Printing money is a stock standard used since money was invented technique of government.
And everybody knows that the US will print money before it actually defaults - since it's far less embaressing for the politicians involved.
And everybody, except the politicians and talking heads on TV apparently, knows that when you have an income in the trillions of dollars you don't default on a few billion dollars of interest payments. It'd be like a couple who earns $100,000/year after tax not paying the $420/month mortage because one of them won't let the other ask the bank to raise the credit limit on their visa.
Of course they would. Gas stations are now illegal. Possession of gasoline is a jailable offence. Possession of an automobile is a jailable offence. Driving an automobile is a shoot on site offence. All the roads have been ripped up and replaced with parks surrounded by solid steel poles or by brick/concrete apartment blocks.
Most people won't will respect the ban.
Been to venice? See many people not respecting the ban on cars?
Obviousness is irrelevant if the part of the article that says:
"""These problems were detected only 5 days before the official Java 7 release, so Oracle had no time to fix those bugs,"""
is accurate then Oracle are way past poor judgement.
You have a bug in your compiler/jvm/whatever which will cause some programs to crash and others to give the wrong output.Do you:
1. Release it anyway and hope no one notices. 2. Release it anyway and warn people about it. 3. Delay the release until it is fixed. 4. Disable that, purely performance related, feature for now.
it's build fine since it has the bison output which is all the compiler needs. Basically there are some Elisp files that are actually generated by from some grammar files, those Elisp files were added without the grammar files being added. When doing a build you have no way of knowing that some random Elisp file isn't actually the "true" source code.
The google account tied to my phone is completely unrelated to the google account that has my email/etc. What sort of crazy person wouldn't create a random google account when setting up the phone in the first place?
But the claim^Wjoke was "optical" not "holographic", and I simply can't believe more has been written about optical storage than has been stored on it considering all the CDs, DVDs, Blurays, laser discs in existance.
I haven't looked at the study, which while in a journal about remote sending not climatology that requires the paper's authors to pay for publication does sound reasonable enough from the blurb.
But the continued labelling of what is the mainsteam of climatology as "alarmist" seriously detracts from that article.
It's the sort of argument a 5 year old makes, which doesn't make the actual claims incorrect just much more difficult to see...
You can't check the User Agent without feeding them the fake SSL cert first, since it's in the encrpted data.
You could of course default pass along everything and only act as a man in the middle for https requests from a device that you've already intercepted an HTTP request from to determine it's of the right flavor. But that does make it ever so slightly more difficult.
The guy is "being transported to a central London police station" so clearly they do. Unless my geography is even worse than I thought (which given how bad I think it is would be pretty difficult).
You agreed to their terms when you setup the account, including this bit: """ 4.3. Moneybookers reserves the right to suspend, at any time and at its sole discretion, the Merchant Account (or certain functionalities thereof such as
Ah...suspend means keep the money too? Forever or until their demands are met? How are you, moneybooker's owner?
Until you give them ID they legally can't transfer the money. So yes until you meet the demands, but those demands are being made by various governments.
And no I'm not their owner, I hadn't heard of them until I read your post. If do transfer money between countries reasonably often though.
It is your account. You are the payer.
In what planet if a person A sends money to a person B (that would be me), is B the payer? And by the way: There is no way to get money from moneybookers without sending it to a (real) bank institution. So everything is traceable. My Spanish bank has seen by ID. So all this laundeing shit is bogus. Any money I send and receive via moneybookers (or paypal for that matters) is easily accounted for.
Try and pay attention as I repeat the obvious again.
When person A sent money to person B, person A was the payer and person B was the payee. Notice that you, person B, got the money in that case. It is sitting in your moneybookers account.
What they are refusing to do, until you provide ID, is transfer money from person B (you) to elsewhere. Notice that you, person B, can't transfer the money in this case because they haven't got your ID on file.
They don't care that you have ID on file at your Spanish bank. The account at the Spanish bank is the payee for the transfer being put on hold and as you've mentioned they don't care one way or another about having ID on file for payees.
Do you have any idea how much pollution would be added to the atmosphere in order to launch the fuel that would be required to move the ISS into deep space?
Are you sure that is better for the environment than crashing the thing into the ocean (and burning it up in the atmosphere).
"just one more piece of trash isn't going to make a difference" is silly in the cases where it really isn't just one more piece, but in this case it really is. They aren't going to be crashing space stations into the ocean very often.
