The point is the Senate has proposed reducing or eliminating dividend taxes. Buffet is criticising that.
IF Berkshire pays a dividend (it's not), then a reduction in dividend taxes just makes whoever Berkshire pays richer.
Whereas if the dividend taxes aren't reduced or eliminated, IF Berkshire pays a dividend, then there's less money to whoever gets the dividend.
AFAIK Buffet's main point is reducing dividend taxes just makes the rich people richer. How much richer is besides the point.
The people who get a significant income from dividends are usually the rich, thus halving or eliminating dividend taxes makes the rich richer. Buffet just uses his own case as an example.
The writer you link to who points out that Buffet isn't paying any taxes on dividends because there are no dividends, and Buffet is a bad guy for that is missing the point entirely.
My conclusion is the writer is either stupid or being disingenuous and biased.
From your statement that "Warren might be concerned he'll finally have to pay a dividend to his stock holders one of these days", my guess is that you are either stupid or very ignorant.
I'll probably be able to conclude pending your response (if any).
In my experience the only difference between hardware and software is:
1) software- you configure most of it. 2) hardware- someone else configures most of it.
If you ask the CEO, almost everything is hardware.
Whereas if you ask an Intel microprocessor engineer, even the P4 is "software" - they can change how it behaves by altering the microcode (which is how some CPU bugs can be fixed).
Plenty of other examples - BIOS, routers, switches, heck even VCRs.
Basically if the risk is likely to affect "everyone" at the same time then they won't bet - coz if it happens they'd have to pay to tens of thousands of insured at the same time.
Unless of course the number of insured isn't going to be that high - they can usually refuse to make further bets.
So either few are insured, or the insurance company thinks only a relatively few of the insured will claim in event of an earthquake.
Call me a cynic but the US Gov wants to turn Iraq into another Saudi Arabia. They want a hand picked gov not an Iraqi picked one.
They don't want it too strong - so that they can keep in under their thumb.
They threw out Chalabi once they realized he wasn't going to play it their way.
They made that Shia extremist a hero and weakened the moderates - so what if he murdered somebody, let the local Iraqi authorities deal with it - doesn't matter if they don't get him. But no, they had to make him a "gathering point".
For what purpose? To weaken the moderates. To divide Iraq. To set the stage...
Hey, I'm fine for no privacy, if EVERYONE agrees to no privacy as well. That means to say, EVERYONE gets to see where the US President, what he's doing, whenever they want, with about the same ease as vice versa. My fellow citizens can see/hear me whilst I'm showering, scratching my bum/balls, etc and I can see my fellow citizens whilst they're doing whatever they are doing whenever I like.
They get to see em typing my passwords, I get to see them typing their passwords.
Even better - let everything be recorded to a multisite zottabyte array, with open access to all.
And remember - he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Let's see you make fun/take advantage of someone's weakness when your weaknesses are fully visible to everyone else as well.
The false or fraudulent part? It's fine to sell people a CD which says it's "copy protected" that is hard to copy. But it's not fine if that CD is designed to install stuff onto people's computers without their explicit permission - remember they bought the CD to listen to the stuff, not to install software, especially software that is USELESS or perhaps even damaging to them and only USEFUL to the CD creators.
This is "trojan horse" software.
If this is legal then creators of webpages could legally install software of their choice into systems of people who just browse a page containing copyrighted content, and say it's "copy protection". e.g. install stuff like monitoring/blocking software so that they could keep track of the user's activities - "to ensure that the terms of use are complied to".
Even if there's an agreement with lots of fine-print to click on doesn't necessarily make it OK. Otherwise those wormmakers will be spreading those greeting card/screen saver stuff which does other things that's written in the fine print (like allow the worm makers to use the PC for whatever they want).
How about if I sold you a movie DVD that hypnotized you so that you would never ever willingly make copies of that DVD for whoever or whatever reason? A "Copy Protected" label doesn't count. If the DVD was explicitly about convincing people not to copy then that's different - there is no or little deception involved.
And even if there were living creatures, I bet we kill more cells and lifeforms a day just from worldwide chicken consumption alone.
Whether it is responsible and justifiable is the issue. If all Mars has is some dumb algae that doesn't do much, I won't really be too enthusiastic about spending billions to preserve vast tracts of it. Add time and people costs as well.
Coz by spending all that, you have less to spend on other arguably more important things.
