Hmm, average it out over time. A short burst of high magnitude versus a moderate rate over a very long time. I think you will find that your statement is still wrong.
In the long term, most energy generation techniques have long term issues, especially the most popular. The long term deaths from normal operation of coal plants is much higher than those from nuclear power accidents. You are focusing so much on that tree in front of you that you are not seeing the forest.
Or, he can stay where he is and experience the effects of burning coal and gas directly.
As someone recently said "Nuclear power damages the environment and causes health issues when there is an accident. Coal and gas damages the environment and causes health issues as a consequence of normal operation."
Um, no. In fact, there is not enough data to make that correlation.
It is kind of like claiming that truck drivers are worse driver because truck drivers are involved in more wrecks per capita and the wrecks are worse. But, the truth is that truck drivers are some of the safest drivers. They are in more wrecks per capita because they travel many times more miles per year than the average driver. It is not that the reactors are older. It is that the data covers a long period of time. Compare nuclear power incidents and the rate of incidents per year to other industrial complexes and/or power generation facilities and you will find that nuclear power has a much better safety record.
According to statistics generated by Microsoft's new free malware scanning and scrubbing tool, Safety Scanner, one in every twenty Windows PCs are infected with malware.
No, the statistics show that 1 in ever 20 PCs using Safety Scanner is infected. It says nothing of the larger population of Windows PCs. It also does not address systems running some other security program along with Safety Scanner.
Second, the statistics suffer from selection bias. The sample used is not necessarily, and probably isn't, a representative sample of Windows PCs, so the statistics are not really valid.
This is why we need to stop forcing the browser to do things it is not suited to sooner, rather than later.
There fixed that for you. The only reason for Flash, JavaScript, etc. is to make the browser do things for which it isn't really suited. It is just laziness and cheapness: Why write a proper UI when I can just slap a web interface on it?"
Really, that mentality is leading the charge in the return to centralized computing and turning PCs into dumb terminals.
And, doctors used to use leaches to bleed their patients, dentists didn't use anesthetics. prostitution was legal around most of the U.S., Apple had a dying market share, Linux was a pain in the ass to install.
And, I have had the exact same experience as the GP commenter. I installed and upgraded WinXP without a firewall and didn't get infected.
Here, how is this. The author of the article in question has out-right lied in this article. That fact alone invalidates any point the author was trying to make and calls into question every past and future article from this author.
oh, and "haters gonna hate" is a slang phrase indicating people with biased positions will promote those biased positions and this article and author are clearly anti-Microsoft. While childish, it is not name calling. Rather it is a statement of fact.
Except the article is wrong. Maybe you should read the comments where a someone calls the author of the article wrong. And, it isn't really an article, but rather an Microsoft bashing screed.
He's talking about changing UIDs on existing users to move those below 500 up above 1000. An OS upgrade doesn't force that; changing the default UID numbering system does.
First off, there will be no existing users if the system is a new install. Second, if the system is already installed, then it is an OS upgrade. Third, even if it is an upgrade with UIDs over 1000, there is no problem because the UID system takes the lowest AVAILABLE UID over the limit.
On a new system, the UIDs will start at 1000. On an upgraded system with the highest UID less than 1000, the next new user would be 1000. And, on a system with a UID over 1000, the next user would have a number equal to the highest current UID + 1. Really, I don't see any issue at all.
So you start by changing UID 500 to UID 1000, and then you get to your 500'th existing user who happens to have UID 1000. You happily find all the files belonging to UID 1000 and change them to 1500. Including the files that originally belonged to UID 500 that you changed to 1000 just a few minutes ago...
I am guessing you didn't really read my comment:
there are several ways to extract out the UID from the passwd file, reverse the list, then step through the list using each UID to do the "find exec"
I guess you have forgotten how Motorola sued Nokia over "flip phones" and won. Why do you think one could not get a Nokia flip phone for so long? It was part of the settlement.
Please tell me, when was the last time an upgrade changed the your normal user UIDs? Why would an upgrade do that?
Oh, and there are several ways to extract out the UID from the passwd file, reverse the list, then step through the list using each UID to do the "find exec" above.
