I can't recall ever seeing a politician on TV, or elsewhere and thinking, "Gee, that politician really gets it!".
I have personally met Rick Boucher (D-VA) and spoken with him on the DMCA and the SSSCA (it's been long enough, I'm not sure if that's the right number of S's). He really does get it.
I suppose this might be classified as a political accuracy nazi post, since pointing out one of the very few exceptions isn't really salient to the argument.
Isn't it a lot like Paris Hilton offering to give $100,000 a year towards curing world poverty. It's a great gesture - don't get me wrong, but it does set up a bit of a false expectation that everyone can do it. That is, if PH can give $100,000 to stop starvation, shouldn't everyone give $100,000 a year to stop starvation?
The key difference is that Google, like Paris, hasn't really earned most of the money they're sitting on, and most companies who actually produce something and have tangible assets don't have the luxury of increasing their building/operating expenses by a factor of 1.5 to 2.0 and still expect to be in business.
It's a great idea. Just remember that the good they are doing is not a normal possiblity for most* business operations, and the money they are doing it with has not yet been earned.
*By most, I mean a majority of the millions and millions of companies out there, not just the 200-300 you see with 7 figure CEO positions.
No, AllofMP3 does show the actual cost of distribution, and it is real. The backend servers, recoding, tagging, and transmission all cost realy money and involve real dollars (okay, rubles). They have shown what the cost is if you are unhitched from the cartels pricefixing, and could sell music the way radio stations play music (that's my highly-untechincal understanding of how their licensing works).
It seems to me if the recording industry really wanted to shut them down, they'd pony up the bucks to have the law changed in Russia. Putin is no purist - money talks.
Well, I'd say the golden era occured before the first consumer CD player hit the market. Also, MTV made for an enormous cash hole into which the studios have thrown money. Now, appearance is more important that the music, and for every $20,000 track that gets produced, an $80,000 video has to be made. (Those numbers are entirely made up, but I wouldn't be suprised if the ratio is too far off, counting primarily production costs). That video will never make a dime - there's really no market for it, except as advertisement for the song. If your costs go up and your revenue stays the same, you're not going to make money. Luckily, it costs a great deal less to press a CD today than it did in 1985, but we'll never see that savings.
I agree that the golden age of music is gone, and that the filesharing doesn't affect the bottom line nearly as much as they would lead everyone to believe. It does matter, but - as you pointed out - there's a fixed budget for entertainment, and there are more players in the market. Stopping all the filesharing in the world won't fix that problem for them.
I am reminded of an 11th grade Literature class dicussion where the ending of A Tale of Two Cities was being discussed. Some girl mentioned that the protagonist was probably hung, to which the teacher, a Ms. Hawk, smiled and replied "I think we can reasonable assume he was hanged. As to whether he was hung, that's purely a matter of speculation."
So...let me get this right. The Democrats bought these machines and rigged the elections. For the Republicans to win. And take over. So they could complain about it?
Wow. I'm all for coming up with new conspiracies, but this one is a real winner.
I seem to remember that the sound system made more of a difference in experience than the picture size (and, presumably the resolution) of the picture. So spend a few hundred on a decend amp with surround speakers (nothing fancy really required), and keep your DVD player.
BTW - I picked up an open box 51" Hitachi HD set (1080i/720p) for $800 a year and a half ago. DVDs (and, for that matter 320p DiVXs) look good. HD is crystal clear - really fantastic, actually. I'd give up the HD for a full set of M&K speakers, though.
No, the razors are costing a fortune right now. They're trying to give you a free blade or two so you'll go buy the razor. Of course, given the offerings, it's a bit more like passing out rusty, nicked blades - 'cause only the true masochists are going to really enjoy watching either of these films, much less in HD.
That's fine and dandy, but stating "who you are" has no indication of who you're working for. What party would be affiliated with the "Council for Better Education?" Would that be the democrat who what's to spend more money in public schools by making sure that vouchers are not provided to students attending private schools, or is it repuclican who wants to expand the voucher system to give those families who want to seek better education for their kids the financial means to do so?
What about the "Foudnation Advocacy Group" or "Think of the Children". (The latter might be a pro-pedophilia, pro-child pornography organization who really do want you to "think of the children" - but you might not know if the ad had nothing to do with kiddie-porn).
