Keep WHAT money? He LOST on the stock market. He didn't make any money.
The parent post claimed that he would make a lot of money off of his commissions regardless of the profitability of the trades. I don't know if that is accurate, but even if it is I was merely stating that he wouldn't get to keep any of those commissions.
Typically people still have to pay back what they owe. Occasionally what they owe will be negotiated down so that they aren't living in a card board box but they can go decades before they get back on their feet and all the while some judge will be telling them how much they can spend on cereal and what type of car they are allowed to drive. It's not pretty.
No, typically people don't pay back anything (or at least close to nothing). I know two people who have declared bankruptcy, and both of them discharged every penny of debt and kept every single possession (except one of them lost one of their cars). One kept a big screen TV and a living room set that they collectively owed over $3k for because it wasn't worth Best Buy's time to repossess items of such little value. I had read quite a bit about bankruptcy because he was asking advice before talking to a lawyer, and I was still surprised at just how easy the whole process was for him in the end.
One was even able to run up an extra few thousand on his credit cards to stock up on non-perishable food and other household items (and do needed maintenance on the car he planned on keeping), and made sure not to contact a lawyer until a few months after doing it so he could claim to not know the bankruptcy court usually does not look further back than 6 months to detect such fraud (he never paid back a penny of it). I learned a lot about bankruptcy law while helping him prepare, and his lawyer did little more than back up what he and I had already learned online. The lawyer told him that the vast majority of bankruptcies are just as easy as his was (although that is just an anecdotal claim by his lawyer).
I would be surprised if the plea agreement that is allowing him to only serve 5-8 years will allow him to keep any commissions he made on his fraudulent sales. Even without the plea agreement, I doubt he would keep any of the money.
I assume he will have to declare bankruptcy after the firm goes after all of his money to pay back some of their losses.
Why is the computer industry hell bent on constantly reinventing the wheel?
Why are people in the computer industry hell bent on complaining when people take concepts from well designed software of the past an implement it in more popular development tools? Can you imagine how annoying it would be if architects kept saying "The Romans figured out arches two thousand years ago, why do these new kids keep reinventing the wheel" ?
IMHO, I welcome most attempts to take the good features from Smalltalk and implement in more heavily used languages.
When I moved to the East, I immediately started making like 12k more than I was in the West, and I now make 14k more than that. So, that's 26k (gross) more for basically doing nothing but change timezones. Joke's on me of course since 1099 contractors get taxed out the ass such that basically all my gross gains go right to the g-men. Hooray.
No, you made $26k more because you moved from being a w2 worker to a 1099 worker, not because you changed timezones. If you are saying that your take home pay is almost the same after gaining $26k in gross income, then most of that money is likely going to health insurance and extra payroll taxes. This means you actually took a pay cut when you took that initial job for $12k more.
If you were always a 1099, then you are just talking out of your ass about the taxes because only $2k of your $26k would be going to additional 1099 related payroll taxes (even less if you make over $110k per year). So you were either a w2 worker on the west coast or grossly overexaggerating (lying) about the taxes, so I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were a w2 worker before.
Yea, but you are probably ignoring what you get back come tax time? I know my school loans don't look too low on paper either (6-9%), but after taking the tax deductions, I'm really only paying about 1-2%.
That is simply a rediculous statement. First off it only allows you to take deductions, which returns to you a maximum of 25% of your interest payment. That means that even if you are getting a 6% rate the deduction only reduces that to 4.5% (not 1-2%).
And if you are actually successful after graduation, you probably won't even get the deduction because it starts phasing out at only $55k modified AGI.
I wasn't sure if I should even respond to such obvious flamebait, but some of what you say is unfortunately believed by quite a few people (even gay rights supporters) so it is still worth debunking.
If you're saying that Marriage is purely secular, you're not being intellectually honest.
Marriage is a secular institution. First off it is a ceremony that is recognized by almost every culture in history, including athiest societies such as the former USSR. Christmas and barmitzvahs are religious in nature, but marriages certainly are not. A marriage is a legal union that society recognizes as forming a single household from what was once two independent individuals. Marriages are useful for defining laws and traditions that govern how these unions are handled. Things like property rights can turn into difficult matters so it is important to have concrete laws to settle disputes (just look how messy most divorces or some inheritance splits can become).