The law is black and white but having just one or two of the requirements is not necessarily enough. And, as I said. you have read things into the summary. There is not enough information in the summary to say he is an employee. You are stated as fact that the submitter is an employee, but you can not make that determination because he has not given us enough information to make that determination. The summary doesn't even say the majority of his income comes from the small company. It may very well be that he has put in a lot of time at the company, but the majority of his income comes from a different company or even a website.
The reality of the situation is that he does not have a right to any equity because it is not part of the contract.
His employment status isn't really an issue. And, there is not enough information in the summary to say he would be considered an employee by the IRS.
If he is an employee of his own company, then he is not an independent contractor. He does not receive a 1099, but instead gets a W-2 from his company that has a contract with another company.
But, he is not an employee. He is a contractor, possibly even an independent contractor. That is the equivalent to company A saying to company B "We provide great value to your company, so you should give us an equity stake in your company"
There is no statement that majority of his income has come from this small company, nor that he is solely working for this company, nor that he hasn't work on a single long term deliverable. It says only that he has been working as a contract software programmer for this company for over a year. He may or may not be an independent contractor. He may or may not have had a series of contract deliverables. All work he has done may be covered by a single deliverable.
Even if all his income for over a year has come from the same company, worked on the same project or program, and all his work has been key to the business, he would not be considered an employee if there were multiple contracts for each aspect he worked on. He may have been contracted to write version 1 of a critical business system. Then, he was contracted to fix a requirements defect. And, then contracted to add functionality. And, then contracted to make version 2.
And, that leaves off the possibility he was the employee of a contracting company, even if he owns the contracting company. In that case, the small company can dictate when, where, and how he works by telling the contracting company what how they want of the contracting companies employees.
There is not enough information in the summary to come to any conclusions about how the IRS would view his status.
There is a difference between independent contractor and contractor employee. The submitter does not state he is an independent contractor, but rather a "contract software developer". As such, he may be an independent contractor, but he may also be the employee of a contracting company, possibly his own company. If he is the later, then none of independent contractor rules apply because he is an employee of a contracting agency. In this case, the devil is in the details. We do not know if he is an independent contractor and the company says "We need this software by that date" and he does it; or if they treat him like an employee; or if he is the employee of another company, even if the submitter owns said company, which is contracting his services out to the small start up.
He is not an employee. He is a contractor. There is a big difference. If the submitter were an employee, you might have a point, but he is a contractor. He is employed by an outside agency, which could be himself if he is self-employed, to provide work contracted by the small company. The small company does not have to provide anything other than pay for service to the outside agency which could be per hour or by the piece.
His requesting an equity stake in the small company would be like a contracting company employee saying to Verizon "Hey, I do a lot of important work for this company so I think I should get Verizon stock options".
A business gets to do anything and count it against income. ANYTHING.
No, it doesn't. Again, that is a factual lie. You really have no clue as to what can and can not be deducted by a business and what qualifies.
Things like hiring a lawyer to defend against a lawsuit because someone slipped on the floor, for a random example that doesn't actually produce 'income'.
Why was the person there? The person was a customer which means the person was engaged in business. The incident occurred in the business while conducting business in an attempt to earn profit and income. Thus, you argument is refuted.
For a human being? Hiring a lawyer for exactly the same purpose? That does not count against income.
Was the human beings expecting to make income from the person's visit to the area in question? If so, then it is deductible. Thus, your argument is refuted. You really see no difference in income producing activities and the rest of life, do you?
People pay taxes on more than businesses pay taxes on. Businesses start at profits, human being start at income.
Profit is income. If one stops earning income, one will still need to pay for food, shelter, etc in order to continue to exist. If a business stops earning income, it ceases in short order. You are literally claiming that the expenses of living should be considered expenses of earning income, but you completely ignore the fact that one still needs those things even if one does not earn income.
Would a person who grows food and eats all and only the food grown and has a regular job have to pay income tax on the food grown? The answer is "No, because growing the food and the product of growing the food did not generate any income". Under your theory of how things work, the value of the food would be taxed because it would be considered income. Items produced for self consumption are not considered income
and everything a business does counts as a business expense
No, it does not. That is a lie. GO READ THE TAX LAW. There are numerous cases where businesses have tried to claim something as a business expense and it has been denied by the IRS. Every single one of those things were not related to generating income. My favorite was the business that tried to deduct a trip to a Nevada brothel as business expense. Even though it was a legal activity and involved a customer, it was not considered a business expense. The reason was that business was not discussed during the trip to the brothel.
