Access to financial records can make sense. The social media thing is just stupid. People will just start using two sets of email and two sets of social media. One set for me -- and one set for Mrs. Grundy to review which has tons of "followings" of cat videos and dog tricks.
"A Trump America is an isolationist America- afraid of the world."
Because everything is black and white, right? Maybe making it a little harder to get through the door isn't "isolationism", but the word sure is cool to use, right? Filled with all the evil, nasty and ignorance implications you could possibly throw at a wall to see if any of it sticks. Protectionism, yes. Isolationism? No.
Clearly the fairly unfiltered commercial traffic since the 1990s has damaged the average American. It certainly sounds like Perot's "sucking sound" prophecy was spot on... Maybe THAT isn't the answer either. Maybe... just MAYBE be a bit more "protectionist" rather than letting all the water flow downhill.
Note: I didn't vote for Trump -- I think he's a psychopath with poor impulse control and he scares me. That doesn't mean at least some of the stuff coming out of his mouth isn't worth considering.
"$530.8 million in tax breaks, 11000 jobs eliminated, "
I can't speak to your specific example as I have no details, but what I will ask is this: Without the tax breaks how many jobs would have been eliminated or never created that much sooner?
So... one of the reasons why allowing "freebies" or whatever to companies is a bad idea that was included previously mentioned (by you, I believe) was of the strain on infrastructure the state/city will endure. Lets look at a few things:
o 50,000 people either unemployed or under employed (many likely receiving some type of state aid) o current PA highway/road maintenance budget for the entire state is 170 million per year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Department_of_Transportation) o expected tax income from 50k employees for the state of PA would be about $1200 per (at about $40k per employee at PAs income tax rate) + sales tax (6%-8%). That's a pretty huge chunk of change. Over $6 million per year.
So. We have over 6 million per year coming in to the state via income tax and probably at least a quarter again as much in sales tax on a LOW-BALL average income of $40k per year per employee. That's less than.4% of the population of PA (which is about 12million) providing about 3% of the entire transportation budget. I'm pretty sure that cancels out any concern about that. And that's not even including the increased sales tax.
Also, it would be difficult if not impossible to determine how much the state will no longer need to spend on assistance to who knows how many of these 50,000 possible newly hired folks -- but that just adds to the net gain to the state.
"So when a state 'forgives' taxes, it is just pushing it onto the existing residents"
Do the math. How much are the "existing residents" paying for 50,000 unemployed citizens? So it's not that they are paying zero -- they are a net NEGATIVE on the budget. If the math says it's cheaper to blow off BigBusinessX and lose a bunch of jobs and keep providing aid to unemployed or underemployed people so be it. I think the math would show something quite different, though.
"...nationwide it ends up being a race to the bottom."
Welcome to the world of unintended consequences! Please sign in!
"By that logic, giving a company a billion dollar tax break in order to hire just one extra employee is a great deal."
Do you know what a "tax break" is? The state isn't GIVING the company 1 billion dollars... they aren't going to COLLECT 1 billion dollars. But they wont collect that money if they try to enforce it ANYWAY because the company would go somewhere tax friendly.
So, basically -- Yes. If the OPTION is to lose the company ENTIRELY (and all the OTHER jobs), then it IS a great deal for that one extra employee (plus KEEPING the existing employees).
However, we're talking about 50,000 NEW jobs at a NEW facility that doesn't exist. Do you want 50,000 x SOMENUMBER in tax revenue (sans any tax collection of the company employing the 50k people) or say "No Company X! You get no tax breaks!" and then you dont get either the revenue from the company *OR* the 50,000 people? And probably need to provide public assistance to those 50,000, too (which takes even MORE money out of the state budget which is FUNDED by tax dollars).
"How much is the State giving away in freebies of taxpayer money to subsidize these jobs?"
Math is interesting. If there are zero jobs, there is zero tax coming in to the state.
If there 50,000 jobs and the state has 50,000 employees each paying state income taxes and sales taxes on money they now have then YAY!. Does it REALLY matter that the state doesn't have money coming in from the company EMPLOYING these people (due to freebies and subsidies)? Because if it's too expensive, then these people will NOT be employed and the state gets a great 'ol goose egg on tax day.
So, what we've learned is that 50,000 x SOMETHING + zero (from corporation) is a bigger SOMETHING! And 50,000 x nothing + 0 (because the corporation wont build or employ anyone there) is a big goose egg.
