Incorrect. Debt and taxing makes currency have very real value.
Try googling "Zimbabwe" or "Weimar republic."
Yes, it is possible to make money have no market value by creating a massive oversupply via printing. That has nothing to do with intrinsic value though. All goods is vulnerable to that. It is just not very often that you see 10 billion tons of rice materializing on the country side.
Broken window fallacy implies lack of choice and/or value in loss.
Thanks for demonstrating so clearly why people so easily fall for the broken window fallacy. Even if you know what it is about, it is useless if you aren't able to see the loss.
In the original broken window fallacy, the loss was the time and resources the window maker had to spend, building a window for the shopkeeper, instead of building something more productive for him.
In the above case, the loss was the time and resources the boat builders had to spend, building a yacht for the leech instead of building something more productive for the original owners of the money before they were leeched.
know from personal experience 99.999% of WoW players are morons and whiners who stand in fire and cry about gearscore and dps charts, so statistically you would probably be a terrible employee.
Congratulations. You are statistically a terrible employee.
Umm. The AC is plain wrong. If you are comparing two equal length strings (as with hashed values) and expect the result to be true most of the time (as with user supplied passwords), then the secure comparison is faster than the unsecure variation.
The reason for this is simple. A secure comparison is implemented using only logical operators, while the unsecure variation requires a conditional jump for the early break condition.
False. Evidence does not become inadmissible in Sweden just because they were illegally obtained.
TPB could even sue for that
False. Hacking a site would be a criminal offense. Suing would be a civil matter. TPB could report it to the police who could than proceed with an investigation.
TROLL!!! I've already provided the top tax rate, which is 35%. No other income pays nearly as much. Since you keep on making things up
The SS part of the Payroll tax is capped at a max of $106,800 taxable income currently. If you earn above that, it is regressive. Further:
www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf
Seriously, the federal income tax is a red herring, and as I originally pointed out, one of the main ways to get rich to pay their fair share to the country, whereas other taxes hits the middle class and poor harder.
In the end, the rich do end up paying a slightly higher percentage than the average American, but the difference is not very large. And without a federal income tax it would be completely tipped around, as it removes the one really progressive tax keeping the system in check.
but the evolution that teaches that sperm whales and butterflies evolved from the same single celled organism.
Sperm whales share quite a bit of genetic code with butterflies. Ok, I havn't checked those specific two species, but more than a few species have been checked in this manner as one way to trying to verify/falsify the claims of evolutionary theory. The closer species are according to fossile content, the closer they are in genetic content. Seriously, that is as basic as it goes.
You see I believe
And I believed the all mighty Santa Claus flies around the world with his raindeers every christmas and hands out christmas presents to those who are nice. Well, at least I did until I was four or five.
He has given us a clear set of guidlines
Ok, that one actually got a laugh from me.
Are you seriously talking about the set of guidelines that has spawned a multitude of sub religions disagreeing with the interpetation of those guidelines, and that are interpeted completely different nowadays than they were 2000 years ago.
Works like this: You are in a burning building and I tell you that all the ways out are blocked except for one. You don't like that answer because you are a smart guy and there must be more than one way and I'm being completely intolerant of your belief that there is more than one way out. So you don't take the exit that leads to safety...
More like this: You are in a burning building and think the way out is through a 5 centimeter hole in the back and I tell you that you can't get through that hole but that the exit is over there. You don't like that answer because you are a believer and there must be a way through that hole or god wouldn't have shown it to you. So you don't take the exit that leads to safety...
Nothing wrong with questions. Questions are good. Discounting any answers that don't fit in your "view of the universe" doesn't seem to fit you either.
Discounting answers that plain doesn't make sense does. Beings, wether werewolfs, gods or flying spaghetti monsters require extraordinary proof. The more specific the details surrounding the being, the more proof is required.
Now I think the REAL question comes down to this hypothetical question: If God came to you right now and convinced you that I'm correct, how could you possibly document it so that it could be shared with others? The only "proof" is your word and others belief in what you say.
And why should they unless they are complete morons.
Why don't you believe all of the religious texts out there, not just those from your religion. You obviously should, if you are following that philosophy, as all those religious texts obviously are written by people who some god has talked to.
Again HAHA!!! The more you earn the higher your income tax, and that includes payroll taxes.