Do you read things before you sign up? And why should they ask for ID before legally required too, you want them to go beyond what the law requires?
Have you read the very same link you sent? Where does it say that while my ID is verified I won't be able to have access to my money? According to that very page, the UK law doesn't require that they limit access to my money.
Show me the regulation that says that they get to keep any money?
You agreed to their terms when you setup the account, including this bit: """ 4.3. Moneybookers reserves the right to suspend, at any time and at its sole discretion, the Merchant Account (or certain functionalities thereof such as uploading, receiving, sending and/or withdrawing funds) if transactions are made which Moneybookers in its sole discretion deems to be (i) made in breach of this Agreement or (ii) are suspicious with regards to money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud or other illegal activities. Moneybookers will make reasonable efforts to inform the Merchant of any measure unless Moneybookers is prohibited from doing so by law or under an order from a competent court or authority. """
If you asked them to transfer money over the required ID theshold and don't provide ID, then it's suspicious with regards to money laundering - after all that's why the ID requirements exist.
Where, please? Because I read it and can't find it. In fact, that document says that it's the information of the payer, not the payee, that should be available - and if it isn't, it can either be requested or the transaction be denied. So no, moneybookers doesn't have to keep the money.
It is your account. You are the payer. Hence without your ID they can't process it.
When they money came into you account you were the payee, hence why they didn't need your ID then.
"after you count up all the loopholes and compare how much of their "income" actually gets taxed at the much lower Capital Gains rates, actually pay less in taxes than the middle class do?"
I won't talk rates, I'll talk what's actually paid. Definition: Middle class has a broad definition, but I'll take $30,000-$100,000, which covers the span of most definitions and gives you a large middle class with which to make your argument.
The top 10% of earners, above 114,000, pay 70% of all income taxes. So, no, the middle class pays less than the rich. The lower 50%, below $33,000, pays almost nothing.
Your missing an essential number. Sure 10% of the people pay 70% of the taxes - but that tells me almost nothing useful. I also need to know what percentage of the income that top 10% earn.
I'd say somewhere between 40-50% (but I'm going from old memory). Given the tax system is supposed to be progressive (you mightn't like that, but clearly it is designed to be so) having 45% of the income pay 70% of the taxes doesn't seem unreasonable - especially considering it's including the extreme top end along with that bulk of that 10%.
Short-term capital gains taxes go up with your tax bracket, and the rate is the same. Even if you bought something at $10,000 and a few laters it grew with inflation to $10,500, you still have to pay tax on the $500 even though you technically didn't make any money. Long-term rates are less in order to offset inflation losses and encourage long-term investment that helps the economy over quick flipping.
Obviously the rich are more likely to invest, so I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet to say that top 25% pay almost all capital gains taxes.
The real complaint is the rules that allow hedge fund managers to claim what is clearly income as capital gains. It's not a complaint about capital gains in general.
You are complaining that they are "stealing" your money even though you haven't given them proof of who you are.
If they want proof of ID, then they should ask for it up front - not when they have money and I have no option. Of course they won't return the money to the sender either.
Your money is sitting in that account because you are a retard, not because they are thieves.
They are thieves. They won't give me my money and they won't give it to the person that sent it. And they demand that I send them a photocopy of a document that can be used to open bank accounts (real ones), apply to loans, and lot of other things. If you think I'm being a retard for not sending them that document, then will, go fuck yourself and send them yours.
They can't give you your money because doing so without documenting your identity is against the law. They can't give it to the person who sent it because that would also be against the law if they don't have your ID on record. They aren't thieves because they haven't kept the money for themselves, it is sitting there waiting for someone to provide the identification the law requires in order to transfer it.
And yes that ID is just what you would need to open a bank account. Which is obvious, since the bank wants the same ID for the exact same reason - the same laws apply to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Printing money is a stock standard used since money was invented technique of government.
And everybody knows that the US will print money before it actually defaults - since it's far less embaressing for the politicians involved.
And everybody, except the politicians and talking heads on TV apparently, knows that when you have an income in the trillions of dollars you don't default on a few billion dollars of interest payments. It'd be like a couple who earns $100,000/year after tax not paying the $420/month mortage because one of them won't let the other ask the bank to raise the credit limit on their visa.