Most religions throughout history have also added non-secular meaning to the institution of marriage, but that is a separate matter. Would you want the government to stop you from getting married if the Koran said that all marriages not recognized by Allah were null and void? That is the same argument used by anyone who says someone cannot be married because their religion is against it.
I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal.
I agree that having homosexual parents is probably not a 100% optimal situation. The "optimal" situation is probably something like two upper middle class well educated parents who don't divorce and live in one of the best school districts in the country. But should lower middle class people not be allowed to adopt because it is not optimal to have kids in a household with money problems? Should parents who never went to college not be allowed to adopt because they are less likely to provide the same enriching educational environment as two parents with post-graduate degrees?
All studies I have seen conclusively shown that homosexual parents can raise emotionally mature, intelligent, and well rounded adults. I am pretty sure studies show that they do much better than average even. Any opinion that homosexual parents cannot to an adequate job is either very ignorant or very bigoted.
If the point of homosexual marriage is for "love" then I don't have a problem with it. Get married. However if you want additional "benefits" from government, you're going to have to be much clearer that it is ONLY about these things that you care about, and that it isn't about "love" at all.
Why is it mutually exclusive? This is such an incoherent rambling I am not even sure how to respond. I love my neices and nephews, but if my brother requests a legal document that states I take care of his children if he dies that does not mean I love them less because I asked the government to make it legal. I feel silly even writing something like that, but I think you may actually believe the comments you are making so it is worth pointing out how erroneous these opinions are.
AND if you extend those "rights" to gay people, then you must also allow for other non-traditional marriages like polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriages as well. If not, then you're just as discriminatory as you claim people like me are.
Society is overwhelming against non-traditional marriages in cases of polygamy and incenteous marriages not because they are just untraditional. It is because of the female oppression that accompanies societies that practice the former, and the medical problems inherent in the latter.
No one is forced to be a Catholic. No one is forced to follow their teachings. It's not the Eleventh Century anymore.
The new pope has done everything in his power to force his beliefs on the people of Argentina. He has openly faught against homesexual marriage and even tried to prevent them from being able to adopt children. Just because he has been unsuccessful in many of his attempts does not mean he isn't trying to force his opinions on others.
You don't have to be catholic to be affected by the beliefs of one of the major religions still practiced today.
Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
Marriage has always been a civil matter. It is an agreement between two people to form a household together, which is generally recognized by other members of their society. Various religions have put extra meaning on these civil arrangements, but that has never stopped societies from continuing to enact rules and customs around their version of the institute of marriage. In our society, we codify our official arrangement with laws. Forming a household requires sacrifices and shared responsibility, so we create legal obligations and benefits.
Unless you want to revert to "might makes right" when difficult situations like divorce and inheritence arise, I suggest leaving our legal system involved in marriages. And leave the redundant concept of civil unions out of it, since marriages are already civil unions.
You didn't list any actual reasons why an open journal could not become prestigous. You just said that they aren't prestigous enough right now. From what I read, you don't seem to think it is the fact that they are open, just that they are not established enough.
But if the government mandated that all research that is even partially funded by the federal government must be in open journals, those journals would become the prestigous ones overnight. While I sometimes read research papers written purely by entities like Microsoft Research, even many of those papers still have some professor from a University as a contributer as well.
It's pretty hard to imagine that fundamentalists could outsmart biologists who, after all, also have access to this tool to make a cure.
It is usually incredibly easier to destroy than it is to create. Creating a virus that does just enough to kill people is probably much easier than finding a cure. Just like it is easier to smash up a car than it is to fix a totalled car.
It may be different in this specific case, but I doubt it.
Oh come on now. Play fair. If you start throwing around advanced database features like materialized views then you will immediately invalidate 90% of the use cases commonly used for choosing NoSQL over relational databases. That is just mean.
