You can accuse whoever you want to tax fraud. It doesn't change a business capital equipment expensing program into a tax credit. Nor does it change a false statement into a true one.
You misrepresent that story. To start with, it was not a tax credit. It was a rule that allowed businesses to buy a truck and expense it in one year instead of depreciating it over many years. Not individuals, businesses.
Here are the basics of the difference:
Businesses only pay tax on profits. Profits are revenues minus costs. Buying a truck is a cost. Usually, such a item lasts a number of years. The cost must be divided up and applied over those years. The only difference in the rule was that it allowed the cost to be used all in one year. With this rule, the government loses revenue in year one, but gains it all back in later years. No taxpayer pays anything extra.
A $7500 tax credit is just an extra $7500 in a tax refund check because you bought an Obama-mobile. This money never gets re-payed to the government.
Please try to get it right (and/or be honest) in the future.
But while this article probably was written by someone who already had an agenda against dioxin, and it was slightly altered to be more sensational, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried.
I'm worried about truth and honesty. It seems pretty clear that people writing and publishing these articles don't consider truth, or honesty, or accuracy when they make their choices.
Just because a company makes a poisoned product, that doesn't mean we have to accept lies from the EPA, the Environmental Working Group, Slashdot, or kdawson. Dioxin actually is a problem. It's too bad the anti-dioxin advocates dilute their cause with lies and hyperbole.
And who is predicting a sea level change that isn't going to take "a long time"? I've heard alarmist estimates of a half meter in the next century. A century is a long time.
And any response to warming is going to cost "a lot of money". Why should we choose to spent "a lot of money" on alternative energy sources that don't work rather than spending "a lot of money" on dikes that have been proven to work in the Netherlands?
To avert a disaster that isn't a disaster in the Netherlands?
And no. No one addressed why any other people can't do as well as the Dutch. The Dutch are not supermen.
...and you believe simply releasing some raw data will stop the ignorants and "skeptics" from doubting such complex phenomena?
Who said the elimination of doubt was the goal? People are free to believe as they will.
But a reasonable doubt about someone's honesty can be fed by arrogance and subterfuge. Or that doubt can be shown to be unwarranted by being open and acting honestly.
...So yeah, I do get where they're coming from.
I "get" it too. Bad behavior (or any other kind of behavior, for that matter) is rarely mysterious or enigmatic or unmotivated behavior.
No one responded to the basic point: being below sea level is not an end-of-the-world disaster for the Dutch. It was just a challenge for them, which they overcame.
Why should we believe that any sea-level change is an automatic end-of-the-world disaster for non-Dutch folks? Why wouldn't non-Dutch folks respond just as well as the Dutch?
His real concern is legitimate research being lambasted as a cover up precisely aided by openness. The kind of people who make that kind of accusations so easily are not the kind of people to be calmed down by reasoned debate.
But the people on the sidelines can learn. (Unless you've arrogantly decided that everyone except you is hopelessly benighted.)
His contention was not that data should be closed. He shared one of the problems with releasing data.
Why is this problem relevant? For sympathy?
Lots of things that honest people have to do are problematic in some way. But they still do it because it's the right thing to do, regardless.
The issue he brings up goes well beyond his personal frustration and I find it puzzling how you can... this is the point where I realized you were a troll (yep, as I was writing it). Good one - got me going for a bit.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Anyone who doesn't sympathize is a troll maybe?
If it's easy to draw incorrect conclusions from raw data, then it's important to point out how to tell the difference between the correct conclusions and the incorrect ones.
I'l release it "eventually" can be another (less honest) way of saying I'll "never" release it. Dishonesty and fraud are often aided by the good manners of the victims.
There is a vast difference between academic peer review, conducted by those qualified to conduct it, and the sensationalist bleating by those with an agenda that is impeded by the research under question.
Skeptics actually look at the data and try to poke holes in it because they have a real interest in the results ( an "agenda"). Peer reviewers don't. Peer reviewers don't, in general, try to disprove the thesis.
If correct conclusions are the goal, then studies should withstand the attentions of skeptics. If correct conclusions are not the goal, then please continue to hide the data and demonize the skeptics and rig the peer review process. It's not working any more and it just brings further discredit on the profession. (This discredit is either deserved or not, depending on whether correct conclusions are the goal.)
