It is not impossible, it is impossible for many. The world only needs soo many dead house-pet taxidermists. Yes the world will adjust. Society dosen't have a choice. But these periods of adjustment are historically rife with massive swings in wealth disparity, human suffering, and civil war. Being flippant to the chances that, we could all be eating out of dumpsters in 5 years or killing each-other in a massive rich/vs poor conflict, isn't proportional promotional to the urgency the issue deserves.
You are incorrect. That is not what the indictment said at all. Are you illiterate or intentionally misrepresenting the situation? Sadly both are believable for you Trumpers.
"Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant.
"Bullshit. It is your job to educate the customer." No, not it is not always. Unfortunately much of the consulting world is divided into advisory and delivery. While everyone wishes to be on the advisory side, the bulk get the short end of the stick and get stuck in delivery, where not only is advising the client likely to be frowned upon but it can actually cost people their jobs.
Why are developers interested in the latest technology? Simple. Jobs. I have no idea what level you are at, but your organization has not made it clear to the junior team how to advance their career. As such the junior team is flailing and looking to technological fads to provide security and career growth prospects that your organization is simply not providing to them.
"Ah, so I take it you think an all powerful central government is just the ticket then?" Not by my thought but I imagine you would consider it one.
"I see your views as an attack on our founding principles as well as our founder's wisdom in their choices for how our government was designed to work. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that our form of government is somehow old fashioned and thus ineffective."
You imply that the founding fathers were some kind of homogeneous group. This debate has been raging since before the nation was even founded. The acquiesce to the states rights fanatics directly caused our first nation under the Articles of Confederation to completely fall apart. Even then those fanatics failed to see the abject failure of their ideas and only signed onto the Constitution after incredible political bribery thus ingraining their power as stated above. At that point as in today, the stronger US powers disagreed. However, in the revolutionary war era the Federalist states were not powerful enough to stand alone in the world and needed the help of the less powerful but still vital states.
Ever since then those states rights locations have been on decline to this point in history where they are currently essentially third world countries compared to the modern pro-centralized states.
If state's rights anti-federalism were somehow a bulwark against oppression you would assume at least at one point in our history that we would have a bloom of freedom coming from them. Instead at each and every epoc in our history the federalist locations had to reach down and force the rural agrarian states from oppressing the shit out of people.
From the bill of rights, to the right of women to vote, to the rights of minorities to vote, to the end of slavery, to the civil rights movements, the same anti-federalist groups and locations have fought for repression. Each and every time the federal government had to reach down and end their oppressive actions.
The statistics are in, from an economic point as measured by GDP growth ant-federalism is a failure, from a social point as measured by advocating for general freedom anti-federalism is a failure, The situation got so bad we had to kill the fanatics during the civil war, unfortunately my guess is that the lesson was not learned and this will repeat itself soon. The anti-federalism strain is the greatest evil at the core of our nation, not though direct malice but by ignorance of the historical proof that it causes needless suffering by restraining the nation from fixing our great problems. We get there, but in each and every time the anti-federalist efforts have caused suffering by slowing the process.
"If you haven't noticed, there are more available media than just "cable" and "telco"." No there are not, . Webpass and cellphones are not viable solutions for general population broadband.
I actually like you response annnd I actually think the Constitution was just relatively good as written for when it was written. The problem is we have not done it anything close to justice by adequately maintaining it since then by utilizing its own self correcting mechanisms. We have the large population, economical vibrant, and educationally well endowed states which have recognized and want to leverage the economics of scale of a unified economic,social, and infrastructural system, and a smaller,subsistence level economic locations which want to plug their ears, remain isolated and agrarian, and pretend that 1787 dosent need an update. Unfortunately the legislative systems we have in place were written with the explicit purpose of bribing the philosophic/if not geological ancestors of the current subsistence advocates into joining the union who just by (sarcasm) chance happened to be the slave dominated agrarian economies. As such the bribe they required to um join the union, was that the Constitution be written to disproportionately benefit their agrarian feudal societies by giving them disproportionate voting rights codified by senate representative system and a Constitutional update vote where each state gets the same vote independent of population. As such this feudalistic,slave promoting, under educated group has been refusing to update the Constitution since day 1. From the bill of rights, to the end of slavery to the implementation of prohibition to the removal of prohibition the agrarian advocates have always been on the wrong side of history and leveraged their disproportionate voting power to hold back needed and in retrospect nearly-universally respected reform.
Ideal solution to keep the US together? Ban gerrymandering, ensure roughly equal representation per person, remove states rights for anything that federal regulation is required to ensure economics of scale
Realistic solution? There is none. We are headed for another civil war because because the two frameworks are irreconcilable and the feudalistic states will abuse the system to keep as much power as they can.