Don't try to actually make sense of the decisions made in the article. I am glad that he summed up all of the reasons why he didn't go with a relational database early in the article, so I didn't have to bother reading the rest. I am an advocate of NoSQL, but this whole article is describing a project that is almost perfect for a relational database.
But considering this author's previous analysis of Java vs C#, I am not surprised that this article was hardly worth the time to read.
This thread is one gigantic breeding ground for the No True Scotsman fallacy.
How is that? Sique was just responding that merely having an HTML page does not mean that the page is on the World Wide Web. To be on the web you need at least some level of interconnectivity with the rest of the web.
There are plenty of other entities, such as corporate intranets, that use the same underlying technologies as the World Wide Web but would not be considered to be on the web. That is the reason we have different terms such as Internet, Intranet, World Wide Web, etc. They are not completely interchangeable.
You should really be thinking of what your course teachers expect from this project.
Good advice for getting A's. But if instead you do what is right instead of what the teacher wants, you will get a B. Which is more important to you?
It's why I shy away from straight-A students when hiring.
When I am hiring, I definitely want an employee that will put company objectives above whatever they feel like doing. Being creative and innovative is great, but not at the expense of fulfilling your customer's or employer's requirements. If a student spent his school years thinking he was too good for every assignment, how is he going to feel about the projects I put him on?
The only people who shy away from straight-A students are people who still have a chip on their shoulder from their own lazy youth, and still hold onto all kinds of excuses for their poor performance in school. And I say this as someone who didn't wise up about academics until my late 20s. There may be some rare exceptions, but I doubt there are many.
Just because you say "Outside of the legislature", since your point is rediculous if you count the legislature, doesn't make your point valid. It is like my telling someone "I don't mean to be rude, but you are a bad parent" doesn't suddenly make my statement polite.
There are nine supreme court justices, one president, and 535 congressmen. 98% of those are directly elected. Even if you count cabinet members (which are more like employees of the president than actual politicians) that still leaves 96% of these positions being directly elected.
The only thing that exam might show is how much colleges have progressed since 1899. A third of that test is just translating Latin and Greek, which has very limited value. The history is very focused on ancient greece and rome. While they are difficult questions, IMHO, if secondary education of the time focued on those time periods I am sure they aren't too difficult. The math on the exam is pretty easy with no calculus to be found. The plane geometry section would be hard for me, but only because my schooling never covered it. If Harvard thought it was important enough back then to put on their exam then I am confident secondary education covered it at the time.
About the only good a test like this would do today is to help make sure no one outside of the upper class and who didn't go to a high-priced private school could ever make it into the Ivy League. It looks like teaching to the test was a problem even back then, except back then top schools mostly asked questions on material they knew only children of equally pretentious parents who know the answers to.
Not only that, but there is another issue at stake in all of this also: if $BIG_COMPANY should get a tax exemption because it is good for the state, why is it not good for a $SMALL_COMPANY to get the same tax exemptions? If tax exemptions are good, then why not do away with them and just lower the taxes on everyone?
The most fair way to tax would be to tax companies based both on how much the community benefits the company, and what other options the community has to utilize the land and other resources the company is using.
A local restaurant or retail store is completely dependent on the community. It requires enough shoppers with enough disposable income to be in a certain location. They owe quite a lot to the community, and should pay higher taxes accordingly.
A huge warehouse or datacenter does not require shoppers, just land and other basics like water and electricity. These are not relatively rare commodities (at least in the US) so they do not owe nearly as much to the community. Who cares if the datacenter is making $10 million in profilts compared to a local store owner's $100k, because the community collecting the taxes was not really contributing to those profits. They just provided some land and electricity, which in the US is not valuable at all in most of the country.
$1200 x 8 = $9,600 That's a lot of iPads and Macbooks.
Less than 3 sets of one of each at the prices cited by GP, which is a pretty low threshold for "lots".
If I bought 3 iPads and 3 Macbooks every semester I would feel confident saying that I buy "lots" of Apple devices. I have just one server, one desktop, and one laptop, and my girlfriend tells people that I have lots of computers in my office.
I don't know of many laptops supporting 30 inchers at either 2560x1600 or 4k resolution...