Best to stick the basics of the falsifiable hypotheses being discussed, rather than drip into distracting ad hominem.
Best? This assumes terms of the debate that are not in evidence.
Ad hominem distractions are super-useful when you can't support your arguments with facts, or when you're trying to fool people or trick people. Or when you want to demonize people in order to rationalize some otherwise unjustifiable action.
A real concern? His "real concern" is his personal "frustrations" with some misinterpretations of some data. Presumably, the misinterpretations were explained and people learned more about what was actually going on. This is a bad thing?
The idea that his personal frustrations are more important than openness is quite self-centered. Hiding data is not better than educating people when they come to incorrect conclusions. Is it?
What kind of person thinks he should hide data to avoid any possible interaction with "others" -- people who might have diverse knowledge, opinions, and backgrounds? An arrogant person?
It's interesting how this fact is not disastrous to the Dutch. Why do we expect it to be disastrous to other people? I guess the Dutch must be some sort of super-men. Either that, or people adapt to difficulties and humanity is resilient.
Maybe. Or maybe it will be like transcribing audio tapes or OCR or other, similar things that software can't really do well enough to automate completely.
drink a beer, relax, and wait until tomorrow for the announcement. Which is sure to be disappointing now.
I predict he announces that computer programming is best practiced as a semi-automated assembly-line-style set of interchangeable tasks rather than an "art". He'll say that programming as an "art" is anachronistic. inefficient, and impractical, and that the conventional approach and the people who promote it have been holding back progress in software creation because a faster, cheaper, more modern, dumbed-down approach doesn't appeal to them professionally or aesthetically.
And then he'll announce his new software construction method that can be done by ordinary people with a short period of training for 1/5th what computer programmers make. It works great, but it's boring and repetitive and never creative. It delivers software in a predictable amount of time with a predictable budget and reasonable (also predictable) quality. And the development costs less than half of conventional approaches.
I'm sorry, but I think you're just a testosterone asshole who has no clue what he's talking about.
The way you're using that "testosterone" nonsense is esentially as a slur. I don't know why you think people should be nice to you when you engage in that sort of talk. It's the exact converse of "it must be her time of the month".
If you want to be treated better, start by setting a better example yourself.
So if it is bad behaviour--i.e., something that can be discouraged--why are women "victimization-mongers" for pointing it out and trying to discourage it?
When you say "trying", do you mean by normal social persuasion? Or do you mean threatening, using lawsuits, and getting the government involved?
Also, do you think things should change to benefit women? At whose expense? Why shouldn't changes benefit everyone?
The main difference between normal adult interaction and "victimization-mongering" is whether the goal is to improve or to manipulate and gain an unearned advantage. Are the changes voluntary, or are they coerced? Are they one-sided, or are they objective?
We have a society where people decide to take offense and declare themselves victims in order to wield power over others. (Your feelings, including whether you are offended and the extent, are largely under your control.) It's a problem that is much worse than some women getting put off of IT work. I don't want to encourage a great evil to remedy a small or medium one.
Therefore, it's worth listening to someone who says "please stop with the put-downs on your co-workers". It's a lot less worth listening to someone who says "I feel bad because of put downs; everyone should be forced to stop what they'd normally do to benefit me".
If you don't want to be treated like a child, then stop the complaining and stop the quest for sympathy. Give up on the teen-angsty "you just don't understand" BS.
Do a good job and find a place that rewards your effort. Adults deal with their own problems. Children complain and expect the world to cater to them.
And where's the evidence you've tried to understand anyone else's problem? I'm supposed to care about your problems when you don't care about mine? Why?
Unless... Do you live on a hill? If not, you're going to have to let the grass grow pretty tall for the 3rd dimension to discourage your neighborhood's lazy-eye children.
I suggest putting up a fence and painting the outside to look vaguely like a deep chasm.
Slashdot Mirror
You can accuse whoever you want to tax fraud. It doesn't change a business capital equipment expensing program into a tax credit. Nor does it change a false statement into a true one.
You misrepresent that story. To start with, it was not a tax credit. It was a rule that allowed businesses to buy a truck and expense it in one year instead of depreciating it over many years. Not individuals, businesses.
