It's amazing how few people have actually addressed your question.
You're right to point out that many high-income (and thanks for not conflating "high-income" with "wealthy") taxpayers earn most of their income from capital gains (and interest and dividends). But Romney's plan does not propose eliminating capital gains tax for high-income individuals -- that's only for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 (citation here). It does keep in place the lower capital gains tax rates that were part of the 2001-2003 Bush tax cuts -- the rationale being that lower rates on money earned from investment *should* lead to more investment and growth in the overall economy.
Broadening the base means things like capping or eliminating the number of deductions that people can claim on their tax returns. High-income people would pay taxes on a greater portion of their overall income. Romney has refused to commit to a specific proposal on this part, so we're left to speculate. Harvey Rosen has an interesting analysis of how it *could* be mathematically possible to "broaden the base" enough to offset the lower rates -- even with very little additional growth generated via the lower rates. In a nutshell:
1. Tax employer-provided health insurance as income -- could result in a lot of new tax revenue.
2. Tax "inside buildup" -- a type of tax-sheltered life-insurance income.
3. Keep the home mortgage deduction only for lower/middle-income earners. People in the top tax bracket might not get any of the usual deductions for medical expenses, charitable donations, or state and local taxes paid.
You can argue that a Romney administration would never go that far in eliminating deductions and loopholes, but that's different from "mathematically impossible". The Rosen paper puts all of this in a chart so you can compare the effects of different assumptions.
There's a pretty comprehensive round-up of people making the case that Romney plan could work here. (Yes, it's from a libertarian perspective. No, I'm not an economist or a libertarian myself.)
Are they really recommending Braid as a "kid-friendly" game? Braid? I'm generally impressed with Common Sense Media's take on reviews in that they look at all aspects of a movie or game when judging its appropriateness. But with Braid, the themes of the game are going to be way over the heads of most kids. I guess if your 12-year old really wanted to play it, why not. But as High Fidelity taught us there are other dangers of exposing impressionable teens to this kind of thing: What came first, the music or the misery? People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?
Yeah, the only Apple store in Scottsdale is like 10 miles north of there, near Keirland Commons not Fashion Square. I can, however, confirm its shininess.
I'm not saying COLBERT isn't great, but the best backronym I've ever seen was South East Alaska MOnitoring Network for Science, Telecommunications, Education, and Research (SEAMONSTER), which is also a NASA project.
SOLDIER #1:
Are you suggesting stone tools migrate? ARTHUR:
Not at all. They could be carried. SOLDIER #1:
What? A swallow carrying a chisel? ARTHUR:
It could grip it by the handle! SOLDIER #1:
It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound stone tool. ARTHUR:
Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here? SOLDIER #1:
Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right? ARTHUR:
Please! SOLDIER #1:
Am I right? ARTHUR:
I'm not interested! SOLDIER #2:
It could be carried by an Asian swallow! SOLDIER #1:
Oh, yeah, an Asian swallow maybe, but not an American swallow. That's my point. SOLDIER #2:
Oh, yeah, I agree with that. ARTHUR:
Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?! SOLDIER #1:
But then of course a-- Asian swallows are non-migratory. SOLDIER #2:
Oh, yeah. SOLDIER #1:
So, they couldn't bring a chisel back anyway.
[clop clop clop] SOLDIER #2:
Wait a minute! Supposing two swallows carried it together? SOLDIER #1:
No, they'd have to have it on a line. SOLDIER #2:
Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper! SOLDIER #1:
What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers? SOLDIER #2:
Well, why not?
Given enough compute power, you could probably even brute force "creativity" and "thinking outside the box" e.g. by generating every possible idea, then selectively filtering out the usefull ones. In other words, given 1000 monkeys at a thousand typewriters for a thousand years, one of them would eventually patent 1-click online shopping.
So does the computer come up with it's own filter rules, or does it just follow the rules you give it? Or maybe it slowly learns to imitate your preferences through Bayesian analysis or something? Or genetic algorithms produce a design best suited to criteria which you gave the computer? No matter how it is implemented, I don't see how this system could produce anything but results that were a reflection of the programmer's own preferences. Yes, the proverbial infinite monkey system would eventually produce good ideas, but you would still need a human to recognize them as such.
