Suppose you are the original author, and I want to modify and distribute my derivitave work, which is based on your work.
I have no right to do so, unless I accept the original authors (your) license (the GPL).
So, I make my derivitave work - and a third party wants to make yet another derivitave work, based on my derivitave work.
They have no right to do so, unless they accept the terms of the license...
It doesn't matter one bit whether there is a bilateral agreement or not - I can either accept the terms of the license, which require any distribution of the derivitave work to abide by the terms of the original license - in which case, I'm giving my consent, as a derivitave author, in *exactly the same way the original author is*, or I can go off and write my own code and not use yours, or, alternatively, I can attempt to negotiate other terms with you.
If I go the first route, someone who wants to distribute a derivitave of my derivitave of your code does *not* have to talk to either of us about it if he wants to go the first route as well. Both you and I have already consented to that. However, if he wanted to negotiate other terms, he would have to negotiate with both of us - because my derivitave is copyrighted by both of us - the portions that you wrote by you, and the portions that I wrote by me.
Needless to say after the second midterm a student went from a perfect score to only one out of fifteen correct.
I never went to college.
However, in high school, my history teacher noticed that a good proportion of the answers given on tests were highly correlated - not exact, per se, but suspiciously close to the exact same answers.
He made up seven different versions of the test, and ensured that the answer key for any version was different enough from the others to cause dramatic test failures in the case of copying. (multiple choice, 5 options, 30 questions - plenty of combinations).
That test, about six to ten people, people, all in a rough blob behind and to the right of me, failed.
I was oblivious to the fact that they were copying me, but it was pretty funny - he'd given me one version of the test and every one else a different version. After that I got rather paranoid about making sure my answers weren't visible to others.
Only one definition of grant is synonymous with acknowledge.
What is your basis for concluding that the definition of grant you give is the appropriate definition in the context?
Given the known definitions of grant, the statement 'The government grants rights' can mean wildly different things. To simply assert that one definition is the correct one without having a basis is cherry-picking a definition for an argument. I do not know that you are doing that, this is why I am asking what your basis for concluding the given definition of grant is the appropriate definition.
This is a misconception. Even if you are just barely in the next highest tax bracket you will never lose 100% of the money that is in that highest bracket so it is impossible to end up with less than you would have had if you were still entirely in the lower bracket.
Given the tax table at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf, if I am single, and my taxable income is $29,699, my tax from the table would be $4,156.
Say that my income, and thus my taxable income, rises $2, to $29,701. My tax from the table becomes $4,169.
Note that I would then be paying $13 more in taxes for a $2 taxable income change.
Sure, it's $11 less spending power, it isn't a lot, but given that it took me 30 seconds to find one example, and given the complexity of tax law, are you so sure there aren't others that are more significant?
We aren't talking about a casual visitor, we're talking about somebody who is in the city 5 days/week, 52 weeks per year, for his job.
No, we're talking about someone who lives in Tennessee, who only spent 25% of his work time in New York and paid NY tax on 25% of his income.
However, the ruling, as given, states that NY can tax 100% of his income even if he never sets foot in New York State.
You're saying that he can move to New York, and therefore, it's not taxation without representation. By that logic, any democratic governmental entity can tax anyone anywhere, and it's not 'taxation without representation' because they have the option to move there, and vote.
He is being taxed by the state of New York. He cannot vote in New York because he is not a resident of New York. That is taxation without representation - the fact that he has the option to uproot his life to get representation changes the situation not one whit.
How can you apply the theory to a real problem if you don't yet know the theory?
It would seem to me that applying a technique without fully understanding the technique, what it's applicable to, and the theory behind it would be fraught with the danger of an inaccurate result due to misapplication of the technique.
If somone actually put such software on the voting machines, there's no guarantee that they used the original sequence, or that they even used the same triggering mechanism. The guy states in his affadavit that the software could be triggered in other ways - and even if he hadn't stated that, it follows logically if you know anything about software implementation.
Your simple test is too simplistic - this is just one factor that invalidates your test, there are many others.
Unfortunately, there's evidence that the results were falsified to fit the theory. The equiptment, as it existed at the time, simply wasn't capable of making the observations as claimed. Now, Einstein's theories have been held up with other observations, but the solar eclipse one was bad science.
Hmm. I wasn't aware of that. My point still stands, however, as there are countless other examples of predictions made by the theory, that were later verified. E.G., the atomic clock test, etc.
Actually, it's quite reasonable for someone to expect others to falsify a hypothesis. After all, you can never prove them, only disprove them. It's also expecting a little much for a scientist to shoot down their own ideas all the time. That's why peer review, testability and repeatability are so important in the physical sciences.
Saying 'Hey, no one has data that proves me wrong at this moment in time' isn't support of the hypothesis, and I'm not expecting a scientist to shoot down his own ideas. I simply expect that they will make testable predictions based on the theory, so that they, or others, may test them.
My issue isn't about expecting others to falsify, or expecting a scientist to shoot down his own theories. My issue is that saying 'You have no data to prove it wrong at this time' isn't support of a hypothesis all by itself, as the original poster seemed to imply. If it were, we'd still believe in spontaneous generation.
"but is there ANY actual data to disprove this hypothesis."
That's not the way science works.
You can't expect to hypothesize, say 'does anyone right now have data to disprove this?', and have it fly as scientifically valid. It's not everyone else's responsibility to disprove.
You need to make a predictions based on your hypothesis, and test those predictions. Then confidence in the hypothesis can be increased.