Plain wrong. The payroll tax is capped, meaning that it will present itself to be a lower percentage for high earners.
The more you spend the higher you pay in stales tax.
And again, the poor spend a higher percentage of their income.
If you don't know about economics perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on how things should be.
You should listen to your own advice. Recommending the government to aim for economics that by definition isn't sustainable is plain stupid. This whole mess we are in right now is exactly becuase of the unsustainability of the situation. Get to big of a percentage of all wealth in the hands of a few and your economy collapses. One of the basic rules.
Are you saying the government is better at investing than the rich?
I thought it was well known that raising margin income and business profit taxes doesn't actually increase the amount of money taxed as much as it changes the behavior of those making decisions in businesses. So, no, what I am saying is that rich people under such taxes tend to make investment decisions that far better benefit the society in general.
Now, governments can indeed be better than the rich at investing for some types of investing where the benefits go beyond profit motives. But there can huge differencies in efficiency between different governments. Governments that implement flawed trickle down theories tend to be quite inefficient and corrupt for example.
Of course they do. Because it is the only fucking way we can get the rich to pay any type of tax that has some kind of relation to how much they are benefiting from having a society.
Meanwhile the poor pay payroll taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state taxes and more, all while the rich laughs at them for being so docile and obedient.
You are backing up your "rightfully-owned" property by force. Because in reality it isn't your property at all, but the property of the society you live in.
The problem on our side is that as a member of the WTO, we can't impose tariffs on imports - including importing work that takes place overseas. Doing so will not last a month until it is repealed
Impose a balance tax. Only the bigger out of Imports and Exports are taxed and only in aggregate over all products. The key here is that it must affect every single product, no exceptions. And it can't target a specific country, but should be aggregate of all countries. WTO has a lot of power, but it mainly lies in preventing countries from targeting specific countries or products with tariffs.
n those days, fiscal conservation actually happened. The wealthy who reaped the benefits off of labors backs paid back and the nation built highways, dams [Eisenhower screwed up by not making rails first and highways second, but that's a separate issue], power grid expansions, etc.
Which isn't very strange. When high incomes and big corporate profits are taxed heavily, money tends to get reinvested instead of taken out as profit for the rich.
Well, as long as you tighten the tax holes that allow money to escape abroad instead.
Like a said earlier, this is God's universe so we play by His rules not ours.
Circular reasoning detected.
Sorry, while there exists like Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis who actually fall for this kind of flawed "reasoning", I actually have a fairly firm grasp of logic. You can't use the assumption that God exists as an argument to argue for the belief in the existance of God.
If you use this same logic on all other knowledge that you "believe" you possess, you would find that you would not be able to be sure about anything that you didn't personally observe. All history would be discounted (not sure I can trust the historical writers and I can think of a bunch of alternative histories that I like better). All science would be discounted (I don't trust the scientists and much of what they tell me is so far fetched it is virtually impossible to believe). This approach would guarantee confusion because there are an infinite number of alternate (and false) histories or scientific theories that can be fabricated.
Thanks for proving to the audience that you don't understand science at all, because science works pretty much exactly like that. Historical writers aren't trusted, nor are scientists. This is why science is based is based on repeatable observation, so you don't need to trust the scientist. Historical science doesn't have the same ability to repeat observations, but can simulate it fairly well by using accounts from multiple people.
Note specifically that one of the more common failure in science is exactly to trust something too much, when it later on proves out to have been falsified or incorrectly demonstrated.
And no, false ideas don't cause much confusion since such theories have to match into the framework that is observable reality, and a general application of Occam's Razor can be used to discard theories that try to fit reality by using lots of special case scenarios. Also, good ideas in science should be put in such a way that they can be falsified. Strong ideas stand by the failure to falsify them.
And here is the fun part. As we can't observe God, we do have a rather wide net of possible assumptions that could be made. Hence, questioning your assumptions about who God would send to hell is completely valid, as there is nothing special about your assumptions that makes it hold true, and so you can use Occum's Razor.
If they are wrong, it doesn't matter. If you are wrong, you spend eternity in Hell. There are no merits that will get you judged "Holy"
Oh yeah, the bullshit Pascal's Wager again. Generally, most people argue against this on the basis of actually believing having a cost in itself, which indeed is one way to argue.
