You have two candidates with any concievable chance of winning the election, and they're both dicks.
How can you say that about John Kerry? He may not be the most charismatic speaker or the most personable guy to ever run for office, but he's a decent man who has served with honor and dignity in the military and in elected office. Really, what has he done that makes you think that he is a "dick"?
The people who were voting for Nader were never voting for Kerry, they'd write something stupid in, or what have you.
That's the most uninformed comment that I've read on Slashdot in quite a while -- and that's saying something. Every political pundit, analyst, and reporter accepts for fact that Nader takes votes from Kerry -- based on scientific polls. Bush supporters have launched massive campaigns to get Nader on the ballot in many states for just that reason.
No, that's Kerry. Bush is just outright lies the first time around. He might change his words, but whatever he does he planned to do from the start.
I really get pissed off at the right-wing spin machine. Frankly, Kerry has not "flip-flopped" as they would like to pretend. They take things like omnibus spending bills, which fund everything from museums to studies of why farts smell bad, and then pull out individual pieces from them: "John Kerry said that he would protect our troops and then John Kerry voted against a bill to pay for them to have body armor." What they don't mention is that the other 135 items included things millions of dollars to compensate Exxon for the the loss of oil soaked up by Alaskan wildlife after oil spills.
they tend to be the most uninformed voters. and who wants uninformed voters voting?
George Bush does. He wants voters who believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. He wants voters who don't understand what "deficit spending" is. He wants voters who don't know anything about how he got into the National Guard while others were being sent to Vietnam. He wants voters who don't know how "nuclear" is pronounced.
John Flip Flop Kerry!
Bush is the king of Flip-Flops:
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits 'would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
And obviously the older generation will be more concerned with trivial details such as the candidate's "political record" and "performance" while the younger, smarter people don't want to die and therefore don't want to vote for a liar who sends people to their death for a pointless cause.
Many in the older generation seem to be primarily concerned with stealing money from future generations: They want the Bush tax cuts even though Bush is running the federal government into the red to the tune of over $400 billion per year. That deficit spending is resulting in a massive debt that future generations will have to shoulder to decades. Maybe younger voters who understand math aren't too happy about electing a President who is actively trading away their future standard of living to buy votes today.
Not really. I think it's more indicitive of the fact that people will try to get something for nothing.
Like the wealthy who don't want to pay taxes even after they've used almost every aspect of the tax-funded infrastructure in their acquisition of wealth.
"Poor" is a relative term. I'll point out that, in this country, the poor aren't exactly starving to death. In fact, of all demographics, the poor have the greatest incidence of obesity.
Having just paid $7 for a salad for lunch, I'm not surprised. For a fraction of that, the poor can get empty calories at McDonalds or Taco Bell. And it's not like most of them have a keen understanding of nutrition.
I'm not even going to get into the economic reasons why minimum wage laws are a bad idea, but I will point out that everyone has the right to accept or reject a job offer if they don't like wage.
Then don't bitch when welfare recipients aren't willing to take jobs at McDonalds for less than they get on welfare (while losing medical benefits and having no way to afford daycare).
Why should that be the employer's responsibility?
Because too many people in this country are without health insurance and that's the most expeditious way of solving the problem. Also, because companies like Walmart and McDonalds would have much better time success negotiating for good health insurance rates than individual employees would.
Penalize companies that lay off American workers.
Why?
Because their layoffs are harming the U.S. economy.
And, yes, I understand that not all circumstances are under the control of the individual. But that in itself is a fact an individual needs to take into account before they act.
So no one should ever have children because they don't know what the future holds and they could become paralyzed, blind, be killed, or otherwise unable to provide for the child? Or are you saying only the incredibly wealthy should reproduce because only they can have a reasonable certainty of never hitting hard times?
So if one of the parents makes the "mistake" of contracting cancer, losing their job, and draining the family's resources, the kid should become a ward of the state?
As I've said before, those things are an unalienable part of the human condition. Everybody is subject to those possibilities, and you ought to take them into account before assuming responsibilites.
Okay, so suppose that you're a middle income guy with an average job. You've got health insurance through your work, have a few thousand in the bank, and have a modest 401K. You and your wife want to have a child. Should you? No waffling here.
A lot more welfare recipients would get jobs if welfare wasn't an available option. A fact that's been bourne out by the results of Clinton's welfare reform.
Or, if we tortured people for being unemployed, then there would be fewer welfare recipients. Maybe we could make them watch as we let pedophiles sodomize their children. Yeah, anything to avoid you having to pay taxes...
So you want to burden employers with minimum wages, taxes, regulations, labor unions, force them to provide health care, etc., and then you're surprised when they decide you're more of a pain in the ass to deal with than you're worth, and ship your job overseas?
Let's not leave out laws preventing them from hiring 14 year olds (something Nike does in Vietnam), requiring that they not expose U.S. workers to asbestos, and that their factories not belch pollution into the air and waterways.
I'm not surprised at all. I've long ago accepted that most corporations do not operate in an ethical manner. Like some people, their only concern is money. That's why we need laws to protect the interest of the American people.
Remember, at one time talented people emigrated to the United States to start their companies and develop their ideas, and hire w
The most obvious reason to have such an exemption is the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) factor. Microsoft is probably deadly-afraid of small busineses (that will someday be big businesses) standardizing on OO rather than paying a king's ransom for MS Office licenses. By leaving these businesses to wonder if they will be sued or whether OO will disappear due to litigation, some of those businesses will consider ponying up the money for MS Office.
Stupid design? Most definitely. Deceptive advertising? Not in the slightest.
It was advertised as being secure when it was nothing of the kind. That sounds deceptive to me. They advertised that your data was protected by AES encryption when, in fact, the only thing between the bad guy and your data was an easily snooped password that was stored in the device itself.
I'd agree with you if the problem had been some subtle flaw discovered in AES or some exploit that relied on accessing the computer on which the device was actively in use after the owner had entered the password. But that's not the case. Sorry, but they didn't use due diligence to make sure that the item that they advertised as secure really was.
Through the democratic system, the poor are able to extort the rich minority for simply living, breathing, and going about their business (and you ought to know, since that's exactly what you're advocating).
Did you ever think that it's indicative of a real problem when the poor make up that large a voting block? Easy solution: Pay people a living wage. Require that employers provide health insurance or (God forbid) that the government do it. Penalize companies that lay off American workers.
Not quite. While they may not have cared for the Republican presidential candidate, note that they have elected a Republican majority to Congress since 1994. We won't even mention state governerships.
Let's drop this line of argument. It was weak to begin with and still is. Polls consistently show the people vote for politicians who don't share their views. Election results are more based on personality and popularity than policy. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, and John Glenn did not get elected to office because of their astute grasp of the issues and because their views were in line with the constituents. They got elected because they were celebrities.
Neither did the taxpayers, but you want to punish them for the irresponsibility of the kids parents.
Taxes aren't punishment. They are the way that we fund our government. Not everything which affects you in a negative way is a "punishment."
No, I want the parents to pay for their own mistakes. If the state has to be responsible for the kid's welfare, then the state should take custody of the kid.
So if one of the parents makes the "mistake" of contracting cancer, losing their job, and draining the family's resources, the kid should become a ward of the state? Are you trying to manufacture psychopatic killers or what?
What sort of message do you send by letting the parents have their cake and eat it, too?
Thank you Marie Antoinette! Yeah, life's like a big cake when you've lost your job and can't feed your family.
Is that the typical case, or is that the exceptional case?
