Has the possibility occurred to any of you that the person(s) responsible for this story are trolling us, and LOLing at all the fuss?
Very much so. Now think about what that says about the quality of peer reviewing and published science (original paper) and reporting in online magazines (like Quartz).
Republicans could have tried winning on ideas backed by science and reason.
Science and reason tell us that the most successful societies are those that protect freedom of association, private property, free markets, and freedom of speech. That's what Republicans run on, and it is what Democrats (including Obama and Clinton) increasingly oppose.
Your comments come down to saying "if Obama had only been totalitarian ruler of the country without opposition, then he could have done all these wonderful things for the country that he promised during his campaign".
Well, sorry, that's not the way the US works. When Obama promised something (improved race relations, more privacy, lower health care costs, etc.), he needed to take into account what opposition he would face and moderate his promises accordingly. He didn't do that, and that is exactly the kind of hubris that intellectuals often suffer from.
As for harnessing "disgusting and loathsome forces", that's how I and many others have come to view the Democratic party.
You can always tell when someone doesn't remember life before the ACA. We got the same increases for insurance that didn't cover anything, if we were insured.
But the ACA promised to fix this, and it failed to deliver.
ISIS was a disaster created indirectly by Bush and contained by Obama. Syria as a whole is going more or less the way Obama wanted
It is not, however, what voters wanted when they elected Obama.
To make matters even more strange, the paper posits that octopuses could have arrived on Earth in "an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized octopus eggs." And these eggs might have "arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago."
That's utterly ridiculous, as even basic high school science can tell you: there are numerous genes that are common to all animals, including octopuses; many of those evolved on earth long before octopuses. Even the eukaryotic cell itself is an idiosyncratic assembly of bacterial components, membranes, and genomes, something that is shared between octopuses and all other higher animals, and that would simply not have arisen the same way elsewhere.
The only way this could work is if life in the galaxy were in constant exchange everywhere so that life on all life bearing planets in the galaxy shares the same evolutionary history and that history is synchronized.
Despite all the endless education you got and all the books you have read, you have accomplished little, while Trump, despite reading very little, has accomplished a lot in his life. That's really at the root of your hatred of all things Trump.
Obama read for hours each night - Briefing papers, books - You name it.
I voted for Obama and used to think that was a good thing. But what has it gotten us? Executive overreach, deteriorating race relations, increasing inequality, a stuttering recovery, a missed opportunity on health care reform, political polarization, and foreign policy disasters. And the problem was exactly that Obama was really smart, wanted to do everything himself, and ended up micromanaging. Obama represents the hubris of technocrats, progressives, and intellectuals. And it's Obama's miserable performance as president that paved the way for Trump.
Gun control proponents are quite often objective, looking at statistics like data from other Western countries that tightened control like the UK and Australia,
Thank you for giving examples of where gun control proponents are lying with statistics.
and not nearly as pervasive as the irrational feelings-based "from my cold dead hands" crowd.
Opposing liars with a political agenda, i.e., people like you, is quite rational.
Obama's war on Coal, especially Clean Coal, ended so all the Coal Miners should have gone back to work, and mined Coal, which is America's number one best product.
Wars tend to leave countries and economies in ruin and it takes a long time to bring them back.
As we all know, the sun does not work, it is only shining half the day at best, and wind can't work, the air is far too small, you can't even see it.
You don't get it back until the next year and you get charged it for existing even a day there.
So, as I was saying, Not only can't the state pay me back (because it would lose its leverage), to keep its leverage, it actually has to keep demanding more and more money from my business [as it grows]. Hence my point: your scheme doesn't amount to an "exit tax" and it won't work. If you still don't understand why, you need to sit down and think it through more carefully.
I was thinking more in terms of refunds - e.g. the corporation pays heavy taxes, if they stay they get it all back (the state invests it for a year and takes the interest,) if they leave they don't get it back.
So, as I was saying If I pay a million dollars to Seattle and then get $100k deductions every year for the next ten years, I am a lot worse off than if I had invested that million dollars. That is, the whole point of starting a business is to get a return on a capital investment. Under your scheme, the state takes my capital and gives me nothing back for it. What possible reason would I have to start a business in such a state?