Anyway, your better bet would be to require that they state that they have X number of dollars in their bank account, and require that they list the candidate(s) and or proposals they would like to see win in the coming election. I like that last part, as it forces them to mention _their_ candidates name in conjunction with the advertisement. A second requirement is that any candidate mentioned by name or likeness in the advertisement must approve the broadcast or dissemination of the ad.
Free speech is not stifled: You can say you want more cops, or you don't want someone lenient on drug dealers, or you want online gambling. But you can't mention anything tying the message to a candidate without getting his or her approval. If the viewer of the ad can't be bothered to look up which candidate stands for your idea, they shouldn't be voting anyway.
- over/under on the control of either house and senate - number of incumbents losing - number of incumbents winning - net seats picked up by (R/D) - State Wars: how many states will have more repubs than dems (+ or -) - pick the state with the lowest (or highest) % voter turnout - Pick the Lock contest: choose ten guaranteed winners and losers, tie breakers based on percentages for the winners/losers
There's just so many options. It's a shame I only have three people in my office, I think this needs massive participation to be really fun.
When I say "stand on their own" I mean not relying on welfare and other social programs as their primary source of income, not shit-in-the-woods and eat berries.
As for what I pay for, I pay more for police, fire, national defense, research, social services, and other government programs than most americans so (I'm above average in income, I pay more than average taxes...it's just numbers, but it's not like I'm getting off scott free).
Healthcare, as it is can be practiced today, is too expensive to afford for everyone. Healthcare, as practiced 50 years ago would be very doable. Except that people expect to get today's technology for yesterday's dollar. Why is it so fucking expensive? Recordation, liability, manpower. That last one is the real killer - it costs a lot of money to keep an army marching, and healthcare is all about bodies. There is no Moore's Law for increasing the efficiency of nursing care. How about paying for all the marketing (excuse me "research") that the drug companies spend on each sucessful drug. The system has its problems - it's inefficiencies - but part of good healthcare is the one-on-one time you get with people. Ask any cattle-car HMO PCP from the 80s (or today for that matter) how hard it is to support an office when the reimbursement rates hover at 10-15 contact minutes per patient. As a professional service provider (engineer) in provate practice, I can tell you that people are amazed at how much services cost. Even with all the technology I have to minimize the time I spend on design and anaylsis, it still takes a fixed number of hours to gather the data, review the design with the owner, and get lines on paper.
As for my healthcare - I have hit-by-a-bus insurance. In other words, I pay out about $2 grand a year and I don't see a dime of reimbursement until me or one of my family racks up $6k in medical bills. No prescription coverage. No annual physicals. No Dental. No Optical. In return, I get to put away $6k of my own money each year into a tax sheltered savings account, which can be used to pay for my medical needs (though not the premiums). What's the benefit? After a couple years of $8000 investment, I can handle a catastrophic event. Maybe two. In a decade, I'll be pretty well covered as long as I can keep a major-medical plan in place. If I wanted a co-pay and good coverage, I'd end up dumping $6k down the insurance monster each year and have nothing the next year to show for it. Most people, even those that could make the payments (most would spend that cash on a new DLP if they got the extra $300/mo in their paychecks), don't even know the plan exists.
By the way, I once thought that the best way to get healthcare to the people of the US would be to open up the Federal heathcare system to all legal residents. Then I found out that it would cost more than the entire years wages at the federal minimum wage to pay for that coverage (about $9,000-$10,000/yr) for a family plan. If you figure 100 million "family groups" for insurance cost purposes, that comes to just about 1 Trillion dollars a year. That would require more than quadrupling the budget for US Health and Human Services (the largest spender in the federal government, which just edges out Defense and Debt Service). Since we're currently spending $500B more than we take in in revenue (that includes the deficit and the SS raided money that isn't currently counted as deficit, but adds into the Debt), you're looking at needing to DOUBLE the tax revenue of the US from all sources just to add health care comparable to what federal employees get (which is pretty good, all things considered).
I find it interesting that everyone who proposes healthcare seems to want to offer all the services available. Nobody seems to be up on providing basic preventative care and low level services, while excluding most pharmaceuticals and operative procedures. Most of that wasn't available when we were born, what makes you think it should be free today? I say no operative care, no emergency room visits, no
Acatually, even drug research can be redone. It's phenominally expensive to do in the first place, and is likely to be almost as expensive to recreate it. But the OP was about thr privacy of corporate comunication (email) at the highest levels. If the CEO loses all his email he's ever had because he forgot his password, the world will not come to an end (at least not for him). It will result in a lot of work to get it back, and if he still has any human fiber left in him (or he was inconvenienced in his stock trading that day), he'll do a much better job with it the next time.