I say it _easily_ (no need for any stretching) comes under:
1. accesses, exceeds authorization to access, alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program or data base or any part thereof, with the intent: to interrupt the normal functioning of an organization or to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive or control property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises; ---
However aren't there other penalties such as jail time?
Could be because different parties were involved each time, and trying to get all 3 companies together at consecutive times to do the job would be near impossible (different schedules and priorities), plus all the 3 companies wouldn't want to wait for each other either - there'll always be a bit of slippage and slack time - what if B has some delays? Should C stand by? It'll cost C to wait an indeterminate time. Whereas if each does an independent project, it's all up to each of them.
He's been winning for the past X years, so if he thinks he's great, hey that's just being honest and realistic.
It's the other F1 racers who think they're great but they actually aren't that good, who have ego problems. Eddie Irvine was one example.
However you look at it, Schumacher is very noticeably better than Rubens. Rubens is good, but good just gets you number 2 driver. You want team priority, all you have to do is drive well enough to be number 1 driver. Don't think the team doesn't know how well you drive nowadays, with all the telemetrics.
Drivers like Senna and Schumacher can take corners with exactly the same angles every time. Repeatable laps after laps.
Schumacher has been known to race around a track in twilight conditions (when testing cars[1]) and he's only about a second slower when it's dark - F1 cars have no headlights.
[1] It's also what these guys do out of playing that makes them so good. Michael Jordan practiced a LOT more than most other basketball players. Similarly for Pete Sampras in tennis (but he never won in clay;) ).
Well the banning of drug money^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H tobacco sponsorship doesn't help much.
So far F1 still gets a decent viewing audience - at least in my country.
TV viewing figures as a whole have dropped, so it's no surprise viewing figures for F1 drop too. Is the drop more than for other similar stuff?
It's just there's a lot more of everything else to watch, compared to years ago - e.g. X-games. Then there's the internet, online games etc. People are finding plenty of things to do other than watch TV.
Ah but you get a 2-3 hour UPS (or even 6 hours for some notebooks). How much is a UPS that provides 2-3 hours for a 300W PC?
If they were much more reliable (+ decent IO), could seriously use them as routers/firewalls/other network device... Router with built in console and UPS.
So where's your patent:) ? It's too obvious to me, but you probably live in the US - so when in Rome do what Romans do;).
Try it in Florida - the place of scams[1] and spams, and the most lightning strikes in the US.
The ionization doesn't have to reach all the way - just has to be a very tall and attractive lightning rod.
Issue is - how much energy do you need minimum to generate the ionized path? And how to store/accumulate it or even it out?
Whereas tapping it to help destroy something is much easier:).
[1] An aspiring Mad Scientist? Tired of building tall expensive towers to attract impressive lightning bolts? Look no further - get your Virtual Lightning Tower - Only USD4999.95!!!
"Everett's Many World Interpretation". Is he the guy that came up with the "I can't be killed MWI"?
I found that funny - it's likely in that scenario that everything would decohere so that the chance of being killed = 100%. But it's obvious I'm no quantum physicist.
Maybe 9 feet is the range so that the two pairs of the beams are aligned (separate but close enough). The thunderhead won't care whether the pairs are aligned or not, or even if there's a pair - just so long there's a path, or a path that makes things a bit easier - think 300 foot ionized "lightning rod":).
Maybe you're right and the beam won't be able to create an ionized path tall enough (the deflection will probably sap a lot), but I'd prefer to be a bit on the safe side, unless there's more data saying otherwise...
Slashdot Mirror
The website has an apt name I suppose.
The point is the Senate has proposed reducing or eliminating dividend taxes. Buffet is criticising that.
IF Berkshire pays a dividend (it's not), then a reduction in dividend taxes just makes whoever Berkshire pays richer.
Whereas if the dividend taxes aren't reduced or eliminated, IF Berkshire pays a dividend, then there's less money to whoever gets the dividend.
AFAIK Buffet's main point is reducing dividend taxes just makes the rich people richer. How much richer is besides the point.
The people who get a significant income from dividends are usually the rich, thus halving or eliminating dividend taxes makes the rich richer. Buffet just uses his own case as an example.
The writer you link to who points out that Buffet isn't paying any taxes on dividends because there are no dividends, and Buffet is a bad guy for that is missing the point entirely.
My conclusion is the writer is either stupid or being disingenuous and biased.
