I'm surprised that you don't want to give money to the teachers that teach our youth.
I would love to do that. Too bad I don't have that level of control. Instead when the ballot says they want to raise the tax to pay "for schools", I have no way to make sure that money is going to go to books, supplies, and teachers instead of to bloated administration, and sports. Given where I live the latter are more likely too.
I'm for flat, but I'm also for a single standard deduction by geography.
It's wrong to tax the money that people need to survive. So calculate the cost of living in their region, and that is their deduction. All other income is taxed at a flat rate.
Holy crap. The hypocracy is so thick in your post that you can't even cut it with a knife.
My concern is for the welfare of the system. It seems like yours is too, but you advocate undermining the system to save it. Good luck with that.
Whose justice is being served by this felony investigation?
Certainly we have to wait for the outcome to know that. You've totally moved on to another argument that I'm not making though. I was suggesting a way this guy could have avoided the situation he is in right now, not that the system is working. If he had at least made a show of attempting to play by the rules, do you think the people prosecuting him would have risked the embarrasment? In a trial now, it comes out that he went to the media with stolen documents, and *he* looks bad. If he had made even the most basic attempt of going to the authorities *before* he went to the media, what comes out in trial is that said authorites didn't do their job properly in the first place, and *they* look bad. See the difference?
There seems to be a logical disconnect somewhere in your comment. What are you trying to say?
If I assume that you're saying that 'punish' was the wrong word, to that I would say that a tax doesn't need to be progressive to cause the rich to pay more than those who aren't rich.
Or should I say that you misspelled "pay disproportionatly more for those benefits"?
Had she gone to the media instead, she probably would have been slapped with a slander suit, and had to pay to defend herself. After all that, she may not have won a wrongful dismissal suit.
Nothing getting changed is a problem with the suit... Did she sue to get things changed, but the judge denied that part of the request, or did she just sue for damages?
The media can't prosecute. The only reason to go to the media is if the normal channels fail, or if you want to damage somebody's image. Appealing to the public without even an attempt for due process denies the possibility of proper justice.
The ones who already knew about the cockup and would look bad/stupid when it came out? The ones who made the deal with Diebold? The ones who will have to do all that work all over again when this comes out?
The ones in the blue uniforms, unassociated with election officials, and looking for good press to get a promotion/job in a better city?
The Tribune actually published the story rather than burying it under a new concrete floor in the third under-basement of the courthouse.
Send it anoymously to the cops, and if that doesn't work, *then* go to the papers. At least that way you can say you *tried* to do the right thing first.
The whistle-blower turned over the memos to the Oakland Tribune
There's something seriously fucked with our public trust in this country. Why would this guy take this stuff to the media instead of the appropriate government authorities? Shouldn't he at least have tried to go through official channels first? It's not like the 'media' option would have gone away had those attempts failed.
There are plenty of ways he could have accomplished all the same things without breaking the law.
The tax code is that way because the rich and powerful and the corporations have lobbied the congress to make it that way. This way they can game system.
Sure, rich, powerful corporations want to game the individual income tax system...
The real reason the tax code got the way it is, is because we have a congress made up of lots of people, and some of them want to use taxes to influence behavior, others want to use taxes to redistribute wealth, and yet others want to be able to point to a narrowly focused tax credit and tell their constituants they got it for them.
The PS2 launch wasn't without it's problems, but they still had more hardware available on the first day than the 360 has had available in the first four months. You con't really compare the two launches in any meaningful way.
One was a eventful, bumpy success, and the other was a total disaster.
This whole 'battle' between the formats is rediculous. Both formats have evolved to the point where players well end up supporting both, and some movies will be on BluRay while others will be on HD-DVD. Neither are going to 'fail', because the discs for both formats will ship with a DVD compatable layer on them, and will play at standard resolution in normal DVD players.