For example, Einstein predicted light from a distant star would bend around the Sun - later, this was verified by direct observation. Other people actually did the observations, but Einstein didn't sit around saying 'does anyone have any actual data to disprove this?' - no, he made a bunch of TESTABLE predictions based on his theory.
I don't think it's an issue of 'more likely to screw up and cause problems'.
It's an issue of 'any problems experienced will leave you without the support of your vendor... you'll be on your own'.
I've used debian at work, but only in situations where there would be no support anyway. In cases like that it's a good fit. Get another vendor in saying 'our app runs on RedHat' - you may be able to get the apps to work, but any support goes out the window.
Your first post is filled with figures and quotes that indicate that the recent recession was one of the worst since the Great Depression, something that is entirely possible, but is not support for your conjecture.
Your second post has:
"Since 1983, the top 1% of wealth holders consistently owned more than 30% and the bottom 80% held less than 16% of all wealth from 1983 to 2001."
"In 2001, the top fifth of households held 84.4% of all wealth; the middle fifth held only 3.9% -- the smallest share since 1962. The bottom fifth had negative net worth -- owing more than they owned."
All of these figures are wealth holding figures, and are independent of income. If I make $100,000 a year, have $25,000 withheld in taxes, rent an apartment at $2,000 a month, and have $60k in debt, I would have a negative net worth, even though my income is quite large.
Donald Trump is probably in there with your bottom fifth. Hardly support for your conjecture.
Sure, I figured that I would be eligible for the same amount of financial aid as other people in my families' income strata.
Failure to verify this assumption was your first mistake.
Where are the figures I asked for, supporting your assertation? You keep dodging giving them...
Oh, right... the median income is a little bit over $42k a year, meaning that half of Americans have an income less than that, so it's highly unlikely you can show that that one percent of Americans with significant credit card debt and an income of under $30 is a significant portion of the percentage of Americans that have an income of under $30k.
Again, in stark contrast to your company store example, where there was actually an injustice being committed, and most employees were heavily in debt to the company.
So you keep dodging the question - you're sure you right, and any bit of data that shows you may not be, you refuse to accept.
You refuse to argue the facts. You simply assert that because you chose a college education costing X, and you came out of four years with Y debt, that your debt is somehow unfair. That would only be true if you did not have other options, and you've admitted yourself that you did.
Unless you bring real figures, as I have, into the discussion, this conversation is over.
My admissions office told us straight up that they figured an average of $200/mo for students for "basic living expenses",
And you did not figure out a plan to adequately cover those expenses?
You went to a school, where you knew beforehand that you could not make basic living expenses on just a summer job, and you did nothing to mitigate that. You could have chosen a less expensive school, and used some of your fund money to cover those expenses. Your mere assertation that you could not does not change the (now admitted fact) that you knew beforehand what you were getting into, and did not act to keep yourself out of debt. The figures you give for the cost of education are irrelevant, you chose to go to that school, when you could have chosen to go to a less expensive school and had an easier time.
Millions of students are faced with these decisions every day - and they pick a school they can afford. You made a bad call. It's that simple.
You'll get no sympathy from me.
I already did.
You have not. If your conjecture were true, we should see a large percentage of the population that has an income of under $30,000 with debt of more than $8k. You have not shown those figures at all, you know those were the figures I asked for, and it's disingenous of you to say that you've brought figures relevant to the question, when all you bandy about is "$8k average debt" and "College education: $100k"
If you couldn't afford a $100k college education, you should have picked a different school. Millions of people (like myself) couldn't afford college at all, and didn't go, rather than get into debt. You had a college fund, you could have gone to a school where the cost was $80 or even $90k and come out without $7k in debt. Yet you expect me to have sympathy for you, when the cost of a college education was so beyond my reach that it wasn't an option at all? Cry me a river.
The root cause was that a RESPONSIBLE decision was made to provide for my college education and, because of it, I was ineligible for the same levels of tuition assistance which everyone, including you and people from more affluent backgrounds, would be eligible for.... Like I said. If I knew then what I know today I would've skipped college, put down cash on a house, and plunked the remainder in the bank.
Look, you didn't sign a contract when you were born stating that you had to get the same levels of economic help as everyone else. You didn't sign a contract stating that you had the absolute right to go to the school you did. Period. If you didn't qualify for them, you could have waited a couple of years to go to college, until you were old enough that your parent's paper ownership of two houses would not be a factor. You could have worked during that period, and saved up money for living expenses. You could have chosen a school where the academic load was lighter, so you could have made the grades easier with a part time job. You could have, as you say, put a down on a house and thrown the remainder in the bank. If you didn't calculate out how much money you needed beforehand, you can't blame that on anyone but yourself. All I'm saying is that once you made the choices you did, I can understand how your disfigurement would have made things hard.
While I've been attempting to make this point, again and again, you constantly turn this into a "my life was harder than yours" argument. Please. Can we focus on the numerical pyramid scheme?
Bring the figures I asked for to the table. Until you do that, you're merely ranting.
At one job. And the other? You're still fudging for your own sob story.
Both jobs were minimum wage. One at a retail store, the other cleaning hotel rooms.
No food? Who subsidized you to eat?
No one. It's simple enough that I think someone with your claimed level of intelligence would easily understand it - When we didn't have food, we didn't eat.
Impossible, even if you didn't have food in the house. Even if she bought her own cloth and sewed all your clothes.
My clothes, shoes, etc. were bought at thrift stores, and my sisters wore my hand me downs. Honestly, I looked fairly ridiculous in ten year old clothes (clothes with the gaudy style of the seventies - plaid bell bottom pants, etc - wearing them in the mid eighties) but at least I wasn't naked. I think you're neglecting to account for the effects of inflation, as $10 bought a lot more food twenty years ago than it does now, and the mortgage and electric rates you're using in your calculation are overstated. If I remember correctly, our monthly cost for housing was along the lines of $250. Whether or not you believe me, that's the way things were.