Here are the basics of the difference:
Businesses only pay tax on profits. Profits are revenues minus costs. Buying a truck is a cost. Usually, such a item lasts a number of years. The cost must be divided up and applied over those years. The only difference in the rule was that it allowed the cost to be used all in one year. With this rule, the government loses revenue in year one, but gains it all back in later years. No taxpayer pays anything extra.
A $7500 tax credit is just an extra $7500 in a tax refund check because you bought an Obama-mobile. This money never gets re-payed to the government.
Please try to get it right (and/or be honest) in the future.
Since they're Halophiles, they'll be protected from harm caused by the Flood.
My fish are swimming in Tartar sauce.
But while this article probably was written by someone who already had an agenda against dioxin, and it was slightly altered to be more sensational, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried.
I'm worried about truth and honesty. It seems pretty clear that people writing and publishing these articles don't consider truth, or honesty, or accuracy when they make their choices.
Just because a company makes a poisoned product, that doesn't mean we have to accept lies from the EPA, the Environmental Working Group, Slashdot, or kdawson. Dioxin actually is a problem. It's too bad the anti-dioxin advocates dilute their cause with lies and hyperbole.
If the economy ever picks up, businesses will be using more electricity and this analysis will have to be redone.
Of course, if we're all forced to use electric cars, then we can probably expect the economy to shrink enough to free up all the needed grid capacity.
And who is predicting a sea level change that isn't going to take "a long time"? I've heard alarmist estimates of a half meter in the next century. A century is a long time.
And any response to warming is going to cost "a lot of money". Why should we choose to spent "a lot of money" on alternative energy sources that don't work rather than spending "a lot of money" on dikes that have been proven to work in the Netherlands?
To avert a disaster that isn't a disaster in the Netherlands?
And no. No one addressed why any other people can't do as well as the Dutch. The Dutch are not supermen.
...and you believe simply releasing some raw data will stop the ignorants and "skeptics" from doubting such complex phenomena?
Who said the elimination of doubt was the goal? People are free to believe as they will.
But a reasonable doubt about someone's honesty can be fed by arrogance and subterfuge. Or that doubt can be shown to be unwarranted by being open and acting honestly.
...So yeah, I do get where they're coming from.
I "get" it too. Bad behavior (or any other kind of behavior, for that matter) is rarely mysterious or enigmatic or unmotivated behavior.
No one responded to the basic point: being below sea level is not an end-of-the-world disaster for the Dutch. It was just a challenge for them, which they overcame.
Why should we believe that any sea-level change is an automatic end-of-the-world disaster for non-Dutch folks? Why wouldn't non-Dutch folks respond just as well as the Dutch?
His real concern is legitimate research being lambasted as a cover up precisely aided by openness. The kind of people who make that kind of accusations so easily are not the kind of people to be calmed down by reasoned debate.
But the people on the sidelines can learn. (Unless you've arrogantly decided that everyone except you is hopelessly benighted.)
His contention was not that data should be closed. He shared one of the problems with releasing data.
Why is this problem relevant? For sympathy?
Lots of things that honest people have to do are problematic in some way. But they still do it because it's the right thing to do, regardless.
The issue he brings up goes well beyond his personal frustration and I find it puzzling how you can... this is the point where I realized you were a troll (yep, as I was writing it). Good one - got me going for a bit.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Anyone who doesn't sympathize is a troll maybe?
If it's easy to draw incorrect conclusions from raw data, then it's important to point out how to tell the difference between the correct conclusions and the incorrect ones.
I'l release it "eventually" can be another (less honest) way of saying I'll "never" release it. Dishonesty and fraud are often aided by the good manners of the victims.
We spend about 8 billion dollars on each nuclear submarine. Has anyone been asked to present a post-Cold War case for ever having one of those?
You have a better way of powering submarines than using nuclear reactors? What is it?
There is a vast difference between academic peer review, conducted by those qualified to conduct it, and the sensationalist bleating by those with an agenda that is impeded by the research under question.
Skeptics actually look at the data and try to poke holes in it because they have a real interest in the results ( an "agenda"). Peer reviewers don't. Peer reviewers don't, in general, try to disprove the thesis.
If correct conclusions are the goal, then studies should withstand the attentions of skeptics. If correct conclusions are not the goal, then please continue to hide the data and demonize the skeptics and rig the peer review process. It's not working any more and it just brings further discredit on the profession. (This discredit is either deserved or not, depending on whether correct conclusions are the goal.)