I am going to make this as simple as possible. Take anything you think should be deductible or not by a person and/or business and insert it into the following:
If I stop working or doing whatever it is I do to earn money, I will no longer have to [whatever].
If the statement is not true, then the item is not deductible. Example:
If I stop working or doing whatever it is I do to earn money, I will no longer have to buy a work uniform.
The statement is true so work clothing is deductible.
If I stop working or doing whatever it is I do to earn money, I will no longer have to buy food to eat.
The statement is false. If one stops eating, one dies. So, the food for personal consumption is not deductible. However,
If I stop working or doing whatever it is I do to earn money, I will no longer have to buy food to cook and sell.
That statement is true for food vendors, so the money used to buy food to earn the income is deductible.
Your entire problem is that you are starting with a false assumption, to whit: "Everything a business does counts as a business expense". But if you GO READ THE TAX LAW you would find that is not the case. At least one of your starting assumptions are FALSE so you are coming to a false conclusion.
Unlike human beings, whose income starts as all taxable
That is a factual lie. Like I said, go check out the personal exemptions and deductions.
If I am a human being who makes enough to pay taxes, and I wash a car and get paid $20 dollars, and I go out and buy $15 dollars worth of food and eat it, I pay taxes on the entire $20.
No, you don't pay taxes on the entire $20.00. If you would read the fucking tax law you would understand that. First off, there is the personal exemption and the standard deduction. If you have not made more than $10,000 year to date, then you don't pay taxes on the $20.00. Second. the food you bought and paid for is not and expense in generating the $20.00 so, no you can't deduct it. But, you can deduct the cost of the soap, water, bucket, towels, and anything else used to wash the car. And, if you had an employee you paid, you could deduct that as well. You would pay taxes on the gross income from washing the car minus the expenses incurred washing the car which is the PROFIT FROM WASHING THE CAR and even then, when you do your quarterlies, if you have not made over the personal exemption and standard deduction, you would not have to pay any taxes at all. The food you buy, you would have had to buy to live, even if you didn't do the work to earn the money. The food has nothing to do with earning the money, and YOU STILL GET A CREDIT ON IT IN THE FORM OF THE PERSONAL EXEMPTION. You did not buy the food to wash the car and you did not need the food to wash the car. If you had needed the food to wash the car, you would have bought the food before washing the car. The food is not related to the car washing business which generated the income. It is related to you being a human being.
The exemption is a deduction for general living expenses encurred by natural people, things like food and shelter.
No, it's not. Standard deductions do not include food and shelter, or, for that matter, furniture or travel or 90% of the stuff people need to buy.
What part of PERSONAL EXEMPTION did you not understand? Do you deny the personal exemption exists? Do you even know about the personal exemption and what is for? It certainly doesn't seem like it. The personal exemption is completely different from the standard deduction. Learn to fucking read and understand. Go read the fucking IRS pubs so you will learn what you are talking about.
You think people don't need food and shelter and a bed to generate an income?
People do not need those thing to generate an income, they need them, period. The profit from their work, which is known as income, is how they pay for those things. General living expenses ARE NOT INCOME GENERATION EXPENSES. Just like a person needs a house and if a person has a room in the house that is used exclusively for business, he can deduct that part of the value of the property from his income. He needs the house, regardless of whether he uses any of it to generate income. If he uses part of it for generating income, then he can deduct that part of it. If a corporation had to eat food to continue and said consumption was not directly related to generating its income, it would not be able to deduct the cost of food. Just like if someone pays for a business related dinner, one can deduct the cost of the dinner. Even if the dinner lasts one hour and the business portion lasts only 5 minutes and doesn't involve the food at all. The dinner was business related.
What will it take to get through your thick, ignorant skull? Repeat after me: If I need it just to live, it is not coming off my income because I would have had to of paid for it anyway and the expense for it is not related to the generation of my income.
Seriously, go learn about the tax law. The simple fact that you do not know about the personal deduction and what it is for shows exactly how ignorant you are. GO LEARN ABOUT U.S. TAX LAW
YES. Someone who has a million dollars in investments and is living off $16,000 a year in interest should pay more in taxes than the guy working $8.00 an hour.
Why? Please explain why someone living on a fixed interest income should pay more taxes than someone who is working and making the exact same amount.