But many do support 27" monitors with almost the same resolution. I have a 30" 2560x1600 at home and a 27" 2560x1440 at work (connected to my laptop), and I really don't notice a difference. After using this 27" monitor, I know that I won't be paying the extra premium for another 30" after my current one breaks.
Why would you compare the interest rate that Oracle can borrow money at with an average college student whose family does not have enough funds to pay for college themselves? Oracle has over $30 billion in cash reserves, so they are a much safer bet to lend $5 billion than a college student who can't scrape together $100k.
Do people honestly think banks should lend money with rates based on how sympathetic the borrower is?
Yes it does. Almost no one installs a different operating system on their new computer. I would be surprised if even 1% of people buying a computer with OEM Windows 8 plan on uninstalling it.
If you don't see a difference between eating an animal that we raise for food such as a cow and eating an animal that has been our loyal companion for thousands of years such as dogs, then what difference do you see between eating a cow and a human?
I agree with the parent. If you cannot see the difference between a dog and a human, just because we keep dogs as pets, then you really do have some problems.
The only real reason not to eat dogs, cats, or horses is because we have not been breeding this animals for human consumption. Today's cattle, chicken, etc. bear little resemblence to their wild ancestors. There probably wasn't that much difference between eating a cat and a cow 1000 years ago (other than cows having more meat). But there is a big difference today. As far as I know, the only cultures that still eat animals like cats and dogs are those who are poor enough that throwing away the meat is a bad idea.
Eating humans, or primates for that matter, is taboo for a number of reasons that are completely different than the arguments used for other animals. Among them are that diseases are more likely to be spread this way, because cross-species diseases like Mad Cow Disease are far more rare than diseases which can pass from human to human.
It basically just come down to this: If you cannot tell that there is a HUGE difference between eating a dog and eating a human, you either suffer from severe cognitive dissonance or you also have trouble telling the difference between having sex with a dog versus a human.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep WHAT money? He LOST on the stock market. He didn't make any money.
The parent post claimed that he would make a lot of money off of his commissions regardless of the profitability of the trades. I don't know if that is accurate, but even if it is I was merely stating that he wouldn't get to keep any of those commissions.
Typically people still have to pay back what they owe. Occasionally what they owe will be negotiated down so that they aren't living in a card board box but they can go decades before they get back on their feet and all the while some judge will be telling them how much they can spend on cereal and what type of car they are allowed to drive. It's not pretty.
No, typically people don't pay back anything (or at least close to nothing). I know two people who have declared bankruptcy, and both of them discharged every penny of debt and kept every single possession (except one of them lost one of their cars). One kept a big screen TV and a living room set that they collectively owed over $3k for because it wasn't worth Best Buy's time to repossess items of such little value. I had read quite a bit about bankruptcy because he was asking advice before talking to a lawyer, and I was still surprised at just how easy the whole process was for him in the end.
One was even able to run up an extra few thousand on his credit cards to stock up on non-perishable food and other household items (and do needed maintenance on the car he planned on keeping), and made sure not to contact a lawyer until a few months after doing it so he could claim to not know the bankruptcy court usually does not look further back than 6 months to detect such fraud (he never paid back a penny of it). I learned a lot about bankruptcy law while helping him prepare, and his lawyer did little more than back up what he and I had already learned online. The lawyer told him that the vast majority of bankruptcies are just as easy as his was (although that is just an anecdotal claim by his lawyer).
I would be surprised if the plea agreement that is allowing him to only serve 5-8 years will allow him to keep any commissions he made on his fraudulent sales. Even without the plea agreement, I doubt he would keep any of the money.
I assume he will have to declare bankruptcy after the firm goes after all of his money to pay back some of their losses.
Why is the computer industry hell bent on constantly reinventing the wheel?
Why are people in the computer industry hell bent on complaining when people take concepts from well designed software of the past an implement it in more popular development tools? Can you imagine how annoying it would be if architects kept saying "The Romans figured out arches two thousand years ago, why do these new kids keep reinventing the wheel" ?