Most people are little different than my four year old about this (present company included): If you tell someone not to do something or suffer a consequence, they're likely not to try with all their resources; let them fail and suffer real pain (permanent loss of email or a stuffed animal which is unrecoverable), and they'll be a lot more keen the next time around. Hell, I'm just as bad - I've got all of my digital video from the past 6 years in my house, most of it on the server, some of it on DVD, all of it on D8 tapes I don't trust. I know I should be better at getting the rest of it on DVD and off site, but my house hasn't burned down yet, and probably won't, so I'll get around to it when I have a free hour or two.
Most data doesn't need to be private, but if the necessity exists, it should be tracable and absolute. Of course, that's in some bizarro perfect world, but hey - I can dream.
I think the US might be wrong, or the list is at least a little bit inaccurate.
Top marginal tax rate is 35%. (2006) Social Security is 12.4%* Medicare is 2.9%*
Now, there's some funny math here, 'cause by the time you hit the 35% bracket, you no longer pay the 12.4% OASDI (Social Security) payment. So, in reality, the top bracket occurs when you are in that no-mans-land at the 28% level, and you add the 15.3%, to get 43.3%, which I suppose is close enough for government work.
It is interesting that the highest earners will likely pay only 37.9%, while those two income brackets below will pay 43.3%, but that's not really true. Those who make the big bucks usually get a large portion of their income from "capital gains," which are only taxed at 15%, and are not subject to SS and medicare taxes. Don't you just love America!
*Only half of this is taken out on the paycheck, as the employer must match this amount - but the tax is still based on the gross income.
You can't count 401k as a tax - it's your money from the start to the finish. I own an S-Corp as well. Depeding on circumstances, it's 10-15% to the Feds, 5% to the state (excluding personal and real property taxes, which aren't based on income), 15% combined to SS (to be spent by the feds on non SS programs), or about 30-35%.
Now, if you want to count my HSA, cafeteria deductions, and retirement, I'm sure I'd top 50% in a heartbeat; maybe 60%. But all that money says in my name and doesn't get distributed for the common good. I amd the greatest good my IRAs will even know.
With the exception of the SS/Medicare (aka "Welfare For The Elderly"), I'm okay with my overall tax rates. The government provides valuable services for which I am willing to pay. It also wastes money like nobodies business, but that's another arguement. I don't think that doubling my taxes would really add benefit to me, even as a tertiary benficiary of an improved welfare, medical, or security program.
What's the chance of having an unusually high percentage of males at a fertility clinic with poor sperm quality? Couldn't have seen that one coming. (Sorry, I didn't really mean it like that...)
'Cause a 17 year old can't read "Ao" and the caption "Adults Only 18+" and realize that they're not supposed to purchase the game? Sounds like this kid needs to hit the books more and the xbox a little less. WalMart proactive? Stores responsble? Give me a break - you're just as nanny state as the people wanting to arrest kids for buying these games.
I'm not the smartest guy in the room. I think you're ready to believe me on that.
I am, however, pretty open minded, and I've got a smattering of knowledge in a bunch of technical fields, and a reasonable amount of walking-around sense. The more I observe people, the more I'm amazed at how many people haven't a handle on I would consider to be "basic" skills. Math (by which I really mean simple arithmatic - not diffeq's), reading comprehension, common logic - these things seem totlaly foreign to such a large portion of the population. Since I'm in the building industry, I have contact with a lot of tradespeople. These are the real middle class: $40k/year household incomes (suprise: that's median!). The stuff most folks here on/. take for granted just doesn't come naturally to these folks.
I keep my sig because it's true. It's sad and, honestly, disappointing. There are just a lot of people out there that don't "get it."
Oh, no, I've got the tax rates right. I have looked at the tax returns of (say) President Bush, Vice PResident Cheney, Teresa Heintz, John Kerry, and others (John Edwards, BTW, did an amazing tax job the year before the 2004 election, managing to deduct somthing like a 1/3 to 1/2 of his entire income). I also know what, as a middle class weenie, pay in taxes. Combining Federal and state gets me in the low teens, as a percentage of gross income. Then I add 7.45% for SS/Medicare. Plus the 7.45 I pay from my business to cover the employers version.
