And I don't have any objections to saying it is a stupid way to collect the tax if that is what you believe, I just think it is mental judo to see a difference between a tax that collects $15 or $18 from just fuel taxes and a tax that collects $14.95 or $18 or $25 from some combination of fuel and mileage taxes (obviously, if it collects $25 instead of $18 the people have seen a tax increase).
So it is easily described as a new structure for taxing vehicle owners that drive on public roads. To me, double dipping would describe a situation where the government tried to apply a single tax twice, not to a situation where a new law is written that collects a new (possibly related) tax.
Right, because the design of the American system of measurement precludes counting in tenths of a mile.
I don't think it would be that big a deal for the U.S. to switch, and there would probably be some benefits too it (not necessarily more successful space probes, there was more sloppiness there than just doing a unit conversion improperly), but the ways most of the arguments go are just silly.
I mean, the other way to phrase it is a restructuring of the tax to account for changes in vehicle design (perhaps with some hand waving about it also being an increase).
I don't think it is likely to be particularly effective and am sympathetic to the idea that maybe not everything needs to be taxed, but your "double dipping" is at least as jingoistic as my phrasing is mealy-mouthed politics speak.
What? I use a bunch of Google stuff and don't really worry about it. I block Google Analytics, but that is because it really drags on a slow connection.
My point was literally that "Do no evil" is an impossible standard, whereas "Don't be evil" is a lot easier to live up to. I even called it a catch phrase, instead of insisting it was a motto or whatever.
It's a nuclear reactor sited in earthquake and tsunami zones. When you have an event that exceeds the design criteria, you don't brag about how you only lost control over normal shutdown cooling and released material into the atmosphere, you admit that you screwed up the risk analysis and design (and whether anyone likes it or not, politics means that "safe" for nuclear reactors means never emitting material into the environment, not emitting material into the environment whenever there is an unexpected event).
This guys analysis suggests that you would have received the equivalent of at least 10 CT scans just by being at the front gate since the beginning of this incident:
I don't have the knowledge to critique what he has done, but he is using the numbers published by the power company and it at least has the appearance of being reasonable.
A lot of that exposure is from the various steam ventings and fires and has been mostly local to the plant, so the only real concern is if things do not continue to move towards stability.
No state is free. It isn't really a problem, but thinking they are leads to things like where democracy is held up as an ideal, rather than being better than the alternatives (the ideal situation would be one where no government intervention was ever needed, which is obviously a pipe dream, but ideals don't have to be practical to offer guidance).
That joke reached its peak when it was spoken and both the teller and audience had the subtlety to notice the difference between light a fire and light afire.
See where it says "If they are going to design their devices to be locked to it then it probably needs to be treated as a commons."?
That's completely consistent with this:
So to be clear: Apple has quite a lot of power in the smart phone and tablet markets and they design their devices in such a way that apps can only be loaded from a store they control. If Apple is refusing to offer other methods of installing apps, then there should be very limited circumstances where they can deny access to that market.
Basically, if Apple wants to assert that they are protecting their customers, they need to protect their customers from actual malicious apps, not apps that Apple arbitrarily deems offensive (which means that I do see room for Apple to check if an app steals credit cards, but I don't think they should be censoring nipples).
Have your episodes of barrel shooting been particularly unsuccessful?
You keep throwing out analogies that don't line up with the situation being discussed; the Disney Channel isn't tied to a piece of hardware that Disney is trying to sell, and it doesn't have anything resembling the market power that Apple has with their devices.
So to be clear: Apple has quite a lot of power in the smart phone and tablet markets and they design their devices in such a way that apps can only be loaded from a store they control. If Apple is refusing to offer other methods of installing apps, then there should be very limited circumstances where they can deny access to that market.
If they want a curated market, then they shouldn't restrict their devices to that market.
By my opinion, if you want to avoid problems with the government, a real simple way of starting is to completely avoid confusion with their official currency. And they could have printed the weight of the precious metal embodied within the coin, rather than arbitrary units that might be confused with U.S. Dollars.
Those things don't make it any harder to sell them to people that want to own metals and they go a long ways towards making it clear that they aren't U.S. currency.