From your statement that "Warren might be concerned he'll finally have to pay a dividend to his stock holders one of these days", my guess is that you are either stupid or very ignorant.
I'll probably be able to conclude pending your response (if any).
"Data talks & bullshit walks"
In my experience the only difference between hardware and software is:
1) software- you configure most of it.
2) hardware- someone else configures most of it.
If you ask the CEO, almost everything is hardware.
Whereas if you ask an Intel microprocessor engineer, even the P4 is "software" - they can change how it behaves by altering the microcode (which is how some CPU bugs can be fixed).
Plenty of other examples - BIOS, routers, switches, heck even VCRs.
Well perhaps he's trying to explain the very _first_observation_ everyone ever makes.
:).
That'll take a bit more work too
Have there really been many serious attempts?
"we don't really know what process would produce such a thing"
;).
I checked - it didn't happen on April 1st
Sometimes I suspect I have a built-in murphy/finagle field intensifier. It doesn't work all the time - of course!
Basically if the risk is likely to affect "everyone" at the same time then they won't bet - coz if it happens they'd have to pay to tens of thousands of insured at the same time.
Unless of course the number of insured isn't going to be that high - they can usually refuse to make further bets.
So either few are insured, or the insurance company thinks only a relatively few of the insured will claim in event of an earthquake.
"It turned out that (some) people will abuse their power."
That's not the main prob.
The main prob is 80% or more would turn their brains and consciences off and "follow orders/others", even if they think it is wrong.
The first bunch need the second bunch otherwise their power would only extend as far as their "fist".
Various atrocities and acts of genocide wouldn't have occurred without the second bunch.
China has been doing what they've been doing for the past few thousand years. Emperor after Emperor. Rule by Mandarins/Court Officials.
;).
But looks like they're in "danger" of getting democracy, well before it's been fully beta tested
"Tax breaks that only benefit the rich?"
Ask Warren Buffet.
CNN
His 2003 letter.
Call me a cynic but the US Gov wants to turn Iraq into another Saudi Arabia. They want a hand picked gov not an Iraqi picked one.
They don't want it too strong - so that they can keep in under their thumb.
They threw out Chalabi once they realized he wasn't going to play it their way.
They made that Shia extremist a hero and weakened the moderates - so what if he murdered somebody, let the local Iraqi authorities deal with it - doesn't matter if they don't get him. But no, they had to make him a "gathering point".
For what purpose? To weaken the moderates. To divide Iraq. To set the stage...
Hey, I'm fine for no privacy, if EVERYONE agrees to no privacy as well. That means to say, EVERYONE gets to see where the US President, what he's doing, whenever they want, with about the same ease as vice versa. My fellow citizens can see/hear me whilst I'm showering, scratching my bum/balls, etc and I can see my fellow citizens whilst they're doing whatever they are doing whenever I like.
They get to see em typing my passwords, I get to see them typing their passwords.
Even better - let everything be recorded to a multisite zottabyte array, with open access to all.
And remember - he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Let's see you make fun/take advantage of someone's weakness when your weaknesses are fully visible to everyone else as well.
Think of an nudist beach, only extrapolated.
The false or fraudulent part? It's fine to sell people a CD which says it's "copy protected" that is hard to copy. But it's not fine if that CD is designed to install stuff onto people's computers without their explicit permission - remember they bought the CD to listen to the stuff, not to install software, especially software that is USELESS or perhaps even damaging to them and only USEFUL to the CD creators.
This is "trojan horse" software.
If this is legal then creators of webpages could legally install software of their choice into systems of people who just browse a page containing copyrighted content, and say it's "copy protection". e.g. install stuff like monitoring/blocking software so that they could keep track of the user's activities - "to ensure that the terms of use are complied to".
Even if there's an agreement with lots of fine-print to click on doesn't necessarily make it OK. Otherwise those wormmakers will be spreading those greeting card/screen saver stuff which does other things that's written in the fine print (like allow the worm makers to use the PC for whatever they want).
How about if I sold you a movie DVD that hypnotized you so that you would never ever willingly make copies of that DVD for whoever or whatever reason? A "Copy Protected" label doesn't count. If the DVD was explicitly about convincing people not to copy then that's different - there is no or little deception involved.
And even if there were living creatures, I bet we kill more cells and lifeforms a day just from worldwide chicken consumption alone.