What if that 69yo guy working $8 an hour wishes he was a retiree, but can't, because he wasn't able to invest any money because stock-owning millionaires aren't paying any goddamn taxes and he had to cover them?
The stock owning millionaire in my example is paying taxes, and paid taxes on the money earned that was used to buy the stocks in the first place. You have yet to show where anyone is not paying taxes. You just assert they are without offering any evidence. Also, you have not shown that anyone is having to cover for "stock-owning millionaires". And, almost all "stock-owning millionaires" were, in fact, regular working people who saved and invested their way to "stock-owning millionaire" status, most especially those that are not living off the interest and investments. Very few inherit their wealth.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so 75 - 80% will come from coal and the rest from renewable sources.
Hmm, average it out over time. A short burst of high magnitude versus a moderate rate over a very long time. I think you will find that your statement is still wrong.
In the long term, most energy generation techniques have long term issues, especially the most popular. The long term deaths from normal operation of coal plants is much higher than those from nuclear power accidents. You are focusing so much on that tree in front of you that you are not seeing the forest.
Or, he can stay where he is and experience the effects of burning coal and gas directly.
As someone recently said "Nuclear power damages the environment and causes health issues when there is an accident. Coal and gas damages the environment and causes health issues as a consequence of normal operation."
Um, no. In fact, there is not enough data to make that correlation.
It is kind of like claiming that truck drivers are worse driver because truck drivers are involved in more wrecks per capita and the wrecks are worse. But, the truth is that truck drivers are some of the safest drivers. They are in more wrecks per capita because they travel many times more miles per year than the average driver. It is not that the reactors are older. It is that the data covers a long period of time. Compare nuclear power incidents and the rate of incidents per year to other industrial complexes and/or power generation facilities and you will find that nuclear power has a much better safety record.
Successful troll is successful.
First, the conclusion in the summary is wrong.
No, the statistics show that 1 in ever 20 PCs using Safety Scanner is infected. It says nothing of the larger population of Windows PCs. It also does not address systems running some other security program along with Safety Scanner.
Second, the statistics suffer from selection bias. The sample used is not necessarily, and probably isn't, a representative sample of Windows PCs, so the statistics are not really valid.
There fixed that for you. The only reason for Flash, JavaScript, etc. is to make the browser do things for which it isn't really suited. It is just laziness and cheapness: Why write a proper UI when I can just slap a web interface on it?"
Really, that mentality is leading the charge in the return to centralized computing and turning PCs into dumb terminals.
Yeah, I did that less than two years ago. Guess what happened. No infection.
And, doctors used to use leaches to bleed their patients, dentists didn't use anesthetics. prostitution was legal around most of the U.S., Apple had a dying market share, Linux was a pain in the ass to install.
And, I have had the exact same experience as the GP commenter. I installed and upgraded WinXP without a firewall and didn't get infected.
Here, how is this. The author of the article in question has out-right lied in this article. That fact alone invalidates any point the author was trying to make and calls into question every past and future article from this author.
oh, and "haters gonna hate" is a slang phrase indicating people with biased positions will promote those biased positions and this article and author are clearly anti-Microsoft. While childish, it is not name calling. Rather it is a statement of fact.
Except the article is wrong. Maybe you should read the comments where a someone calls the author of the article wrong. And, it isn't really an article, but rather an Microsoft bashing screed.
First off, there will be no existing users if the system is a new install. Second, if the system is already installed, then it is an OS upgrade. Third, even if it is an upgrade with UIDs over 1000, there is no problem because the UID system takes the lowest AVAILABLE UID over the limit.
On a new system, the UIDs will start at 1000. On an upgraded system with the highest UID less than 1000, the next new user would be 1000. And, on a system with a UID over 1000, the next user would have a number equal to the highest current UID + 1. Really, I don't see any issue at all.
So you start by changing UID 500 to UID 1000, and then you get to your 500'th existing user who happens to have UID 1000. You happily find all the files belonging to UID 1000 and change them to 1500. Including the files that originally belonged to UID 500 that you changed to 1000 just a few minutes ago...
I am guessing you didn't really read my comment:
I guess you have forgotten how Motorola sued Nokia over "flip phones" and won. Why do you think one could not get a Nokia flip phone for so long? It was part of the settlement.