The southern states are beat, population, economic and militarily, but they have the legislative system which gives them more power. That outsized power is unsustainable and will end worse for them than Sherman's march but the whole nation will suffer.
The delivery mechanism when owned by a private entity and unregulated chooses to become a monopoly on the ISP end. Thus the ISP portion is part of the natural vertical and horizontal monopolistic entity.
ISPs are natural monopolies if the infrastructure is not nationalized or opened to the public by regulation. The only thing is unlike with any other natural monopoly the price/quality of the good is not controlled by regulation.
It is how the Constitution is setup. For good or for bad state's rights enable each state to regulate when the Fed fails to do so. Unfortunately this balkinization also causes massive problems for national/international organizations. This was simply not a problem when the Constitution was written. With additional rules being put in place by each state, at best they will supplement each-other, at worst they can directly contradict each-other. Now each ISP has to comply with each states net neutrality regulation in an ever growing quagmire of bureaucracy.
To see an older example of this cluster fuck balkinized bullshit look at the state by state sales taxes and how shit is all fucked up for internet taxation, for decades creating a uneven playing field that fucked small and mid sized organizations in favor of the truely massive who could game the system. http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/2....
This all could have been avoided if the anti-government savage leaders even bothered to list their anti-government savage followers. http://thehill.com/policy/tech... . Even the most savage of people had to admit that net neutrality was a good thing.
are going to have to pick up the slack that the federal government is abdicating. I don't really care that the savage fucks in the south don't really want a government, we do. For now well have to maintain civilization on state by state basis until we resubjugate the south. Unfortunately doing so will negate much of the economics of scale that the Federal government could achieve, but state by state civilization on the coats is better than the no civilization advocated by those anarchic lunatics.
"So if the company is raising the fee, you can bet that it discovered the current $10.99 was just not sustainable."
Talk about jumping to conclusions. There are a myriad of reasons why the company could be choosing to raise its price and dozens of factors at play. Yet the author picked one, because "reasons." There likely is a analysis out there 100 pages thick about the implications of rising the price yet you think the answer is of-course a one word statement of "sustainability."
Fair enough, ignoring externalizes to me is a form of subsidy but the words are not directly interchangeable.. I also agree that the net impacts are vastly different, and prefer the general pro environment approach. However, I still stand by my point that hardcore of disciples ignore the major subsidies/cons to both their respective sides. From neo-cons ignoring the elephant in the room that is global warming to liberal ignoring the inability of renewables to provide base load production. The result is two loud groups of idiots yelling at each-other and drowning out the few knowable voices in the room.
I hope this is a tongue in cheek troll. But sadly....I cant be sure............so to say the obvious 18 days into the year it would be ill advised to bet on the next 347 maintaining that trend.
"This tax takes the form of a percentage on the net profit of the firm. The effects of a profits tax are the same with those of a lump-sum tax. The profits tax, while reducing the profits (by adding to the cash expenses of the firm), will not affect its MC. Hence in the short run the equilibrium of the firm and the industry will not change. However, in the long run, exit of firms will be inevitable if in the pre-tax period firms were earning just normal profits. In the long run the supply in the market would shift to the left and a new equilibrium would be reached with a higher price, a lower quantity produced and a smaller number of firms."
sooo in a perfect market there would be no profit and thus no change in equilibrium.
That IS the economic theory.
Current conservative dogma is that markets are to be made perfect and as such a profit tax would have zero impact in product production. If you have a problem with the logical conclusion of what I am guessing is your own dogma, good I am glad and recommend you change adapt a "markets are inherently imperfect dogma", which is more realistic.
Nope we can buy it from elsewhere for even lower prices! Food prices are higher here due to protective import restrictions. If we stopped giving preference to the US rural production the cost of food would actually go down from increased competition with other sources.
"So raise taxes to 99%. No businesses would be affected" That is the working economic theory. Have you ever taken an economics class? The intersection of supply and demand curves are not impacted by a profit tax, only a sales tax.
That is not how profitability works. If a project costs 1 billion but generates 11 billion revenue, now the company gets to keep 79% instead of 65%. If that project generated 1 billion in revenue they could still keep 0 profit. If a project generated only.8 billion, they will loose.2 billion....... The result is that ZERO new business opportunities are now profitable. You portray yet another myth of conservative "economics" which basically stem from zero understanding of the basic economic, accounting,capitalistic theories.
Slashdot Mirror
Who the fuck has a 50 year old clock?
