I assumed 'Firecracker' could be any number of things that simulate the sound of gunshots and, most importantly, could be rigged up remotely beforehand. If you can make an IED, you could easily rig up something like this. The guy with the detector says 'We've got gunfire coming from our 3:00!', right as hidden guys at the 9:00 prepare for an ambush. When the guys at 9:00 open fire, the team is now thinking (incorrectly) they are being fired on from multiple directions, and might take cover on the wrong side of cover.
Elaborate, but it is possible, and it follows the Sun Tzu way of warfighting in making your small force appear much larger. If I remember correctly, we (the US) had Navy Seals doing precisely this in Desert Storm to make the Iraqis think we had a large force coming in from the beaches.
Glad to see you speak for all rich people, and your millions are being squandered and wasted so much that you can just part with them. If I had a few million, I'd probably invest it in my startup. If I were to suddenly lose those millions to fund some retarted half-assed social program, I'd have to let them all go.
My problem is that me and my fiance are knocking on the door of being rich and keep getting dragged back down with ridiculously high taxes (Income, Property, Social Security, Sales, Medicare, etc...) for next to no benefit, all the while trying to pay down my student loans. We don't have kids, We won't see a dime of Social Security, and we don't get to use Medicare. Hell, we're taxed over here more than in socialist countries, and at least everyone gets free healthcare (not just those who don't contribute) and tertiary education (I wouldn't have student loans, and then I'd probably actually feel middle-class again). We get roads, crappy telecom infrastructure, and a really big Military, which I was once a part of but am now seeing as increasingly overpriced for all the benefit we get from it.
It also creates a situation whereby the better man (or woman) has to leave office even if they would be a better contender. I seriously think that Bill Clinton could have won against George W. Bush, if only he had been allowed to run.
He lost any goodwill I had for him when he threw all his political weight and 'charisma' behind Obama. And look where we are now. You are correct though - the two party system sucks.
Of course you tax where the money is; that's why we have the highest corporate tax rate of any developed nation and all those associated benefits, right? Please. And the fact that you still think point 2) has any meaning indicates your ignorance of the real world. They don't change based on a percentage; they change based on whatever the fuck the legislature decides to write into law. Today it's (a seemingly endless) war. Tomorrow it's (half-assed and poorly implemented) welfare. And when these ventures start to fail, the next day it's interest on thet debt incurred by the previous failures. Pick your poison.
Yeah, no. Value is arbitrary. Money is worth more than the paper it is printed on, and we give value to labor. If we make it have value, it does. As a software engineer, my job depends on this. And according to what you say, the only way to give value to software is to lock it down so hard that it can't be reproduced instantly, easily, and free, or to just not produce it at all because there is no incentive to do so. I prefer fiat value to that, mostly because I wouldn't have a job otherwise.
Write in moot then for all it matters; just stop voting Democrat / Republican until they stop being idiots or put forward a candidate with a proven track record.
I don't disagree (completely). There is a significant wealth gap. But I disagree that a blanket increase in taxes is any kind of solution under that kind of justification. It's like carpet bombing a city to get at your enemy; you will hurt them, but a lot of others are hurt in the process.
I would be happier to see the barrier to becoming rich lowered; there are a lot of people in the upper-middle class who could become rich should we stop taxing them at nearly a 50% rate (I'm talking total taxes here, not just income tax). The more people become rich, the less influence a small group of elites can wield.
They do pay more. You may have noticed that our tax rate scales higher as you gain more money. Significantly higher. In the end, though, the middle class feels it the most, as people like you waging your own form of class warfare keep deciding that the barrier to 'rich and evil' needs to get lower and lower.
I can't deal with this kind of argument anymore. The term 'rich' gets thrown around and people like you assume that every single person described by that term is an evil white titan of industry hell bent on keeping you poor (you probably do that yourself). It's as if this kind of self-serving logic is set up as a shield from reality to protect the ego, and it prevents any kind of rational discussion from taking place.
Of course he did; he's likely not rich, so what's the problem? Besides, it's not like that higher tax rate for the wealthy might affect hiring or anything.
I like it. I'm not one of these people, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter here, but it runs at least as fast as Chrome on my system and is giving me quite a bit of screen real estate to work with. Having said that, the back button seems cut off by the bookmarks bar, which is really annoying.
Grow up. I suppose you think that logic is acceptable because religion is something you hate. What happens when everyone else starts applying the same, substituting 'religion' with anything they hate?
tlhIngan hit it on the head. I figured they were there for Microsoft and Apple. I just liked screwing with Linux guys who were insisting they were perfectly secure because they used an open source OS.
As I said, I use Linux, so I don't have any axe to grind against open source. I'm just suspicious of pretty much everything.
Back before I used Linux (in college), I made a habit out of making all Linux users paranoid by saying if I were the CIA / FBI / NSA / other TLA, I would worm somebody in as a contributor and do my best to put hidden backdoors into all open source operating systems. I know if I were in any of said agencies and had no respect for privacy, I would.
This is true, but on the other hand, the economy would have collapsed. It's good that he's honest, but it's bad that he's a loony.
"Would" have collapsed? Easy to say, hard to prove. What's easy to prove is right now it's on government (taxpayer funded) life support after it started to collapse.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can skip the fireworks and just shoot at them from two directions.