Still a bad decision? Only if you're more addicted to browbeating than you are to life.
I'm not browbeating, I'm simply stating what appears to me to be the truth.
You've got a social disadvantage, due to your disfigurement. That disadvantage would obviously make it harder for you to do something like get a part time job, to cover your expenses, so perhaps you're right at least in regard to your personal situation - perhaps you couldn't make basic living expenses without using credit. However, even if that's so, the root cause of that is a social disadvantage, not an economic one, nor is it due to the credit card companies being out to get you. Simply put, I think you're assuming that factors affecting you affect everyone else - you're assuming most other people with high debt got there because they covered basic expenses on their card, as you did. That's understandable, as perception is always colored by personal experience, however, that is not proof that all or even a statistically significant portion of the population is in excessive debt due to credit company manipulations.
All the statistics I've seen do not correlate well with your conjecture. The median credit card debt for households with at least one card is $1,900, in stark contrast to your $8,000 average figure, showing that it's not a normal curve, but highly weighted towards the end (there's a few higher balances bringing the average up).
But we'll look at figures that might support your conjecture. 13% of those who have $10k or more in debt make less than $30,000 a year. (I'd prefer to work with the 8k number, but the statistics given only show the $10k balance). That could be support, however, that's somewhere around one percent of the population, which may not be statistically significant.
Now, if you go find the figures that show what percentage of the population has an income under $30k, and it's not massively greater than the percentage of the population that have a $10k debt on under $30k of income - if it approximately matches or is otherwise a statistically significant number in relation to the one percent of the population that has that much debt on $30k of income, I'll concede that there may be something at work here beyond personal mispending or cases like yours where personal misfortune may have contributed. Or if you find the figures that show what percentage of those with an income of under $30k have debt of $10k (or $8k) and it's a significant portion. (Note that this is quite a different figure from 'the percentage of those with $10k (or $8k) in debt that make less than $30k a year"
So far, all you've brought to the table is a figure ($8k average debt) that actually means nothing in the context of the question. Here's your chance to prove your point - you're making the claim, it's up to you to p
You can't feed a family of five on $10/day. There's something else you're not telling.
True enough.
She worked two jobs, one part time, one full time. Even so, your calculation is not off by much - she made $3.32 an hour, not $5, so it's more like 3.32 x 70 x 52 = 12084.8 (on average, as she never worked exactly seventy hours a week). Still quite less than your fathers $10 x 40 x 50 == $20k gross, and your dad apparently got vacations (since you dropped off the extra two weeks a year). So yes, while $10 is more than twice what my mother was making in hourly wage, she managed to make barely over half as much as your father.
Even still, we often didn't have any food in the house, which is the bit I wasn't telling.
Or perhaps that money came because I was severely disfigured in a house fire at age 2 and have dealt with the social shock complex that comes with living in a society that reviles people who are severely scarred over 80% of their body. Friends and physical appearance play a big role in the opportunities that you receive in life. That's why people who are physically disabled are legally protected. There's no protection for people in my category. I'm automatically subject to the discomfort factor because people are intimidated by my appearance. They don't know how to deal with me so, like every good American, they'd rather hire the next guy. Life's not fair.
And now we get to the real point. It is entirely unfair that you have been denied jobs based on appearance rather than ability (assuming you have, I won't dispute it). However, that doesn't (in my mind) justify projecting your circumstances out as the general condition of the average American. Assuming you're telling the truth, factors in your life (perhaps unfairly) may have resulted in that, but it looks to me like you're projecting that out as the condition of the average American. And your statement implies that your current situation is due more to your social disadvantage than any economic advantage held by your peers. It truly sucks, but it's not a grand credit conspiracy.
Without all facts, I can't make a judgement call on whether or not you could have made it through reasonably without using an unreasonable amount of credit. However, to simply assume that all people with large debt got there in a similar manner to yourself is far too simplistic a model. From my experience, *most* people who have too much debt live beyond their means.
As you must think his default was always to say,"Get a part-time job!"
In most cases I would consider that absolutely reasonable.
No doubt. Candy street for you.
Compared to my life as a child and young adult, absolutely.
If you lived under the poverty line then you qualified for subsidies. Suck it up soldier. My father pulled $10/hr to support a family of five and we didn't take charity because others, like you, apparently needed it more.
My mother supported a family of five on minimum wage, without subsidy or charity. $10 an hour is over twice what she was making, and apparently your father managed to cover saving for four years of college on his wage, for you, and gave you that money for nothing.
Yet you complain about having to pay $200 rent during college - which is something a lot of parents require as a little introductory course into the real world. What would your father think if he were reading this thread right now? Would he be oh so proud to see you disrespecting everything he worked so hard to give you? I doubt it.
Is that the same sob story as you have living on $20k with a wife and child?
No, at that point in my life I was actually far better off than I'd ever been previously.
When's the last time you spent 6 months homeless living out of a tent and a sleeping bag with no real options for getting back into society?
Live twenty years of your life far under the poverty line. Then come back to me with your sob story. Six months living out of a tent is nothing, it's a camping trip. If you had no real options, you'd still be there.
The 'be glad you're lucky enough to not know what it's like to be really poor' referred not to myself, but to the many, many people in this world who live in conditions far worse than any you or I have or will ever experience - I'm glad I've never been that poor, you should be as well. Perhaps I didn't make that clear.
