My memory of managing history in 2.0 is that it was awkward and irritating. In 3.0, it is easy bring up the library and delete the bookmarks for an arbitrary amount of time, so empty history porn fans should have disappeared already.
Try Jquery. If you don't like it, try Prototype or the stuff from Yahoo. There are many dozens of other libraries to try if none of those are to your liking.
Mozilla Developer Center is a decent place to start as far as learning the language:
If the goal is to have a progressive tax system, during the implementation, you may end up with a tax system that is regressive for some people. An implementation where those situations are 1% regressive is a lot better than an implementation where those situations are 10% regressive (and thus punitive, instead of say, incidental or tolerable or whatever).
Anyway, my point was that given highly progressive nature of federal taxes, property taxes don't end up making the overall system regressive for very many people. This point works equally well for property taxes that are explicitly progressive, or for property taxes that are mildly regressive (and thus not punitively regressive).
No, the content of the episodes under discussion is completely known. There are not the dozens of episodes of Homer doing nothing but sleeping that would be required for your theory to be worth considering.
An Obama tax cut will almost certainly result in a drop in revenues, but it is not a tautology that a tax cut results in a drop in revenues (take the case of a 100% tax, no one would bother working, or at least, they wouldn't tell the government about it).
As long as they are paid for with tax increases in reasonable order, tax cuts can be a prudent way to stimulate the economy (this part has largely been ignored since WW2 was paid off)
It takes an awful lot of pretending to believe that responsibility is sliced and diced that neatly.
For one thing, the sitting president usually has to contend with a hostile Congress (ooh, so it's the tax and spend liberals who send things sideways when a Republican is president).
Another thing that makes it hard to do is that there are all sorts of one time events that have nothing to do with the sitting President. Take the last 20 years. The Gulf War probably would have gone about the same with a Democrat in the big chair, but you are crediting Bush I will the economic consequences. Government spending contributed to the success of the internet, but things really took off because computers reached a certain performance/price level, not because Bill was in office. And so on, in either direction.
Another major factor is that Presidential policy doesn't take effect immediately, so decisions made in previous administrations end up having impacts on current administrations.
If it was widely deployed, bots would simply simulate the correct response, either by inspecting the javascript objects, or simply ripping the response out of the source text (depending on how hard the scripter worked to keep the answer secretz).
To some extent, the lists talked about in the article are much more mundane than that (they aren't about choosing care, they are about completing a single procedure in the best way possible).
(It seems possible that the biggest benefit from the central line checklist was that it documented, and brought management attention to, a shortage of supplies that help control infections; even if that is the right explanation, the checklists are still a valuable way for management and the actual care providers to document expectations and the issues related to following up on those expectations, and so forth)
It doesn't have to be a moral issue for everyone for it to be a moral issue for society (it just has to be a moral issue for a large enough group of people that it comes up).
Some people think about that and want everyone to behave exactly as they believe. Sane people think about it and realize that other people aren't going to agree with them 100% about what is moral.
Opiates aren't particularly equivalent, there are multiple receptors, and the interaction between the drug and the various receptors varies quite a bit. Heroine is (supposedly...) a clearer, more euphoric high than morphine, to the extent that there are people who advocate for using it in hospice situations.
So how many of those non-divorces were women staying in terrible marriages because they weren't getting physically beat anymore, or because their husband put food on the table more consistently?
Without context, the surface statistic isn't very interesting (the divorce rate also sky-rocketed when reliable birth control came about; is this because women could better control the economic consequences of sex, or is it because not having children made them unhappy?).
For me, what it comes down to is that I don't want other people telling me what to do, so I need to avoid telling them what to do, to have any hope that they will stay out of my business.
Right, but it would also be analogous to think that pulling your hair would make it grow faster, or stronger.
I'm right there with the 'leave it be' being a good strategy (with a healthy dose of paranoia towards strep throat -- fortunately, I only had it once, ~15 years ago), but the 'practice' analogy doesn't work for me, for example, my body sees shellfish as a major enemy, and attacks it with gusto, yet I've had maybe an ounce or two of said material in ~30 years of life; it seems I was born with that reaction, or quickly picked it up from something unrelated (and it is detrimental to me!).
Yeah, but sometimes, trillions of dollars of those unrealized 'profits' go up in smoke (making it tough to call them profits). Like the last 3 months. The current system, of taxing the wealth increase when the wealth is accessed, makes a lot of sense to me. To some extent, corporate taxes are a tax on that wealth, so it isn't entirely untaxed. Plenty of ordinary people gain wealth when the value of their house increases, should the government be tracking and taxing that wealth?
As far as the estate tax and compounding, unless the deceased makes arrangements to avoid taxes (and plenty of people do), the tax gets paid on the final amount...
I thought it odd that you got one on your nose, from extreme cold. But yeah, cold sores are fever blisters (caused by the herpes simplex virus), and usually occur on the lips.
