Which if you look at the actual moratorium, that's what they're doing. They just need time to get it in place. Hence the 18 month hold on new crypto-currency mining.
Nobody is without biases. The way that this is handled within reputable organizations is via controls that attempt to limit the influence of bias. For example, big-name newspapers like the NYT and the Wall Street Journal employ armies of fact checkers. So sure the reporting still ends up biased (often by omitting important things) but doesn't become Pinnochio news. That's not idea but it may be the best we can due. Scientific studies are double-blind and peer reviewed. That has it's flaws as well but at least reduces the influence of bias.
Hyper-partisan right-wing media and alt-right media are both very popular. Left-wing equivalents have spring up over the years (See Air America) but frankly haven't been popular in terms of ratings. Maybe left-wing stuff is just boring. Or maybe because just not popular since many "liberal" causes have been comparatively successful. I don't know.
But regardless of the reasons, "policing" left-wing content doesn't involve the same difficulties of trying to draw a line between "conservative viewpoint" and "dangerous lies" (Dangerous as in inciting violence). So it's pretty clear that more mistakes are going to be made when dealing with "conservative" content. You don't want to suppress an argument for lower taxes but you do want to shut down Pizzagate conspiracies. Facebook (or anybody else) is going to get this wrong sometimes and be criticized.
The value of a stock is the npv of the future cash flows. P/E tells you what happened in the past and is a good stock value measurement to the extent that it predicts future cash flows. A negative P/E likely means that it may be a long time until positive cash flows occur. But it says nothing about the magnitude of future cash flows especially of a growth business.
Maybe and that's a good argument. One that might have a lot of bearing on current discussions about civilian weapon ownership. But it wasn't the stated reason!
Not my area of expertise but I wonder if cheap online porn has reduced demand for hookers/strippers. Interesting thing to study if you're an economist. Sadly I'm a computer scientists so I don't get to work on such exciting things. Back to your main point, I think we are in agreement. Organizational dysfunction is universal. It's not clear that it's any worse if you decide to write software for a living.
The OP referred to an "operating profit" which means that running the subway is net positive vs. just shutting it down. It does not mean that capital costs will be recovered. It's not a "gross profit" either. These terms have specific accounting meaning. Gross profit is near 100% on a subway since the incremental cost of carrying a passenger is essentially zero. When you subtract out maintenance costs you get an operating profit. Depreciate the capital expenditure to get the net profit (or in this case loss). A business with an operating profit should continue to operate since it's better than shutting down (smaller net loss).
The senate was designed not to scale with population back when states were of approximately equal population density and the idea was to prevent small states from being marginalized by large states. It was not designed to give rural interests an advantage over urban interests. You could argue that the current system has it's benefits but what we have now is not the design intent.
I got paid well during the dotcom bubble and I also got a bunch of worthless options. I also worked insane hours. Maybe I could/should have done something different with my time. But it's hard to argue for a net-negative effect as it did propel my career, gave me earnings, and kept me out of trouble.
You are going to see these same problems across the organizations. The reality is that many organizations are dysfunctional but still successful in the marketplace. This isn't somehow specific to programming.
There are many older programmers out there who have worked on building business-critical systems. Those older programmers have an incredible amount of institutional knowledge. They understand the business better than anybody. And they know the intimate detail of these systems. That makes them incredible assets. Unfortunately it makes them highly qualified to only do one job. So long as that job exists, they will keep getting hired out of retirement. But if they don't have current technology skills, they are going to have trouble in the general job market. There are plenty of older people who do have current skills. We've recently hired one and been glad of our choice.
Yes. Just not one that Laffer considered/discussed. And we're seeing it happen. But it's a much different problem than the Laffer curve addresses. Basically we now have *competitive* tax jurisdictions which is different than the Laffer description of a monopoly tax jurisdiction. This tax competition should push worldwide corporate rates down as corporations can relocate fairly easily. It's harder to avoid personal tax rates as the nicer places to live have to pay for the infrastructure, public safety, et cetera, and those are expensive.
What you are describing is quite interesting, but it's not related to the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve does not account for the ability to move to lower-tax jurisdictions. Rather it talks about tax avoidance mechanisms within the jurisdiction (mostly using barter and creative accounting). I'm a conservative at heart. I'd like to see a lower corporate tax rate offset with higher and more progressive personal tax rates for exactly the reason that you described. Sadly that seems impossible in the current political climate and the disinformation campaigns put out by our two major political parties mean that this is likely unachievable.