It is not impossible, it is impossible for many. The world only needs soo many dead house-pet taxidermists. Yes the world will adjust. Society dosen't have a choice. But these periods of adjustment are historically rife with massive swings in wealth disparity, human suffering, and civil war. Being flippant to the chances that, we could all be eating out of dumpsters in 5 years or killing each-other in a massive rich/vs poor conflict, isn't proportional promotional to the urgency the issue deserves.
https://www.motherjones.com/po...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/1...
"Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant.
"Bullshit. It is your job to educate the customer." No, not it is not always. Unfortunately much of the consulting world is divided into advisory and delivery. While everyone wishes to be on the advisory side, the bulk get the short end of the stick and get stuck in delivery, where not only is advising the client likely to be frowned upon but it can actually cost people their jobs.
Why are developers interested in the latest technology? Simple. Jobs. I have no idea what level you are at, but your organization has not made it clear to the junior team how to advance their career. As such the junior team is flailing and looking to technological fads to provide security and career growth prospects that your organization is simply not providing to them.
lol. "Im a Sovereign citizen!!!!! !!!Sovereign citizen! !!!!!!SOVEREIGN CITIZEN !!!! Go back to Waco nutjob.
"I see your views as an attack on our founding principles as well as our founder's wisdom in their choices for how our government was designed to work. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that our form of government is somehow old fashioned and thus ineffective."
You imply that the founding fathers were some kind of homogeneous group. This debate has been raging since before the nation was even founded. The acquiesce to the states rights fanatics directly caused our first nation under the Articles of Confederation to completely fall apart. Even then those fanatics failed to see the abject failure of their ideas and only signed onto the Constitution after incredible political bribery thus ingraining their power as stated above. At that point as in today, the stronger US powers disagreed. However, in the revolutionary war era the Federalist states were not powerful enough to stand alone in the world and needed the help of the less powerful but still vital states.
Ever since then those states rights locations have been on decline to this point in history where they are currently essentially third world countries compared to the modern pro-centralized states.
If state's rights anti-federalism were somehow a bulwark against oppression you would assume at least at one point in our history that we would have a bloom of freedom coming from them. Instead at each and every epoc in our history the federalist locations had to reach down and force the rural agrarian states from oppressing the shit out of people.
From the bill of rights, to the right of women to vote, to the rights of minorities to vote, to the end of slavery, to the civil rights movements, the same anti-federalist groups and locations have fought for repression. Each and every time the federal government had to reach down and end their oppressive actions.
The statistics are in, from an economic point as measured by GDP growth ant-federalism is a failure, from a social point as measured by advocating for general freedom anti-federalism is a failure, The situation got so bad we had to kill the fanatics during the civil war, unfortunately my guess is that the lesson was not learned and this will repeat itself soon. The anti-federalism strain is the greatest evil at the core of our nation, not though direct malice but by ignorance of the historical proof that it causes needless suffering by restraining the nation from fixing our great problems. We get there, but in each and every time the anti-federalist efforts have caused suffering by slowing the process.
"If you haven't noticed, there are more available media than just "cable" and "telco"." No there are not, . Webpass and cellphones are not viable solutions for general population broadband.
I actually like you response annnd I actually think the Constitution was just relatively good as written for when it was written. The problem is we have not done it anything close to justice by adequately maintaining it since then by utilizing its own self correcting mechanisms. We have the large population, economical vibrant, and educationally well endowed states which have recognized and want to leverage the economics of scale of a unified economic,social, and infrastructural system, and a smaller,subsistence level economic locations which want to plug their ears, remain isolated and agrarian, and pretend that 1787 dosent need an update. Unfortunately the legislative systems we have in place were written with the explicit purpose of bribing the philosophic/if not geological ancestors of the current subsistence advocates into joining the union who just by (sarcasm) chance happened to be the slave dominated agrarian economies. As such the bribe they required to um join the union, was that the Constitution be written to disproportionately benefit their agrarian feudal societies by giving them disproportionate voting rights codified by senate representative system and a Constitutional update vote where each state gets the same vote independent of population. As such this feudalistic,slave promoting, under educated group has been refusing to update the Constitution since day 1. From the bill of rights, to the end of slavery to the implementation of prohibition to the removal of prohibition the agrarian advocates have always been on the wrong side of history and leveraged their disproportionate voting power to hold back needed and in retrospect nearly-universally respected reform.
Ideal solution to keep the US together? Ban gerrymandering, ensure roughly equal representation per person, remove states rights for anything that federal regulation is required to ensure economics of scale
Realistic solution? There is none. We are headed for another civil war because because the two frameworks are irreconcilable and the feudalistic states will abuse the system to keep as much power as they can.