I've lived on $200 a month left over after paying for housing, yes. From your other post, I suspect that's what you're referring to - that you had $200 a month left over after you covered base expenses other than food.
I had a wife and son to take care of at the time, as well. I don't expect you to believe that, from the manner in which you asked the question, but it's the truth.
When I was 2 years old my parents set up a college fund for me. By the time I was 18 that fund held enough money to fully fund my college tuition for four years and my projected housing cost for three years
You're already describing economic conditions far in excess of the conditions I had experienced up to that age.
Is that my bad decision for that fund? No. Is that my bad decision for the way FAFSA determines need and eligibility for assistance?
The things you describe were absolutely not your decision. However, your actions under those conditions are absolutely your decision. It appears to me that you're considering the difference between the funding and income you recieved and that of what your peers received as somehow an automatic debt accrual. The mere fact that they had higher incomes and could therefore spend more does not automatically justify your decision to spend what they were spending. Unless you can say in all truthfulness that you absolutely did not spend any money that was not absolutely necessary for you to spend (and here, I refer to food, clothing, your rent for the fourth year (since your fund covered it for the first three) and books, which you should have purchased secondhand,if possible - anything else is beyond absolute necessity (and the books should, in my opinion, be looked at as more an investment in your future), you cannot say that your decisions did not have an effect on how much debt you carried. Did you ever go out to eat? Ever go out with your friends, and spend money that you shouldn't have been spending? These aren't questions I expect you to answer - just to think about.
Your four years in the military puts you in the category of my peers. My peers were subsidized by grants and assistance (not academic) scholarships which I didn't qualify for because my tuition and housing was paid
Dead wrong. See, your peers were receiving money they did not have to work for, nor pay back. I was busting my ass on a flight line for nine to twelve hours a day, sometimes for weeks on end, depending on exercises and deployments, for the money I was paid. Are you beginning to get a glimmer of why I do not consider military service a "subsidy"?
Your entire post sounds to me like something I would hear from what I would have considered a "rich kid", back when I was growing up. Such people basically had everything provided for them when they were growing up, and when they hit the real world, where you have to take care of yourself, where you won't be bailed out by mom for a bad decision, they acted as though everything was so unfair.
Growing up as poor as I did, I had no expectation that life should automatically bring me any set level of income, or that I was automatically entitled to some standard of living. That's the main difference between you and I, as far as I can tell.
I also find it rather funny that you continually act as though I had some magic level of advantage that you did not, considering that from your post, you've basically admitted that you were far more economically advantaged than I was. I am not arrogantly talking down at you from some point on the economic chain that I achieved due to some preexisting privilege - from the information you've given, I've lived a life that was overall far harder than yours, and any difference (if any, as we haven't discussed current economic conditions) between where you are at now, and where I am at now, is just that much farther I had to climb, or that much farther I have yet to climb.
To sit here and read your complaints about how you accrued $7200 in debt over four years, about how you are now somehow far behind your peers, is amazing, and sad, especially when you admit that you started with advantages that many Americans (including myself) did not. Considering that I, as poor as I was, realized that in the context of billions of people who did not have even my advantages (which were the result of mere chance and geographical location), to hear you complain about how you've been ripped off by the world is actually insulting.
Step up, pay your debt off, and be glad you're lucky enough to not know what it's like to be really poor.
Or it might not. In an group of 100 people 5 people become enormously wealthy, 50 people subsist, and 45 people live in debt. You can postulate that the 45 people all made bad decisions or you can use your brain and think that the 5 people at the top are working the statistics of the economy. Just because you're one of the 55 people that subsist doesn't prove that the other 45 are making bad decisions.
This is a false dilemma, it doesn't have to be either "All of those in debt made bad decisions" or "All of those in debt are being worked by the 5 at the top". Having debt alone is not proof of a bad decision, as you state, but I've never said it was. My stance is merely that it's far likelier that excessive debt is due to decisions made than to a credit conspiracy.
For instance, it could be that two of the five at the top, while having enormous incomes, also have enormous debt. Using your own example, and the statistics in the article I gave above, we're talking about only six people with a debt of $8k or greater. While I cannot say that individual action is all by itself the deciding factor, that says to me that far less than your 45 people would be making bad decisions (it can't necessarily be said that all 6 people are making bad decisions, as some of the six may be there by factors outside of their control, and others not in the six may have made bad decisions yet through circumstance not had it affect them as much as it has others).
It sounds like you had some other factors which were helping you along. The majority of Americans would quickly slip into debt in that situation.
The only factor I can think of is that I grew up poor, and thus didn't see some magical life with all the "stuff" I wanted as somehow a right due everyone. So I lived without things that I didn't need. It's that simple - if you just want it, but can live without it, don't buy it
Would that be the 1 in 5 who are being subsidized with other forms of assistance? Or would that be the 1 in 5 who are independently wealthy because they're siphoning someone else's wage? Perhaps it's the 1 in 5 who are in an age group that places them beyond the boom of the credit/debt industry.
I suspect it would be a mix of all three, and including many groups you haven't mentioned, since the mere fact that the statistics you give match does not mean that we can assume any of these groups are congruent. (e.g., the set of one in five who are independently wealthy obviously cannot be the same set as the one in five who are receiving assistance - we cannot assume that any of these sets of people are equivalent, although it is quite possible that some of these sets intersect)
Slashdot Mirror
You do understand that you do not need a license to operate a firearm, don't you?
I live in California - a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and I do not need a license to operate a firearm.
There's a little card you have to get to legally buy a handgun, but if that expires, you don't need to renew it unless you'd like to buy another.
Or were you referring to a hunting license?
(Note that this is not an argument for hunting over the internet.)