Personally, I think that it is better to attack the argument far closer to the core. The main flaw in the argument is that it tries to use the Christian God as a template for all possible gods that could exists, which is plain wrong.
Specifically, it only considers one of three subsets of gods, the type that would punish you for not believing in him. In reality, there is also the possibility of a god that only would punish you if you believed in another god. And finally the god that don't punish you based on your beliefs.
Including all types of gods and you'll notice that the "You'll go to hell if you don't believe in my god" argument is plain invalid. You run just as big of a risk going to hell just by believing in the wrong god instead of not believing at all.
If you fail to see the point of the grandparents post in this discussion, then you are a either willfully ignorant or a moron. From your other posts on slashdot, I see that it is most likely the former.
How is it his problem? he is get the goods he wants. Doesn't look like his problem.
But people like you simply can't grasp the concept of providing an actual good service. And that is why you need the government to hold the guns for you.
If he's a boy, he could have been born any day except Tuesday. (Otherwise this case would already have been counted in the first scenario: the older child a boy born on Tuesday). This second scenario generates just six, rather than seven, more possibilities.
You should read the article closer. What the above says is that you can't double count a specific permutation. In an evenly distributed random selection of 196 sibling pairs, you will have only one pair that is "Male TuesDay - Male TuesDay" while you will have two pairs that are "Male TuesDay - Male Wednesday. And that is where intuition fails in certain types of questions.
Slashdot Mirror
money is only worth what people agree it is
Incorrect. Debt and taxing makes currency have very real value.
Try googling "Zimbabwe" or "Weimar republic."
Yes, it is possible to make money have no market value by creating a massive oversupply via printing. That has nothing to do with intrinsic value though. All goods is vulnerable to that. It is just not very often that you see 10 billion tons of rice materializing on the country side.
Broken window fallacy implies lack of choice and/or value in loss.
Thanks for demonstrating so clearly why people so easily fall for the broken window fallacy. Even if you know what it is about, it is useless if you aren't able to see the loss.
In the original broken window fallacy, the loss was the time and resources the window maker had to spend, building a window for the shopkeeper, instead of building something more productive for him.
In the above case, the loss was the time and resources the boat builders had to spend, building a yacht for the leech instead of building something more productive for the original owners of the money before they were leeched.
No, they are not "sucking money out of the system". They are CIRCULATING money in the system.
No. They are consuming a greater share of the resources in the system.
Economics 101: Money has no intrinsic value
Actually, contrary to popular propagande, money does have intrinsic value as you can use it to pay debts, be it private debt or government taxes.
Assume that our uber-bloodsucker takes down a few million and buys a yacht. Guess what? He's paying the salaries for the people who build that yacht,
Broken window fallacy. Seriously, do people actually fall for that kind of flawed reasoning.
So why are connections so slow?
Because capitalism is about profit, not efficiency. Don't ever believe otherwise.
know from personal experience 99.999% of WoW players are morons and whiners who stand in fire and cry about gearscore and dps charts, so statistically you would probably be a terrible employee.
Congratulations. You are statistically a terrible employee.
In my case, that fraction is 60% (25Mbps down, 15Mbps up).
60% is not a fraction. The largest possible fraction is 1/2, followed by 1/3, 1/4 and so on.
Umm. The AC is plain wrong. If you are comparing two equal length strings (as with hashed values) and expect the result to be true most of the time (as with user supplied passwords), then the secure comparison is faster than the unsecure variation.
The reason for this is simple. A secure comparison is implemented using only logical operators, while the unsecure variation requires a conditional jump for the early break condition.
Because that'd be illegal
True.
and the evidence inadmissible in cour
False. Evidence does not become inadmissible in Sweden just because they were illegally obtained.
TPB could even sue for that
False. Hacking a site would be a criminal offense. Suing would be a civil matter. TPB could report it to the police who could than proceed with an investigation.
and the employees jailed.
True.
TROLL!!! I've already provided the top tax rate, which is 35%. No other income pays nearly as much. Since you keep on making things up
The SS part of the Payroll tax is capped at a max of $106,800 taxable income currently. If you earn above that, it is regressive. Further:
www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf
Seriously, the federal income tax is a red herring, and as I originally pointed out, one of the main ways to get rich to pay their fair share to the country, whereas other taxes hits the middle class and poor harder.