In case you've not looked around, the last four years have seen many people slip from the middle class into poverty, losing their jobs, houses, cars, and the ability to support their family. When some middle-class guy is out of work for a year or more, I'd rather that the government give him assistance than have his family out on the street.
I'm willing to bet that if government stopped subsidizing parents who popped out little Tommys and expected the taxpayers to assume responsibility for his welfare, you'd soon have a lot less parents popping out little Tommys.
I'm willing to bet that a lot more welfare recipients would get jobs if that didn't mean the loss of health insurance and a lower income. If they take a job at Walmart, they lose the insurance and take home a lower paycheck. Maybe we should make the minimum wage a living wage. I'd be happy to pay ten cents more for my McDonald's hamburger rather than paying taxes to keep someone on welfare.
Also, if you made the parents work for 40 hours a week in order to receive welfare, you'd have a lot fewer welfare recipients and you'd have kids growing up with the idea that all grown-ups put in a week's work for a week's pay. I don't care if the person spends the 40 hours looking for work from a government-supplied office, taking government-subsidized job training, or picking up trash off of the street.
This from a guy who publishes a rant in his journal about outsourcing jobs and denying H1-B visas to workers from poor countries. Apparently you think it's "compassionate" to provide for parisites by robbing from the rich, but it's treasonous to give the capable, skilled and hard-working poor an opportunity to improve their own lives.
When we have capable, skilled and hard-working Americans being laid off a
I knew if we argued enough, we'd eventually find something to agree on.
As the other poster pointed out, he stood up to a government that was forcibly redistributing other people's property.
Poor people's property. That's the key. He was standing up to a government that was taking money from those who could least afford it. Do you think he would have been viewed as a hero if he took money from the government and gave it to Dukes, Earls, and Lords?
Lyndon Johnson was wrong.
No, he was right. We've been referred to as a society by many, many learned people.
I think it might be time for you to go out and look at a road. Most of them are paved with a crown, which allows the water to run off to the sides.
Where the water faeries make it disappear harmlessly. I think you need to talk to any road engineer who will set you straight on the problems of flooding and erosion caused by road building. In brief, "urbanization" drastically alters the drainage characteristics of natural drainage areas by increasing the volume and rate of surface runoff. While the impact on major river systems may be minimal, the carrying capacity of small streams is often quickly exceeded, causing flooding and erosion problems.
Uh, I think most people consider access to roads a feature rather than a bug.
Good. I hope that they build a freeway through your back yard and you can have the joy of easy access to that road.
Again, as I pointed out, in any city, they will be approximately one block away from each other.
And in public restrooms, urinals are approximately two feet from each other, so your bathroom at home should have a row of urinals two feet apart? That's the advantage of having governments build roads: They can plan and build where appropriate, not just where some rich guy can collect the most tolls.
I grant that that's an entirely possible outcome, but it isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion.
It's too dangerous an outcome to risk.
And in the previous 2 elections, neither the Republican or the Democrat earned a majority of votes. Clinton won with a plurality each time.
So your earlier statement about most Americans agreeing with your position was wrong.
Since were talking about less than 1% of the vote, there doesn't need to be a significant change in the result to alter the outcome of an election. Are you arguing that every state except Florida counted their votes with 100% accuracy?
No, I'm arguing that the errors would have been very evenly distributed due to the total number of votes.
I understand that. I also understand that no such situation exists, outside of the skulls of conspiracy theorists.
Ivy League professors and respected economists would giggle at that statement.
Thank you, now tell me what part of that article contradicted my statement. In fact, given that it stated quite clearly that volunteer fire departments would fight fires even in abscence of a fire mark, I'd say it strengthens my position.
Your position was that individual insurance carriers provided firefighting while it was clearly not the case and that, even in the absence of insurance, the fire would be put out.
There's no guaruntee now that the police would even show up, even as a publicly funded institution.
But in your world, it's guaranteed that they wouldn not if you didn't have the cash to pay them to. Women who were victims of domestic abuse would have to have the cash to get the police out to their home. Yeah, that's a pretty picture.
If Tommy's parents took it upon themselves to have children without being able to provide for them properly, they should be tossed in jail for criminal negligance.
So why do you believe that the kid should suffer for it? He did nothing wrong. But you want t
One might think you are unaware that Robin Hood was stealing from the tax-collectors, and returning the money to the ones it was collected from.
I was very much aware of that, having long ago read the story of Robin Hood (in addition to seeing various adaptations on the screen).
One reason that I felt it particularly appropriate is that my adversary in this debate is very much of the mindset of Prince John, the Sheriff of Nottingham and Sir Guy of Gisbourne, believing that it is wholly appropriate to tax the poor to the point of starvation.
You're the one who wants a government that constantly meddles in our lives and our wallets.
No, I want a government that spends responsibly, taxes adequately to cover the spending, and does not meddle in people's lives. Unfortunately, the Republicans spend vastly more than is covered by taxes, cut taxes anyway, and then waste time meddling in people's lives by trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion while pushing legislation that gives them secret police powers to spy on us without even getting warrants.
If a thief is your idea of a role model, I submit you need to do some soul searching yourself. So much for your alleged ethical superiority.
He was considered a heroic figure because he stood up to an oppressive ruling class who was making the lives of the average person miserable.
Exactly, what "society" are you refering to?
The people of the United States, which Lyndon Johnson referred to as "Great Society."
See? Competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer. And what's the problem with parallel roads?
When they aren't needed? Quite a lot. Flooding and erosion are some examples when you block rainwater's access to the ground under the roads. Quality of life for people living near the roads.
Oh, I agree - but you said it yourself, that's a problem with spending beyond our means, not an inherent problem with the tax reduction.
And that still doesn't answer my question - whose taxes went up?
No ones taxes went up -- yet. But they will and by a lot as we, and future generations, have to pay down the debt accrued under this administration.
The point is, I don't presume to decide who's creating value
Then why did you ask: "Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?"
Anyway, who died and left you as the spokesman for "society"?
I was appointed the task by a higher authority.
What I said was: I'd say that given most of our elected government officials are Republicans. The president aside, that's a majority in the House and the Senate, plus 2/3 of the state governerships.
But you ignore the fact that conservative states like Utah with very low populations get one governor and two senators just like populous states like California and New York. I chose the Presidential election because that's the one office that all Americans can vote for. For three straight Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate got more votes than the Republican.
That's less than 0.06%, which any pollster can tell you is well within the margin of error.
Try again. A poll's margin of error has nothing to do with the accuracy of a vote count in an election. They are unrelated. When Gallup says that a poll has a margin of error of 2%, it is based on statistical analysis of the sample size. An election has a sample size of 100% (or should) in that all votes are counted. The larger the number of votes, the less chance there is that a recount will significantly change the results.
Although, I must say, considering some of your comments, I find your contention that you're any better informed than the rest of the American electorate to be laughable, at best.
Given that the comment is coming from someone with misconceptions about everything from margins of errors to the use of insurance company firemarks, I'm not going to get too worked up about it.
Um, and what is it that you call it when Democrats buy votes through the creation of wealth redistribution programs?
Democrats get votes by proposing government spending to better the lives of people. They don't say "elect me and I'll send you a check for $300 out of the Treasury."
Look up "oligopoly."
Um, yeah. While you're at it, look up "Grassy Knoll" and "Space Aliens".
Since you are obviously unfamiliar with standard terms used by economists, an "oligopoly" is a
Name a mode of transportation that does not rely heavily on government subsadies.
