and seeing what the outcome is?
It's interesting though that you mention comparing cell phones to alcohol - Car and Driver did their own test regarding this several months back and the findings were quite surprising - they tested two people, one mid-20's the other mid-40's. They tested stone sober and no phone, with a phone, and drunk - the person in their mid-20's did better both on the phone AND drunk than the person in their mid-40's did stone sober with no phone. So if you want to start banning based on reaction times, it's more reasonable to ban people over 40 from driving than banning people from talking on phones, which seem to be younger (and thus have better reaction times). Now, I'm not saying we SHOULD ban people over 40, merely pointing that making decisions such as this purely on reaction time is a pretty bad metric to use.
Your link provides little data on how they actually conduct the test. I've seen documentaries / reports on several of these tests that "prove" cell phones cause you to be in more accidents - however, there's always been one consistent flaw in all of these tests. Every test I've seen FORCES the person driving to keep talking instead of pausing, hanging up, or just flat our dropping the phone on the floor if necessary to avoid an accident.
In real life, the majority of people WILL stop talking if they need to concentrate for a busy intersection / dangerous road and if there's an "OH SHIT!" situation, they won't keep holding the phone, they'll drop the phone and grab the wheel (or wheel and shifter for those of us who drive real cars) with both hands to take whatever measures are necessary.
It's an unrealistic element to the test that is guaranteed to dramatically decrease driving performance to require the drivers to always have the phone in their hand and to talk constantly.
Exactly. I'm not sure why people are for blanket bans instead of punishing people who do cause an accident.
Accidents happen - hence them being called accidents. However, if you were doing something while driving (shaving, talking on the phone, whatever) that helped cause that accident, you should get a stiff penalty (if someone dies, jailtime, otherwise a significant fine and a suspended license).
Let Z = the number of accidents caused by driver stupidity that does not involve cell phones.
I'll bet my house that Z > Y.
People are idiots and, unfortunately, we can't outlaw stupidity.
There were idiotic distracted drivers long before cell phones were invented - we have morons trying to shave, put on makeup, read the newspaper, turn their head completely away from the road to talk to a passenger, messing with the radio, reading a map, etc.
Given all the other things that people do that distracts them from driving, I've never understood the witch hunt against cell phones....
The problem is that, as has been shown many times over (especially in recent years), politicians don't care what the people want.
Just think how awesome Episode1 TPM could have been if George Lucas hadn't written and directed it.
There, fixed that for ya!
Wait, you LIKED Children of Men?
It was rumored to be a great movie and Clive Owen is awesome, so I watched it when it came out on DVD - good god, I don't think the movie could've been more boring and lifeless.
Yes, organization and outreach is necessary - and then you use that to STOP THEIR INCOME. Sitting there complaining while you gladly hand over your money is useless and only shows them what an utter moron you are.
It's like with DRM - buying games with DRM while going "God, I wish you didn't put DRM in, but I'll still give you my money anyways" gives them no reason to stop. The same goes for this - being a good little servant and putting up with all the shit while going "God, I wish you didn't anally rape me before flying, but I'll still keep flying" gives them no reason to stop.
Make them aware that it's "Cut this bullshit out or you'll be unemployed and living on the streets" and they'll end it pretty quick.
It makes a big difference. If all of the sudden 90% of airline passengers stopped flying, the airlines would bleed money so fast that they'd have no choice but to ditch the TSA. Even if the government did a bailout, it would have to be a continuing bailout and it would be an EXTREMELY politically unpopular one that would only last until the next election when those who voted for the bailout would get voted out and people running on "end the bailout and end the TSA" would get voted in.