I know. I was replying to someone who indicated problems with digital broadcasts "because the reception was so spotty." I compared 20 year old streaming quality to poor quality broadcast digital. Which is true -- (20 year old streaming with modest bandwidth problems) it was watchable while digital broadcasts with modest reception problems is not.
"So, it was better than digital broadcast TV displays?"
Quality of picture? Hello no. However, if the "signal" (slower bandwidth) was weak in Media Player or Real Player (or whatever), the most I would see was a "buffering" and a pause. On broadcast digital TV there's horrible artifacting, audio buzzes and skips that make the program unwatchable -- or it just doesn't come in at all.
I saw the future 20+ years ago. I had DSL in an apartment rather than cable TV (I could afford one or the other -- not both). Antenna reception was crap. There were a bunch of sites that offered (then free) live video feeds (go go Real Video!). Local news, 1950's tv programming and even some cable programming. I lived that way for quite some time. Then I got married and wife just wanted to push a button and have the screen magically show what she wants to see. It was a few years ago when we finally got rid of cable again.
It wasn't 1080p, but a lot of it was about as good as an analog TV could display.
DirecTV Now does not require Silverlight on IOS. It does not require Silverlight on android. It does not require Silverlight on my Fire TV.
I was an original SlingTV user and I can say the trouble they had early on was worse than what I'm seeing on DirecTV Now. Except for the first 2 days. That was horrible.
"Now add in 90 minutes at the airport before and after which don't exist on trains. Now add in the extra pollution and carbon usage of the planes. Now add in lower prices because rail is cheaper to run and uses less gas. Now add in the lower congestion at airports because some percentage is now using rail. You end up with a trip that's cheaper, barely if at all longer, more comfortable, less polluting, and improves things for everyone else too. I'm very glad to have voted for it."
Extending the rail between LAX and Union Station would be a hell of a lot cheaper, disrupt far fewer neighborhoods (and the court battles have only just started to rumble as track approaches the San Fernando Valley). And it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to streamline security.
Further, Amtrak suggests one arrive at least 30 mins prior to train boarding. Earlier for busy stations. The train will be more expensive than air, will cost immensely more to build than we were told and displace a *LOT* of lower income homes. I'm very glad to have voted against it.
"LAX is right on the coast, as far from the city center as one can get. It's a half-hour ride through traffic to downtown."
Yup. LAX is about 30 mins away from the center of downtown. Union station is about 10 min away from the center. Clearly we must spend billions and billions of dollars to turn a 60-90 min flight in to a 3 hour train ride that costs more and breaks the bank so a few people who can afford it can travel in comfort and shave 20 mins off their cab ride.
Doesn't everything slashdot posts make the first page? Sometimes they bump the same article up again if it's way busy (like recent election related articles).
"Yep. Wikipedia has citations going back to 1989 for that."
Many news sites had an online presence in 1997 (twenty years ago) and before. And many science publications had access to documents via gopher well before that.
The internet doesn't begin with Wikipedia. Or even HTTP.
" Unless their simulations can explain Earth is the only planet to have gotten a full fledged moon in such an environment the single large impact theory would seem to be the more likely scenario."
It probably is. And surprisingly enough, the "single large impact" theory ALSO appears to be the same as the "multiple moonlets" theory, only "after the single large impact"
Am I wrong or reading this wrong? Wouldn't the "single large impact" toss up a ton of rocks and basically form a "ring around the Earth (mutliple moonlets) which would eventually either coalesce in to one larger moon or eventually fall back to earth?
"What you are suffering from is called a displacement. More precisely you appear to assume that scientists, like the creation myth in your favorite holy book, are claiming an absolute trust."
What you are suffering from (as are the people you are criticizing) is thinking that science and faith are the same type of thing (like a table, or a rock). When someone who thinks this way (like you apparently do) is on the "side" of science, those of faith become the targets of contempt ("creation myth in your favorite holy book") and those who think this way on the side of faith think see your side as "it's just a theory -- they can't even agree what truth is".
They are two very different things. Having a science vs. theology debate is about as useful as having a color vs. scent debate. Or maybe a dark vs. wet debate...
I believe it was universally believed that Clinton would win. I wouldn't doubt that *IF* the Russians hacked the DNC it wasn't to help Trump but to make a globally weak administration (Obama) even weaker by causing distractions as she came in to office. Russia would do (and has done) well with a globally weak US executive.
I'm not a Trump supporter. I think he's a psychopath with poor impulse control. Both candidates were horrible.