Please tell me, when was the last time an upgrade changed the your normal user UIDs? Why would an upgrade do that?
Oh, and there are several ways to extract out the UID from the passwd file, reverse the list, then step through the list using each UID to do the "find exec" above.
The law is black and white but having just one or two of the requirements is not necessarily enough. And, as I said. you have read things into the summary. There is not enough information in the summary to say he is an employee. You are stated as fact that the submitter is an employee, but you can not make that determination because he has not given us enough information to make that determination. The summary doesn't even say the majority of his income comes from the small company. It may very well be that he has put in a lot of time at the company, but the majority of his income comes from a different company or even a website.
The reality of the situation is that he does not have a right to any equity because it is not part of the contract.
His employment status isn't really an issue. And, there is not enough information in the summary to say he would be considered an employee by the IRS.
If he is an employee of his own company, then he is not an independent contractor. He does not receive a 1099, but instead gets a W-2 from his company that has a contract with another company.
But, he is not an employee. He is a contractor, possibly even an independent contractor. That is the equivalent to company A saying to company B "We provide great value to your company, so you should give us an equity stake in your company"
You seem to be reading into the summary.
There is no statement that majority of his income has come from this small company, nor that he is solely working for this company, nor that he hasn't work on a single long term deliverable. It says only that he has been working as a contract software programmer for this company for over a year. He may or may not be an independent contractor. He may or may not have had a series of contract deliverables. All work he has done may be covered by a single deliverable.
Even if all his income for over a year has come from the same company, worked on the same project or program, and all his work has been key to the business, he would not be considered an employee if there were multiple contracts for each aspect he worked on. He may have been contracted to write version 1 of a critical business system. Then, he was contracted to fix a requirements defect. And, then contracted to add functionality. And, then contracted to make version 2.
And, that leaves off the possibility he was the employee of a contracting company, even if he owns the contracting company. In that case, the small company can dictate when, where, and how he works by telling the contracting company what how they want of the contracting companies employees.
There is not enough information in the summary to come to any conclusions about how the IRS would view his status.
There is a difference between independent contractor and contractor employee. The submitter does not state he is an independent contractor, but rather a "contract software developer". As such, he may be an independent contractor, but he may also be the employee of a contracting company, possibly his own company. If he is the later, then none of independent contractor rules apply because he is an employee of a contracting agency. In this case, the devil is in the details. We do not know if he is an independent contractor and the company says "We need this software by that date" and he does it; or if they treat him like an employee; or if he is the employee of another company, even if the submitter owns said company, which is contracting his services out to the small start up.
He is not an employee. He is a contractor. There is a big difference. If the submitter were an employee, you might have a point, but he is a contractor. He is employed by an outside agency, which could be himself if he is self-employed, to provide work contracted by the small company. The small company does not have to provide anything other than pay for service to the outside agency which could be per hour or by the piece.
His requesting an equity stake in the small company would be like a contracting company employee saying to Verizon "Hey, I do a lot of important work for this company so I think I should get Verizon stock options".
No, it doesn't. Again, that is a factual lie. You really have no clue as to what can and can not be deducted by a business and what qualifies.
Why was the person there? The person was a customer which means the person was engaged in business. The incident occurred in the business while conducting business in an attempt to earn profit and income. Thus, you argument is refuted.
Was the human beings expecting to make income from the person's visit to the area in question? If so, then it is deductible. Thus, your argument is refuted. You really see no difference in income producing activities and the rest of life, do you?
Profit is income. If one stops earning income, one will still need to pay for food, shelter, etc in order to continue to exist. If a business stops earning income, it ceases in short order. You are literally claiming that the expenses of living should be considered expenses of earning income, but you completely ignore the fact that one still needs those things even if one does not earn income.
Would a person who grows food and eats all and only the food grown and has a regular job have to pay income tax on the food grown? The answer is "No, because growing the food and the product of growing the food did not generate any income". Under your theory of how things work, the value of the food would be taxed because it would be considered income. Items produced for self consumption are not considered income
No, it does not. That is a lie. GO READ THE TAX LAW. There are numerous cases where businesses have tried to claim something as a business expense and it has been denied by the IRS. Every single one of those things were not related to generating income. My favorite was the business that tried to deduct a trip to a Nevada brothel as business expense. Even though it was a legal activity and involved a customer, it was not considered a business expense. The reason was that business was not discussed during the trip to the brothel.