He's arguing for "user fees" for all government services. But you can bet that he would be the first one whining if he owned a company and suddenly had to pay user fees to transport his goods on government-subsidized railroads, airlines, roads, and waterways.
I wouldn't like it any more than I like the fact that a knucklehead like you is allowed anywhere near a voting booth.
Since we've sunken to name calling, I'll be blunt: I am more intelligent, informed, and ethical than you will ever be. What saddens me is that people like you, who care only for themselves and not a wit for their fellow man, get to place votes which affect us all.
What you are actually saying is that you favor Government by Robin Hood - you propose to confiscate wealth from those who justly acquired it to provide goods and services for those who didn't.
Or couldn't (e.g., the handicapped, war widows, etc.). Yes. You've got it. There is a reason that Robin Hood is viewed as a heroic figure by millions. You need to do some soul searching when you detest him.
So I have to assume that "tax policy" is merely a euphemism for "wealth transfer".
"Tax policy" means policies having to do with the collection and expenditure of tax revenue.
Please explain why you think the poor should have first claim over everybody else? Why does being poor amount to a right to other people's property?
Because we are a society, not a bunch of pack animals that abandon the weak among us to die (as you would do). As to your "property", it's untouched. Only a portion of your money is paid in taxes.
I favor everybody paying for what they consume.
I don't. I don't believe that someone in poverty should be charged a fee to have the police investigate the burglary of their home. But, unlike you, I don't like kicking people when they are down.
I favor people taking responsibility for their own actions and living within their means. Meaning if you can't afford to feed, clothe, educate and supply your children with health care, don't have them.
And what happens when the family breadwinner is killed in Iraq and suddenly mom has a six year old and a three year old and nothing but a meager surviviors' benefits to live on? Yeah, nothing ever is unplanned. Nothing ever goes wrong. No one has ever had a family member develop cancer or suffer a debilitating injury. It's all just lazy welfare mothers trying to steal your precious money.
Since the working poor already pay little if anything in taxes already, tax policy has little if anything to do with their condition.
Isn't tax policy the reason that they pay very little in taxes? If the policy were changed to one you would favor, it would do them harm. See, tax policy affects us all.
Kindly explain why someone would incur the expense of building a parallel road if there wasn't a need for it.
Because Bob's road has a toll of $4 and Tom thinks that he can make money by building a parallel road with a toll of $3. Then Joe thinks that he can undercut them both for $2.50 and then buy them out when they go under. And then there are three side-by-side toll roads.
And how many people are traveling to Iraq with personal security guards, anyway?
Our troops are serving as personal security guards for many in the Iraqi government.
Really? I seem to recollect that congress passed an all-around tax cut several years ago at the behest of the President. Whose taxes went up? Nobody's that I know.
Yeah. That $400+billion dollar deficit this year will be paid down by people shitting money out their asses. Just because Bush is willing to spend us into unfathomable debt doesn't mean no one will ever have to pay.
Obviously, he was valuable enough to his parents that they saw fit to leave him the money. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what the rest of us consider valuable. Nor do you have any business imposing your sense of what's valuable on us.
So who are you to decide who's "creating value"? You said that the rich create value, so what value is he creating by inheriting money?
I'm disgusted by right-wing whiners who view taxes as some kind of punishment being doled out. They want police patrolling their neighborhoods. They want their kids going to good schools. They want mandatory minimums for drug users (except Rush Limbaugh). They want to wage war in every country where English isn't the primary language. They want to increase the size of the military, add entire new agencies like the Department of Father^h^h^h^h^h^hHomeland Security, and install filtering software in every library so that poor women can't read about breast cancer and teens can't learn about birth control. They want cops on overtime each time the color-coded terrorism warning level is ratcheted up in response to finding a three year old vacation video taken by a Muslim. But they don't want to pay taxes.
By the way, it was $7000 to cover up the breasts on the statue. And the right-wing has the audacity to claim the Democrats are wasting our tax dollars!
If you don't understand the importance of the Constitution and why filibusters are such an integral aspect of the checks and balances, please don't post in this section.
That's what I wrote.
See the "and" in that sentence? The Constitution sets up the basic system of checks and balances and, while not specifically called out in the Constitution, filibusters are an example of some of the checks and balances that have evolved over the years.
Anyway, I assure you your motherboard doesn't have a 12V layer right now.
So you throw a.25" trace on one edge of one layer to distribute the power to the drive connectors. It's not like you need to put the connectors in random places all over the motherboard.
Why doesn't your motherboard already have 12V coming out to the drives?
Because the spec doesn't require it. Why do you think that laptops provide +5V to the drives? Because the spec requires it.
Why? Because powering 4 drives (or 6 on my mobo!) is a lot of power.
All six SATA drives seeking at once would be about 6.5 amps. That's not a lot of power.
Your power lost in the motherboard (turned into heat) is R * the current of 6 drives.
When we have 2.4ghz Pentium 4 CPUs that draw 49.8 amps, it's hard for me to get excited about drives that draw about 1 amp (or 3 at startup).
This is why power supplies have multiple drive power cables to start with, and not just one strand with all the connectors on it in a row.
It's really so that the 12V at the first drive doesn't turn into 11.3V at the last drive. It's keeping the voltages the same throughout.
And your suggestion for budget system only makes sense if you accept that your proposal is a given. But it isn't. The current system costs even less than your proposed low-cost solution.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. I don't believe that doubling the number of connectors and cables for each drive saves money in parts or labor, nor does it contribute to reliability.
He wouldn't like either. He wants a system where 1% of the people get 99% of the money. He wants the Donald Trumps of the world to be deified while those who lack the education or intelligence to compete for upper-level, white collar jobs to get just enough so that they don't die (and stop working for his company).
As is typical for right-wingers who believe capitalism is the be-all-end-all of existence, you ignore what you can't easily answer:
To answer your question, I favor tax policies which do the least harm. I favor tax policies which make it possible for the working poor to better their lives. I favor tax policies which don't take food off of tables. I favor tax policies which allow a middle-income family to send their children to good colleges. That means getting the lion's share of the money from the people who can most afford it. If it's a choice between taking money from someone who then won't be able to afford health insurance or taking money from a millionaire, I favor a tax policy which takes from the millionaire.
What's wrong with that view?
I fail to see why creating roads needs to be government function. Private airlines and railroads are also available to transport goods. In fact, government subsidizing the highway system was one of the things that backrupted many railroads. And I fail to see why the wealthy should be any more responsible for the upkeep of infrastructure than anyone else.
You really are out there. You honestly believe that the entire country should be enmeshed in a tangle of privately funded roads, probably one in which there would be toll booths every 3 miles and one in which multiple parallel roads were built for economic gain? Wow. As to why the wealthy shoul be more responsible for the costs: Because they can afford it.
Oh, give me a break! Who's in a better position to afford his own security, you or Bill Gates? Obviously, he can afford his own security.
So why are wealthy people constantly being kidnapped in South America and held for ransom? Personal security guards don't save your ass when there is anarchy all around. Just ask anyone who's been to Iraq.
Come to think of it, most lower income people aren't paying income taxes anyway.
Lower income = people below the median, most of whom pay taxes.
So how does giving the rich a tax cut harm the poor again?
Worse schools, fewer police, cuts in programs like Head Start, increased federal debt (meaning that more future tax dollars will be supporting that debt rather than paying for needed services), fewer needs-based scholarships, etc.
Not all "hard work" necessarily creates value. Simply because you work hard doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to compensation for it.
