To give every American only $310/month (hardly enough to live off of) would cost $1.2 trillion dollars a year, over a third of total Federal revenue. I see no advantage over the EITC given the cost.
It's really, really expensive. To give every American (all 324,829,971) $310.00 costs over $100 billion, so doing that 12 times a year costs $1.2 trillion. The Federal government took in $3.3 trillion in 2015. That's quite a lot to be spending on the assumption that a trend as old as human technology will suddenly end, with new tech not creating new jobs as it eliminates old ones.
It also fails to account for unpublished internal/proprietary research - who knows what unreported breakthroughs have been made at IBM/Google/MS/DARPA/etc.?
We perform regular phishing drills to train our people. Seems to work pretty well, especially since our users are far from being the young, savvy and eager types the parties tend to hire.
They're mostly middle-aged realtors with low degrees of computer literacy, yet it seems they are less likely to fall for these fake google login scams than the DNC. That's sad.
I think what they're complaining about is that the NHTSA's checklist is voluntary, while California is trying to make it mandatory. They've probably also spent a lot of money complying with California's old rules, and don't want to have to start over.
The DNC was hacked, and damaging info about Hillary was released. What's proportional? The CIA/NSA releasing some of the dirt they've collected on him over the years. If Putin wants to make our system look bad by releasing dirt on one of the players, we can do the same.
It's not something that should be changed lightly or too greatly. And of course, there are the issues of what exactly to do, and whether we should actually do anything at all. Ranked voting may have the effect of weakening the two party system without too much disruption, but is it worth it? The party system changes up every couple of generations (I think we're on the 6th), and it looks like we're on the brink of another major shakeup. Since the early 90's the Democrat party has been moving consistently to the left, while the GOP has swung back and forth and is now pulling itself apart. Hillary was in the center of the Left when her husband took office, but now her party has gone so far to the left that she's verging on being center-right. The GOP leadership is trying to hold one course while Trump is setting another. Both parties selected candidates that will break them, so in 2020 we may see a very different landscape without having to go through the trouble of changing the voting system.
Well, because she's running for office and these leaks hurt her. So she's trying to deflect by casting doubts on their validity while trying to get people to worry about Russia instead of the revelations about her own (and her party's) conduct.
Adams made another great observation about electoral democracy - the qualities that get one elected and the qualities that make a good leader are are mutually exclusive (he said it funnier).
That said, the reason we're effectively locked into a two party system is Duverger's law. Plurality voting with single member districts leads to two party systems. It would require seriously amending the Constitution to change that.
Well, gathering intel is at least half of what the CIA does. It's also as interested in taking advantage of social upheavals as it is in preventing them (really a matter of where).
Still, the idea that predicting upheavals is so much of what they do that this would make the agency obsolete is nonsense.
I bet the answer is at least "some", and that customers in those areas are getting a surprising message that their non-existent cap is being raised to 1TB/month. I'm basing this on my own experience of them "raising" my non-existent cap to 300GB/month.
And do they actually face any extra costs from the %1 this affects?
It always seemed to me that software should be copywritten, not patented. Sounds to me like this judge has come around to my thinking, which demonstrates his wisdom and thoughtfulness as much as it does my greatness. Not that my greatness needs demonstrating, as it is clear to all, but this amounts to official recognition of my place as the foremost legal thinker of our time.
To be honest, I envy y'all. You get to experience my brilliance in a way I never will. You're welcome.
I didn't duck it, my time is limited and I didn't think it particularly important at the time to go over an example of working out legal details.
As my time is still limited, I'm going to start by saying that yes, they were not just breaking the law, they were committing high treason and knew all too well the consequences for them and their families when they signed the Declaration. The conditions under which the Crown was placing the Colonies had become intolerable, amounting to tyranny. They presented a long list of unredressed grievances and explained how they amounted to a violation of the very purpose of government, thereby invalidating its power over them.
So yes, they broke the law in grandiose fashion. They explained exactly why they were breaking it and that as the law was unjust it was inherently invalid and had to be broken.
And please do keep in mind that the Enlightenment perspective towards government that underpinned the Declaration also held sway in Britain. Also, the Social Contract was Rousseau's, not Locke's. It was also a criticism of Hobbes' and Locke's view of social development.