If I were talking marginal tax rates, I'd tell you that if you make over $166,000, you'd pay 33% tax. Which is, of course, false - that's the marginal rate. If you make $200,000 this year (2006) in adjusted gross income (giving you your mortgage interest, donations, and personal deduction), you'll pay $36,548 in taxes, or about 18% (source: IRS 2006 Tax Table. If you happen to live in, say, Virginia, you'll pay $11,243 in income taxes (VA's income tax is pretty low, compared to those states which have income taxes). So just in income taxes, my $200,000 executive will pay 23.8% in income tax alone. Remember - there's still SS/Medicare to pay for, along with local sales, personal property, real property, specialty (restaurant/hotel) taxes that we haven't discussed.
Nowhere near the 50% number, but not exactly minimal.
Oh, and in case you feel that $200,000 is "rich" - which by the numbers it is in the top 1% of earners - I know folks in this category (I'm not one, btw), and they are solidly convinced they are part of the overtaxed middle class.
In small business, there is (noramlly) no need for high security beacuse you can't Really Fuck Things Up (TM) like you can in big business where there are billions at stake.
In big business, the data should be secure. Period. You lose your password, you lose your information - it's that simple. Oh, sure, you can^Wmust have a contingency plan (the three board members and an outside law firm) if somebody gets hit by a bus, but it really should be a hard process to implement retrieval. Would that embarrass the forgetee? Hell yes; that's the point.
If you're in charge of IT you should _want_ there to be no way for you (or any single individual other than the owner) to retrieve that data. And you should have that policy in writing, with buy in from the top.
The key here is that losing data is not an excuse for lax scurity. All data in business can be reproduced, at the cost of time and effort (=$$). It's a simple cost of doing secure business, and an incentive for executives to be midful of their responsibilties. Don't worry, they get paid enough to figure out how to commit a password to memory. If your executives don't believe that such security is necessary, then they either really don't need security (cough*bullshit*cough) or they shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions (cough*McDonaldsManager*cough).
Actually, you've proved the GPs point. Those with large incomes (or reserves) are afforded the freedom to take risks. Having a million dollars in the bank makes it easy to go become an artist for a living. If you don't make ends meet in the decorative oatmeal sculpture world, you've still got money to house and feed yourself (and your family). Doing the same thing with $1000 in the bank is inherently risky, 'cause if you fail, you starve.
Money - either as cash reserves or as steady surplus income - gives you freedom because it removes most of the fears associated with failure (psychological reactions to failure excepted). If you were a billionaire, then pursuing a wind farm generation plant with a few million dollars would be a hobby, not a life's investment. If you had a million dollars in the bank, you could volunteer at a local homeless shelter, giving people a new start in life. With few million in the bank, you could probably build a homeless shelter and start the foundation which would run it in perpetuity. Wealth, what you can "risk", and the rewards to society as a whole are all relative, but having "enough" to take care of yourself means you can pursue opportunities with the extra without the risk that a wage slave would have to take.
Never underestimate the power of wealth, even if it is only minor wealth.
I'm not so sure you're correct. The average federal income tax rate is, indeed, around 12%, though for working professionals it is likely closer to 14-16%, and for executives (those making 200k or more per year) it is around 25% (check the tax returns of politicians...they bounce between 21% and 26%, depending on their deductions). What isn't mentioned is that there's a 15% tax for social security and medicare. If you're a wage slave, you only see half of it, but your employer is paying the other half, and that affects your salary. Health care and other benefits do too. If you lose 30% of your "income" to taxes and benefits before the first line on your paycheck, is it really part of your taxes/salary?
Anyway, I'm not giving up on the US. It's filled with idiots, and there are "better" social support systems elsewhere, but if you're willing to take responsibility for your own future, it's the place to be. I plan on never seeing a dime from Social Security, so I invest for my retirement. I pay for my own healthcare, so I get to choose what level of care I get. I don't think the general human population can handle being on their own, or perhaps it's simply that having large social nets to fall back on makes standing by yourself seem too hard.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't recall ever seeing a politician on TV, or elsewhere and thinking, "Gee, that politician really gets it!".
I have personally met Rick Boucher (D-VA) and spoken with him on the DMCA and the SSSCA (it's been long enough, I'm not sure if that's the right number of S's). He really does get it.