And I'm not hoping the "Russian narrative" goes away -- I think it's way premature to be jumping to conclusions and ascribing motives before the subcommittee on national security has been briefed. They requested a non-public briefing and were essentially told to pound sand.
*IF* the Russians hacked DNC emails I doubt it would be to help Trump but to cast doubt about the legitimacy of a Clinton election victory. Besides, the Obama administration (and by extension, a Clinton administration) would have been better for Russia as it's been weak.
"What you need to look at is: Was there an effect that they had on the election? And so far I’ve seen nobody who claims that they can prove that the Russians – or any other state actor for that matter – influenced our elections.”
o The Russians hacked the DNC (note: Wikileaks who leaked the documents deny this) o The Russians deliberately hacked the DNC to affect the election of Trump o The Russians hacked the RNC o The Russians deliberately didn't release RNC emails to help Trump. o The Subcommittee on National Security requested a (non public) briefing on this and was re soundly refused.
First the RNC claims I think are just wrong. RNC emails, if they were hacked, are either boring or would have HELPED Trump as the RNC did everything in it's power to prevent Trump from getting nominated.
Second, Clinton would have been far more beneficial to Putin/Russia and she was as SoS. The reasoning make no sense.
Third, I cannot trust this conclusion without the SC on NS getting briefed and saying "yup -- that's what it looks like".
*IF* the Russians hacked the DNC I doubt it would have been to help Trump. If anything it would be to call in to question an elected Clinton legitimacy (after the primary shenanigans).
note: I didn't vote for Trump. I believe he's a psychopath with poor impulse control. I didn't vote for Clinton either for far too many reasons to rehash here. They both were horrible candidates.
"That I leave the back door open isn't an unlimited license to steal"
A man 'breaks' in to a house by going through the back door.
He finds evidence of another crime -- a dead body!
He calls the local authorities anonymously and bails.
===================
Man == whoever hacked the emails. Crime == (not really a 'crime' but evidence of primary manipulation against both their own candidates AND the RNC candidates, misogyny, racism and contempt for voters) Body == emails authorities == wikileaks
Slashdot Mirror
Um... TFA said "We want to get on their social media, with passwords".
What you suggest will not allow them to "get on their social media". It's the same as telling them to go pound sand.
Access to financial records can make sense. The social media thing is just stupid. People will just start using two sets of email and two sets of social media. One set for me -- and one set for Mrs. Grundy to review which has tons of "followings" of cat videos and dog tricks.
"A Trump America is an isolationist America- afraid of the world."
Because everything is black and white, right? Maybe making it a little harder to get through the door isn't "isolationism", but the word sure is cool to use, right? Filled with all the evil, nasty and ignorance implications you could possibly throw at a wall to see if any of it sticks. Protectionism, yes. Isolationism? No.
Clearly the fairly unfiltered commercial traffic since the 1990s has damaged the average American. It certainly sounds like Perot's "sucking sound" prophecy was spot on... Maybe THAT isn't the answer either. Maybe... just MAYBE be a bit more "protectionist" rather than letting all the water flow downhill.
Note: I didn't vote for Trump -- I think he's a psychopath with poor impulse control and he scares me. That doesn't mean at least some of the stuff coming out of his mouth isn't worth considering.
"$530.8 million in tax breaks, 11000 jobs eliminated, "
I can't speak to your specific example as I have no details, but what I will ask is this: Without the tax breaks how many jobs would have been eliminated or never created that much sooner?
So... one of the reasons why allowing "freebies" or whatever to companies is a bad idea that was included previously mentioned (by you, I believe) was of the strain on infrastructure the state/city will endure. Lets look at a few things:
o 50,000 people either unemployed or under employed (many likely receiving some type of state aid)
o current PA highway/road maintenance budget for the entire state is 170 million per year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Department_of_Transportation)
o expected tax income from 50k employees for the state of PA would be about $1200 per (at about $40k per employee at PAs income tax rate) + sales tax (6%-8%). That's a pretty huge chunk of change. Over $6 million per year.
So. We have over 6 million per year coming in to the state via income tax and probably at least a quarter again as much in sales tax on a LOW-BALL average income of $40k per year per employee. That's less than .4% of the population of PA (which is about 12million) providing about 3% of the entire transportation budget. I'm pretty sure that cancels out any concern about that. And that's not even including the increased sales tax.
Also, it would be difficult if not impossible to determine how much the state will no longer need to spend on assistance to who knows how many of these 50,000 possible newly hired folks -- but that just adds to the net gain to the state.