The 'battle' was over months ago, and now there is all sorts of mis-speculation in order to give these stupid analysts and reporters something to print. Notice all the stories these days aren't " makes the following technology mistake" anymore, and have all become "Will succeed at ?" or "Look at how this other format failed in the past" or "Analysts all disagree how much these things cost to make. Here's a list of all the most expensive predictions."
First of all, the About.com article has some glaring inaccuracies, specifically on the BluRay side of things. I'm not sure how long ago it was written. It could be that it's just horribly out of date... BD-ROM has been altered from the original specs to be more friendly to duplication facilites that already support DVD. The caddy has been eliminated, and the format has been tweaked so there can be a DVD compatable layer and a BD-ROM layer on the same disc, much like what you can do with HD-DVD.
Most of the differences between the formats at this point come during the manufacture of the discs, and during the processing of the bits. The lens, servos, laser, and all of the mechanicals - if built to BluRay specs - should be able to read HD-DVD as well. The part that allows the higher bit density on BD-ROM isn't the drive so much as what the surface of the disc is made out of. The expensive portion of the drive (and I say drive here because I don't mean a whole player with the bits to decode the compressed video and generate the digital or analog video signals) is the laser, and that component is the same for both formats.
The period of time during which drives can only read one of the two formats will be very short.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your system would work fine. I just don't think you could sell it to voters.
Gates indicated that the device should have an 'all-day' battery life, weigh less than a pound and cost between $500 and $800.
It only took them three tries to see the obvious faults in their tablet designs. Bravo!
If it does what they say, sign me up.
I'm surprised that you don't want to give money to the teachers that teach our youth.
I would love to do that. Too bad I don't have that level of control. Instead when the ballot says they want to raise the tax to pay "for schools", I have no way to make sure that money is going to go to books, supplies, and teachers instead of to bloated administration, and sports. Given where I live the latter are more likely too.
I wouldn't.
Under your scheme, you're hardly making the rich pay more if you don't though.
I'm for flat, but I'm also for a single standard deduction by geography.
It's wrong to tax the money that people need to survive. So calculate the cost of living in their region, and that is their deduction. All other income is taxed at a flat rate.
Holy crap. The hypocracy is so thick in your post that you can't even cut it with a knife.
My concern is for the welfare of the system. It seems like yours is too, but you advocate undermining the system to save it. Good luck with that.
Whose justice is being served by this felony investigation?
Certainly we have to wait for the outcome to know that. You've totally moved on to another argument that I'm not making though. I was suggesting a way this guy could have avoided the situation he is in right now, not that the system is working. If he had at least made a show of attempting to play by the rules, do you think the people prosecuting him would have risked the embarrasment? In a trial now, it comes out that he went to the media with stolen documents, and *he* looks bad. If he had made even the most basic attempt of going to the authorities *before* he went to the media, what comes out in trial is that said authorites didn't do their job properly in the first place, and *they* look bad. See the difference?
There seems to be a logical disconnect somewhere in your comment. What are you trying to say?
If I assume that you're saying that 'punish' was the wrong word, to that I would say that a tax doesn't need to be progressive to cause the rich to pay more than those who aren't rich.
Or should I say that you misspelled "pay disproportionatly more for those benefits"?
The funny thing is that most of those all said the same thing... "May delay in Japan, no delay in North America"...
Nobody actually reads the details though... Hell, most of the sites parroting the statement didn't bother to include all the information.
With your real name attached?
Not unless you're crazy. Who said anything about that part?
And the alternative would have been?
Had she gone to the media instead, she probably would have been slapped with a slander suit, and had to pay to defend herself. After all that, she may not have won a wrongful dismissal suit.
Nothing getting changed is a problem with the suit... Did she sue to get things changed, but the judge denied that part of the request, or did she just sue for damages?
The media can't prosecute. The only reason to go to the media is if the normal channels fail, or if you want to damage somebody's image. Appealing to the public without even an attempt for due process denies the possibility of proper justice.
Those are the right ones... It's the simultanious part that is the problem.
we're not outside the chain of command of government, we're at the top of it
Just under the law.