I suppose this might be classified as a political accuracy nazi post, since pointing out one of the very few exceptions isn't really salient to the argument.
Isn't it a lot like Paris Hilton offering to give $100,000 a year towards curing world poverty. It's a great gesture - don't get me wrong, but it does set up a bit of a false expectation that everyone can do it. That is, if PH can give $100,000 to stop starvation, shouldn't everyone give $100,000 a year to stop starvation?
The key difference is that Google, like Paris, hasn't really earned most of the money they're sitting on, and most companies who actually produce something and have tangible assets don't have the luxury of increasing their building/operating expenses by a factor of 1.5 to 2.0 and still expect to be in business.
It's a great idea. Just remember that the good they are doing is not a normal possiblity for most* business operations, and the money they are doing it with has not yet been earned.
*By most, I mean a majority of the millions and millions of companies out there, not just the 200-300 you see with 7 figure CEO positions.
YouWarez = TuCows.
Okay, it's not exact, but it does exist. Upload your own stuff, it's ok. Upload somebody elses, and they can make you take it down.
No, AllofMP3 does show the actual cost of distribution, and it is real. The backend servers, recoding, tagging, and transmission all cost realy money and involve real dollars (okay, rubles). They have shown what the cost is if you are unhitched from the cartels pricefixing, and could sell music the way radio stations play music (that's my highly-untechincal understanding of how their licensing works).
It seems to me if the recording industry really wanted to shut them down, they'd pony up the bucks to have the law changed in Russia. Putin is no purist - money talks.
Well, I'd say the golden era occured before the first consumer CD player hit the market. Also, MTV made for an enormous cash hole into which the studios have thrown money. Now, appearance is more important that the music, and for every $20,000 track that gets produced, an $80,000 video has to be made. (Those numbers are entirely made up, but I wouldn't be suprised if the ratio is too far off, counting primarily production costs). That video will never make a dime - there's really no market for it, except as advertisement for the song. If your costs go up and your revenue stays the same, you're not going to make money. Luckily, it costs a great deal less to press a CD today than it did in 1985, but we'll never see that savings.
I agree that the golden age of music is gone, and that the filesharing doesn't affect the bottom line nearly as much as they would lead everyone to believe. It does matter, but - as you pointed out - there's a fixed budget for entertainment, and there are more players in the market. Stopping all the filesharing in the world won't fix that problem for them.
I am reminded of an 11th grade Literature class dicussion where the ending of A Tale of Two Cities was being discussed. Some girl mentioned that the protagonist was probably hung, to which the teacher, a Ms. Hawk, smiled and replied "I think we can reasonable assume he was hanged. As to whether he was hung, that's purely a matter of speculation."
You forgot to mention adding a good MP3 encoder.
Oh, right...the other lame.
So...let me get this right. The Democrats bought these machines and rigged the elections. For the Republicans to win. And take over. So they could complain about it?
Wow. I'm all for coming up with new conspiracies, but this one is a real winner.
I seem to remember that the sound system made more of a difference in experience than the picture size (and, presumably the resolution) of the picture. So spend a few hundred on a decend amp with surround speakers (nothing fancy really required), and keep your DVD player.
BTW - I picked up an open box 51" Hitachi HD set (1080i/720p) for $800 a year and a half ago. DVDs (and, for that matter 320p DiVXs) look good. HD is crystal clear - really fantastic, actually. I'd give up the HD for a full set of M&K speakers, though.
No, the razors are costing a fortune right now. They're trying to give you a free blade or two so you'll go buy the razor. Of course, given the offerings, it's a bit more like passing out rusty, nicked blades - 'cause only the true masochists are going to really enjoy watching either of these films, much less in HD.
That's fine and dandy, but stating "who you are" has no indication of who you're working for. What party would be affiliated with the "Council for Better Education?" Would that be the democrat who what's to spend more money in public schools by making sure that vouchers are not provided to students attending private schools, or is it repuclican who wants to expand the voucher system to give those families who want to seek better education for their kids the financial means to do so?
What about the "Foudnation Advocacy Group" or "Think of the Children". (The latter might be a pro-pedophilia, pro-child pornography organization who really do want you to "think of the children" - but you might not know if the ad had nothing to do with kiddie-porn).