Of course they would. Gas stations are now illegal. Possession of gasoline is a jailable offence. Possession of an automobile is a jailable offence. Driving an automobile is a shoot on site offence. All the roads have been ripped up and replaced with parks surrounded by solid steel poles or by brick/concrete apartment blocks.
Most people won't will respect the ban.
Been to venice? See many people not respecting the ban on cars?
I'd rather have the slower and cooler and less power hungry drive...
Well banning automobiles would be a solution to hit-and-run accidents. You'd significantly reduce them after all.
Whereas banning VPN will do exactly nothing to stop terrorists from blowing shit up.
Obviousness is irrelevant if the part of the article that says:
"""These problems were detected only 5 days before the official Java 7 release, so Oracle had no time to fix those bugs,"""
is accurate then Oracle are way past poor judgement.
You have a bug in your compiler/jvm/whatever which will cause some programs to crash and others to give the wrong output.Do you:
1. Release it anyway and hope no one notices.
2. Release it anyway and warn people about it.
3. Delay the release until it is fixed.
4. Disable that, purely performance related, feature for now.
it's build fine since it has the bison output which is all the compiler needs. Basically there are some Elisp files that are actually generated by from some grammar files, those Elisp files were added without the grammar files being added. When doing a build you have no way of knowing that some random Elisp file isn't actually the "true" source code.
And where is the part of them using their real names to complain?
You restore from your backup.
The google account tied to my phone is completely unrelated to the google account that has my email/etc. What sort of crazy person wouldn't create a random google account when setting up the phone in the first place?
If you encrypt it before it gets stolen.
Nobody did, so the only wierd thing is that you would come to that conclusion.
But the claim^Wjoke was "optical" not "holographic", and I simply can't believe more has been written about optical storage than has been stored on it considering all the CDs, DVDs, Blurays, laser discs in existance.
I haven't looked at the study, which while in a journal about remote sending not climatology that requires the paper's authors to pay for publication does sound reasonable enough from the blurb.
But the continued labelling of what is the mainsteam of climatology as "alarmist" seriously detracts from that article.
It's the sort of argument a 5 year old makes, which doesn't make the actual claims incorrect just much more difficult to see...
You can't check the User Agent without feeding them the fake SSL cert first, since it's in the encrpted data.
You could of course default pass along everything and only act as a man in the middle for https requests from a device that you've already intercepted an HTTP request from to determine it's of the right flavor. But that does make it ever so slightly more difficult.
Because that isn't how the attack works.
Because judging by the local bestbuy store there's a fuckton of stuff stored on optical disc just in the bluray section.
But that comes up later. The police don't care until one of their judges throws something out over it.
The guy is "being transported to a central London police station" so clearly they do. Unless my geography is even worse than I thought (which given how bad I think it is would be pretty difficult).
You agreed to their terms when you setup the account, including this bit:
"""
4.3. Moneybookers reserves the right to suspend, at any time and at its sole discretion, the Merchant Account (or certain functionalities thereof such as
Ah...suspend means keep the money too? Forever or until their demands are met? How are you, moneybooker's owner?
Until you give them ID they legally can't transfer the money. So yes until you meet the demands, but those demands are being made by various governments.
And no I'm not their owner, I hadn't heard of them until I read your post. If do transfer money between countries reasonably often though.
It is your account. You are the payer.
In what planet if a person A sends money to a person B (that would be me), is B the payer?
And by the way: There is no way to get money from moneybookers without sending it to a (real) bank institution. So everything is traceable. My Spanish bank has seen by ID. So all this laundeing shit is bogus. Any money I send and receive via moneybookers (or paypal for that matters) is easily accounted for.
Try and pay attention as I repeat the obvious again.
When person A sent money to person B, person A was the payer and person B was the payee. Notice that you, person B, got the money in that case. It is sitting in your moneybookers account.
What they are refusing to do, until you provide ID, is transfer money from person B (you) to elsewhere. Notice that you, person B, can't transfer the money in this case because they haven't got your ID on file.
They don't care that you have ID on file at your Spanish bank. The account at the Spanish bank is the payee for the transfer being put on hold and as you've mentioned they don't care one way or another about having ID on file for payees.
Do you have any idea how much pollution would be added to the atmosphere in order to launch the fuel that would be required to move the ISS into deep space?
Are you sure that is better for the environment than crashing the thing into the ocean (and burning it up in the atmosphere).
"just one more piece of trash isn't going to make a difference" is silly in the cases where it really isn't just one more piece, but in this case it really is. They aren't going to be crashing space stations into the ocean very often.