Suppose you are the original author, and I want to modify and distribute my derivitave work, which is based on your work.
...
I have no right to do so, unless I accept the original authors (your) license (the GPL).
So, I make my derivitave work - and a third party wants to make yet another derivitave work, based on my derivitave work.
They have no right to do so, unless they accept the terms of the license
It doesn't matter one bit whether there is a bilateral agreement or not - I can either accept the terms of the license, which require any distribution of the derivitave work to abide by the terms of the original license - in which case, I'm giving my consent, as a derivitave author, in *exactly the same way the original author is*, or I can go off and write my own code and not use yours, or, alternatively, I can attempt to negotiate other terms with you.
If I go the first route, someone who wants to distribute a derivitave of my derivitave of your code does *not* have to talk to either of us about it if he wants to go the first route as well. Both you and I have already consented to that. However, if he wanted to negotiate other terms, he would have to negotiate with both of us - because my derivitave is copyrighted by both of us - the portions that you wrote by you, and the portions that I wrote by me.
Do you grok it yet?
The school district I grew up going to school in was screwed up, to be honest.
That's a different issue, however.
Needless to say after the second midterm a student went from a perfect score to only one out of fifteen correct.
I never went to college.
However, in high school, my history teacher noticed that a good proportion of the answers given on tests were highly correlated - not exact, per se, but suspiciously close to the exact same answers.
He made up seven different versions of the test, and ensured that the answer key for any version was different enough from the others to cause dramatic test failures in the case of copying. (multiple choice, 5 options, 30 questions - plenty of combinations).
That test, about six to ten people, people, all in a rough blob behind and to the right of me, failed.
I was oblivious to the fact that they were copying me, but it was pretty funny - he'd given me one version of the test and every one else a different version. After that I got rather paranoid about making sure my answers weren't visible to others.
Only one definition of grant is synonymous with acknowledge.
What is your basis for concluding that the definition of grant you give is the appropriate definition in the context?
Given the known definitions of grant, the statement 'The government grants rights' can mean wildly different things. To simply assert that one definition is the correct one without having a basis is cherry-picking a definition for an argument. I do not know that you are doing that, this is why I am asking what your basis for concluding the given definition of grant is the appropriate definition.
That's precisely the point, troll.
This is a misconception. Even if you are just barely in the next highest tax bracket you will never lose 100% of the money that is in that highest bracket so it is impossible to end up with less than you would have had if you were still entirely in the lower bracket.
Given the tax table at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf, if I am single, and my taxable income is $29,699, my tax from the table would be $4,156.
Say that my income, and thus my taxable income, rises $2, to $29,701. My tax from the table becomes $4,169.
Note that I would then be paying $13 more in taxes for a $2 taxable income change.
Sure, it's $11 less spending power, it isn't a lot, but given that it took me 30 seconds to find one example, and given the complexity of tax law, are you so sure there aren't others that are more significant?
We aren't talking about a casual visitor, we're talking about somebody who is in the city 5 days/week, 52 weeks per year, for his job.
No, we're talking about someone who lives in Tennessee, who only spent 25% of his work time in New York and paid NY tax on 25% of his income.
However, the ruling, as given, states that NY can tax 100% of his income even if he never sets foot in New York State.
You're saying that he can move to New York, and therefore, it's not taxation without representation. By that logic, any democratic governmental entity can tax anyone anywhere, and it's not 'taxation without representation' because they have the option to move there, and vote.
He is being taxed by the state of New York. He cannot vote in New York because he is not a resident of New York. That is taxation without representation - the fact that he has the option to uproot his life to get representation changes the situation not one whit.
How can you apply the theory to a real problem if you don't yet know the theory?
It would seem to me that applying a technique without fully understanding the technique, what it's applicable to, and the theory behind it would be fraught with the danger of an inaccurate result due to misapplication of the technique.
If somone actually put such software on the voting machines, there's no guarantee that they used the original sequence, or that they even used the same triggering mechanism. The guy states in his affadavit that the software could be triggered in other ways - and even if he hadn't stated that, it follows logically if you know anything about software implementation.
Your simple test is too simplistic - this is just one factor that invalidates your test, there are many others.
Unfortunately, there's evidence that the results were falsified to fit the theory. The equiptment, as it existed at the time, simply wasn't capable of making the observations as claimed. Now, Einstein's theories have been held up with other observations, but the solar eclipse one was bad science.
Hmm. I wasn't aware of that. My point still stands, however, as there are countless other examples of predictions made by the theory, that were later verified. E.G., the atomic clock test, etc.
Actually, it's quite reasonable for someone to expect others to falsify a hypothesis. After all, you can never prove them, only disprove them. It's also expecting a little much for a scientist to shoot down their own ideas all the time. That's why peer review, testability and repeatability are so important in the physical sciences.
Saying 'Hey, no one has data that proves me wrong at this moment in time' isn't support of the hypothesis, and I'm not expecting a scientist to shoot down his own ideas. I simply expect that they will make testable predictions based on the theory, so that they, or others, may test them.
My issue isn't about expecting others to falsify, or expecting a scientist to shoot down his own theories. My issue is that saying 'You have no data to prove it wrong at this time' isn't support of a hypothesis all by itself, as the original poster seemed to imply. If it were, we'd still believe in spontaneous generation.
"but is there ANY actual data to disprove this hypothesis."
That's not the way science works.
You can't expect to hypothesize, say 'does anyone right now have data to disprove this?', and have it fly as scientifically valid. It's not everyone else's responsibility to disprove.
You need to make a predictions based on your hypothesis, and test those predictions. Then confidence in the hypothesis can be increased.