You're the one who used the phrase "hard work," so don't attack me for addressing my argument to your terms. And lose the new-age BS about "creating value." Just what "value" is being created by some kid who is heir to some fortune? What value is being created by some guy who moves money around playing the market?
So let me re-phrase that: Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?
If they violate the tax code, they should be subject to the same tax penalties that anyone would be.
Explain to me how a CEO's earning more money translates to a laborer earning less money?
Let's play a game. I'll be the CEO and you be the laborer. The company payroll will be a big bucket of money in between us. I'll take my salary out first and you get what's left.
Better still explain to me how a CEO paying less taxes produces that outcome.
Because if he pays less taxes, those with lower incomes pay more. That means that take-home pay for the laborer is less.
If I'm getting my pay cut to less then what the market is willing to pay for my skills, then I go find a job that's paying the current market value for them.
Then you are obviously someone in the lower end of the job market. Sure, you can go from your job at Walmart to one at Food Lion fairly easily and your employer will provide on-the-job training. For thos
Because running power through the motherboard makes the motherboard larger and more expensive. Running 12V through there costs money and adds complexity. It also adds size. A 0.2" trace cuts a wide swatch. But in the end really, it adds an entire additional layer to the motherboard.
There probably is already a 12V layer in the motherboard.
So the motherboard people don't want to do it, it would make their product more expensive.
Motherboard manufacturers want to sell motherboards. Features sell to many markets. That's why my motherboard has two RAID controllers (on SATA and one ATA), gigabit ethernet, 10/100 ethernet, 8 USB ports, IEEE-1394, etc. If a motherboard manufacturer wanted to sell a bargain motherboard, they could create a cable why did a "Y" at the end and accepted a power supply hookup in one connector and hooked to the motherboard on the other.
2.5" drives use less power, they also don't use 12V.
Trace size is based on amperage, not wattage. 2.5" drives are also tighter on space than 3.5" drives, so they have to use smaller pins and tighter connector spacing.
Probably has something to do with electrical interference.
Nope. 2.5" laptop drives run power through the same cable with data. So do USB hard drives.
I know most mobos power 12v fans via onboard headers, but the power requirements for a HD might be too much for the small traces on PCBs.
It's not the "small traces." It's the interior power and ground planes which are solid except for small holes made around pins not connected to power/ground. We're talking huge amounts of surface area.
SATA *does* specify a standard for a power connector and location (most still have the standard ATX power connector).
1. It's not the same connector as the data. 2. It's not an ATX power connector. It's a piece of crap Molex-style connector that was originally used on 8" floppy drives in the 1970's. It's horribly unreliable and has a terribly small number of connection cycles.
You could feed it through the same cable through the motherboard in theory, though that would increase the power draw of the drive controller significantly.
The drive controller power draw would not change. The +12 and Gnd layers would just connect to the pins on a SATA connector (if the spec had included power in the same connector with the data).
Before answering, I'll point out that 2.5" ATA laptop hard drives have run power through the same cable with data for years with no serious problems.
At this point in time, it would be a BAD idea to supply power to the drives through the motherboard. For one thing, the motherboards would have to be able to handle the extra amount of current flowing through them.
That's a non-issue. All motherboards have a power layer and ground layer. Each layer is solid except for circles around the pins to which they don't connect. Huge amounts of current can pass through there. You can pass 3 amps at 12 volts through a distance of 10 inches using about a 0.2" wide trace. A SATA hard drive takes about 1.1 amps when operating and seeking and about 3 amps of startup current (though that could be mitigated by sequenced start-ups to prevent all drives from maxing out at once).
I think they might have problems as is supplying current to the Graphics card and CPU.
The CPU current isn't the issue. It's the heat that causes problems. On the graphic cards, it's the bus spec and connector that's the limiting factor. If you make an AGP card that exceeds the bus spec, then there will have to be an external power connector, but that doesn't mean that providing power through the motherboard is technically infeasible from a design standpoint.
Also, if you did do that, you run into two other issues with power as well. Heat dissapation in the cable and intereference with the data lines.
Do SATA power cables get hot now? Of course not. They won't get hot if fed from the motherboard either. Noticeable heat in a power cable is a sign that the wire is WAY too small. As to interference, AC and pulsed DC can cause interference, not straight DC. Even then, twisted pair cabling would resolve it. It's also a non-issue. Seen interference problems on USB? It runs power through the cable.
Also, if the power cable through the motherboard goes bad, you have to get an all new motherboard.
As someone who has designed PC boards, I can tell you that it's not going to happen. That's like worrying that your soup spoons will "go bad."
Keep the power supply supplying power to everything directly, it cuts down on complications that can crop up.
More cables, more connectors, more routing problems, more expense. It adds complication.
Explain how they reap the greatest benefit from "our society"?
Because our society provides the entire infrastructure needed for them to gain wealth. It provides roads for transporting the goods that they produce and use. It provides them with police protection so that they aren't constantly in fear of kidnapping, murder, etc. It provides them with educated workers for their businesses. The list goes on and on.
I got my skills at my own expense, not "society's".
So you never went to a public school? You never went to a museum the received federal funds? Your teachers weren't educated in public schools? Your parents never got a tax credit that helped pay for your education? You didn't get to school using taxpayer funded roads, sidewalks, public transportation, etc.? My, you must have an interesting story to tell.
Um, tax policies don't make anyone wealthier besides the government.
Untrue. It costs money to run the government. If tax policies are such that the rich are not as burdened as the middle-class and poor, then they policies are helping to make them wealthier. If the taxes force many lower-income people to seek out part-time work, there is a labor glut which drives down wages, helping make the wealthy wealthier when they hire people at the deflated wages.
And don't tell me that you are entitled to keep everything that you are paid, because you are not. It's not "your money", despite what the Bushies would have you believe. If you want to live in this society, then you are legally and morally obligated to contribute to it in the form of taxes.
Money the government doesn't tax isn't a gift, it's money you earned that you get to keep.
When you get the government services and Bush takes out a $400+billion dollar loan to pay for them, a cut in your taxes is a gift.
I take it you favor tax policies that penalize people for hard work and success?
Don't give me this bullshit about "hard work" by the wealthy. You want to see hard work? Go watch coal miners at work. Watch garbage collection people. Watch janitors. Watch the single mother of two who works for 8 hours as a waitress and then works another 4 hours as a maid in a hotel. Watch someone who is doing manual labor at a construction site. Don't waste my time with stories about some guy sitting in an air-conditioned office.
To answer your question, I favor tax policies which do the least harm. I favor tax policies which make it possible for the working poor to better their lives. I favor tax policies which don't take food off of tables. I favor tax policies which allow a middle-income family to send their children to good colleges. That means getting the lion's share of the money from the people who can most afford it. If it's a choice between taking money from someone who then won't be able to afford health insurance or taking money from a millionaire, I favor a tax policy which takes from the millionaire.
As a matter of fact, yes, I'm delighted!
So you are happy that people of moderate income are having to work more hours to make ends meet? You are happy that CEOs are getting more and more money while custodians, restaurant workers, agricultural workers, people who work in poultry processing plants, etc. are working more hours for less pay? You're happy that there are parents who have had to take a second job just to keep from being homeless? If so, then I hope you die soon. There's something very sick about someone who takes glee in the suffering of the working poor.
As far as I know, companies are paying CEO's with their own money, not with mine, so, truthfully, I don't give a rat's-ass what they pay them.