I am going to make this as simple as possible. Take anything you think should be deductible or not by a person and/or business and insert it into the following:
If the statement is not true, then the item is not deductible. Example:
The statement is true so work clothing is deductible.
The statement is false. If one stops eating, one dies. So, the food for personal consumption is not deductible. However,
That statement is true for food vendors, so the money used to buy food to earn the income is deductible.
Your entire problem is that you are starting with a false assumption, to whit: "Everything a business does counts as a business expense". But if you GO READ THE TAX LAW you would find that is not the case. At least one of your starting assumptions are FALSE so you are coming to a false conclusion.
That is a factual lie. Like I said, go check out the personal exemptions and deductions.
No, you don't pay taxes on the entire $20.00. If you would read the fucking tax law you would understand that. First off, there is the personal exemption and the standard deduction. If you have not made more than $10,000 year to date, then you don't pay taxes on the $20.00. Second. the food you bought and paid for is not and expense in generating the $20.00 so, no you can't deduct it. But, you can deduct the cost of the soap, water, bucket, towels, and anything else used to wash the car. And, if you had an employee you paid, you could deduct that as well. You would pay taxes on the gross income from washing the car minus the expenses incurred washing the car which is the PROFIT FROM WASHING THE CAR and even then, when you do your quarterlies, if you have not made over the personal exemption and standard deduction, you would not have to pay any taxes at all. The food you buy, you would have had to buy to live, even if you didn't do the work to earn the money. The food has nothing to do with earning the money, and YOU STILL GET A CREDIT ON IT IN THE FORM OF THE PERSONAL EXEMPTION. You did not buy the food to wash the car and you did not need the food to wash the car. If you had needed the food to wash the car, you would have bought the food before washing the car. The food is not related to the car washing business which generated the income. It is related to you being a human being.
What part of PERSONAL EXEMPTION did you not understand? Do you deny the personal exemption exists? Do you even know about the personal exemption and what is for? It certainly doesn't seem like it. The personal exemption is completely different from the standard deduction. Learn to fucking read and understand. Go read the fucking IRS pubs so you will learn what you are talking about.
People do not need those thing to generate an income, they need them, period. The profit from their work, which is known as income, is how they pay for those things. General living expenses ARE NOT INCOME GENERATION EXPENSES. Just like a person needs a house and if a person has a room in the house that is used exclusively for business, he can deduct that part of the value of the property from his income. He needs the house, regardless of whether he uses any of it to generate income. If he uses part of it for generating income, then he can deduct that part of it. If a corporation had to eat food to continue and said consumption was not directly related to generating its income, it would not be able to deduct the cost of food. Just like if someone pays for a business related dinner, one can deduct the cost of the dinner. Even if the dinner lasts one hour and the business portion lasts only 5 minutes and doesn't involve the food at all. The dinner was business related.
What will it take to get through your thick, ignorant skull? Repeat after me: If I need it just to live, it is not coming off my income because I would have had to of paid for it anyway and the expense for it is not related to the generation of my income.
Seriously, go learn about the tax law. The simple fact that you do not know about the personal deduction and what it is for shows exactly how ignorant you are. GO LEARN ABOUT U.S. TAX LAW
So, this means that "When Worlds Collide" will be lived out, right? In 2012, right?
YES. Someone who has a million dollars in investments and is living off $16,000 a year in interest should pay more in taxes than the guy working $8.00 an hour.
Why? Please explain why someone living on a fixed interest income should pay more taxes than someone who is working and making the exact same amount.
What if that 69yo guy working $8 an hour wishes he was a retiree, but can't, because he wasn't able to invest any money because stock-owning millionaires aren't paying any goddamn taxes and he had to cover them?
The stock owning millionaire in my example is paying taxes, and paid taxes on the money earned that was used to buy the stocks in the first place. You have yet to show where anyone is not paying taxes. You just assert they are without offering any evidence. Also, you have not shown that anyone is having to cover for "stock-owning millionaires". And, almost all "stock-owning millionaires" were, in fact, regular working people who saved and invested their way to "stock-owning millionaire" status, most especially those that are not living off the interest and investments. Very few inherit their wealth.
income you started with to buy the taxes
What?
Really, you need to read the other reply.