Update: Comcast just got back to us reaffirming that it is not the cause of this issue. "We're not blocking PirateBay and reports online indicate users from several ISPs around the world are affected." As we originally mentioned we're seeing those reports too, and many of you in the poll below are showing this isn't necessarily a Comcast-specific thing. So the question remains: what kind of a thing is it?
Another example, though not tech related, is Walter Duranty not noticing the Holomodor. The Times still refuses to give up their pulitzers awarded for his reporting during that period.
The proper canned response to every law enforcement request should be, "My lawyer has advised me not to make any statements without first consulting him." No matter how they phrase their request and no matter how intimidating or benign they may seem, those should be the only words to pass your lips, which should be the only muscles you use during your encounter. If they say they have a right to search something, it can only be done with a warrant, and if they say they have a warrant, ask to see and review the warrant, but say nothing else. If you are smart enough to have a secure phone with a password, under no circumstances can you be required to provide that password.*
* I'm not a lawyer, so ignore everything I just wrote and do not take it to be legal advice, because it isn't.
If you think we can return to the days of humans plowing fields or can even let our technologies stagnate, then you clearly have no idea of what our supply chain looks like nor what the increases in production capacity of food has done to support our increasing population. Your argument still falls flat on its face. You also have no idea what a capitalist is.
It does not matter who came first. If holders of wealth did not reinvest, then everyone would be starving to death as food supplies dwindle from lack of increases in production capacity. Your argument is null and void.
The same logic says those who invest money and own companies are actually subsidizing this country. Without their wealth there would be no growth. If they all just sat on their money there would be nothing for all those kids to do, so people who invest money and own companies should pay no taxes also.
Okay, so 46% of $8400 = $3864. $46,000 - $3864 = $42,136. So only a 42% tax rate, not including sales and excise taxes. I most certainly have an agenda; I don't get my money's worth and I want to pay less. Can you please support your claim that I am using something besides the truth? I have never used any other deduction than the standard deduction because I am not married, have no kids, and do not own a home.
You obviously have some tax write-offs. Kids, house? For those who are single and don't own a home and subsidizing your lifestyle, the very lowest tax bracket is 10%. The rate for $100,000 is 28%. We also have to pay social security and medicare, which comes to 7.6% and our employer has to chip in 7.6%, so that's ~15%. Depending on what state you live in (I'm in California, where most people pay 4-9%), there is state income tax and then some percentage of purchases goes to sales and excise taxes (e.g. gas). So someone in California making $100,000 per year who is single and doesn't own a home pays 28+9+15= 52%, not including sales and excise taxes.
HOA fees are a private contract, so that would be a violation of contract, and I do consider the violation of law that the Federal Government forces upon me. For example, the Federal Government has no right to prohibit drug use; the enforcement of the 16th amendment is completely flawed, and the IRS operates outside the bounds of the Constitution.
I'm not sure you're understanding my argument, so I want to expound:
Among the arguments used for justification of a public policy, that something will have the effect of increasing tax revenue is something I'm generally opposed to. However, if the argument that decriminalizing drugs will increase tax revenue is the one that gets someone to agree it's a good idea, then I'll use it.
If the worst-case scenario occurs where GE decides to produce and distribute drugs, tax revenues will still be increased because others in the supply chain will pay taxes and effectively increase tax revenues over where they were before.
I hate taxation arguments, but I hate victimless crimes (that they are crimes, not the acts) even more. Not commonly discussed is the fact that employees of GE pay taxes, as do their vendors and customers.
What are you talking about? Those guys do a great job at protecting the profits of the cartels! How else could they afford such awesome toys as a submarine?
Art really knew how to entertain - in a way that satisfied both the intellectual who enjoyed the funny-as-hell absurdity of it, and the typical trucker/double-wide type of person who took it all in as if it were gospel. It's a rare man who can do that simultaneously.
I actually place Vince Offer into that same category - somehow he simultaneously mocks and effectively plays the cheesy home improvement show style salesman.
"Stop having a boring tuna. Stop having a boring life."
If I understand those point things correctly, if points are used to purchase something, say, a game, then Microsoft has to pay the developer. So, in a certain sense, it is stealing, and could be a good source of revenue for a developer.
To investors, that's real money to offset production costs as there is very rarely a guarantee of profit. When there is a guarantee, there is also a desire to capitalize as much as possible on the investment. To wring every last drop and make up for all the other losers.
Slashdot Mirror
Use Gutenberg from a different country, such as Australia.
Everyone may be jumping to conclusions:
Update: Comcast just got back to us reaffirming that it is not the cause of this issue. "We're not blocking PirateBay and reports online indicate users from several ISPs around the world are affected." As we originally mentioned we're seeing those reports too, and many of you in the poll below are showing this isn't necessarily a Comcast-specific thing. So the question remains: what kind of a thing is it?