See above reply to Posting=!Working. Not if you only have enough fighters to cover a single direction.
I assumed 'Firecracker' could be any number of things that simulate the sound of gunshots and, most importantly, could be rigged up remotely beforehand. If you can make an IED, you could easily rig up something like this. The guy with the detector says 'We've got gunfire coming from our 3:00!', right as hidden guys at the 9:00 prepare for an ambush. When the guys at 9:00 open fire, the team is now thinking (incorrectly) they are being fired on from multiple directions, and might take cover on the wrong side of cover.
Elaborate, but it is possible, and it follows the Sun Tzu way of warfighting in making your small force appear much larger. If I remember correctly, we (the US) had Navy Seals doing precisely this in Desert Storm to make the Iraqis think we had a large force coming in from the beaches.
To throw off their gunshot detectors and prep them for an ambush from another direction.
God Damnit, is this really necessary?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/21/psuedo-science-versus-skepticism/.
Be careful with the term, please. Not saying you're wrong, just be careful.
This comment made my morning.
My problem is that me and my fiance are knocking on the door of being rich and keep getting dragged back down with ridiculously high taxes (Income, Property, Social Security, Sales, Medicare, etc...) for next to no benefit, all the while trying to pay down my student loans. We don't have kids, We won't see a dime of Social Security, and we don't get to use Medicare. Hell, we're taxed over here more than in socialist countries, and at least everyone gets free healthcare (not just those who don't contribute) and tertiary education (I wouldn't have student loans, and then I'd probably actually feel middle-class again). We get roads, crappy telecom infrastructure, and a really big Military, which I was once a part of but am now seeing as increasingly overpriced for all the benefit we get from it.
It also creates a situation whereby the better man (or woman) has to leave office even if they would be a better contender. I seriously think that Bill Clinton could have won against George W. Bush, if only he had been allowed to run.
He lost any goodwill I had for him when he threw all his political weight and 'charisma' behind Obama. And look where we are now. You are correct though - the two party system sucks.
What happens if you actually happen to find someone who is doing the country some good? Would it not be better to allow them to stay in power?
Not worth the risk, IMHO. Nobody can hold The Ring for that long and not be corrupted by it.
'not'? Really? We're using that again?
I'm under the impression that even smart people become idiots as soon as they go into politics.
Of course you tax where the money is; that's why we have the highest corporate tax rate of any developed nation and all those associated benefits, right? Please. And the fact that you still think point 2) has any meaning indicates your ignorance of the real world. They don't change based on a percentage; they change based on whatever the fuck the legislature decides to write into law. Today it's (a seemingly endless) war. Tomorrow it's (half-assed and poorly implemented) welfare. And when these ventures start to fail, the next day it's interest on thet debt incurred by the previous failures. Pick your poison.
Yeah, no. Value is arbitrary. Money is worth more than the paper it is printed on, and we give value to labor. If we make it have value, it does. As a software engineer, my job depends on this. And according to what you say, the only way to give value to software is to lock it down so hard that it can't be reproduced instantly, easily, and free, or to just not produce it at all because there is no incentive to do so. I prefer fiat value to that, mostly because I wouldn't have a job otherwise.
Write in moot then for all it matters; just stop voting Democrat / Republican until they stop being idiots or put forward a candidate with a proven track record.
I would be happier to see the barrier to becoming rich lowered; there are a lot of people in the upper-middle class who could become rich should we stop taxing them at nearly a 50% rate (I'm talking total taxes here, not just income tax). The more people become rich, the less influence a small group of elites can wield.
Wealth inequality is killing our country: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
Technically, wealth inequality built this country. The internet just makes it easier for the rest of us to rage about it.
I can't deal with this kind of argument anymore. The term 'rich' gets thrown around and people like you assume that every single person described by that term is an evil white titan of industry hell bent on keeping you poor (you probably do that yourself). It's as if this kind of self-serving logic is set up as a shield from reality to protect the ego, and it prevents any kind of rational discussion from taking place.
Of course he did; he's likely not rich, so what's the problem? Besides, it's not like that higher tax rate for the wealthy might affect hiring or anything.
None of those have GNU in the name.
I like it. I'm not one of these people, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter here, but it runs at least as fast as Chrome on my system and is giving me quite a bit of screen real estate to work with. Having said that, the back button seems cut off by the bookmarks bar, which is really annoying.
Probably the current system, actually.
And now they are powerless to stop it right?
tlhIngan hit it on the head. I figured they were there for Microsoft and Apple. I just liked screwing with Linux guys who were insisting they were perfectly secure because they used an open source OS.
As I said, I use Linux, so I don't have any axe to grind against open source. I'm just suspicious of pretty much everything.
Back before I used Linux (in college), I made a habit out of making all Linux users paranoid by saying if I were the CIA / FBI / NSA / other TLA, I would worm somebody in as a contributor and do my best to put hidden backdoors into all open source operating systems. I know if I were in any of said agencies and had no respect for privacy, I would.
And now we're trying to save the internet so future generations can be exposed to how stupid we were.
This is true, but on the other hand, the economy would have collapsed. It's good that he's honest, but it's bad that he's a loony.
"Would" have collapsed? Easy to say, hard to prove. What's easy to prove is right now it's on government (taxpayer funded) life support after it started to collapse.