.
Slashdot Mirror
He's sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Unless "gay" != "homosexual", you're talking nonsense.
To give every American only $310/month (hardly enough to live off of) would cost $1.2 trillion dollars a year, over a third of total Federal revenue. I see no advantage over the EITC given the cost.
You're also assuming that, unlike the rest of human history, there won't be some new need or endeavour that arises to demand labor.
It's really, really expensive. To give every American (all 324,829,971) $310.00 costs over $100 billion, so doing that 12 times a year costs $1.2 trillion. The Federal government took in $3.3 trillion in 2015. That's quite a lot to be spending on the assumption that a trend as old as human technology will suddenly end, with new tech not creating new jobs as it eliminates old ones.
Gosh, it's too bad that using the term "sheeple" immediately discredits everything the person who used it says.
They're the 'cyber-warfare' agency, right?
It also fails to account for unpublished internal/proprietary research - who knows what unreported breakthroughs have been made at IBM/Google/MS/DARPA/etc.?
We perform regular phishing drills to train our people. Seems to work pretty well, especially since our users are far from being the young, savvy and eager types the parties tend to hire.
They're mostly middle-aged realtors with low degrees of computer literacy, yet it seems they are less likely to fall for these fake google login scams than the DNC. That's sad.
But how do you check off those items without doing a load of testing to hammer out the details?
I think what they're complaining about is that the NHTSA's checklist is voluntary, while California is trying to make it mandatory. They've probably also spent a lot of money complying with California's old rules, and don't want to have to start over.
The DNC was hacked, and damaging info about Hillary was released. What's proportional? The CIA/NSA releasing some of the dirt they've collected on him over the years. If Putin wants to make our system look bad by releasing dirt on one of the players, we can do the same.
To which major candidate am I referring? That's right Both.
Sure, everything was so great that the Colonists were calling British moves "The Intolerable Acts" ironically.
It's not something that should be changed lightly or too greatly. And of course, there are the issues of what exactly to do, and whether we should actually do anything at all. Ranked voting may have the effect of weakening the two party system without too much disruption, but is it worth it? The party system changes up every couple of generations (I think we're on the 6th), and it looks like we're on the brink of another major shakeup. Since the early 90's the Democrat party has been moving consistently to the left, while the GOP has swung back and forth and is now pulling itself apart. Hillary was in the center of the Left when her husband took office, but now her party has gone so far to the left that she's verging on being center-right. The GOP leadership is trying to hold one course while Trump is setting another. Both parties selected candidates that will break them, so in 2020 we may see a very different landscape without having to go through the trouble of changing the voting system.
Johnson 2016.
Well, because she's running for office and these leaks hurt her. So she's trying to deflect by casting doubts on their validity while trying to get people to worry about Russia instead of the revelations about her own (and her party's) conduct.
That said, the reason we're effectively locked into a two party system is Duverger's law. Plurality voting with single member districts leads to two party systems. It would require seriously amending the Constitution to change that.
Still, the idea that predicting upheavals is so much of what they do that this would make the agency obsolete is nonsense.
I didn't even know Rancid broke up, let alone that their singer went on to run Verizon.
Again, you're welcome.
And do they actually face any extra costs from the %1 this affects?
I've really been enjoying this. It's like the news is all abuzz about me being such a badass that people flee as I approach.
To be honest, I envy y'all. You get to experience my brilliance in a way I never will. You're welcome.
As my time is still limited, I'm going to start by saying that yes, they were not just breaking the law, they were committing high treason and knew all too well the consequences for them and their families when they signed the Declaration. The conditions under which the Crown was placing the Colonies had become intolerable, amounting to tyranny. They presented a long list of unredressed grievances and explained how they amounted to a violation of the very purpose of government, thereby invalidating its power over them.
So yes, they broke the law in grandiose fashion. They explained exactly why they were breaking it and that as the law was unjust it was inherently invalid and had to be broken.
And please do keep in mind that the Enlightenment perspective towards government that underpinned the Declaration also held sway in Britain. Also, the Social Contract was Rousseau's, not Locke's. It was also a criticism of Hobbes' and Locke's view of social development. .