Censorship can only be performed by a government. Comcast is practicing private property rights.
I'm sure this is the last measure that will ever be taken to make the seizing of domains by special interests easier.
And this is a bad thing? I'm sure not approving permits when prices are sky high will get him elected?
Another example, though not tech related, is Walter Duranty not noticing the Holomodor. The Times still refuses to give up their pulitzers awarded for his reporting during that period.
The proper canned response to every law enforcement request should be, "My lawyer has advised me not to make any statements without first consulting him." No matter how they phrase their request and no matter how intimidating or benign they may seem, those should be the only words to pass your lips, which should be the only muscles you use during your encounter. If they say they have a right to search something, it can only be done with a warrant, and if they say they have a warrant, ask to see and review the warrant, but say nothing else. If you are smart enough to have a secure phone with a password, under no circumstances can you be required to provide that password.*
* I'm not a lawyer, so ignore everything I just wrote and do not take it to be legal advice, because it isn't.
If you think we can return to the days of humans plowing fields or can even let our technologies stagnate, then you clearly have no idea of what our supply chain looks like nor what the increases in production capacity of food has done to support our increasing population. Your argument still falls flat on its face. You also have no idea what a capitalist is.
It does not matter who came first. If holders of wealth did not reinvest, then everyone would be starving to death as food supplies dwindle from lack of increases in production capacity. Your argument is null and void.
The same logic says those who invest money and own companies are actually subsidizing this country. Without their wealth there would be no growth. If they all just sat on their money there would be nothing for all those kids to do, so people who invest money and own companies should pay no taxes also.
Your logic is that people would stop having kids without tax breaks? I'm not buying it.
Okay, so 46% of $8400 = $3864. $46,000 - $3864 = $42,136. So only a 42% tax rate, not including sales and excise taxes. I most certainly have an agenda; I don't get my money's worth and I want to pay less. Can you please support your claim that I am using something besides the truth? I have never used any other deduction than the standard deduction because I am not married, have no kids, and do not own a home.
Okay, so 22% instead of 28%. So that's only a 47% tax rate, not including sales and excise taxes.
You obviously have some tax write-offs. Kids, house? For those who are single and don't own a home and subsidizing your lifestyle, the very lowest tax bracket is 10%. The rate for $100,000 is 28%. We also have to pay social security and medicare, which comes to 7.6% and our employer has to chip in 7.6%, so that's ~15%. Depending on what state you live in (I'm in California, where most people pay 4-9%), there is state income tax and then some percentage of purchases goes to sales and excise taxes (e.g. gas). So someone in California making $100,000 per year who is single and doesn't own a home pays 28+9+15= 52%, not including sales and excise taxes.
HOA fees are a private contract, so that would be a violation of contract, and I do consider the violation of law that the Federal Government forces upon me. For example, the Federal Government has no right to prohibit drug use; the enforcement of the 16th amendment is completely flawed, and the IRS operates outside the bounds of the Constitution.
I'm not sure you're understanding my argument, so I want to expound:
Among the arguments used for justification of a public policy, that something will have the effect of increasing tax revenue is something I'm generally opposed to. However, if the argument that decriminalizing drugs will increase tax revenue is the one that gets someone to agree it's a good idea, then I'll use it.
If the worst-case scenario occurs where GE decides to produce and distribute drugs, tax revenues will still be increased because others in the supply chain will pay taxes and effectively increase tax revenues over where they were before.
Victimless crime
I hate taxation arguments, but I hate victimless crimes (that they are crimes, not the acts) even more. Not commonly discussed is the fact that employees of GE pay taxes, as do their vendors and customers.
What are you talking about? Those guys do a great job at protecting the profits of the cartels! How else could they afford such awesome toys as a submarine?
Set spam folder to auto-delete incoming.
Agreed w/ Sibling.
Art really knew how to entertain - in a way that satisfied both the intellectual who enjoyed the funny-as-hell absurdity of it, and the typical trucker/double-wide type of person who took it all in as if it were gospel. It's a rare man who can do that simultaneously.
I actually place Vince Offer into that same category - somehow he simultaneously mocks and effectively plays the cheesy home improvement show style salesman.
"Stop having a boring tuna. Stop having a boring life."
"You're gonna' love my nuts."
"Tacos. Fettuccine. Linguine. Martini. Bikini."
Dude, they're all the same party. Do you see the Democrats making moves to stop any of those goings-on?
If I understand those point things correctly, if points are used to purchase something, say, a game, then Microsoft has to pay the developer. So, in a certain sense, it is stealing, and could be a good source of revenue for a developer.
Better movie != profit.
...by a few million.
To investors, that's real money to offset production costs as there is very rarely a guarantee of profit. When there is a guarantee, there is also a desire to capitalize as much as possible on the investment. To wring every last drop and make up for all the other losers.
Product placements reduce the cost to make a film, thus allowing for a larger production budget.