"So when a state 'forgives' taxes, it is just pushing it onto the existing residents"
Do the math. How much are the "existing residents" paying for 50,000 unemployed citizens? So it's not that they are paying zero -- they are a net NEGATIVE on the budget. If the math says it's cheaper to blow off BigBusinessX and lose a bunch of jobs and keep providing aid to unemployed or underemployed people so be it. I think the math would show something quite different, though.
"...nationwide it ends up being a race to the bottom."
Welcome to the world of unintended consequences! Please sign in!
"By that logic, giving a company a billion dollar tax break in order to hire just one extra employee is a great deal."
Do you know what a "tax break" is? The state isn't GIVING the company 1 billion dollars... they aren't going to COLLECT 1 billion dollars. But they wont collect that money if they try to enforce it ANYWAY because the company would go somewhere tax friendly.
So, basically -- Yes. If the OPTION is to lose the company ENTIRELY (and all the OTHER jobs), then it IS a great deal for that one extra employee (plus KEEPING the existing employees).
However, we're talking about 50,000 NEW jobs at a NEW facility that doesn't exist. Do you want 50,000 x SOMENUMBER in tax revenue (sans any tax collection of the company employing the 50k people) or say "No Company X! You get no tax breaks!" and then you dont get either the revenue from the company *OR* the 50,000 people? And probably need to provide public assistance to those 50,000, too (which takes even MORE money out of the state budget which is FUNDED by tax dollars).
"How much is the State giving away in freebies of taxpayer money to subsidize these jobs?"
Math is interesting. If there are zero jobs, there is zero tax coming in to the state.
If there 50,000 jobs and the state has 50,000 employees each paying state income taxes and sales taxes on money they now have then YAY!. Does it REALLY matter that the state doesn't have money coming in from the company EMPLOYING these people (due to freebies and subsidies)? Because if it's too expensive, then these people will NOT be employed and the state gets a great 'ol goose egg on tax day.
So, what we've learned is that 50,000 x SOMETHING + zero (from corporation) is a bigger SOMETHING! And 50,000 x nothing + 0 (because the corporation wont build or employ anyone there) is a big goose egg.
Do the math.
I know. I was replying to someone who indicated problems with digital broadcasts "because the reception was so spotty." I compared 20 year old streaming quality to poor quality broadcast digital. Which is true -- (20 year old streaming with modest bandwidth problems) it was watchable while digital broadcasts with modest reception problems is not.
"So, it was better than digital broadcast TV displays?"
Quality of picture? Hello no. However, if the "signal" (slower bandwidth) was weak in Media Player or Real Player (or whatever), the most I would see was a "buffering" and a pause. On broadcast digital TV there's horrible artifacting, audio buzzes and skips that make the program unwatchable -- or it just doesn't come in at all.
I saw the future 20+ years ago. I had DSL in an apartment rather than cable TV (I could afford one or the other -- not both). Antenna reception was crap. There were a bunch of sites that offered (then free) live video feeds (go go Real Video!). Local news, 1950's tv programming and even some cable programming. I lived that way for quite some time. Then I got married and wife just wanted to push a button and have the screen magically show what she wants to see. It was a few years ago when we finally got rid of cable again.
It wasn't 1080p, but a lot of it was about as good as an analog TV could display.
DirecTV Now does not require Silverlight on IOS. It does not require Silverlight on android. It does not require Silverlight on my Fire TV.
I was an original SlingTV user and I can say the trouble they had early on was worse than what I'm seeing on DirecTV Now. Except for the first 2 days. That was horrible.
"Now add in 90 minutes at the airport before and after which don't exist on trains. Now add in the extra pollution and carbon usage of the planes. Now add in lower prices because rail is cheaper to run and uses less gas. Now add in the lower congestion at airports because some percentage is now using rail. You end up with a trip that's cheaper, barely if at all longer, more comfortable, less polluting, and improves things for everyone else too. I'm very glad to have voted for it."
Extending the rail between LAX and Union Station would be a hell of a lot cheaper, disrupt far fewer neighborhoods (and the court battles have only just started to rumble as track approaches the San Fernando Valley). And it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to streamline security.
Further, Amtrak suggests one arrive at least 30 mins prior to train boarding. Earlier for busy stations. The train will be more expensive than air, will cost immensely more to build than we were told and displace a *LOT* of lower income homes. I'm very glad to have voted against it.
"LAX is right on the coast, as far from the city center as one can get. It's a half-hour ride through traffic to downtown."