Anyway, your better bet would be to require that they state that they have X number of dollars in their bank account, and require that they list the candidate(s) and or proposals they would like to see win in the coming election. I like that last part, as it forces them to mention _their_ candidates name in conjunction with the advertisement. A second requirement is that any candidate mentioned by name or likeness in the advertisement must approve the broadcast or dissemination of the ad.
Free speech is not stifled: You can say you want more cops, or you don't want someone lenient on drug dealers, or you want online gambling. But you can't mention anything tying the message to a candidate without getting his or her approval. If the viewer of the ad can't be bothered to look up which candidate stands for your idea, they shouldn't be voting anyway.
Oh, there are lots of options:
- over/under on the control of either house and senate
- number of incumbents losing
- number of incumbents winning
- net seats picked up by (R/D)
- State Wars: how many states will have more repubs than dems (+ or -)
- pick the state with the lowest (or highest) % voter turnout
- Pick the Lock contest: choose ten guaranteed winners and losers, tie breakers based on percentages for the winners/losers
There's just so many options. It's a shame I only have three people in my office, I think this needs massive participation to be really fun.
When I say "stand on their own" I mean not relying on welfare and other social programs as their primary source of income, not shit-in-the-woods and eat berries.
As for what I pay for, I pay more for police, fire, national defense, research, social services, and other government programs than most americans so (I'm above average in income, I pay more than average taxes...it's just numbers, but it's not like I'm getting off scott free).
Healthcare, as it is can be practiced today, is too expensive to afford for everyone. Healthcare, as practiced 50 years ago would be very doable. Except that people expect to get today's technology for yesterday's dollar. Why is it so fucking expensive? Recordation, liability, manpower. That last one is the real killer - it costs a lot of money to keep an army marching, and healthcare is all about bodies. There is no Moore's Law for increasing the efficiency of nursing care. How about paying for all the marketing (excuse me "research") that the drug companies spend on each sucessful drug. The system has its problems - it's inefficiencies - but part of good healthcare is the one-on-one time you get with people. Ask any cattle-car HMO PCP from the 80s (or today for that matter) how hard it is to support an office when the reimbursement rates hover at 10-15 contact minutes per patient. As a professional service provider (engineer) in provate practice, I can tell you that people are amazed at how much services cost. Even with all the technology I have to minimize the time I spend on design and anaylsis, it still takes a fixed number of hours to gather the data, review the design with the owner, and get lines on paper.
As for my healthcare - I have hit-by-a-bus insurance. In other words, I pay out about $2 grand a year and I don't see a dime of reimbursement until me or one of my family racks up $6k in medical bills. No prescription coverage. No annual physicals. No Dental. No Optical. In return, I get to put away $6k of my own money each year into a tax sheltered savings account, which can be used to pay for my medical needs (though not the premiums). What's the benefit? After a couple years of $8000 investment, I can handle a catastrophic event. Maybe two. In a decade, I'll be pretty well covered as long as I can keep a major-medical plan in place. If I wanted a co-pay and good coverage, I'd end up dumping $6k down the insurance monster each year and have nothing the next year to show for it. Most people, even those that could make the payments (most would spend that cash on a new DLP if they got the extra $300/mo in their paychecks), don't even know the plan exists.
By the way, I once thought that the best way to get healthcare to the people of the US would be to open up the Federal heathcare system to all legal residents. Then I found out that it would cost more than the entire years wages at the federal minimum wage to pay for that coverage (about $9,000-$10,000/yr) for a family plan. If you figure 100 million "family groups" for insurance cost purposes, that comes to just about 1 Trillion dollars a year. That would require more than quadrupling the budget for US Health and Human Services (the largest spender in the federal government, which just edges out Defense and Debt Service). Since we're currently spending $500B more than we take in in revenue (that includes the deficit and the SS raided money that isn't currently counted as deficit, but adds into the Debt), you're looking at needing to DOUBLE the tax revenue of the US from all sources just to add health care comparable to what federal employees get (which is pretty good, all things considered).
I find it interesting that everyone who proposes healthcare seems to want to offer all the services available. Nobody seems to be up on providing basic preventative care and low level services, while excluding most pharmaceuticals and operative procedures. Most of that wasn't available when we were born, what makes you think it should be free today? I say no operative care, no emergency room visits, no
Yeah, I changed the rating 'cause the M lists 17yo's as acceptable, and it didn't make sense the way the OP phrased it.