IMHO, I welcome most attempts to take the good features from Smalltalk and implement in more heavily used languages.
When I moved to the East, I immediately started making like 12k more than I was in the West, and I now make 14k more than that. So, that's 26k (gross) more for basically doing nothing but change timezones. Joke's on me of course since 1099 contractors get taxed out the ass such that basically all my gross gains go right to the g-men. Hooray.
No, you made $26k more because you moved from being a w2 worker to a 1099 worker, not because you changed timezones. If you are saying that your take home pay is almost the same after gaining $26k in gross income, then most of that money is likely going to health insurance and extra payroll taxes. This means you actually took a pay cut when you took that initial job for $12k more.
If you were always a 1099, then you are just talking out of your ass about the taxes because only $2k of your $26k would be going to additional 1099 related payroll taxes (even less if you make over $110k per year). So you were either a w2 worker on the west coast or grossly overexaggerating (lying) about the taxes, so I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were a w2 worker before.
Yea, but you are probably ignoring what you get back come tax time? I know my school loans don't look too low on paper either (6-9%), but after taking the tax deductions, I'm really only paying about 1-2%.
That is simply a rediculous statement. First off it only allows you to take deductions, which returns to you a maximum of 25% of your interest payment. That means that even if you are getting a 6% rate the deduction only reduces that to 4.5% (not 1-2%).
And if you are actually successful after graduation, you probably won't even get the deduction because it starts phasing out at only $55k modified AGI.
I wasn't sure if I should even respond to such obvious flamebait, but some of what you say is unfortunately believed by quite a few people (even gay rights supporters) so it is still worth debunking.
If you're saying that Marriage is purely secular, you're not being intellectually honest.
Marriage is a secular institution. First off it is a ceremony that is recognized by almost every culture in history, including athiest societies such as the former USSR. Christmas and barmitzvahs are religious in nature, but marriages certainly are not. A marriage is a legal union that society recognizes as forming a single household from what was once two independent individuals. Marriages are useful for defining laws and traditions that govern how these unions are handled. Things like property rights can turn into difficult matters so it is important to have concrete laws to settle disputes (just look how messy most divorces or some inheritance splits can become).
Most religions throughout history have also added non-secular meaning to the institution of marriage, but that is a separate matter. Would you want the government to stop you from getting married if the Koran said that all marriages not recognized by Allah were null and void? That is the same argument used by anyone who says someone cannot be married because their religion is against it.
I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal.
I agree that having homosexual parents is probably not a 100% optimal situation. The "optimal" situation is probably something like two upper middle class well educated parents who don't divorce and live in one of the best school districts in the country. But should lower middle class people not be allowed to adopt because it is not optimal to have kids in a household with money problems? Should parents who never went to college not be allowed to adopt because they are less likely to provide the same enriching educational environment as two parents with post-graduate degrees?
All studies I have seen conclusively shown that homosexual parents can raise emotionally mature, intelligent, and well rounded adults. I am pretty sure studies show that they do much better than average even. Any opinion that homosexual parents cannot to an adequate job is either very ignorant or very bigoted.
If the point of homosexual marriage is for "love" then I don't have a problem with it. Get married. However if you want additional "benefits" from government, you're going to have to be much clearer that it is ONLY about these things that you care about, and that it isn't about "love" at all.
Why is it mutually exclusive? This is such an incoherent rambling I am not even sure how to respond. I love my neices and nephews, but if my brother requests a legal document that states I take care of his children if he dies that does not mean I love them less because I asked the government to make it legal. I feel silly even writing something like that, but I think you may actually believe the comments you are making so it is worth pointing out how erroneous these opinions are.
AND if you extend those "rights" to gay people, then you must also allow for other non-traditional marriages like polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriages as well. If not, then you're just as discriminatory as you claim people like me are.
Society is overwhelming against non-traditional marriages in cases of polygamy and incenteous marriages not because they are just untraditional. It is because of the female oppression that accompanies societies that practice the former, and the medical problems inherent in the latter.
No one is forced to be a Catholic. No one is forced to follow their teachings. It's not the Eleventh Century anymore.