Of course, that still doesn't prove computers can't ever think like we do. Although I doubt it, it may be possible. But it's not an issue of "we just need more computing power".
On the other hand, I think it would be hilarious to watch Jeff Bezos negotiating with a monkey for the rights to that patent. "... so in return for $1.5 mil in stock, you will agree to stop flinging feces at me..." et cetera
Neat idea, but I think Stephenson actually had a Turing Machine in mind when he wrote that part of the primer's strory. The six (7?) castles contain models of computer logic of increasing complexity -- it's basically an intro to Computer Science class turned into a fantasy adventure game.
Now, if the Inca had Turing machines, that would really be something. Writing entire computer programs using only binary coded knots would be an achievement on the scale of building the Pyramids with stone-age tools.
YMMV, but I've found your speculations about switching between layouts to be true. I've been using Dvorak for about 5 years at home and I use QWERTY basically everywhere else, and I have managed to remain proficient on both. But if I try to type in Dvorak in other contexts (eg - at school, I switch the layout in software, but leave the keys the same), it takes me a lot longer to adjust -- even though I am not looking at the keys.
And no, I'm not saying this because I'm some some raving Dvorak promoter -- as people have pointed out, it isn't that much faster, and there is always the inconvenience for other people who want to use my computer (It's very simple to remap the keys back & forth with an international layout tool, but some people still can't get over the fact that all the keycaps have been swapped around). Dvorak just has that same geek fun factor that Linux does -- I like using something different from "everyone else" -- because I can -- even if it's only marginally better.
The're talking about how the astronauts on the ISS will be using the Russian space capsule to get back and he's all "are you sure we can trust this tiny little Russian thing, who knows where it was made"
These tv news anchors make slashdot look intelligent
yeah, I guess it wasn't very creative, but when I saw the story pop up on GAIM news, I just wanted to be the first person to submit this to slashdot. The story itself seemed pretty exciting. I mean, I had to download the package myself before I belived it -- a windows port used to be a joke in the FAQ! (I guess that's what I get for ignoring GAIM development all summer)
So yes, in retrospect, it would have been more in keeping with slashdot tradition to spend less time verifying the story and more time thinking up a witty headline, but hey, this was my first accepted submission, so cut me some slack:)
Take it from someone who watched a lot of Sesame Street, the canonical format is:
One, one segfault!
Two, two segfaults!
Three, three segfaults! Ah ha ha!
See, the "vampire laugh" comes after he's finished counting. This is important because it reinforces the purpose of of counting in the first place: children are classically conditioned to associate laughter with successful application of numeracy. Don't laugh, it worked on me! I'm in engineering today because of that Muppet.
It's probably been discussed several times in this article, but...
The original transformer toy designs predate the American TV show by a number of years. They were produced in Japan and then the cartoon was built around the robot toys when they came to America. Read the story yourself.
Look, I even found a picture of an old 1974 Megatron:
very realistic
You don't need a BSE to learn that rectifiers and inverters convert between AC and DC, while transformers are only capable of changing the voltage level of an AC supply.
I know my former cello instructor, who was also a certifiable Cat Person, could tell a lot of great stories about this one. If left unrestrained, her cats would sometimes curl up around your legs while you were playing. And even the reclusive one would sit quite contently in the room with several practicing cellists (which takes more patience than most non-musicians have!) But the funniest part had to be the cats' love of cello cases; they would often fall asleep curled up inside my gig bag, only to be rudely awakened when I tried to pack up my instrument.
You really don't believe that myth, do you? It would be more true to say we use 110 percent of our brains, because neurologists haven't located brain areas for everything yet. Sure, I
encounter enough stupidity in a week (including my own) to make me wonder if people are really running at 100 percent, but that's more of a software than a hardware problem, right?
Yes, if that ever becomes medically possible, I agree that it sounds like a pretty good compromise: a mother can choose not to carry her child and the child still gets to live. Until then, it makes a great thought experiment: How much am I willing to let technology redefine what it means to be human? What is my real motivation for holding [Pro-life / Pro-choice] views?