Yup. LAX is about 30 mins away from the center of downtown. Union station is about 10 min away from the center. Clearly we must spend billions and billions of dollars to turn a 60-90 min flight in to a 3 hour train ride that costs more and breaks the bank so a few people who can afford it can travel in comfort and shave 20 mins off their cab ride.
Makes perfect sense.
Doesn't everything slashdot posts make the first page? Sometimes they bump the same article up again if it's way busy (like recent election related articles).
Ugh... my apologies. I misread your post.
"Yep. Wikipedia has citations going back to 1989 for that."
Many news sites had an online presence in 1997 (twenty years ago) and before. And many science publications had access to documents via gopher well before that.
The internet doesn't begin with Wikipedia. Or even HTTP.
That was a grate joke!
" Unless their simulations can explain Earth is the only planet to have gotten a full fledged moon in such an environment the single large impact theory would seem to be the more likely scenario."
It probably is. And surprisingly enough, the "single large impact" theory ALSO appears to be the same as the "multiple moonlets" theory, only "after the single large impact"
Am I wrong or reading this wrong? Wouldn't the "single large impact" toss up a ton of rocks and basically form a "ring around the Earth (mutliple moonlets) which would eventually either coalesce in to one larger moon or eventually fall back to earth?
"What you are suffering from is called a displacement.
More precisely you appear to assume that scientists, like the creation myth in your favorite holy book, are claiming an absolute trust."
What you are suffering from (as are the people you are criticizing) is thinking that science and faith are the same type of thing (like a table, or a rock). When someone who thinks this way (like you apparently do) is on the "side" of science, those of faith become the targets of contempt ("creation myth in your favorite holy book") and those who think this way on the side of faith think see your side as "it's just a theory -- they can't even agree what truth is".
They are two very different things. Having a science vs. theology debate is about as useful as having a color vs. scent debate. Or maybe a dark vs. wet debate...
"Grants aren't free when you have to lie to get them!"
"One way or other, what you get, you pay for." -- The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
I believe it was universally believed that Clinton would win. I wouldn't doubt that *IF* the Russians hacked the DNC it wasn't to help Trump but to make a globally weak administration (Obama) even weaker by causing distractions as she came in to office. Russia would do (and has done) well with a globally weak US executive.
I'm not a Trump supporter. I think he's a psychopath with poor impulse control. Both candidates were horrible.
And I'm not hoping the "Russian narrative" goes away -- I think it's way premature to be jumping to conclusions and ascribing motives before the subcommittee on national security has been briefed. They requested a non-public briefing and were essentially told to pound sand.
*IF* the Russians hacked DNC emails I doubt it would be to help Trump but to cast doubt about the legitimacy of a Clinton election victory. Besides, the Obama administration (and by extension, a Clinton administration) would have been better for Russia as it's been weak.
This James Risch (R)?
"What you need to look at is: Was there an effect that they had on the election? And so far I’ve seen nobody who claims that they can prove that the Russians – or any other state actor for that matter – influenced our elections.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new...
I'm not going to go through your list but I'm sure there a lot more examples like that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
There have been a number of claims:
o The Russians hacked the DNC (note: Wikileaks who leaked the documents deny this)
o The Russians deliberately hacked the DNC to affect the election of Trump
o The Russians hacked the RNC
o The Russians deliberately didn't release RNC emails to help Trump.
o The Subcommittee on National Security requested a (non public) briefing on this and was re soundly refused.
First the RNC claims I think are just wrong. RNC emails, if they were hacked, are either boring or would have HELPED Trump as the RNC did everything in it's power to prevent Trump from getting nominated.
Second, Clinton would have been far more beneficial to Putin/Russia and she was as SoS. The reasoning make no sense.
Third, I cannot trust this conclusion without the SC on NS getting briefed and saying "yup -- that's what it looks like".
*IF* the Russians hacked the DNC I doubt it would have been to help Trump. If anything it would be to call in to question an elected Clinton legitimacy (after the primary shenanigans).
note: I didn't vote for Trump. I believe he's a psychopath with poor impulse control. I didn't vote for Clinton either for far too many reasons to rehash here. They both were horrible candidates.
"That I leave the back door open isn't an unlimited license to steal"
A man 'breaks' in to a house by going through the back door.
He finds evidence of another crime -- a dead body!
He calls the local authorities anonymously and bails.
===================
Man == whoever hacked the emails.
Crime == (not really a 'crime' but evidence of primary manipulation against both their own candidates AND the RNC candidates, misogyny, racism and contempt for voters)
Body == emails
authorities == wikileaks