The new pope has done everything in his power to force his beliefs on the people of Argentina. He has openly faught against homesexual marriage and even tried to prevent them from being able to adopt children. Just because he has been unsuccessful in many of his attempts does not mean he isn't trying to force his opinions on others.
You don't have to be catholic to be affected by the beliefs of one of the major religions still practiced today.
Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
Marriage has always been a civil matter. It is an agreement between two people to form a household together, which is generally recognized by other members of their society. Various religions have put extra meaning on these civil arrangements, but that has never stopped societies from continuing to enact rules and customs around their version of the institute of marriage. In our society, we codify our official arrangement with laws. Forming a household requires sacrifices and shared responsibility, so we create legal obligations and benefits.
Unless you want to revert to "might makes right" when difficult situations like divorce and inheritence arise, I suggest leaving our legal system involved in marriages. And leave the redundant concept of civil unions out of it, since marriages are already civil unions.
You didn't list any actual reasons why an open journal could not become prestigous. You just said that they aren't prestigous enough right now. From what I read, you don't seem to think it is the fact that they are open, just that they are not established enough.
But if the government mandated that all research that is even partially funded by the federal government must be in open journals, those journals would become the prestigous ones overnight. While I sometimes read research papers written purely by entities like Microsoft Research, even many of those papers still have some professor from a University as a contributer as well.
It's pretty hard to imagine that fundamentalists could outsmart biologists who, after all, also have access to this tool to make a cure.
It is usually incredibly easier to destroy than it is to create. Creating a virus that does just enough to kill people is probably much easier than finding a cure. Just like it is easier to smash up a car than it is to fix a totalled car.
It may be different in this specific case, but I doubt it.
Oh come on now. Play fair. If you start throwing around advanced database features like materialized views then you will immediately invalidate 90% of the use cases commonly used for choosing NoSQL over relational databases. That is just mean.
Don't try to actually make sense of the decisions made in the article. I am glad that he summed up all of the reasons why he didn't go with a relational database early in the article, so I didn't have to bother reading the rest. I am an advocate of NoSQL, but this whole article is describing a project that is almost perfect for a relational database.
But considering this author's previous analysis of Java vs C#, I am not surprised that this article was hardly worth the time to read.
This thread is one gigantic breeding ground for the No True Scotsman fallacy.
How is that? Sique was just responding that merely having an HTML page does not mean that the page is on the World Wide Web. To be on the web you need at least some level of interconnectivity with the rest of the web.
There are plenty of other entities, such as corporate intranets, that use the same underlying technologies as the World Wide Web but would not be considered to be on the web. That is the reason we have different terms such as Internet, Intranet, World Wide Web, etc. They are not completely interchangeable.
Good advice for getting A's. But if instead you do what is right instead of what the teacher wants, you will get a B. Which is more important to you?
It's why I shy away from straight-A students when hiring.
When I am hiring, I definitely want an employee that will put company objectives above whatever they feel like doing. Being creative and innovative is great, but not at the expense of fulfilling your customer's or employer's requirements. If a student spent his school years thinking he was too good for every assignment, how is he going to feel about the projects I put him on?
The only people who shy away from straight-A students are people who still have a chip on their shoulder from their own lazy youth, and still hold onto all kinds of excuses for their poor performance in school. And I say this as someone who didn't wise up about academics until my late 20s. There may be some rare exceptions, but I doubt there are many.
Just because you say "Outside of the legislature", since your point is rediculous if you count the legislature, doesn't make your point valid. It is like my telling someone "I don't mean to be rude, but you are a bad parent" doesn't suddenly make my statement polite.
There are nine supreme court justices, one president, and 535 congressmen. 98% of those are directly elected. Even if you count cabinet members (which are more like employees of the president than actual politicians) that still leaves 96% of these positions being directly elected.