Slashdot Mirror
The title is also a great example of Syllepsis
It's amazing how few people have actually addressed your question.
You're right to point out that many high-income (and thanks for not conflating "high-income" with "wealthy") taxpayers earn most of their income from capital gains (and interest and dividends). But Romney's plan does not propose eliminating capital gains tax for high-income individuals -- that's only for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 (citation here). It does keep in place the lower capital gains tax rates that were part of the 2001-2003 Bush tax cuts -- the rationale being that lower rates on money earned from investment *should* lead to more investment and growth in the overall economy.
Broadening the base means things like capping or eliminating the number of deductions that people can claim on their tax returns. High-income people would pay taxes on a greater portion of their overall income. Romney has refused to commit to a specific proposal on this part, so we're left to speculate. Harvey Rosen has an interesting analysis of how it *could* be mathematically possible to "broaden the base" enough to offset the lower rates -- even with very little additional growth generated via the lower rates. In a nutshell:
You can argue that a Romney administration would never go that far in eliminating deductions and loopholes, but that's different from "mathematically impossible". The Rosen paper puts all of this in a chart so you can compare the effects of different assumptions.
There's a pretty comprehensive round-up of people making the case that Romney plan could work here. (Yes, it's from a libertarian perspective. No, I'm not an economist or a libertarian myself.)
Just don't make the same mistake I did and plan to see it on a Monday when you're only in town a few days.
Are they really recommending Braid as a "kid-friendly" game? Braid? I'm generally impressed with Common Sense Media's take on reviews in that they look at all aspects of a movie or game when judging its appropriateness. But with Braid, the themes of the game are going to be way over the heads of most kids. I guess if your 12-year old really wanted to play it, why not. But as High Fidelity taught us there are other dangers of exposing impressionable teens to this kind of thing:
What came first, the music or the misery? People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?
Yeah, the only Apple store in Scottsdale is like 10 miles north of there, near Keirland Commons not Fashion Square. I can, however, confirm its shininess.
I'm not saying COLBERT isn't great, but the best backronym I've ever seen was South East Alaska MOnitoring Network for Science, Telecommunications, Education, and Research (SEAMONSTER), which is also a NASA project.
SOLDIER #1:
Are you suggesting stone tools migrate?
ARTHUR:
Not at all. They could be carried.
SOLDIER #1:
What? A swallow carrying a chisel?
ARTHUR:
It could grip it by the handle!
SOLDIER #1:
It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound stone tool.
ARTHUR:
Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
SOLDIER #1:
Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
ARTHUR:
Please!
SOLDIER #1:
Am I right?
ARTHUR:
I'm not interested!
SOLDIER #2:
It could be carried by an Asian swallow!
SOLDIER #1:
Oh, yeah, an Asian swallow maybe, but not an American swallow. That's my point.
SOLDIER #2:
Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
ARTHUR:
Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
SOLDIER #1:
But then of course a-- Asian swallows are non-migratory.
SOLDIER #2:
Oh, yeah.
SOLDIER #1:
So, they couldn't bring a chisel back anyway.
[clop clop clop]
SOLDIER #2:
Wait a minute! Supposing two swallows carried it together?
SOLDIER #1:
No, they'd have to have it on a line.
SOLDIER #2:
Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
SOLDIER #1:
What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
SOLDIER #2:
Well, why not?
If the announcement is, in fact, "explosive", perhaps it's a new Bomberman game?
Could someone out there point out to me a good place to sum up all of the recent LOTR games?
I would recommend, if you haven't been there already, TheOneRing.net's Gaming Havens:
http://haven.theonering.net/index.shtml
So does the computer come up with it's own filter rules, or does it just follow the rules you give it? Or maybe it slowly learns to imitate your preferences through Bayesian analysis or something? Or genetic algorithms produce a design best suited to criteria which you gave the computer? No matter how it is implemented, I don't see how this system could produce anything but results that were a reflection of the programmer's own preferences. Yes, the proverbial infinite monkey system would eventually produce good ideas, but you would still need a human to recognize them as such.
Of course, that still doesn't prove computers can't ever think like we do. Although I doubt it, it may be possible. But it's not an issue of "we just need more computing power".