The southern states are beat, population, economic and militarily, but they have the legislative system which gives them more power. That outsized power is unsustainable and will end worse for them than Sherman's march but the whole nation will suffer.
The delivery mechanism when owned by a private entity and unregulated chooses to become a monopoly on the ISP end. Thus the ISP portion is part of the natural vertical and horizontal monopolistic entity.
ISPs are natural monopolies if the infrastructure is not nationalized or opened to the public by regulation. The only thing is unlike with any other natural monopoly the price/quality of the good is not controlled by regulation.
It is how the Constitution is setup. For good or for bad state's rights enable each state to regulate when the Fed fails to do so. Unfortunately this balkinization also causes massive problems for national/international organizations. This was simply not a problem when the Constitution was written. With additional rules being put in place by each state, at best they will supplement each-other, at worst they can directly contradict each-other. Now each ISP has to comply with each states net neutrality regulation in an ever growing quagmire of bureaucracy.
To see an older example of this cluster fuck balkinized bullshit look at the state by state sales taxes and how shit is all fucked up for internet taxation, for decades creating a uneven playing field that fucked small and mid sized organizations in favor of the truely massive who could game the system. http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/2... .
This all could have been avoided if the anti-government savage leaders even bothered to list their anti-government savage followers. http://thehill.com/policy/tech... . Even the most savage of people had to admit that net neutrality was a good thing.
are going to have to pick up the slack that the federal government is abdicating. I don't really care that the savage fucks in the south don't really want a government, we do. For now well have to maintain civilization on state by state basis until we resubjugate the south. Unfortunately doing so will negate much of the economics of scale that the Federal government could achieve, but state by state civilization on the coats is better than the no civilization advocated by those anarchic lunatics.
Easy. Single payer. Problem solved.
Talk about jumping to conclusions. There are a myriad of reasons why the company could be choosing to raise its price and dozens of factors at play. Yet the author picked one, because "reasons." There likely is a analysis out there 100 pages thick about the implications of rising the price yet you think the answer is of-course a one word statement of "sustainability."
Fair enough, ignoring externalizes to me is a form of subsidy but the words are not directly interchangeable.. I also agree that the net impacts are vastly different, and prefer the general pro environment approach. However, I still stand by my point that hardcore of disciples ignore the major subsidies/cons to both their respective sides. From neo-cons ignoring the elephant in the room that is global warming to liberal ignoring the inability of renewables to provide base load production. The result is two loud groups of idiots yelling at each-other and drowning out the few knowable voices in the room.
No you are a fucking lunatic denalist nut-job. The closet thing thing slashdot has is a troll marker.
I hope this is a tongue in cheek troll. But sadly....I cant be sure............so to say the obvious 18 days into the year it would be ill advised to bet on the next 347 maintaining that trend.
http://www.economicsdiscussion...
"This tax takes the form of a percentage on the net profit of the firm. The effects of a profits tax are the same with those of a lump-sum tax. The profits tax, while reducing the profits (by adding to the cash expenses of the firm), will not affect its MC. Hence in the short run the equilibrium of the firm and the industry will not change. However, in the long run, exit of firms will be inevitable if in the pre-tax period firms were earning just normal profits. In the long run the supply in the market would shift to the left and a new equilibrium would be reached with a higher price, a lower quantity produced and a smaller number of firms."
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/031815/why-are-there-no-profits-perfectly-competitive-market.asp
sooo in a perfect market there would be no profit and thus no change in equilibrium.
That IS the economic theory.
Current conservative dogma is that markets are to be made perfect and as such a profit tax would have zero impact in product production. If you have a problem with the logical conclusion of what I am guessing is your own dogma, good I am glad and recommend you change adapt a "markets are inherently imperfect dogma", which is more realistic.
No need to panic.
I am no historian, but you seem to be inverting the power structure in fascism.
That should be a feature of the phone/os/video player. It should not be a feature hidden in a dark corner by a provider.
Nope we can buy it from elsewhere for even lower prices! Food prices are higher here due to protective import restrictions. If we stopped giving preference to the US rural production the cost of food would actually go down from increased competition with other sources.
"So raise taxes to 99%. No businesses would be affected" That is the working economic theory. Have you ever taken an economics class? The intersection of supply and demand curves are not impacted by a profit tax, only a sales tax.
That is not how profitability works. If a project costs 1 billion but generates 11 billion revenue, now the company gets to keep 79% instead of 65%. If that project generated 1 billion in revenue they could still keep 0 profit. If a project generated only .8 billion, they will loose .2 billion....... The result is that ZERO new business opportunities are now profitable. You portray yet another myth of conservative "economics" which basically stem from zero understanding of the basic economic, accounting,capitalistic theories.