That being the case though, there's no issue here whatsoever, right? He just needs to answer to a jury.
No injustice either way, but the way I suggested doesn't require paying a defence lawyer.
They can be "progressive", if you add in an offset matched to the poverty level
That doesn't work, because you can't force rich people to spend all their money.
The ones who already knew about the cockup and would look bad/stupid when it came out? The ones who made the deal with Diebold? The ones who will have to do all that work all over again when this comes out?
The ones in the blue uniforms, unassociated with election officials, and looking for good press to get a promotion/job in a better city?
The Tribune actually published the story rather than burying it under a new concrete floor in the third under-basement of the courthouse.
Send it anoymously to the cops, and if that doesn't work, *then* go to the papers. At least that way you can say you *tried* to do the right thing first.
The whistle-blower turned over the memos to the Oakland Tribune
There's something seriously fucked with our public trust in this country. Why would this guy take this stuff to the media instead of the appropriate government authorities? Shouldn't he at least have tried to go through official channels first? It's not like the 'media' option would have gone away had those attempts failed.
There are plenty of ways he could have accomplished all the same things without breaking the law.
Seriously, it wasn't funny back in 1987
Yes it was!
Press ESC twice for the BBS, or Alt-Q for an IQ test.
The tax code is that way because the rich and powerful and the corporations have lobbied the congress to make it that way. This way they can game system.
Sure, rich, powerful corporations want to game the individual income tax system...
The real reason the tax code got the way it is, is because we have a congress made up of lots of people, and some of them want to use taxes to influence behavior, others want to use taxes to redistribute wealth, and yet others want to be able to point to a narrowly focused tax credit and tell their constituants they got it for them.
- use sales taxes *rather than* income taxes
Hah! Good luck. Sales taxes aren't progressive. You can't sell a tax to the public unless it punishes the rich.
You may have less of a wait for the 360... Everything about it is mirroring Dreamcast.
The PS2 launch wasn't without it's problems, but they still had more hardware available on the first day than the 360 has had available in the first four months. You con't really compare the two launches in any meaningful way.
One was a eventful, bumpy success, and the other was a total disaster.
Why hasn't anyone implement fast fixed-point arithmetic in hardware?\
Everyone implements fast integer math in hardware. Why do you think people use SPECInt to make their hardware look good?
This whole 'battle' between the formats is rediculous. Both formats have evolved to the point where players well end up supporting both, and some movies will be on BluRay while others will be on HD-DVD. Neither are going to 'fail', because the discs for both formats will ship with a DVD compatable layer on them, and will play at standard resolution in normal DVD players.
The 'battle' was over months ago, and now there is all sorts of mis-speculation in order to give these stupid analysts and reporters something to print. Notice all the stories these days aren't " makes the following technology mistake" anymore, and have all become "Will succeed at ?" or "Look at how this other format failed in the past" or "Analysts all disagree how much these things cost to make. Here's a list of all the most expensive predictions."
There is no story here.
Simple. The DRM on BluRay and HD-DVD is worse than the DRM on DVD.
First of all, the About.com article has some glaring inaccuracies, specifically on the BluRay side of things. I'm not sure how long ago it was written. It could be that it's just horribly out of date... BD-ROM has been altered from the original specs to be more friendly to duplication facilites that already support DVD. The caddy has been eliminated, and the format has been tweaked so there can be a DVD compatable layer and a BD-ROM layer on the same disc, much like what you can do with HD-DVD.
Most of the differences between the formats at this point come during the manufacture of the discs, and during the processing of the bits. The lens, servos, laser, and all of the mechanicals - if built to BluRay specs - should be able to read HD-DVD as well. The part that allows the higher bit density on BD-ROM isn't the drive so much as what the surface of the disc is made out of. The expensive portion of the drive (and I say drive here because I don't mean a whole player with the bits to decode the compressed video and generate the digital or analog video signals) is the laser, and that component is the same for both formats.
The period of time during which drives can only read one of the two formats will be very short.