For example, Einstein predicted light from a distant star would bend around the Sun - later, this was verified by direct observation. Other people actually did the observations, but Einstein didn't sit around saying 'does anyone have any actual data to disprove this?' - no, he made a bunch of TESTABLE predictions based on his theory.
Oh, I absolutely agree. I just think there's a distinction between 'more likely to screw up' and risk due to lack of support. ;)
I don't think it's an issue of 'more likely to screw up and cause problems'.
... you'll be on your own'.
It's an issue of 'any problems experienced will leave you without the support of your vendor
I've used debian at work, but only in situations where there would be no support anyway. In cases like that it's a good fit. Get another vendor in saying 'our app runs on RedHat' - you may be able to get the apps to work, but any support goes out the window.
Your first post is filled with figures and quotes that indicate that the recent recession was one of the worst since the Great Depression, something that is entirely possible, but is not support for your conjecture.
Your second post has:
"Since 1983, the top 1% of wealth holders consistently owned more than 30% and the bottom 80% held less than 16% of all wealth from 1983 to 2001."
"In 2001, the top fifth of households held 84.4% of all wealth; the middle fifth held only 3.9% -- the smallest share since 1962. The bottom fifth had negative net worth -- owing more than they owned."
All of these figures are wealth holding figures, and are independent of income. If I make $100,000 a year, have $25,000 withheld in taxes, rent an apartment at $2,000 a month, and have $60k in debt, I would have a negative net worth, even though my income is quite large.
Donald Trump is probably in there with your bottom fifth. Hardly support for your conjecture.
Sure, I figured that I would be eligible for the same amount of financial aid as other people in my families' income strata.
...
... the median income is a little bit over $42k a year, meaning that half of Americans have an income less than that, so it's highly unlikely you can show that that one percent of Americans with significant credit card debt and an income of under $30 is a significant portion of the percentage of Americans that have an income of under $30k.
Failure to verify this assumption was your first mistake.
Where are the figures I asked for, supporting your assertation? You keep dodging giving them
Oh, right
Again, in stark contrast to your company store example, where there was actually an injustice being committed, and most employees were heavily in debt to the company.
So you keep dodging the question - you're sure you right, and any bit of data that shows you may not be, you refuse to accept.
You refuse to argue the facts. You simply assert that because you chose a college education costing X, and you came out of four years with Y debt, that your debt is somehow unfair. That would only be true if you did not have other options, and you've admitted yourself that you did.
Unless you bring real figures, as I have, into the discussion, this conversation is over.
My admissions office told us straight up that they figured an average of $200/mo for students for "basic living expenses",
And you did not figure out a plan to adequately cover those expenses?
You went to a school, where you knew beforehand that you could not make basic living expenses on just a summer job, and you did nothing to mitigate that. You could have chosen a less expensive school, and used some of your fund money to cover those expenses. Your mere assertation that you could not does not change the (now admitted fact) that you knew beforehand what you were getting into, and did not act to keep yourself out of debt. The figures you give for the cost of education are irrelevant, you chose to go to that school, when you could have chosen to go to a less expensive school and had an easier time.
Millions of students are faced with these decisions every day - and they pick a school they can afford. You made a bad call. It's that simple.
You'll get no sympathy from me.
I already did.
You have not. If your conjecture were true, we should see a large percentage of the population that has an income of under $30,000 with debt of more than $8k. You have not shown those figures at all, you know those were the figures I asked for, and it's disingenous of you to say that you've brought figures relevant to the question, when all you bandy about is "$8k average debt" and "College education: $100k"
If you couldn't afford a $100k college education, you should have picked a different school. Millions of people (like myself) couldn't afford college at all, and didn't go, rather than get into debt. You had a college fund, you could have gone to a school where the cost was $80 or even $90k and come out without $7k in debt. Yet you expect me to have sympathy for you, when the cost of a college education was so beyond my reach that it wasn't an option at all? Cry me a river.
The root cause was that a RESPONSIBLE decision was made to provide for my college education and, because of it, I was ineligible for the same levels of tuition assistance which everyone, including you and people from more affluent backgrounds, would be eligible for. ... Like I said. If I knew then what I know today I would've skipped college, put down cash on a house, and plunked the remainder in the bank.
Look, you didn't sign a contract when you were born stating that you had to get the same levels of economic help as everyone else. You didn't sign a contract stating that you had the absolute right to go to the school you did. Period. If you didn't qualify for them, you could have waited a couple of years to go to college, until you were old enough that your parent's paper ownership of two houses would not be a factor. You could have worked during that period, and saved up money for living expenses. You could have chosen a school where the academic load was lighter, so you could have made the grades easier with a part time job. You could have, as you say, put a down on a house and thrown the remainder in the bank. If you didn't calculate out how much money you needed beforehand, you can't blame that on anyone but yourself. All I'm saying is that once you made the choices you did, I can understand how your disfigurement would have made things hard.
While I've been attempting to make this point, again and again, you constantly turn this into a "my life was harder than yours" argument. Please. Can we focus on the numerical pyramid scheme?
Bring the figures I asked for to the table. Until you do that, you're merely ranting.
At one job. And the other? You're still fudging for your own sob story.
Both jobs were minimum wage. One at a retail store, the other cleaning hotel rooms.
No food? Who subsidized you to eat?
No one. It's simple enough that I think someone with your claimed level of intelligence would easily understand it - When we didn't have food, we didn't eat.
Impossible, even if you didn't have food in the house. Even if she bought her own cloth and sewed all your clothes.