So you don't care if the CEO at your firm gets a raise while the workers, including you, take a pay cut? You don't care that the CEO of your firm get's a raise while outsourcing your job to India? You don't care what Johnson & Johnson
Slashdot Mirror
You have two candidates with any concievable chance of winning the election, and they're both dicks.
How can you say that about John Kerry? He may not be the most charismatic speaker or the most personable guy to ever run for office, but he's a decent man who has served with honor and dignity in the military and in elected office. Really, what has he done that makes you think that he is a "dick"?
The people who were voting for Nader were never voting for Kerry, they'd write something stupid in, or what have you.
That's the most uninformed comment that I've read on Slashdot in quite a while -- and that's saying something. Every political pundit, analyst, and reporter accepts for fact that Nader takes votes from Kerry -- based on scientific polls. Bush supporters have launched massive campaigns to get Nader on the ballot in many states for just that reason.
No, that's Kerry. Bush is just outright lies the first time around. He might change his words, but whatever he does he planned to do from the start.
I really get pissed off at the right-wing spin machine. Frankly, Kerry has not "flip-flopped" as they would like to pretend. They take things like omnibus spending bills, which fund everything from museums to studies of why farts smell bad, and then pull out individual pieces from them: "John Kerry said that he would protect our troops and then John Kerry voted against a bill to pay for them to have body armor." What they don't mention is that the other 135 items included things millions of dollars to compensate Exxon for the the loss of oil soaked up by Alaskan wildlife after oil spills.
I think it's better when a candidate is able to change their stance based on new information.
Unfortunately, in Bush's case, that "new information" usually comes from focus groups and opinion polls.
they tend to be the most uninformed voters. and who wants uninformed voters voting?
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00] ...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits 'would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
George Bush does. He wants voters who believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. He wants voters who don't understand what "deficit spending" is. He wants voters who don't know anything about how he got into the National Guard while others were being sent to Vietnam. He wants voters who don't know how "nuclear" is pronounced.
John Flip Flop Kerry!
Bush is the king of Flip-Flops:
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
And obviously the older generation will be more concerned with trivial details such as the candidate's "political record" and "performance" while the younger, smarter people don't want to die and therefore don't want to vote for a liar who sends people to their death for a pointless cause.
Many in the older generation seem to be primarily concerned with stealing money from future generations: They want the Bush tax cuts even though Bush is running the federal government into the red to the tune of over $400 billion per year. That deficit spending is resulting in a massive debt that future generations will have to shoulder to decades. Maybe younger voters who understand math aren't too happy about electing a President who is actively trading away their future standard of living to buy votes today.
Not really. I think it's more indicitive of the fact that people will try to get something for nothing.
Like the wealthy who don't want to pay taxes even after they've used almost every aspect of the tax-funded infrastructure in their acquisition of wealth.
"Poor" is a relative term. I'll point out that, in this country, the poor aren't exactly starving to death. In fact, of all demographics, the poor have the greatest incidence of obesity.
Having just paid $7 for a salad for lunch, I'm not surprised. For a fraction of that, the poor can get empty calories at McDonalds or Taco Bell. And it's not like most of them have a keen understanding of nutrition.
I'm not even going to get into the economic reasons why minimum wage laws are a bad idea, but I will point out that everyone has the right to accept or reject a job offer if they don't like wage.
Then don't bitch when welfare recipients aren't willing to take jobs at McDonalds for less than they get on welfare (while losing medical benefits and having no way to afford daycare).
Why should that be the employer's responsibility?
Because too many people in this country are without health insurance and that's the most expeditious way of solving the problem. Also, because companies like Walmart and McDonalds would have much better time success negotiating for good health insurance rates than individual employees would.
Penalize companies that lay off American workers.
Why?
Because their layoffs are harming the U.S. economy.
And, yes, I understand that not all circumstances are under the control of the individual. But that in itself is a fact an individual needs to take into account before they act.
So no one should ever have children because they don't know what the future holds and they could become paralyzed, blind, be killed, or otherwise unable to provide for the child? Or are you saying only the incredibly wealthy should reproduce because only they can have a reasonable certainty of never hitting hard times?
So if one of the parents makes the "mistake" of contracting cancer, losing their job, and draining the family's resources, the kid should become a ward of the state?
As I've said before, those things are an unalienable part of the human condition. Everybody is subject to those possibilities, and you ought to take them into account before assuming responsibilites.
Okay, so suppose that you're a middle income guy with an average job. You've got health insurance through your work, have a few thousand in the bank, and have a modest 401K. You and your wife want to have a child. Should you? No waffling here.
A lot more welfare recipients would get jobs if welfare wasn't an available option. A fact that's been bourne out by the results of Clinton's welfare reform.
Or, if we tortured people for being unemployed, then there would be fewer welfare recipients. Maybe we could make them watch as we let pedophiles sodomize their children. Yeah, anything to avoid you having to pay taxes...
So you want to burden employers with minimum wages, taxes, regulations, labor unions, force them to provide health care, etc., and then you're surprised when they decide you're more of a pain in the ass to deal with than you're worth, and ship your job overseas?
Let's not leave out laws preventing them from hiring 14 year olds (something Nike does in Vietnam), requiring that they not expose U.S. workers to asbestos, and that their factories not belch pollution into the air and waterways.
I'm not surprised at all. I've long ago accepted that most corporations do not operate in an ethical manner. Like some people, their only concern is money. That's why we need laws to protect the interest of the American people.
Remember, at one time talented people emigrated to the United States to start their companies and develop their ideas, and hire w
The most obvious reason to have such an exemption is the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) factor. Microsoft is probably deadly-afraid of small busineses (that will someday be big businesses) standardizing on OO rather than paying a king's ransom for MS Office licenses. By leaving these businesses to wonder if they will be sued or whether OO will disappear due to litigation, some of those businesses will consider ponying up the money for MS Office.
Stupid design? Most definitely. Deceptive advertising? Not in the slightest.
It was advertised as being secure when it was nothing of the kind. That sounds deceptive to me. They advertised that your data was protected by AES encryption when, in fact, the only thing between the bad guy and your data was an easily snooped password that was stored in the device itself.
I'd agree with you if the problem had been some subtle flaw discovered in AES or some exploit that relied on accessing the computer on which the device was actively in use after the owner had entered the password. But that's not the case. Sorry, but they didn't use due diligence to make sure that the item that they advertised as secure really was.
Through the democratic system, the poor are able to extort the rich minority for simply living, breathing, and going about their business (and you ought to know, since that's exactly what you're advocating).
Did you ever think that it's indicative of a real problem when the poor make up that large a voting block? Easy solution: Pay people a living wage. Require that employers provide health insurance or (God forbid) that the government do it. Penalize companies that lay off American workers.
Not quite. While they may not have cared for the Republican presidential candidate, note that they have elected a Republican majority to Congress since 1994. We won't even mention state governerships.
Let's drop this line of argument. It was weak to begin with and still is. Polls consistently show the people vote for politicians who don't share their views. Election results are more based on personality and popularity than policy. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, and John Glenn did not get elected to office because of their astute grasp of the issues and because their views were in line with the constituents. They got elected because they were celebrities.
Neither did the taxpayers, but you want to punish them for the irresponsibility of the kids parents.
Taxes aren't punishment. They are the way that we fund our government. Not everything which affects you in a negative way is a "punishment."
No, I want the parents to pay for their own mistakes. If the state has to be responsible for the kid's welfare, then the state should take custody of the kid.