I'm not familiar enough with the situation to have strong opinions, but I don't think I would end up defending "50 Liberty Dollars" as a smart name for a non governmental currency that is intended to be advertised in the United States.
If they are going to design their devices to be locked to it then it probably needs to be treated as a commons.
The system for using other appstores could bootstrap using an Apple approved app that made it clear to the user that Apple thinks it is a bad idea to trust other entities with curating the user experience.
The 'expense' of mining is adjusted as more cycles are thrown at it so that the number of coins created over larger periods of time is relatively constant.
The coins are issued by the system at a relatively constant rate that is adjusted to account for the amount of calculation being thrown at 'mining', so all a company like Google could do is capture most of the coins being issued over a given amount of time (and that's assuming that they have enough hardware (GPUs are apparently much faster than CPUs) and want to pay for the electricity to overwhelm all the other participants in the system).
I'm just pointing out that you have drawn your fences in the wrong places, the tax status of the foundation won't have much impact for the corporation.
As far as I can see, the corporation pays taxes on income because that is less hassle than doing the accounting that would be required to recognize the income with the foundation. Notice how that doesn't actually avoid any taxes, it just keeps the income at arms reach from the foundation, which probably keeps their accounting simpler.
No doubt, the people that talked AOL into creating a foundation have done very nicely for themselves, but it isn't real clear that they are messing around trying to avoid corporate taxes, or whatever.
Much of the use of AC over long distances is inertia from before the development of high efficiency power electronics that can step DC up to high voltages.
So when Edison and Tesla were arguing, Tesla was really right. These days he is less right (because the equipment for messing with AC is generally cheaper).
Slashdot Mirror
And I don't have any objections to saying it is a stupid way to collect the tax if that is what you believe, I just think it is mental judo to see a difference between a tax that collects $15 or $18 from just fuel taxes and a tax that collects $14.95 or $18 or $25 from some combination of fuel and mileage taxes (obviously, if it collects $25 instead of $18 the people have seen a tax increase).
So it is easily described as a new structure for taxing vehicle owners that drive on public roads. To me, double dipping would describe a situation where the government tried to apply a single tax twice, not to a situation where a new law is written that collects a new (possibly related) tax.
Commercial vehicles often get exceptions for road taxes.
Right, because the design of the American system of measurement precludes counting in tenths of a mile.
I don't think it would be that big a deal for the U.S. to switch, and there would probably be some benefits too it (not necessarily more successful space probes, there was more sloppiness there than just doing a unit conversion improperly), but the ways most of the arguments go are just silly.
Why is it double dipping?
I mean, the other way to phrase it is a restructuring of the tax to account for changes in vehicle design (perhaps with some hand waving about it also being an increase).
I don't think it is likely to be particularly effective and am sympathetic to the idea that maybe not everything needs to be taxed, but your "double dipping" is at least as jingoistic as my phrasing is mealy-mouthed politics speak.
What? I use a bunch of Google stuff and don't really worry about it. I block Google Analytics, but that is because it really drags on a slow connection.
My point was literally that "Do no evil" is an impossible standard, whereas "Don't be evil" is a lot easier to live up to. I even called it a catch phrase, instead of insisting it was a motto or whatever.
Their catch phrase is a lot more ambiguous than that ("Don't be evil").
It's a nuclear reactor sited in earthquake and tsunami zones. When you have an event that exceeds the design criteria, you don't brag about how you only lost control over normal shutdown cooling and released material into the atmosphere, you admit that you screwed up the risk analysis and design (and whether anyone likes it or not, politics means that "safe" for nuclear reactors means never emitting material into the environment, not emitting material into the environment whenever there is an unexpected event).
What numbers have you looked at?
This guys analysis suggests that you would have received the equivalent of at least 10 CT scans just by being at the front gate since the beginning of this incident:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/g6h3l/real_data_from_the_fukushima_daiichi_power_plant/
(Be sure to pick up the updated graph, the error is explained in a comment: http://i.imgur.com/kSXLy.png )
I don't have the knowledge to critique what he has done, but he is using the numbers published by the power company and it at least has the appearance of being reasonable.
A lot of that exposure is from the various steam ventings and fires and has been mostly local to the plant, so the only real concern is if things do not continue to move towards stability.
Yep.