My clothes, shoes, etc. were bought at thrift stores, and my sisters wore my hand me downs. Honestly, I looked fairly ridiculous in ten year old clothes (clothes with the gaudy style of the seventies - plaid bell bottom pants, etc - wearing them in the mid eighties) but at least I wasn't naked. I think you're neglecting to account for the effects of inflation, as $10 bought a lot more food twenty years ago than it does now, and the mortgage and electric rates you're using in your calculation are overstated. If I remember correctly, our monthly cost for housing was along the lines of $250. Whether or not you believe me, that's the way things were.
Still a bad decision? Only if you're more addicted to browbeating than you are to life.
I'm not browbeating, I'm simply stating what appears to me to be the truth.
You've got a social disadvantage, due to your disfigurement. That disadvantage would obviously make it harder for you to do something like get a part time job, to cover your expenses, so perhaps you're right at least in regard to your personal situation - perhaps you couldn't make basic living expenses without using credit. However, even if that's so, the root cause of that is a social disadvantage, not an economic one, nor is it due to the credit card companies being out to get you. Simply put, I think you're assuming that factors affecting you affect everyone else - you're assuming most other people with high debt got there because they covered basic expenses on their card, as you did. That's understandable, as perception is always colored by personal experience, however, that is not proof that all or even a statistically significant portion of the population is in excessive debt due to credit company manipulations.
All the statistics I've seen do not correlate well with your conjecture. The median credit card debt for households with at least one card is $1,900, in stark contrast to your $8,000 average figure, showing that it's not a normal curve, but highly weighted towards the end (there's a few higher balances bringing the average up).
But we'll look at figures that might support your conjecture. 13% of those who have $10k or more in debt make less than $30,000 a year. (I'd prefer to work with the 8k number, but the statistics given only show the $10k balance). That could be support, however, that's somewhere around one percent of the population, which may not be statistically significant.
Now, if you go find the figures that show what percentage of the population has an income under $30k, and it's not massively greater than the percentage of the population that have a $10k debt on under $30k of income - if it approximately matches or is otherwise a statistically significant number in relation to the one percent of the population that has that much debt on $30k of income, I'll concede that there may be something at work here beyond personal mispending or cases like yours where personal misfortune may have contributed. Or if you find the figures that show what percentage of those with an income of under $30k have debt of $10k (or $8k) and it's a significant portion. (Note that this is quite a different figure from 'the percentage of those with $10k (or $8k) in debt that make less than $30k a year"
So far, all you've brought to the table is a figure ($8k average debt) that actually means nothing in the context of the question. Here's your chance to prove your point - you're making the claim, it's up to you to p
You can't feed a family of five on $10/day. There's something else you're not telling.
True enough.
She worked two jobs, one part time, one full time. Even so, your calculation is not off by much - she made $3.32 an hour, not $5, so it's more like 3.32 x 70 x 52 = 12084.8 (on average, as she never worked exactly seventy hours a week). Still quite less than your fathers $10 x 40 x 50 == $20k gross, and your dad apparently got vacations (since you dropped off the extra two weeks a year). So yes, while $10 is more than twice what my mother was making in hourly wage, she managed to make barely over half as much as your father.
Even still, we often didn't have any food in the house, which is the bit I wasn't telling.
Or perhaps that money came because I was severely disfigured in a house fire at age 2 and have dealt with the social shock complex that comes with living in a society that reviles people who are severely scarred over 80% of their body. Friends and physical appearance play a big role in the opportunities that you receive in life. That's why people who are physically disabled are legally protected. There's no protection for people in my category. I'm automatically subject to the discomfort factor because people are intimidated by my appearance. They don't know how to deal with me so, like every good American, they'd rather hire the next guy. Life's not fair.
And now we get to the real point. It is entirely unfair that you have been denied jobs based on appearance rather than ability (assuming you have, I won't dispute it). However, that doesn't (in my mind) justify projecting your circumstances out as the general condition of the average American. Assuming you're telling the truth, factors in your life (perhaps unfairly) may have resulted in that, but it looks to me like you're projecting that out as the condition of the average American. And your statement implies that your current situation is due more to your social disadvantage than any economic advantage held by your peers. It truly sucks, but it's not a grand credit conspiracy.
Without all facts, I can't make a judgement call on whether or not you could have made it through reasonably without using an unreasonable amount of credit. However, to simply assume that all people with large debt got there in a similar manner to yourself is far too simplistic a model. From my experience, *most* people who have too much debt live beyond their means.
As you must think his default was always to say,"Get a part-time job!"
In most cases I would consider that absolutely reasonable.
No doubt. Candy street for you.
Compared to my life as a child and young adult, absolutely.
If you lived under the poverty line then you qualified for subsidies. Suck it up soldier. My father pulled $10/hr to support a family of five and we didn't take charity because others, like you, apparently needed it more.
My mother supported a family of five on minimum wage, without subsidy or charity. $10 an hour is over twice what she was making, and apparently your father managed to cover saving for four years of college on his wage, for you, and gave you that money for nothing.
Yet you complain about having to pay $200 rent during college - which is something a lot of parents require as a little introductory course into the real world. What would your father think if he were reading this thread right now? Would he be oh so proud to see you disrespecting everything he worked so hard to give you? I doubt it.
Is that the same sob story as you have living on $20k with a wife and child?
No, at that point in my life I was actually far better off than I'd ever been previously.
When's the last time you spent 6 months homeless living out of a tent and a sleeping bag with no real options for getting back into society?
Live twenty years of your life far under the poverty line. Then come back to me with your sob story. Six months living out of a tent is nothing, it's a camping trip. If you had no real options, you'd still be there.