So if one of the parents makes the "mistake" of contracting cancer, losing their job, and draining the family's resources, the kid should become a ward of the state? Are you trying to manufacture psychopatic killers or what?
What sort of message do you send by letting the parents have their cake and eat it, too?
Thank you Marie Antoinette! Yeah, life's like a big cake when you've lost your job and can't feed your family.
Is that the typical case, or is that the exceptional case?
In case you've not looked around, the last four years have seen many people slip from the middle class into poverty, losing their jobs, houses, cars, and the ability to support their family. When some middle-class guy is out of work for a year or more, I'd rather that the government give him assistance than have his family out on the street.
I'm willing to bet that if government stopped subsidizing parents who popped out little Tommys and expected the taxpayers to assume responsibility for his welfare, you'd soon have a lot less parents popping out little Tommys.
I'm willing to bet that a lot more welfare recipients would get jobs if that didn't mean the loss of health insurance and a lower income. If they take a job at Walmart, they lose the insurance and take home a lower paycheck. Maybe we should make the minimum wage a living wage. I'd be happy to pay ten cents more for my McDonald's hamburger rather than paying taxes to keep someone on welfare.
Also, if you made the parents work for 40 hours a week in order to receive welfare, you'd have a lot fewer welfare recipients and you'd have kids growing up with the idea that all grown-ups put in a week's work for a week's pay. I don't care if the person spends the 40 hours looking for work from a government-supplied office, taking government-subsidized job training, or picking up trash off of the street.
This from a guy who publishes a rant in his journal about outsourcing jobs and denying H1-B visas to workers from poor countries. Apparently you think it's "compassionate" to provide for parisites by robbing from the rich, but it's treasonous to give the capable, skilled and hard-working poor an opportunity to improve their own lives.
When we have capable, skilled and hard-working Americans being laid off a
I have no problem agreeing with that statement.
I knew if we argued enough, we'd eventually find something to agree on.
As the other poster pointed out, he stood up to a government that was forcibly redistributing other people's property.
Poor people's property. That's the key. He was standing up to a government that was taking money from those who could least afford it. Do you think he would have been viewed as a hero if he took money from the government and gave it to Dukes, Earls, and Lords?
Lyndon Johnson was wrong.
No, he was right. We've been referred to as a society by many, many learned people.
I think it might be time for you to go out and look at a road. Most of them are paved with a crown, which allows the water to run off to the sides.
Where the water faeries make it disappear harmlessly. I think you need to talk to any road engineer who will set you straight on the problems of flooding and erosion caused by road building. In brief, "urbanization" drastically alters the drainage characteristics of natural drainage areas by increasing the volume and rate of surface runoff. While the impact on major river systems may be minimal, the carrying capacity of small streams is often quickly exceeded, causing flooding and erosion problems.
Uh, I think most people consider access to roads a feature rather than a bug.
Good. I hope that they build a freeway through your back yard and you can have the joy of easy access to that road.
Again, as I pointed out, in any city, they will be approximately one block away from each other.
And in public restrooms, urinals are approximately two feet from each other, so your bathroom at home should have a row of urinals two feet apart? That's the advantage of having governments build roads: They can plan and build where appropriate, not just where some rich guy can collect the most tolls.
I grant that that's an entirely possible outcome, but it isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion.
It's too dangerous an outcome to risk.
And in the previous 2 elections, neither the Republican or the Democrat earned a majority of votes. Clinton won with a plurality each time.
So your earlier statement about most Americans agreeing with your position was wrong.
Since were talking about less than 1% of the vote, there doesn't need to be a significant change in the result to alter the outcome of an election. Are you arguing that every state except Florida counted their votes with 100% accuracy?
No, I'm arguing that the errors would have been very evenly distributed due to the total number of votes.
I understand that. I also understand that no such situation exists, outside of the skulls of conspiracy theorists.
Ivy League professors and respected economists would giggle at that statement.
Thank you, now tell me what part of that article contradicted my statement. In fact, given that it stated quite clearly that volunteer fire departments would fight fires even in abscence of a fire mark, I'd say it strengthens my position.
Your position was that individual insurance carriers provided firefighting while it was clearly not the case and that, even in the absence of insurance, the fire would be put out.
There's no guaruntee now that the police would even show up, even as a publicly funded institution.
But in your world, it's guaranteed that they wouldn not if you didn't have the cash to pay them to. Women who were victims of domestic abuse would have to have the cash to get the police out to their home. Yeah, that's a pretty picture.
If Tommy's parents took it upon themselves to have children without being able to provide for them properly, they should be tossed in jail for criminal negligance.
So why do you believe that the kid should suffer for it? He did nothing wrong. But you want t
One might think you are unaware that Robin Hood was stealing from the tax-collectors, and returning the money to the ones it was collected from.
I was very much aware of that, having long ago read the story of Robin Hood (in addition to seeing various adaptations on the screen).
One reason that I felt it particularly appropriate is that my adversary in this debate is very much of the mindset of Prince John, the Sheriff of Nottingham and Sir Guy of Gisbourne, believing that it is wholly appropriate to tax the poor to the point of starvation.
You're the one who wants a government that constantly meddles in our lives and our wallets.
No, I want a government that spends responsibly, taxes adequately to cover the spending, and does not meddle in people's lives. Unfortunately, the Republicans spend vastly more than is covered by taxes, cut taxes anyway, and then waste time meddling in people's lives by trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion while pushing legislation that gives them secret police powers to spy on us without even getting warrants.
If a thief is your idea of a role model, I submit you need to do some soul searching yourself. So much for your alleged ethical superiority.
He was considered a heroic figure because he stood up to an oppressive ruling class who was making the lives of the average person miserable.
Exactly, what "society" are you refering to?
The people of the United States, which Lyndon Johnson referred to as "Great Society."
See? Competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer. And what's the problem with parallel roads?
When they aren't needed? Quite a lot. Flooding and erosion are some examples when you block rainwater's access to the ground under the roads. Quality of life for people living near the roads.
Oh, I agree - but you said it yourself, that's a problem with spending beyond our means, not an inherent problem with the tax reduction.
And that still doesn't answer my question - whose taxes went up?
No ones taxes went up -- yet. But they will and by a lot as we, and future generations, have to pay down the debt accrued under this administration.
The point is, I don't presume to decide who's creating value
Then why did you ask: "Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?"
Anyway, who died and left you as the spokesman for "society"?
I was appointed the task by a higher authority.
What I said was: I'd say that given most of our elected government officials are Republicans. The president aside, that's a majority in the House and the Senate, plus 2/3 of the state governerships.
But you ignore the fact that conservative states like Utah with very low populations get one governor and two senators just like populous states like California and New York. I chose the Presidential election because that's the one office that all Americans can vote for. For three straight Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate got more votes than the Republican.
That's less than 0.06%, which any pollster can tell you is well within the margin of error.
Try again. A poll's margin of error has nothing to do with the accuracy of a vote count in an election. They are unrelated. When Gallup says that a poll has a margin of error of 2%, it is based on statistical analysis of the sample size. An election has a sample size of 100% (or should) in that all votes are counted. The larger the number of votes, the less chance there is that a recount will significantly change the results.
Although, I must say, considering some of your comments, I find your contention that you're any better informed than the rest of the American electorate to be laughable, at best.
Given that the comment is coming from someone with misconceptions about everything from margins of errors to the use of insurance company firemarks, I'm not going to get too worked up about it.
Um, and what is it that you call it when Democrats buy votes through the creation of wealth redistribution programs?