Acatually, even drug research can be redone. It's phenominally expensive to do in the first place, and is likely to be almost as expensive to recreate it. But the OP was about thr privacy of corporate comunication (email) at the highest levels. If the CEO loses all his email he's ever had because he forgot his password, the world will not come to an end (at least not for him). It will result in a lot of work to get it back, and if he still has any human fiber left in him (or he was inconvenienced in his stock trading that day), he'll do a much better job with it the next time.
Most people are little different than my four year old about this (present company included): If you tell someone not to do something or suffer a consequence, they're likely not to try with all their resources; let them fail and suffer real pain (permanent loss of email or a stuffed animal which is unrecoverable), and they'll be a lot more keen the next time around. Hell, I'm just as bad - I've got all of my digital video from the past 6 years in my house, most of it on the server, some of it on DVD, all of it on D8 tapes I don't trust. I know I should be better at getting the rest of it on DVD and off site, but my house hasn't burned down yet, and probably won't, so I'll get around to it when I have a free hour or two.
Most data doesn't need to be private, but if the necessity exists, it should be tracable and absolute. Of course, that's in some bizarro perfect world, but hey - I can dream.
Apparently there is a lot of surplus time available to all these "overworked" kids.
I think the US might be wrong, or the list is at least a little bit inaccurate.
Top marginal tax rate is 35%. (2006)
Social Security is 12.4%*
Medicare is 2.9%*
Now, there's some funny math here, 'cause by the time you hit the 35% bracket, you no longer pay the 12.4% OASDI (Social Security) payment. So, in reality, the top bracket occurs when you are in that no-mans-land at the 28% level, and you add the 15.3%, to get 43.3%, which I suppose is close enough for government work.
It is interesting that the highest earners will likely pay only 37.9%, while those two income brackets below will pay 43.3%, but that's not really true. Those who make the big bucks usually get a large portion of their income from "capital gains," which are only taxed at 15%, and are not subject to SS and medicare taxes. Don't you just love America!
*Only half of this is taken out on the paycheck, as the employer must match this amount - but the tax is still based on the gross income.
You can't count 401k as a tax - it's your money from the start to the finish. I own an S-Corp as well. Depeding on circumstances, it's 10-15% to the Feds, 5% to the state (excluding personal and real property taxes, which aren't based on income), 15% combined to SS (to be spent by the feds on non SS programs), or about 30-35%.
Now, if you want to count my HSA, cafeteria deductions, and retirement, I'm sure I'd top 50% in a heartbeat; maybe 60%. But all that money says in my name and doesn't get distributed for the common good. I amd the greatest good my IRAs will even know.
With the exception of the SS/Medicare (aka "Welfare For The Elderly"), I'm okay with my overall tax rates. The government provides valuable services for which I am willing to pay. It also wastes money like nobodies business, but that's another arguement. I don't think that doubling my taxes would really add benefit to me, even as a tertiary benficiary of an improved welfare, medical, or security program.
What's the chance of having an unusually high percentage of males at a fertility clinic with poor sperm quality? Couldn't have seen that one coming. (Sorry, I didn't really mean it like that...)
Huh?
'Cause a 17 year old can't read "Ao" and the caption "Adults Only 18+" and realize that they're not supposed to purchase the game? Sounds like this kid needs to hit the books more and the xbox a little less. WalMart proactive? Stores responsble? Give me a break - you're just as nanny state as the people wanting to arrest kids for buying these games.
And while you're at it, get the hell off my lawn!
I'm not the smartest guy in the room. I think you're ready to believe me on that.
/. take for granted just doesn't come naturally to these folks.
I am, however, pretty open minded, and I've got a smattering of knowledge in a bunch of technical fields, and a reasonable amount of walking-around sense. The more I observe people, the more I'm amazed at how many people haven't a handle on I would consider to be "basic" skills. Math (by which I really mean simple arithmatic - not diffeq's), reading comprehension, common logic - these things seem totlaly foreign to such a large portion of the population. Since I'm in the building industry, I have contact with a lot of tradespeople. These are the real middle class: $40k/year household incomes (suprise: that's median!). The stuff most folks here on
I keep my sig because it's true. It's sad and, honestly, disappointing. There are just a lot of people out there that don't "get it."