No state is free. It isn't really a problem, but thinking they are leads to things like where democracy is held up as an ideal, rather than being better than the alternatives (the ideal situation would be one where no government intervention was ever needed, which is obviously a pipe dream, but ideals don't have to be practical to offer guidance).
That joke reached its peak when it was spoken and both the teller and audience had the subtlety to notice the difference between light a fire and light afire.
There are people with neurological disorders that are utterly convinced that some nonsensical thing or another is completely true.
Some of them will fabricate explanations on the spot, with no doubt in their minds that they speak the truth.
I think you are confusing me with someone else. How does my last post retreat from this one:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2050680&cid=35587926
See where it says "If they are going to design their devices to be locked to it then it probably needs to be treated as a commons."?
That's completely consistent with this:
So to be clear: Apple has quite a lot of power in the smart phone and tablet markets and they design their devices in such a way that apps can only be loaded from a store they control. If Apple is refusing to offer other methods of installing apps, then there should be very limited circumstances where they can deny access to that market.
Basically, if Apple wants to assert that they are protecting their customers, they need to protect their customers from actual malicious apps, not apps that Apple arbitrarily deems offensive (which means that I do see room for Apple to check if an app steals credit cards, but I don't think they should be censoring nipples).
The evidence was cleverly hidden on Youtube. Why are you so certain there was some sort of relationship?
Have your episodes of barrel shooting been particularly unsuccessful?
You keep throwing out analogies that don't line up with the situation being discussed; the Disney Channel isn't tied to a piece of hardware that Disney is trying to sell, and it doesn't have anything resembling the market power that Apple has with their devices.
So to be clear: Apple has quite a lot of power in the smart phone and tablet markets and they design their devices in such a way that apps can only be loaded from a store they control. If Apple is refusing to offer other methods of installing apps, then there should be very limited circumstances where they can deny access to that market.
If they want a curated market, then they shouldn't restrict their devices to that market.
Physical fences around private property are a lot more natural than centrally controlled cryptographic restrictions built into computing devices.
Maybe relax a little.
By my opinion, if you want to avoid problems with the government, a real simple way of starting is to completely avoid confusion with their official currency. And they could have printed the weight of the precious metal embodied within the coin, rather than arbitrary units that might be confused with U.S. Dollars.
Those things don't make it any harder to sell them to people that want to own metals and they go a long ways towards making it clear that they aren't U.S. currency.
I'm not familiar enough with the situation to have strong opinions, but I don't think I would end up defending "50 Liberty Dollars" as a smart name for a non governmental currency that is intended to be advertised in the United States.
If they are going to design their devices to be locked to it then it probably needs to be treated as a commons.
The system for using other appstores could bootstrap using an Apple approved app that made it clear to the user that Apple thinks it is a bad idea to trust other entities with curating the user experience.
The 'expense' of mining is adjusted as more cycles are thrown at it so that the number of coins created over larger periods of time is relatively constant.
The coins are issued by the system at a relatively constant rate that is adjusted to account for the amount of calculation being thrown at 'mining', so all a company like Google could do is capture most of the coins being issued over a given amount of time (and that's assuming that they have enough hardware (GPUs are apparently much faster than CPUs) and want to pay for the electricity to overwhelm all the other participants in the system).
He didn't exactly go out of his way to avoid confusion with the official currency of the U.S., you know, the dollar.
Surely some fraction of the participants have been happy with the money that they received.
I'm just pointing out that you have drawn your fences in the wrong places, the tax status of the foundation won't have much impact for the corporation.
As far as I can see, the corporation pays taxes on income because that is less hassle than doing the accounting that would be required to recognize the income with the foundation. Notice how that doesn't actually avoid any taxes, it just keeps the income at arms reach from the foundation, which probably keeps their accounting simpler.
No doubt, the people that talked AOL into creating a foundation have done very nicely for themselves, but it isn't real clear that they are messing around trying to avoid corporate taxes, or whatever.
Of course, the Mozilla Corporation has to pay taxes, it can't use the Foundation as a shelter.
Much of the use of AC over long distances is inertia from before the development of high efficiency power electronics that can step DC up to high voltages.
So when Edison and Tesla were arguing, Tesla was really right. These days he is less right (because the equipment for messing with AC is generally cheaper).