The linked page explains, but capital gains are included as income in the calculations.
The U.S. doesn't have a wealth tax (except the estate tax which is, I believe, progressive at the bottom and then flat), so sure, wealth isn't taxed progressively.
As far as recognized annual income, both earned and investment, yes, it is progressive. Perhaps not wildly progressive when you factor in state and local taxes, but it isn't wildly regressive, or really, regressive at all.
The CBO discusses their methodology on that page. They are counting the employer portion as income (I can see where people would call this deceitful, I would argue that the idea that the employer is paying taxes to employ you, but it isn't a tax on your income, is fiction).
There is enough room in the meanings of the various words that calling it deceitful is going pretty far. If I were Steve Forbes discussing estate taxes, then probably so, but the context of this thread (or at least, my statements) has clearly been income taxes.
I mean, you want to narrow the range down so that it is very small and then point out that wealth isn't taxed, but it is just as legitimate for me to use a metric that says "Anybody who earns more than $500,000", as those people could pretty much universally get by with less.
Sure, the group of people above $500,000 is wildly non-uniform, but if you start looking at it in terms of overall liabilities, the ones at the top of that group are screwing the rest of the people in that group, not the citizens/taxpayers in general, and certainly not the people in the bottom third, or maybe even half.
You said it was difficult. That's different than it simply being harder. It implies a certain threshold, which is where you are full of hyperbole.
You don't have to scan ingredients, the ones that do have antibiotics announce it loudly. If those 5 seconds comprise 'difficulty', I hate to think that you are allowed to drive a car.
There is no resistance danger from products that physically rip the cells apart (this is bleach, alcohol, etc.). Those products are capitalizing on emotionally manipulating people, but they aren't causing difficulty for people trying to treat infections.
Consumer soaps that are marketed as antibacterial generally contain triclosan, full stop. Hand sanitizers are indeed often alcohol based, but they are marketed as killing germs, not as being antibacterial.
What are you basing the 3rd one on? I get that it is natural to compare the immune system to a muscle, but does it actually make sense to?
(I say this as someone who doesn't get particularly sick, doesn't get sick all that often, rarely takes antibiotics and has medium allergies, so I'm not just being skeptical for fun, I'm curious if you have some solid basis)
Slashdot Mirror
It was CELINE!!
My memory of managing history in 2.0 is that it was awkward and irritating. In 3.0, it is easy bring up the library and delete the bookmarks for an arbitrary amount of time, so empty history porn fans should have disappeared already.
Try Jquery. If you don't like it, try Prototype or the stuff from Yahoo. There are many dozens of other libraries to try if none of those are to your liking.
Mozilla Developer Center is a decent place to start as far as learning the language:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/JavaScript
If the goal is to have a progressive tax system, during the implementation, you may end up with a tax system that is regressive for some people. An implementation where those situations are 1% regressive is a lot better than an implementation where those situations are 10% regressive (and thus punitive, instead of say, incidental or tolerable or whatever).
Anyway, my point was that given highly progressive nature of federal taxes, property taxes don't end up making the overall system regressive for very many people. This point works equally well for property taxes that are explicitly progressive, or for property taxes that are mildly regressive (and thus not punitively regressive).
No, the content of the episodes under discussion is completely known. There are not the dozens of episodes of Homer doing nothing but sleeping that would be required for your theory to be worth considering.
An Obama tax cut will almost certainly result in a drop in revenues, but it is not a tautology that a tax cut results in a drop in revenues (take the case of a 100% tax, no one would bother working, or at least, they wouldn't tell the government about it).
As long as they are paid for with tax increases in reasonable order, tax cuts can be a prudent way to stimulate the economy (this part has largely been ignored since WW2 was paid off)
It takes an awful lot of pretending to believe that responsibility is sliced and diced that neatly.
For one thing, the sitting president usually has to contend with a hostile Congress (ooh, so it's the tax and spend liberals who send things sideways when a Republican is president).
Another thing that makes it hard to do is that there are all sorts of one time events that have nothing to do with the sitting President. Take the last 20 years. The Gulf War probably would have gone about the same with a Democrat in the big chair, but you are crediting Bush I will the economic consequences. Government spending contributed to the success of the internet, but things really took off because computers reached a certain performance/price level, not because Bill was in office. And so on, in either direction.
Another major factor is that Presidential policy doesn't take effect immediately, so decisions made in previous administrations end up having impacts on current administrations.
If you are going to be a ridiculous pedant, you need to account for time that is not shown, but is implied.
I mean, how many episodes show Homer staggering drunk and then sober?
If it was widely deployed, bots would simply simulate the correct response, either by inspecting the javascript objects, or simply ripping the response out of the source text (depending on how hard the scripter worked to keep the answer secretz).
To some extent, the lists talked about in the article are much more mundane than that (they aren't about choosing care, they are about completing a single procedure in the best way possible).