In the end, the rich do end up paying a slightly higher percentage than the average American, but the difference is not very large. And without a federal income tax it would be completely tipped around, as it removes the one really progressive tax keeping the system in check.
but the evolution that teaches that sperm whales and butterflies evolved from the same single celled organism.
Sperm whales share quite a bit of genetic code with butterflies. Ok, I havn't checked those specific two species, but more than a few species have been checked in this manner as one way to trying to verify/falsify the claims of evolutionary theory. The closer species are according to fossile content, the closer they are in genetic content. Seriously, that is as basic as it goes.
You see I believe
And I believed the all mighty Santa Claus flies around the world with his raindeers every christmas and hands out christmas presents to those who are nice. Well, at least I did until I was four or five.
He has given us a clear set of guidlines
Ok, that one actually got a laugh from me.
Are you seriously talking about the set of guidelines that has spawned a multitude of sub religions disagreeing with the interpetation of those guidelines, and that are interpeted completely different nowadays than they were 2000 years ago.
Works like this: You are in a burning building and I tell you that all the ways out are blocked except for one. You don't like that answer because you are a smart guy and there must be more than one way and I'm being completely intolerant of your belief that there is more than one way out. So you don't take the exit that leads to safety...
More like this: You are in a burning building and think the way out is through a 5 centimeter hole in the back and I tell you that you can't get through that hole but that the exit is over there. You don't like that answer because you are a believer and there must be a way through that hole or god wouldn't have shown it to you. So you don't take the exit that leads to safety...
Nothing wrong with questions. Questions are good. Discounting any answers that don't fit in your "view of the universe" doesn't seem to fit you either.
Discounting answers that plain doesn't make sense does. Beings, wether werewolfs, gods or flying spaghetti monsters require extraordinary proof. The more specific the details surrounding the being, the more proof is required.
Now I think the REAL question comes down to this hypothetical question: If God came to you right now and convinced you that I'm correct, how could you possibly document it so that it could be shared with others? The only "proof" is your word and others belief in what you say.
And why should they unless they are complete morons.
Why don't you believe all of the religious texts out there, not just those from your religion. You obviously should, if you are following that philosophy, as all those religious texts obviously are written by people who some god has talked to.
Again HAHA!!! The more you earn the higher your income tax, and that includes payroll taxes.
Plain wrong. The payroll tax is capped, meaning that it will present itself to be a lower percentage for high earners.
The more you spend the higher you pay in stales tax.
And again, the poor spend a higher percentage of their income.
If you don't know about economics perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on how things should be.
You should listen to your own advice. Recommending the government to aim for economics that by definition isn't sustainable is plain stupid. This whole mess we are in right now is exactly becuase of the unsustainability of the situation. Get to big of a percentage of all wealth in the hands of a few and your economy collapses. One of the basic rules.
I want tabs arranged vertically. Period. Can't get that with Opera as far as I know
Strange since I have been having my tabs arranged vertically in opera since I got a widescreen monitor.
Let me see. Right click on the tab bar, placement left.
Are you saying the government is better at investing than the rich?
I thought it was well known that raising margin income and business profit taxes doesn't actually increase the amount of money taxed as much as it changes the behavior of those making decisions in businesses. So, no, what I am saying is that rich people under such taxes tend to make investment decisions that far better benefit the society in general.
Now, governments can indeed be better than the rich at investing for some types of investing where the benefits go beyond profit motives. But there can huge differencies in efficiency between different governments. Governments that implement flawed trickle down theories tend to be quite inefficient and corrupt for example.
If they are idiots
That we already know for a fact. So I guess you concur with the grandparent.
The Top 1% Pay More Income Tax Than Bottom 90%
Of course they do. Because it is the only fucking way we can get the rich to pay any type of tax that has some kind of relation to how much they are benefiting from having a society.
Meanwhile the poor pay payroll taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state taxes and more, all while the rich laughs at them for being so docile and obedient.
You are backing up your "rightfully-owned" property by force. Because in reality it isn't your property at all, but the property of the society you live in.