Well if those ads were very effective, it just makes the campaigns look incompetent. It's been pointed out that their spending paled in comparison to the campaigns' spending. The point of the investigation though isn't to evaluate the *effectiveness* of breaking campaign laws, it's to determine whether the laws were broken!
I don't want to believe that Russia actually influenced this. And Clinton wasn't a great candidate. But I do believe that Russia *tried* to influence the election. Would you argue that attempted murder shouldn't be investigated because the perpetrator was a bad shot and missed the target? I can understand Trump supporters being upset about the investigation as it does seem to psychologically detract from their joy of victory, but the feelings of Trump supporters are not a valid law enforcement concern.
There seems to be general consensus that at 100% tax rate, economic activity would come to a halt. But there is also consensus that, if there is a Laffer curve, we are definitely left of the maximum in the US right now so any reduction in tax rates is also a reduction in revenue.
I have no idea how you got from the first statement to the latter and I think it's an attempt at some snarky sarcasm but maybe too cunning to be understood.
That's an interesting assertion, but it conflicts with what the President has said. “Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!” If the focus of the investigation is limited strictly to the Trump campaign, you would have a point. But it's much broader in scope. It's also not clear what our intelligence agencies knew or should have known. But the actions taken by the Obama administration are also controversial because they may have (intentionally or otherwise) ended up investigating Trump campaign operatives during the campaign. Given that both parties have hurled attacks at each other around this, it is shocking that there is any push back on the investigation from anywhere.
http://www.miamiherald.com/new...
And indeed, if you look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis section of that link, you would realize that the Laffer curve is basically discredited. Granted it would be nice if the article pointed that out a bit more, but it's still factually correct.
How would this be a conspiracy? He is investigating facts. We know that Russia sought to influence our elections and we can be quite sure that Russia doesn't respect US campaign laws. The investigation itself shows that we are committed to our elections. Many companies (i.e Facebook, Twitter) have publicly disclosed Russion interference activities. So there's clearly something to investigate.
Creationism isn't problematic. It's only when creationists want their mythology taught in schools that it becomes a problem. Other types of extremism are directly dangerous. Creationists don't shoot up a room full of people or violently attack minorities just because they are minorities. It seems that a line should be drawn for extremist viewpoints that have a history of leading to senseless violence.
I think the same thing about those who argue in favor of quite a few policies, like tax cuts paying for themselves, as an example. Completely disingenuous.
Slashdot Mirror
Which if you look at the actual moratorium, that's what they're doing. They just need time to get it in place. Hence the 18 month hold on new crypto-currency mining.
Hyper-partisan right-wing media and alt-right media are both very popular. Left-wing equivalents have spring up over the years (See Air America) but frankly haven't been popular in terms of ratings. Maybe left-wing stuff is just boring. Or maybe because just not popular since many "liberal" causes have been comparatively successful. I don't know.
But regardless of the reasons, "policing" left-wing content doesn't involve the same difficulties of trying to draw a line between "conservative viewpoint" and "dangerous lies" (Dangerous as in inciting violence). So it's pretty clear that more mistakes are going to be made when dealing with "conservative" content. You don't want to suppress an argument for lower taxes but you do want to shut down Pizzagate conspiracies. Facebook (or anybody else) is going to get this wrong sometimes and be criticized.
The value of a stock is the npv of the future cash flows. P/E tells you what happened in the past and is a good stock value measurement to the extent that it predicts future cash flows. A negative P/E likely means that it may be a long time until positive cash flows occur. But it says nothing about the magnitude of future cash flows especially of a growth business.
Maybe and that's a good argument. One that might have a lot of bearing on current discussions about civilian weapon ownership. But it wasn't the stated reason!
Not my area of expertise but I wonder if cheap online porn has reduced demand for hookers/strippers. Interesting thing to study if you're an economist. Sadly I'm a computer scientists so I don't get to work on such exciting things. Back to your main point, I think we are in agreement. Organizational dysfunction is universal. It's not clear that it's any worse if you decide to write software for a living.
You don't have to mail the check You can use ACH. And the transaction fees are way lower than Bitcoin.
The OP referred to an "operating profit" which means that running the subway is net positive vs. just shutting it down. It does not mean that capital costs will be recovered. It's not a "gross profit" either. These terms have specific accounting meaning. Gross profit is near 100% on a subway since the incremental cost of carrying a passenger is essentially zero. When you subtract out maintenance costs you get an operating profit. Depreciate the capital expenditure to get the net profit (or in this case loss). A business with an operating profit should continue to operate since it's better than shutting down (smaller net loss).