Oh, no, I've got the tax rates right. I have looked at the tax returns of (say) President Bush, Vice PResident Cheney, Teresa Heintz, John Kerry, and others (John Edwards, BTW, did an amazing tax job the year before the 2004 election, managing to deduct somthing like a 1/3 to 1/2 of his entire income). I also know what, as a middle class weenie, pay in taxes. Combining Federal and state gets me in the low teens, as a percentage of gross income. Then I add 7.45% for SS/Medicare. Plus the 7.45 I pay from my business to cover the employers version.
If I were talking marginal tax rates, I'd tell you that if you make over $166,000, you'd pay 33% tax. Which is, of course, false - that's the marginal rate. If you make $200,000 this year (2006) in adjusted gross income (giving you your mortgage interest, donations, and personal deduction), you'll pay $36,548 in taxes, or about 18% (source: IRS 2006 Tax Table. If you happen to live in, say, Virginia, you'll pay $11,243 in income taxes (VA's income tax is pretty low, compared to those states which have income taxes). So just in income taxes, my $200,000 executive will pay 23.8% in income tax alone. Remember - there's still SS/Medicare to pay for, along with local sales, personal property, real property, specialty (restaurant/hotel) taxes that we haven't discussed.
Nowhere near the 50% number, but not exactly minimal.
Oh, and in case you feel that $200,000 is "rich" - which by the numbers it is in the top 1% of earners - I know folks in this category (I'm not one, btw), and they are solidly convinced they are part of the overtaxed middle class.
In small business, there is (noramlly) no need for high security beacuse you can't Really Fuck Things Up (TM) like you can in big business where there are billions at stake.
In big business, the data should be secure. Period. You lose your password, you lose your information - it's that simple. Oh, sure, you can^Wmust have a contingency plan (the three board members and an outside law firm) if somebody gets hit by a bus, but it really should be a hard process to implement retrieval. Would that embarrass the forgetee? Hell yes; that's the point.
If you're in charge of IT you should _want_ there to be no way for you (or any single individual other than the owner) to retrieve that data. And you should have that policy in writing, with buy in from the top.
The key here is that losing data is not an excuse for lax scurity. All data in business can be reproduced, at the cost of time and effort (=$$). It's a simple cost of doing secure business, and an incentive for executives to be midful of their responsibilties. Don't worry, they get paid enough to figure out how to commit a password to memory. If your executives don't believe that such security is necessary, then they either really don't need security (cough*bullshit*cough) or they shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions (cough*McDonaldsManager*cough).
Actually, you've proved the GPs point. Those with large incomes (or reserves) are afforded the freedom to take risks. Having a million dollars in the bank makes it easy to go become an artist for a living. If you don't make ends meet in the decorative oatmeal sculpture world, you've still got money to house and feed yourself (and your family). Doing the same thing with $1000 in the bank is inherently risky, 'cause if you fail, you starve.
Money - either as cash reserves or as steady surplus income - gives you freedom because it removes most of the fears associated with failure (psychological reactions to failure excepted). If you were a billionaire, then pursuing a wind farm generation plant with a few million dollars would be a hobby, not a life's investment. If you had a million dollars in the bank, you could volunteer at a local homeless shelter, giving people a new start in life. With few million in the bank, you could probably build a homeless shelter and start the foundation which would run it in perpetuity. Wealth, what you can "risk", and the rewards to society as a whole are all relative, but having "enough" to take care of yourself means you can pursue opportunities with the extra without the risk that a wage slave would have to take.
Never underestimate the power of wealth, even if it is only minor wealth.
I'm not so sure you're correct. The average federal income tax rate is, indeed, around 12%, though for working professionals it is likely closer to 14-16%, and for executives (those making 200k or more per year) it is around 25% (check the tax returns of politicians...they bounce between 21% and 26%, depending on their deductions). What isn't mentioned is that there's a 15% tax for social security and medicare. If you're a wage slave, you only see half of it, but your employer is paying the other half, and that affects your salary. Health care and other benefits do too. If you lose 30% of your "income" to taxes and benefits before the first line on your paycheck, is it really part of your taxes/salary?
Anyway, I'm not giving up on the US. It's filled with idiots, and there are "better" social support systems elsewhere, but if you're willing to take responsibility for your own future, it's the place to be. I plan on never seeing a dime from Social Security, so I invest for my retirement. I pay for my own healthcare, so I get to choose what level of care I get. I don't think the general human population can handle being on their own, or perhaps it's simply that having large social nets to fall back on makes standing by yourself seem too hard.