The problem on our side is that as a member of the WTO, we can't impose tariffs on imports - including importing work that takes place overseas. Doing so will not last a month until it is repealed
Impose a balance tax. Only the bigger out of Imports and Exports are taxed and only in aggregate over all products. The key here is that it must affect every single product, no exceptions. And it can't target a specific country, but should be aggregate of all countries. WTO has a lot of power, but it mainly lies in preventing countries from targeting specific countries or products with tariffs.
n those days, fiscal conservation actually happened. The wealthy who reaped the benefits off of labors backs paid back and the nation built highways, dams [Eisenhower screwed up by not making rails first and highways second, but that's a separate issue], power grid expansions, etc.
Which isn't very strange. When high incomes and big corporate profits are taxed heavily, money tends to get reinvested instead of taken out as profit for the rich.
Well, as long as you tighten the tax holes that allow money to escape abroad instead.
Use your intellect to investigate God's plan for humankind and you won't need to "trust your gut",
lol
I am just happy to have an intellect, because you obviously don't.
Like a said earlier, this is God's universe so we play by His rules not ours.
Circular reasoning detected.
Sorry, while there exists like Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis who actually fall for this kind of flawed "reasoning", I actually have a fairly firm grasp of logic. You can't use the assumption that God exists as an argument to argue for the belief in the existance of God.
If you use this same logic on all other knowledge that you "believe" you possess, you would find that you would not be able to be sure about anything that you didn't personally observe. All history would be discounted (not sure I can trust the historical writers and I can think of a bunch of alternative histories that I like better). All science would be discounted (I don't trust the scientists and much of what they tell me is so far fetched it is virtually impossible to believe). This approach would guarantee confusion because there are an infinite number of alternate (and false) histories or scientific theories that can be fabricated.
Thanks for proving to the audience that you don't understand science at all, because science works pretty much exactly like that. Historical writers aren't trusted, nor are scientists. This is why science is based is based on repeatable observation, so you don't need to trust the scientist. Historical science doesn't have the same ability to repeat observations, but can simulate it fairly well by using accounts from multiple people.
Note specifically that one of the more common failure in science is exactly to trust something too much, when it later on proves out to have been falsified or incorrectly demonstrated.
And no, false ideas don't cause much confusion since such theories have to match into the framework that is observable reality, and a general application of Occam's Razor can be used to discard theories that try to fit reality by using lots of special case scenarios. Also, good ideas in science should be put in such a way that they can be falsified. Strong ideas stand by the failure to falsify them.
And here is the fun part. As we can't observe God, we do have a rather wide net of possible assumptions that could be made. Hence, questioning your assumptions about who God would send to hell is completely valid, as there is nothing special about your assumptions that makes it hold true, and so you can use Occum's Razor.
If they are wrong, it doesn't matter. If you are wrong, you spend eternity in Hell. There are no merits that will get you judged "Holy"
Oh yeah, the bullshit Pascal's Wager again. Generally, most people argue against this on the basis of actually believing having a cost in itself, which indeed is one way to argue.
Personally, I think that it is better to attack the argument far closer to the core. The main flaw in the argument is that it tries to use the Christian God as a template for all possible gods that could exists, which is plain wrong.
Specifically, it only considers one of three subsets of gods, the type that would punish you for not believing in him. In reality, there is also the possibility of a god that only would punish you if you believed in another god. And finally the god that don't punish you based on your beliefs.
Including all types of gods and you'll notice that the "You'll go to hell if you don't believe in my god" argument is plain invalid. You run just as big of a risk going to hell just by believing in the wrong god instead of not believing at all.
If you fail to see the point of the grandparents post in this discussion, then you are a either willfully ignorant or a moron. From your other posts on slashdot, I see that it is most likely the former.
Sounds more like your problem than theirs.
How is it his problem? he is get the goods he wants. Doesn't look like his problem.
But people like you simply can't grasp the concept of providing an actual good service. And that is why you need the government to hold the guns for you.
If he's a boy, he could have been born any day except Tuesday. (Otherwise this case would already have been counted in the first scenario: the older child a boy born on Tuesday). This second scenario generates just six, rather than seven, more possibilities.
You should read the article closer. What the above says is that you can't double count a specific permutation. In an evenly distributed random selection of 196 sibling pairs, you will have only one pair that is "Male TuesDay - Male TuesDay" while you will have two pairs that are "Male TuesDay - Male Wednesday. And that is where intuition fails in certain types of questions.
He makes the assumption that only one was a boy born on Tuesday.
No he doesn't 13/27 includes the possibility of two boys being born on a tuesday.