Democrats get votes by proposing government spending to better the lives of people. They don't say "elect me and I'll send you a check for $300 out of the Treasury."
Look up "oligopoly."
Um, yeah. While you're at it, look up "Grassy Knoll" and "Space Aliens".
Since you are obviously unfamiliar with standard terms used by economists, an "oligopoly" is a
Name a mode of transportation that does not rely heavily on government subsadies.
He's arguing for "user fees" for all government services. But you can bet that he would be the first one whining if he owned a company and suddenly had to pay user fees to transport his goods on government-subsidized railroads, airlines, roads, and waterways.
I wouldn't like it any more than I like the fact that a knucklehead like you is allowed anywhere near a voting booth.
Since we've sunken to name calling, I'll be blunt: I am more intelligent, informed, and ethical than you will ever be. What saddens me is that people like you, who care only for themselves and not a wit for their fellow man, get to place votes which affect us all.
What you are actually saying is that you favor Government by Robin Hood - you propose to confiscate wealth from those who justly acquired it to provide goods and services for those who didn't.
Or couldn't (e.g., the handicapped, war widows, etc.). Yes. You've got it. There is a reason that Robin Hood is viewed as a heroic figure by millions. You need to do some soul searching when you detest him.
So I have to assume that "tax policy" is merely a euphemism for "wealth transfer".
"Tax policy" means policies having to do with the collection and expenditure of tax revenue.
Please explain why you think the poor should have first claim over everybody else? Why does being poor amount to a right to other people's property?
Because we are a society, not a bunch of pack animals that abandon the weak among us to die (as you would do). As to your "property", it's untouched. Only a portion of your money is paid in taxes.
I favor everybody paying for what they consume.
I don't. I don't believe that someone in poverty should be charged a fee to have the police investigate the burglary of their home. But, unlike you, I don't like kicking people when they are down.
I favor people taking responsibility for their own actions and living within their means. Meaning if you can't afford to feed, clothe, educate and supply your children with health care, don't have them.
And what happens when the family breadwinner is killed in Iraq and suddenly mom has a six year old and a three year old and nothing but a meager surviviors' benefits to live on? Yeah, nothing ever is unplanned. Nothing ever goes wrong. No one has ever had a family member develop cancer or suffer a debilitating injury. It's all just lazy welfare mothers trying to steal your precious money.
Since the working poor already pay little if anything in taxes already, tax policy has little if anything to do with their condition.
Isn't tax policy the reason that they pay very little in taxes? If the policy were changed to one you would favor, it would do them harm. See, tax policy affects us all.
Kindly explain why someone would incur the expense of building a parallel road if there wasn't a need for it.
Because Bob's road has a toll of $4 and Tom thinks that he can make money by building a parallel road with a toll of $3. Then Joe thinks that he can undercut them both for $2.50 and then buy them out when they go under. And then there are three side-by-side toll roads.
And how many people are traveling to Iraq with personal security guards, anyway?
Our troops are serving as personal security guards for many in the Iraqi government.
Really? I seem to recollect that congress passed an all-around tax cut several years ago at the behest of the President. Whose taxes went up? Nobody's that I know.
Yeah. That $400+billion dollar deficit this year will be paid down by people shitting money out their asses. Just because Bush is willing to spend us into unfathomable debt doesn't mean no one will ever have to pay.
Obviously, he was valuable enough to his parents that they saw fit to leave him the money. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what the rest of us consider valuable. Nor do you have any business imposing your sense of what's valuable on us.
So who are you to decide who's "creating value"? You said that the rich create value, so what value is he creating by inheriting money?
Telling me that the doctors of sub
Damn I wish that I could mod you up!
I'm disgusted by right-wing whiners who view taxes as some kind of punishment being doled out. They want police patrolling their neighborhoods. They want their kids going to good schools. They want mandatory minimums for drug users (except Rush Limbaugh). They want to wage war in every country where English isn't the primary language. They want to increase the size of the military, add entire new agencies like the Department of Father^h^h^h^h^h^hHomeland Security, and install filtering software in every library so that poor women can't read about breast cancer and teens can't learn about birth control. They want cops on overtime each time the color-coded terrorism warning level is ratcheted up in response to finding a three year old vacation video taken by a Muslim. But they don't want to pay taxes.
By the way, it was $7000 to cover up the breasts on the statue. And the right-wing has the audacity to claim the Democrats are wasting our tax dollars!
I didn't say that they were. Try rereading:That's what I wrote.
See the "and" in that sentence? The Constitution sets up the basic system of checks and balances and, while not specifically called out in the Constitution, filibusters are an example of some of the checks and balances that have evolved over the years.
Anyway, I assure you your motherboard doesn't have a 12V layer right now.
.25" trace on one edge of one layer to distribute the power to the drive connectors. It's not like you need to put the connectors in random places all over the motherboard.
So you throw a
Why doesn't your motherboard already have 12V coming out to the drives?
Because the spec doesn't require it. Why do you think that laptops provide +5V to the drives? Because the spec requires it.
Why? Because powering 4 drives (or 6 on my mobo!) is a lot of power.
All six SATA drives seeking at once would be about 6.5 amps. That's not a lot of power.
Your power lost in the motherboard (turned into heat) is R * the current of 6 drives.
When we have 2.4ghz Pentium 4 CPUs that draw 49.8 amps, it's hard for me to get excited about drives that draw about 1 amp (or 3 at startup).
This is why power supplies have multiple drive power cables to start with, and not just one strand with all the connectors on it in a row.
It's really so that the 12V at the first drive doesn't turn into 11.3V at the last drive. It's keeping the voltages the same throughout.
And your suggestion for budget system only makes sense if you accept that your proposal is a given. But it isn't. The current system costs even less than your proposed low-cost solution.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. I don't believe that doubling the number of connectors and cables for each drive saves money in parts or labor, nor does it contribute to reliability.
He wouldn't like either. He wants a system where 1% of the people get 99% of the money. He wants the Donald Trumps of the world to be deified while those who lack the education or intelligence to compete for upper-level, white collar jobs to get just enough so that they don't die (and stop working for his company).
What's wrong with that view?
I fail to see why creating roads needs to be government function. Private airlines and railroads are also available to transport goods. In fact, government subsidizing the highway system was one of the things that backrupted many railroads. And I fail to see why the wealthy should be any more responsible for the upkeep of infrastructure than anyone else.
You really are out there. You honestly believe that the entire country should be enmeshed in a tangle of privately funded roads, probably one in which there would be toll booths every 3 miles and one in which multiple parallel roads were built for economic gain? Wow. As to why the wealthy shoul be more responsible for the costs: Because they can afford it.
Oh, give me a break! Who's in a better position to afford his own security, you or Bill Gates? Obviously, he can afford his own security.
So why are wealthy people constantly being kidnapped in South America and held for ransom? Personal security guards don't save your ass when there is anarchy all around. Just ask anyone who's been to Iraq.
Come to think of it, most lower income people aren't paying income taxes anyway.
Lower income = people below the median, most of whom pay taxes.
So how does giving the rich a tax cut harm the poor again?
Worse schools, fewer police, cuts in programs like Head Start, increased federal debt (meaning that more future tax dollars will be supporting that debt rather than paying for needed services), fewer needs-based scholarships, etc.
Not all "hard work" necessarily creates value. Simply because you work hard doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to compensation for it.
You're the one who used the phrase "hard work," so don't attack me for addressing my argument to your terms. And lose the new-age BS about "creating value." Just what "value" is being created by some kid who is heir to some fortune? What value is being created by some guy who moves money around playing the market?