Whether it is responsible and justifiable is the issue. If all Mars has is some dumb algae that doesn't do much, I won't really be too enthusiastic about spending billions to preserve vast tracts of it. Add time and people costs as well.
Coz by spending all that, you have less to spend on other arguably more important things.
I say it _easily_ (no need for any stretching) comes under:
1. accesses, exceeds authorization to access, alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program or data base or any part thereof, with the intent: to interrupt the normal functioning of an organization or to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive or control property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises;
---
However aren't there other penalties such as jail time?
Maybe MS has stolen Openoffice code? ;)
Hey, go easy on him. He's one of the very few mere mortals who have looked at the MS source code and lived to talk about it.
I wouldn't be surprised if he's still a bit "affected" by the experience.
Which is the most dangerous and which is the safest amongst the three?
I met a South African who said to never stop at traffic lights when driving in town after dark. Which part of SA would he be referring to?
Could be because different parties were involved each time, and trying to get all 3 companies together at consecutive times to do the job would be near impossible (different schedules and priorities), plus all the 3 companies wouldn't want to wait for each other either - there'll always be a bit of slippage and slack time - what if B has some delays? Should C stand by? It'll cost C to wait an indeterminate time. Whereas if each does an independent project, it's all up to each of them.
Ego? Examples?
;) ).
He's been winning for the past X years, so if he thinks he's great, hey that's just being honest and realistic.
It's the other F1 racers who think they're great but they actually aren't that good, who have ego problems. Eddie Irvine was one example.
However you look at it, Schumacher is very noticeably better than Rubens. Rubens is good, but good just gets you number 2 driver. You want team priority, all you have to do is drive well enough to be number 1 driver. Don't think the team doesn't know how well you drive nowadays, with all the telemetrics.
Drivers like Senna and Schumacher can take corners with exactly the same angles every time. Repeatable laps after laps.
Schumacher has been known to race around a track in twilight conditions (when testing cars[1]) and he's only about a second slower when it's dark - F1 cars have no headlights.
[1] It's also what these guys do out of playing that makes them so good. Michael Jordan practiced a LOT more than most other basketball players. Similarly for Pete Sampras in tennis (but he never won in clay
Well the banning of drug money^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H tobacco sponsorship doesn't help much.
So far F1 still gets a decent viewing audience - at least in my country.
TV viewing figures as a whole have dropped, so it's no surprise viewing figures for F1 drop too. Is the drop more than for other similar stuff?
It's just there's a lot more of everything else to watch, compared to years ago - e.g. X-games. Then there's the internet, online games etc. People are finding plenty of things to do other than watch TV.
Ah but you get a 2-3 hour UPS (or even 6 hours for some notebooks). How much is a UPS that provides 2-3 hours for a 300W PC?
If they were much more reliable (+ decent IO), could seriously use them as routers/firewalls/other network device... Router with built in console and UPS.
Heh looks like more than a few people have thought about it:
m s/hpl99/po ster2.html
Look at the Laser Triggered Lightning section:
http://www.spie.org/web/meetings/progra
But hey that's never stopped people from patenting stuff yet...
So where's your patent :) ? It's too obvious to me, but you probably live in the US - so when in Rome do what Romans do ;).
:).
Try it in Florida - the place of scams[1] and spams, and the most lightning strikes in the US.
The ionization doesn't have to reach all the way - just has to be a very tall and attractive lightning rod.
Issue is - how much energy do you need minimum to generate the ionized path? And how to store/accumulate it or even it out?
Whereas tapping it to help destroy something is much easier
[1] An aspiring Mad Scientist? Tired of building tall expensive towers to attract impressive lightning bolts? Look no further - get your Virtual Lightning Tower - Only USD4999.95!!!
Thanks. That's cleared things up a bit.
"Everett's Many World Interpretation". Is he the guy that came up with the "I can't be killed MWI"?
I found that funny - it's likely in that scenario that everything would decohere so that the chance of being killed = 100%. But it's obvious I'm no quantum physicist.
Maybe 9 feet is the range so that the two pairs of the beams are aligned (separate but close enough). The thunderhead won't care whether the pairs are aligned or not, or even if there's a pair - just so long there's a path, or a path that makes things a bit easier - think 300 foot ionized "lightning rod" :).
Maybe you're right and the beam won't be able to create an ionized path tall enough (the deflection will probably sap a lot), but I'd prefer to be a bit on the safe side, unless there's more data saying otherwise...