Best to stick the basics of the falsifiable hypotheses being discussed, rather than drip into distracting ad hominem.
Best? This assumes terms of the debate that are not in evidence.
Ad hominem distractions are super-useful when you can't support your arguments with facts, or when you're trying to fool people or trick people. Or when you want to demonize people in order to rationalize some otherwise unjustifiable action.
A real concern? His "real concern" is his personal "frustrations" with some misinterpretations of some data.
Presumably, the misinterpretations were explained and people learned more about what was actually going on. This is a bad thing?
The idea that his personal frustrations are more important than openness is quite self-centered. Hiding data is not better than educating people when they come to incorrect conclusions. Is it?
What kind of person thinks he should hide data to avoid any possible interaction with "others" -- people who might have diverse knowledge, opinions, and backgrounds? An arrogant person?
The Netherlands is 26% below sea level?
It's interesting how this fact is not disastrous to the Dutch. Why do we expect it to be disastrous to other people? I guess the Dutch must be some sort of super-men. Either that, or people adapt to difficulties and humanity is resilient.
Maybe. Or maybe it will be like transcribing audio tapes or OCR or other, similar things that software can't really do well enough to automate completely.
drink a beer, relax, and wait until tomorrow for the announcement. Which is sure to be disappointing now.
I predict he announces that computer programming is best practiced as a semi-automated assembly-line-style set of interchangeable tasks rather than an "art". He'll say that programming as an "art" is anachronistic. inefficient, and impractical, and that the conventional approach and the people who promote it have been holding back progress in software creation because a faster, cheaper, more modern, dumbed-down approach doesn't appeal to them professionally or aesthetically.
And then he'll announce his new software construction method that can be done by ordinary people with a short period of training for 1/5th what computer programmers make. It works great, but it's boring and repetitive and never creative. It delivers software in a predictable amount of time with a predictable budget and reasonable (also predictable) quality. And the development costs less than half of conventional approaches.
That's my prediction.
I hope the government can solve this problem for us.
It's too bad we can't deal with this ourselves. If only there were a way not to post stuff on Facebook...
Ah, mystery solved. People treat you like a child because you're extremely childish.
Also, let me add something.
I'm sorry, but I think you're just a testosterone asshole who has no clue what he's talking about.
The way you're using that "testosterone" nonsense is esentially as a slur. I don't know why you think people should be nice to you when you engage in that sort of talk. It's the exact converse of "it must be her time of the month".
If you want to be treated better, start by setting a better example yourself.
So if it is bad behaviour--i.e., something that can be discouraged--why are women "victimization-mongers" for pointing it out and trying to discourage it?
When you say "trying", do you mean by normal social persuasion? Or do you mean threatening, using lawsuits, and getting the government involved?
Also, do you think things should change to benefit women? At whose expense? Why shouldn't changes benefit everyone?
The main difference between normal adult interaction and "victimization-mongering" is whether the goal is to improve or to manipulate and gain an unearned advantage. Are the changes voluntary, or are they coerced? Are they one-sided, or are they objective?
We have a society where people decide to take offense and declare themselves victims in order to wield power over others. (Your feelings, including whether you are offended and the extent, are largely under your control.) It's a problem that is much worse than some women getting put off of IT work. I don't want to encourage a great evil to remedy a small or medium one.
Therefore, it's worth listening to someone who says "please stop with the put-downs on your co-workers". It's a lot less worth listening to someone who says "I feel bad because of put downs; everyone should be forced to stop what they'd normally do to benefit me".
Boo fricken hoo. Again.
If you don't want to be treated like a child, then stop the complaining and stop the quest for sympathy. Give up on the teen-angsty "you just don't understand" BS.
Do a good job and find a place that rewards your effort. Adults deal with their own problems. Children complain and expect the world to cater to them.
And where's the evidence you've tried to understand anyone else's problem? I'm supposed to care about your problems when you don't care about mine? Why?
Sorry, your lawn is 2 dimensional.
Unless... Do you live on a hill? If not, you're going to have to let the grass grow pretty tall for the 3rd dimension to discourage your neighborhood's lazy-eye children.
I suggest putting up a fence and painting the outside to look vaguely like a deep chasm.
No? It's the same thinking. Let's all prohibit a technology because it causes trouble when abused by a tiny, tiny minority of irresponsible people.