The senate was designed not to scale with population back when states were of approximately equal population density and the idea was to prevent small states from being marginalized by large states. It was not designed to give rural interests an advantage over urban interests. You could argue that the current system has it's benefits but what we have now is not the design intent.
I got paid well during the dotcom bubble and I also got a bunch of worthless options. I also worked insane hours. Maybe I could/should have done something different with my time. But it's hard to argue for a net-negative effect as it did propel my career, gave me earnings, and kept me out of trouble.
You are going to see these same problems across the organizations. The reality is that many organizations are dysfunctional but still successful in the marketplace. This isn't somehow specific to programming.
There are many older programmers out there who have worked on building business-critical systems. Those older programmers have an incredible amount of institutional knowledge. They understand the business better than anybody. And they know the intimate detail of these systems. That makes them incredible assets. Unfortunately it makes them highly qualified to only do one job. So long as that job exists, they will keep getting hired out of retirement. But if they don't have current technology skills, they are going to have trouble in the general job market. There are plenty of older people who do have current skills. We've recently hired one and been glad of our choice.
If you know such people and they don't mind traveling as part of their job, have them send me their resume.
For this you could use something like Square Cash. Or you know a check.
Yes. Just not one that Laffer considered/discussed. And we're seeing it happen. But it's a much different problem than the Laffer curve addresses. Basically we now have *competitive* tax jurisdictions which is different than the Laffer description of a monopoly tax jurisdiction. This tax competition should push worldwide corporate rates down as corporations can relocate fairly easily. It's harder to avoid personal tax rates as the nicer places to live have to pay for the infrastructure, public safety, et cetera, and those are expensive.
What you are describing is quite interesting, but it's not related to the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve does not account for the ability to move to lower-tax jurisdictions. Rather it talks about tax avoidance mechanisms within the jurisdiction (mostly using barter and creative accounting). I'm a conservative at heart. I'd like to see a lower corporate tax rate offset with higher and more progressive personal tax rates for exactly the reason that you described. Sadly that seems impossible in the current political climate and the disinformation campaigns put out by our two major political parties mean that this is likely unachievable.
Well if those ads were very effective, it just makes the campaigns look incompetent. It's been pointed out that their spending paled in comparison to the campaigns' spending. The point of the investigation though isn't to evaluate the *effectiveness* of breaking campaign laws, it's to determine whether the laws were broken!
I don't want to believe that Russia actually influenced this. And Clinton wasn't a great candidate. But I do believe that Russia *tried* to influence the election. Would you argue that attempted murder shouldn't be investigated because the perpetrator was a bad shot and missed the target? I can understand Trump supporters being upset about the investigation as it does seem to psychologically detract from their joy of victory, but the feelings of Trump supporters are not a valid law enforcement concern.
One area where we are in agreement is that Rachael Maddow clips *should* be tagged.
There seems to be general consensus that at 100% tax rate, economic activity would come to a halt. But there is also consensus that, if there is a Laffer curve, we are definitely left of the maximum in the US right now so any reduction in tax rates is also a reduction in revenue.
I have no idea how you got from the first statement to the latter and I think it's an attempt at some snarky sarcasm but maybe too cunning to be understood.
That's an interesting assertion, but it conflicts with what the President has said. “Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!” If the focus of the investigation is limited strictly to the Trump campaign, you would have a point. But it's much broader in scope. It's also not clear what our intelligence agencies knew or should have known. But the actions taken by the Obama administration are also controversial because they may have (intentionally or otherwise) ended up investigating Trump campaign operatives during the campaign. Given that both parties have hurled attacks at each other around this, it is shocking that there is any push back on the investigation from anywhere. http://www.miamiherald.com/new...
And indeed, if you look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis section of that link, you would realize that the Laffer curve is basically discredited. Granted it would be nice if the article pointed that out a bit more, but it's still factually correct.
How would this be a conspiracy? He is investigating facts. We know that Russia sought to influence our elections and we can be quite sure that Russia doesn't respect US campaign laws. The investigation itself shows that we are committed to our elections. Many companies (i.e Facebook, Twitter) have publicly disclosed Russion interference activities. So there's clearly something to investigate.
Creationism isn't problematic. It's only when creationists want their mythology taught in schools that it becomes a problem. Other types of extremism are directly dangerous. Creationists don't shoot up a room full of people or violently attack minorities just because they are minorities. It seems that a line should be drawn for extremist viewpoints that have a history of leading to senseless violence.
I think the same thing about those who argue in favor of quite a few policies, like tax cuts paying for themselves, as an example. Completely disingenuous.