If you would like to see just how far it has fallen, here is an 1899 entrance exam from Harvard:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf
The only thing that exam might show is how much colleges have progressed since 1899. A third of that test is just translating Latin and Greek, which has very limited value. The history is very focused on ancient greece and rome. While they are difficult questions, IMHO, if secondary education of the time focued on those time periods I am sure they aren't too difficult. The math on the exam is pretty easy with no calculus to be found. The plane geometry section would be hard for me, but only because my schooling never covered it. If Harvard thought it was important enough back then to put on their exam then I am confident secondary education covered it at the time.
About the only good a test like this would do today is to help make sure no one outside of the upper class and who didn't go to a high-priced private school could ever make it into the Ivy League. It looks like teaching to the test was a problem even back then, except back then top schools mostly asked questions on material they knew only children of equally pretentious parents who know the answers to.
Not only that, but there is another issue at stake in all of this also: if $BIG_COMPANY should get a tax exemption because it is good for the state, why is it not good for a $SMALL_COMPANY to get the same tax exemptions? If tax exemptions are good, then why not do away with them and just lower the taxes on everyone?
The most fair way to tax would be to tax companies based both on how much the community benefits the company, and what other options the community has to utilize the land and other resources the company is using.
A local restaurant or retail store is completely dependent on the community. It requires enough shoppers with enough disposable income to be in a certain location. They owe quite a lot to the community, and should pay higher taxes accordingly.
A huge warehouse or datacenter does not require shoppers, just land and other basics like water and electricity. These are not relatively rare commodities (at least in the US) so they do not owe nearly as much to the community. Who cares if the datacenter is making $10 million in profilts compared to a local store owner's $100k, because the community collecting the taxes was not really contributing to those profits. They just provided some land and electricity, which in the US is not valuable at all in most of the country.
75% of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed that NASA's budget should be increased to explore Mars through manned and robotic means.
Unless they were also asked what programs to cut to pay for NASA's budget increase, this question is meaningless.
Less than 3 sets of one of each at the prices cited by GP, which is a pretty low threshold for "lots".
If I bought 3 iPads and 3 Macbooks every semester I would feel confident saying that I buy "lots" of Apple devices. I have just one server, one desktop, and one laptop, and my girlfriend tells people that I have lots of computers in my office.
I don't know of many laptops supporting 30 inchers at either 2560x1600 or 4k resolution...
But many do support 27" monitors with almost the same resolution. I have a 30" 2560x1600 at home and a 27" 2560x1440 at work (connected to my laptop), and I really don't notice a difference. After using this 27" monitor, I know that I won't be paying the extra premium for another 30" after my current one breaks.
Why would you compare the interest rate that Oracle can borrow money at with an average college student whose family does not have enough funds to pay for college themselves? Oracle has over $30 billion in cash reserves, so they are a much safer bet to lend $5 billion than a college student who can't scrape together $100k.
Do people honestly think banks should lend money with rates based on how sympathetic the borrower is?
Sold through OEMs doesn't mean it's in use.
Yes it does. Almost no one installs a different operating system on their new computer. I would be surprised if even 1% of people buying a computer with OEM Windows 8 plan on uninstalling it.
If you don't see a difference between eating an animal that we raise for food such as a cow and eating an animal that has been our loyal companion for thousands of years such as dogs, then what difference do you see between eating a cow and a human?
I agree with the parent. If you cannot see the difference between a dog and a human, just because we keep dogs as pets, then you really do have some problems.
The only real reason not to eat dogs, cats, or horses is because we have not been breeding this animals for human consumption. Today's cattle, chicken, etc. bear little resemblence to their wild ancestors. There probably wasn't that much difference between eating a cat and a cow 1000 years ago (other than cows having more meat). But there is a big difference today. As far as I know, the only cultures that still eat animals like cats and dogs are those who are poor enough that throwing away the meat is a bad idea.
Eating humans, or primates for that matter, is taboo for a number of reasons that are completely different than the arguments used for other animals. Among them are that diseases are more likely to be spread this way, because cross-species diseases like Mad Cow Disease are far more rare than diseases which can pass from human to human.
It basically just come down to this: If you cannot tell that there is a HUGE difference between eating a dog and eating a human, you either suffer from severe cognitive dissonance or you also have trouble telling the difference between having sex with a dog versus a human.