The 'be glad you're lucky enough to not know what it's like to be really poor' referred not to myself, but to the many, many people in this world who live in conditions far worse than any you or I have or will ever experience - I'm glad I've never been that poor, you should be as well. Perhaps I didn't make that clear.
Did you live on $200/mo? Of course you did
I've lived on $200 a month left over after paying for housing, yes. From your other post, I suspect that's what you're referring to - that you had $200 a month left over after you covered base expenses other than food.
I had a wife and son to take care of at the time, as well. I don't expect you to believe that, from the manner in which you asked the question, but it's the truth.
When I was 2 years old my parents set up a college fund for me. By the time I was 18 that fund held enough money to fully fund my college tuition for four years and my projected housing cost for three years
You're already describing economic conditions far in excess of the conditions I had experienced up to that age.
Is that my bad decision for that fund? No. Is that my bad decision for the way FAFSA determines need and eligibility for assistance?
The things you describe were absolutely not your decision. However, your actions under those conditions are absolutely your decision. It appears to me that you're considering the difference between the funding and income you recieved and that of what your peers received as somehow an automatic debt accrual. The mere fact that they had higher incomes and could therefore spend more does not automatically justify your decision to spend what they were spending. Unless you can say in all truthfulness that you absolutely did not spend any money that was not absolutely necessary for you to spend (and here, I refer to food, clothing, your rent for the fourth year (since your fund covered it for the first three) and books, which you should have purchased secondhand,if possible - anything else is beyond absolute necessity (and the books should, in my opinion, be looked at as more an investment in your future), you cannot say that your decisions did not have an effect on how much debt you carried. Did you ever go out to eat? Ever go out with your friends, and spend money that you shouldn't have been spending? These aren't questions I expect you to answer - just to think about.
Your four years in the military puts you in the category of my peers. My peers were subsidized by grants and assistance (not academic) scholarships which I didn't qualify for because my tuition and housing was paid
Dead wrong. See, your peers were receiving money they did not have to work for, nor pay back. I was busting my ass on a flight line for nine to twelve hours a day, sometimes for weeks on end, depending on exercises and deployments, for the money I was paid. Are you beginning to get a glimmer of why I do not consider military service a "subsidy"?
Your entire post sounds to me like something I would hear from what I would have considered a "rich kid", back when I was growing up. Such people basically had everything provided for them when they were growing up, and when they hit the real world, where you have to take care of yourself, where you won't be bailed out by mom for a bad decision, they acted as though everything was so unfair.
Growing up as poor as I did, I had no expectation that life should automatically bring me any set level of income, or that I was automatically entitled to some standard of living. That's the main difference between you and I, as far as I can tell.
I also find it rather funny that you continually act as though I had some magic level of advantage that you did not, considering that from your post, you've basically admitted that you were far more economically advantaged than I was. I am not arrogantly talking down at you from some point on the economic chain that I achieved due to some preexisting privilege - from the information you've given, I've lived a life that was overall far harder than yours, and any difference (if any, as we haven't discussed current economic conditions) between where you are at now, and where I am at now, is just that much farther I had to climb, or that much farther I have yet to climb.
To sit here and read your complaints about how you accrued $7200 in debt over four years, about how you are now somehow far behind your peers, is amazing, and sad, especially when you admit that you started with advantages that many Americans (including myself) did not. Considering that I, as poor as I was, realized that in the context of billions of people who did not have even my advantages (which were the result of mere chance and geographical location), to hear you complain about how you've been ripped off by the world is actually insulting.
Step up, pay your debt off, and be glad you're lucky enough to not know what it's like to be really poor.
Or it might not. In an group of 100 people 5 people become enormously wealthy, 50 people subsist, and 45 people live in debt. You can postulate that the 45 people all made bad decisions or you can use your brain and think that the 5 people at the top are working the statistics of the economy. Just because you're one of the 55 people that subsist doesn't prove that the other 45 are making bad decisions.
This is a false dilemma, it doesn't have to be either "All of those in debt made bad decisions" or "All of those in debt are being worked by the 5 at the top". Having debt alone is not proof of a bad decision, as you state, but I've never said it was. My stance is merely that it's far likelier that excessive debt is due to decisions made than to a credit conspiracy.
For instance, it could be that two of the five at the top, while having enormous incomes, also have enormous debt. Using your own example, and the statistics in the article I gave above, we're talking about only six people with a debt of $8k or greater. While I cannot say that individual action is all by itself the deciding factor, that says to me that far less than your 45 people would be making bad decisions (it can't necessarily be said that all 6 people are making bad decisions, as some of the six may be there by factors outside of their control, and others not in the six may have made bad decisions yet through circumstance not had it affect them as much as it has others).
It sounds like you had some other factors which were helping you along. The majority of Americans would quickly slip into debt in that situation.
The only factor I can think of is that I grew up poor, and thus didn't see some magical life with all the "stuff" I wanted as somehow a right due everyone. So I lived without things that I didn't need. It's that simple - if you just want it, but can live without it, don't buy it
Would that be the 1 in 5 who are being subsidized with other forms of assistance? Or would that be the 1 in 5 who are independently wealthy because they're siphoning someone else's wage? Perhaps it's the 1 in 5 who are in an age group that places them beyond the boom of the credit/debt industry.
I suspect it would be a mix of all three, and including many groups you haven't mentioned, since the mere fact that the statistics you give match does not mean that we can assume any of these groups are congruent. (e.g., the set of one in five who are independently wealthy obviously cannot be the same set as the one in five who are receiving assistance - we cannot assume that any of these sets of people are equivalent, although it is quite possible that some of these sets intersect)