(It seems possible that the biggest benefit from the central line checklist was that it documented, and brought management attention to, a shortage of supplies that help control infections; even if that is the right explanation, the checklists are still a valuable way for management and the actual care providers to document expectations and the issues related to following up on those expectations, and so forth)
Did you conclude that there was a flaw in your sampling methodology?
It doesn't have to be a moral issue for everyone for it to be a moral issue for society (it just has to be a moral issue for a large enough group of people that it comes up).
Some people think about that and want everyone to behave exactly as they believe. Sane people think about it and realize that other people aren't going to agree with them 100% about what is moral.
Opiates aren't particularly equivalent, there are multiple receptors, and the interaction between the drug and the various receptors varies quite a bit. Heroine is (supposedly...) a clearer, more euphoric high than morphine, to the extent that there are people who advocate for using it in hospice situations.
mikael_j got it right:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1054227&cid=26029643
Were all her little friends obsessed with Barbie and pink stuff?
So how many of those non-divorces were women staying in terrible marriages because they weren't getting physically beat anymore, or because their husband put food on the table more consistently?
Without context, the surface statistic isn't very interesting (the divorce rate also sky-rocketed when reliable birth control came about; is this because women could better control the economic consequences of sex, or is it because not having children made them unhappy?).
For me, what it comes down to is that I don't want other people telling me what to do, so I need to avoid telling them what to do, to have any hope that they will stay out of my business.
Right, but it would also be analogous to think that pulling your hair would make it grow faster, or stronger.
I'm right there with the 'leave it be' being a good strategy (with a healthy dose of paranoia towards strep throat -- fortunately, I only had it once, ~15 years ago), but the 'practice' analogy doesn't work for me, for example, my body sees shellfish as a major enemy, and attacks it with gusto, yet I've had maybe an ounce or two of said material in ~30 years of life; it seems I was born with that reaction, or quickly picked it up from something unrelated (and it is detrimental to me!).
Yeah, but sometimes, trillions of dollars of those unrealized 'profits' go up in smoke (making it tough to call them profits). Like the last 3 months. The current system, of taxing the wealth increase when the wealth is accessed, makes a lot of sense to me. To some extent, corporate taxes are a tax on that wealth, so it isn't entirely untaxed. Plenty of ordinary people gain wealth when the value of their house increases, should the government be tracking and taxing that wealth?
As far as the estate tax and compounding, unless the deceased makes arrangements to avoid taxes (and plenty of people do), the tax gets paid on the final amount...
I thought it odd that you got one on your nose, from extreme cold. But yeah, cold sores are fever blisters (caused by the herpes simplex virus), and usually occur on the lips.
The linked page explains, but capital gains are included as income in the calculations.
The U.S. doesn't have a wealth tax (except the estate tax which is, I believe, progressive at the bottom and then flat), so sure, wealth isn't taxed progressively.
As far as recognized annual income, both earned and investment, yes, it is progressive. Perhaps not wildly progressive when you factor in state and local taxes, but it isn't wildly regressive, or really, regressive at all.
Any chance it was simply frostbite?
The CBO discusses their methodology on that page. They are counting the employer portion as income (I can see where people would call this deceitful, I would argue that the idea that the employer is paying taxes to employ you, but it isn't a tax on your income, is fiction).
There is enough room in the meanings of the various words that calling it deceitful is going pretty far. If I were Steve Forbes discussing estate taxes, then probably so, but the context of this thread (or at least, my statements) has clearly been income taxes.
I mean, you want to narrow the range down so that it is very small and then point out that wealth isn't taxed, but it is just as legitimate for me to use a metric that says "Anybody who earns more than $500,000", as those people could pretty much universally get by with less.
Sure, the group of people above $500,000 is wildly non-uniform, but if you start looking at it in terms of overall liabilities, the ones at the top of that group are screwing the rest of the people in that group, not the citizens/taxpayers in general, and certainly not the people in the bottom third, or maybe even half.
You said it was difficult. That's different than it simply being harder. It implies a certain threshold, which is where you are full of hyperbole.
You don't have to scan ingredients, the ones that do have antibiotics announce it loudly. If those 5 seconds comprise 'difficulty', I hate to think that you are allowed to drive a car.
There is no resistance danger from products that physically rip the cells apart (this is bleach, alcohol, etc.). Those products are capitalizing on emotionally manipulating people, but they aren't causing difficulty for people trying to treat infections.
Consumer soaps that are marketed as antibacterial generally contain triclosan, full stop. Hand sanitizers are indeed often alcohol based, but they are marketed as killing germs, not as being antibacterial.
What are you basing the 3rd one on? I get that it is natural to compare the immune system to a muscle, but does it actually make sense to?
(I say this as someone who doesn't get particularly sick, doesn't get sick all that often, rarely takes antibiotics and has medium allergies, so I'm not just being skeptical for fun, I'm curious if you have some solid basis)