Do you read things before you sign up? And why should they ask for ID before legally required too, you want them to go beyond what the law requires?
Have you read the very same link you sent? Where does it say that while my ID is verified I won't be able to have access to my money? According to that very page, the UK law doesn't require that they limit access to my money.
Show me the regulation that says that they get to keep any money?
You agreed to their terms when you setup the account, including this bit:
"""
4.3. Moneybookers reserves the right to suspend, at any time and at its sole discretion, the Merchant Account (or certain functionalities thereof such as uploading, receiving, sending and/or withdrawing funds) if transactions are made which Moneybookers in its sole discretion deems to be (i) made in breach of this Agreement or (ii) are suspicious with regards to money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud or other illegal activities. Moneybookers will make reasonable efforts to inform the Merchant of any measure unless Moneybookers is prohibited from doing so by law or under an order from a competent court or authority.
"""
If you asked them to transfer money over the required ID theshold and don't provide ID, then it's suspicious with regards to money laundering - after all that's why the ID requirements exist.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006R1781:en:NOT
Where, please? Because I read it and can't find it. In fact, that document says that it's the information of the payer, not the payee, that should be available - and if it isn't, it can either be requested or the transaction be denied. So no, moneybookers doesn't have to keep the money.
It is your account. You are the payer. Hence without your ID they can't process it.
When they money came into you account you were the payee, hence why they didn't need your ID then.
"after you count up all the loopholes and compare how much of their "income" actually gets taxed at the much lower Capital Gains rates, actually pay less in taxes than the middle class do?"
I won't talk rates, I'll talk what's actually paid. Definition: Middle class has a broad definition, but I'll take $30,000-$100,000, which covers the span of most definitions and gives you a large middle class with which to make your argument.
The top 10% of earners, above 114,000, pay 70% of all income taxes. So, no, the middle class pays less than the rich. The lower 50%, below $33,000, pays almost nothing.
Your missing an essential number. Sure 10% of the people pay 70% of the taxes - but that tells me almost nothing useful. I also need to know what percentage of the income that top 10% earn.
I'd say somewhere between 40-50% (but I'm going from old memory). Given the tax system is supposed to be progressive (you mightn't like that, but clearly it is designed to be so) having 45% of the income pay 70% of the taxes doesn't seem unreasonable - especially considering it's including the extreme top end along with that bulk of that 10%.
Short-term capital gains taxes go up with your tax bracket, and the rate is the same. Even if you bought something at $10,000 and a few laters it grew with inflation to $10,500, you still have to pay tax on the $500 even though you technically didn't make any money. Long-term rates are less in order to offset inflation losses and encourage long-term investment that helps the economy over quick flipping.
Obviously the rich are more likely to invest, so I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet to say that top 25% pay almost all capital gains taxes.
The real complaint is the rules that allow hedge fund managers to claim what is clearly income as capital gains. It's not a complaint about capital gains in general.
Said child isn't really in a moving car, it's all faked up to show someone's idea of what they might do if thy could actually get it to work...
The British Transport Police might beg to differ.
You are complaining that they are "stealing" your money even though you haven't given them proof of who you are.
If they want proof of ID, then they should ask for it up front - not when they have money and I have no option. Of course they won't return the money to the sender either.
http://www.moneybookers.com/app/help.pl?s=laundering
Do you read things before you sign up? And why should they ask for ID before legally required too, you want them to go beyond what the law requires?
Unlike PayPal, who you would also be sending your ID to, at a random address, Moneybookers is regulated.
Show me the regulation that says that they get to keep any money?
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006R1781:en:NOT
Your money is sitting in that account because you are a retard, not because they are thieves.
They are thieves. They won't give me my money and they won't give it to the person that sent it. And they demand that I send them a photocopy of a document that can be used to open bank accounts (real ones), apply to loans, and lot of other things. If you think I'm being a retard for not sending them that document, then will, go fuck yourself and send them yours.
They can't give you your money because doing so without documenting your identity is against the law. They can't give it to the person who sent it because that would also be against the law if they don't have your ID on record. They aren't thieves because they haven't kept the money for themselves, it is sitting there waiting for someone to provide the identification the law requires in order to transfer it.
And yes that ID is just what you would need to open a bank account. Which is obvious, since the bank wants the same ID for the exact same reason - the same laws apply to them.