So let me re-phrase that: Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?
If they violate the tax code, they should be subject to the same tax penalties that anyone would be.
Explain to me how a CEO's earning more money translates to a laborer earning less money?
Let's play a game. I'll be the CEO and you be the laborer. The company payroll will be a big bucket of money in between us. I'll take my salary out first and you get what's left.
Better still explain to me how a CEO paying less taxes produces that outcome.
Because if he pays less taxes, those with lower incomes pay more. That means that take-home pay for the laborer is less.
If I'm getting my pay cut to less then what the market is willing to pay for my skills, then I go find a job that's paying the current market value for them.
Then you are obviously someone in the lower end of the job market. Sure, you can go from your job at Walmart to one at Food Lion fairly easily and your employer will provide on-the-job training. For thos
Because running power through the motherboard makes the motherboard larger and more expensive. Running 12V through there costs money and adds complexity. It also adds size. A 0.2" trace cuts a wide swatch. But in the end really, it adds an entire additional layer to the motherboard.
There probably is already a 12V layer in the motherboard.
So the motherboard people don't want to do it, it would make their product more expensive.
Motherboard manufacturers want to sell motherboards. Features sell to many markets. That's why my motherboard has two RAID controllers (on SATA and one ATA), gigabit ethernet, 10/100 ethernet, 8 USB ports, IEEE-1394, etc. If a motherboard manufacturer wanted to sell a bargain motherboard, they could create a cable why did a "Y" at the end and accepted a power supply hookup in one connector and hooked to the motherboard on the other.
2.5" drives use less power, they also don't use 12V.
Trace size is based on amperage, not wattage. 2.5" drives are also tighter on space than 3.5" drives, so they have to use smaller pins and tighter connector spacing.
Probably has something to do with electrical interference.
Nope. 2.5" laptop drives run power through the same cable with data. So do USB hard drives.
I know most mobos power 12v fans via onboard headers, but the power requirements for a HD might be too much for the small traces on PCBs.
It's not the "small traces." It's the interior power and ground planes which are solid except for small holes made around pins not connected to power/ground. We're talking huge amounts of surface area.
SATA *does* specify a standard for a power connector and location (most still have the standard ATX power connector).
1. It's not the same connector as the data.
2. It's not an ATX power connector. It's a piece of crap Molex-style connector that was originally used on 8" floppy drives in the 1970's. It's horribly unreliable and has a terribly small number of connection cycles.
You could feed it through the same cable through the motherboard in theory, though that would increase the power draw of the drive controller significantly.
The drive controller power draw would not change. The +12 and Gnd layers would just connect to the pins on a SATA connector (if the spec had included power in the same connector with the data).
Before answering, I'll point out that 2.5" ATA laptop hard drives have run power through the same cable with data for years with no serious problems.
At this point in time, it would be a BAD idea to supply power to the drives through the motherboard. For one thing, the motherboards would have to be able to handle the extra amount of current flowing through them.
That's a non-issue. All motherboards have a power layer and ground layer. Each layer is solid except for circles around the pins to which they don't connect. Huge amounts of current can pass through there. You can pass 3 amps at 12 volts through a distance of 10 inches using about a 0.2" wide trace. A SATA hard drive takes about 1.1 amps when operating and seeking and about 3 amps of startup current (though that could be mitigated by sequenced start-ups to prevent all drives from maxing out at once).
I think they might have problems as is supplying current to the Graphics card and CPU.
The CPU current isn't the issue. It's the heat that causes problems. On the graphic cards, it's the bus spec and connector that's the limiting factor. If you make an AGP card that exceeds the bus spec, then there will have to be an external power connector, but that doesn't mean that providing power through the motherboard is technically infeasible from a design standpoint.
Also, if you did do that, you run into two other issues with power as well. Heat dissapation in the cable and intereference with the data lines.
Do SATA power cables get hot now? Of course not. They won't get hot if fed from the motherboard either. Noticeable heat in a power cable is a sign that the wire is WAY too small. As to interference, AC and pulsed DC can cause interference, not straight DC. Even then, twisted pair cabling would resolve it. It's also a non-issue. Seen interference problems on USB? It runs power through the cable.
Also, if the power cable through the motherboard goes bad, you have to get an all new motherboard.
As someone who has designed PC boards, I can tell you that it's not going to happen. That's like worrying that your soup spoons will "go bad."
Keep the power supply supplying power to everything directly, it cuts down on complications that can crop up.
More cables, more connectors, more routing problems, more expense. It adds complication.
Explain how they reap the greatest benefit from "our society"?
Because our society provides the entire infrastructure needed for them to gain wealth. It provides roads for transporting the goods that they produce and use. It provides them with police protection so that they aren't constantly in fear of kidnapping, murder, etc. It provides them with educated workers for their businesses. The list goes on and on.
I got my skills at my own expense, not "society's".
So you never went to a public school? You never went to a museum the received federal funds? Your teachers weren't educated in public schools? Your parents never got a tax credit that helped pay for your education? You didn't get to school using taxpayer funded roads, sidewalks, public transportation, etc.? My, you must have an interesting story to tell.
Um, tax policies don't make anyone wealthier besides the government.
Untrue. It costs money to run the government. If tax policies are such that the rich are not as burdened as the middle-class and poor, then they policies are helping to make them wealthier. If the taxes force many lower-income people to seek out part-time work, there is a labor glut which drives down wages, helping make the wealthy wealthier when they hire people at the deflated wages.
And don't tell me that you are entitled to keep everything that you are paid, because you are not. It's not "your money", despite what the Bushies would have you believe. If you want to live in this society, then you are legally and morally obligated to contribute to it in the form of taxes.
Money the government doesn't tax isn't a gift, it's money you earned that you get to keep.
When you get the government services and Bush takes out a $400+billion dollar loan to pay for them, a cut in your taxes is a gift.
I take it you favor tax policies that penalize people for hard work and success?
Don't give me this bullshit about "hard work" by the wealthy. You want to see hard work? Go watch coal miners at work. Watch garbage collection people. Watch janitors. Watch the single mother of two who works for 8 hours as a waitress and then works another 4 hours as a maid in a hotel. Watch someone who is doing manual labor at a construction site. Don't waste my time with stories about some guy sitting in an air-conditioned office.
To answer your question, I favor tax policies which do the least harm. I favor tax policies which make it possible for the working poor to better their lives. I favor tax policies which don't take food off of tables. I favor tax policies which allow a middle-income family to send their children to good colleges. That means getting the lion's share of the money from the people who can most afford it. If it's a choice between taking money from someone who then won't be able to afford health insurance or taking money from a millionaire, I favor a tax policy which takes from the millionaire.
As a matter of fact, yes, I'm delighted!
So you are happy that people of moderate income are having to work more hours to make ends meet? You are happy that CEOs are getting more and more money while custodians, restaurant workers, agricultural workers, people who work in poultry processing plants, etc. are working more hours for less pay? You're happy that there are parents who have had to take a second job just to keep from being homeless? If so, then I hope you die soon. There's something very sick about someone who takes glee in the suffering of the working poor.
As far as I know, companies are paying CEO's with their own money, not with mine, so, truthfully, I don't give a rat's-ass what they pay them.
So you don't care if the CEO at your firm gets a raise while the workers, including you, take a pay cut? You don't care that the CEO of your firm get's a raise while outsourcing your job to India? You don't care what Johnson & Johnson