On the other hand, I think it would be hilarious to watch Jeff Bezos negotiating with a monkey for the rights to that patent. "... so in return for $1.5 mil in stock, you will agree to stop flinging feces at me ..." et cetera
Neat idea, but I think Stephenson actually had a Turing Machine in mind when he wrote that part of the primer's strory. The six (7?) castles contain models of computer logic of increasing complexity -- it's basically an intro to Computer Science class turned into a fantasy adventure game.
Now, if the Inca had Turing machines, that would really be something. Writing entire computer programs using only binary coded knots would be an achievement on the scale of building the Pyramids with stone-age tools.
Prediction: the game does not exist, it is an elaborate ruse designed to create uncertainty about the denouement of the matrix trilogy.
... or maybe not. But if I had a movie franchise (which was already hugely profitable without multiple game licences) that's exactly what I'd do.
And no, I'm not saying this because I'm some some raving Dvorak promoter -- as people have pointed out, it isn't that much faster, and there is always the inconvenience for other people who want to use my computer (It's very simple to remap the keys back & forth with an international layout tool, but some people still can't get over the fact that all the keycaps have been swapped around). Dvorak just has that same geek fun factor that Linux does -- I like using something different from "everyone else" -- because I can -- even if it's only marginally better.
E's not quite dead yet!
OMG, Dan Rather is such a goober.
The're talking about how the astronauts on the ISS will be using the Russian space capsule to get back and he's all "are you sure we can trust this tiny little Russian thing, who knows where it was made"
These tv news anchors make slashdot look intelligent
yeah, I guess it wasn't very creative, but when I saw the story pop up on GAIM news, I just wanted to be the first person to submit this to slashdot. The story itself seemed pretty exciting. I mean, I had to download the package myself before I belived it -- a windows port used to be a joke in the FAQ! (I guess that's what I get for ignoring GAIM development all summer)
:)
So yes, in retrospect, it would have been more in keeping with slashdot tradition to spend less time verifying the story and more time thinking up a witty headline, but hey, this was my first accepted submission, so cut me some slack
Take it from someone who watched a lot of Sesame Street, the canonical format is:
One, one segfault!
Two, two segfaults!
Three, three segfaults! Ah ha ha!
See, the "vampire laugh" comes after he's finished counting. This is important because it reinforces the purpose of of counting in the first place: children are classically conditioned to associate laughter with successful application of numeracy. Don't laugh, it worked on me! I'm in engineering today because of that Muppet.
The original transformer toy designs predate the American TV show by a number of years. They were produced in Japan and then the cartoon was built around the robot toys when they came to America. Read the story yourself.
Look, I even found a picture of an old 1974 Megatron: very realistic
They just don't make toys like that anymore.
You don't need a BSE to learn that rectifiers and inverters convert between AC and DC, while transformers are only capable of changing the voltage level of an AC supply.
And then add a really big spoiler and some fog lamps.
I know my former cello instructor, who was also a certifiable Cat Person, could tell a lot of great stories about this one. If left unrestrained, her cats would sometimes curl up around your legs while you were playing. And even the reclusive one would sit quite contently in the room with several practicing cellists (which takes more patience than most non-musicians have!) But the funniest part had to be the cats' love of cello cases; they would often fall asleep curled up inside my gig bag, only to be rudely awakened when I tried to pack up my instrument.
I think the word they were looking for was "panacea", a cure-all for plagiarism.
Your grandmother wasn't by any chance the Red Queen, was she?
we still don't use most of our brains
You really don't believe that myth, do you? It would be more true to say we use 110 percent of our brains, because neurologists haven't located brain areas for everything yet. Sure, I encounter enough stupidity in a week (including my own) to make me wonder if people are really running at 100 percent, but that's more of a software than a hardware problem, right?
Yes, if that ever becomes medically possible, I agree that it sounds like a pretty good compromise: a mother can choose not to carry her child and the child still gets to live. Until then, it makes a great thought experiment: How much am I willing to let technology redefine what it means to be human? What is my real motivation for holding [Pro-life / Pro-choice] views?