Furthermore, even if that were the scheme, as soon as the state pays me back my money, what would keep me from leaving? Or if my business grows enough that $1 million doesn't matter anymore, what would keep me from leaving then? Not only can't the state pay me back (because it would lose its leverage), to keep its leverage, it actually has to keep demanding more and more money from my business.
And for what? To start a business in places like California and Seattle, torn apart by inequality, social problems, racism, intolerance, and bigotry? Places that waste taxes for excessive pay and benefits for a bloated public sector? I don't think so.
and being a single mother which is more often than not NOT the choice of the woman.
A woman can use contraception, she can use abortion, she can give up the kid for adoption, she can leave the baby at a "safe haven baby box", she can even choose not to have sex before marriage. In what possible way is "being a single mother" not entirely and completely the choice of the woman?
The main problem is here that they are not allowed to choose to not become a single mother...
Again, who is "not allowing them" that? Who are you claiming is taking away their choice?
I chose it mainly for security. As a former Google engineer, I feel that Google's security expertise is top notch.
Unfortunately, it's not Google's total security expertise that built the router, but a bunch of schmucks that got pushed into writing embedded code for a piece of hardware that will probably get canceled soon, not exactly the hottest job at Google.
When you need something to work, buy it from a company whose survival depends on it working; don't buy a "me too" product from a company who couldn't care less about the product.
You can impose a very large tax with deductions in the future, effectively an exit tax.
You're welcome to try to devise such a scheme; you'll find that it is not "effectively an exit tax".
In fact, in essence, that's what high tax states are already trying to do, and it is why people are leaving in the first place. If I pay a million dollars to Seattle and then get $100k deductions every year for the next ten years, I am a lot worse off than if I had invested that million dollars.
I think we have found the source of your totalitarian impulses: you have trouble parsing basic English. It's no wonder that someone who can't understand or use language would think that "free speech is a myth".
How is [single motherhood] not a reasonable choice to live?
Without massive government support, single motherhood is economically pretty much impossible because women can't simultaneously earn enough and take care of their kids. And even with government support, single motherhood statistically results in bad outcomes for kids and the mother. For example, most of the economic inequality between blacks/whites in the US is due to the consequences of single motherhood.
I would think that a reproductive choice that sets up your kids for a life of poverty, crime, and psychological problems might be called "not reasonable".
Say you tax vehicles to cover road maintenance and pollution costs. All you have done is price some percentage of people off the road.
When you tax vehicles/gas to cover road maintenance and pollution costs, you try to make sure that people pay for what they use. Yes, some people then find it advantageous to switch to cheaper transportation options; that is the intended effect.
Income tax is the only fair, progressive tax. Everything else is just reserving public spaces for the rich.
If roads are paid for by road users, then the people who paid for them are using them. Why do you think it is "unfair" to exclude people from using infrastructure they didn't pay for?
Slashdot Mirror
Very much so. Now think about what that says about the quality of peer reviewing and published science (original paper) and reporting in online magazines (like Quartz).
Science and reason tell us that the most successful societies are those that protect freedom of association, private property, free markets, and freedom of speech. That's what Republicans run on, and it is what Democrats (including Obama and Clinton) increasingly oppose.
Your comments come down to saying "if Obama had only been totalitarian ruler of the country without opposition, then he could have done all these wonderful things for the country that he promised during his campaign".
Well, sorry, that's not the way the US works. When Obama promised something (improved race relations, more privacy, lower health care costs, etc.), he needed to take into account what opposition he would face and moderate his promises accordingly. He didn't do that, and that is exactly the kind of hubris that intellectuals often suffer from.
As for harnessing "disgusting and loathsome forces", that's how I and many others have come to view the Democratic party.
But the ACA promised to fix this, and it failed to deliver.
It is not, however, what voters wanted when they elected Obama.
I'm neither a Trump voter nor a GOP "operative". But given the increasing idiocy of the American left, I may well become one in the future.
That's utterly ridiculous, as even basic high school science can tell you: there are numerous genes that are common to all animals, including octopuses; many of those evolved on earth long before octopuses. Even the eukaryotic cell itself is an idiosyncratic assembly of bacterial components, membranes, and genomes, something that is shared between octopuses and all other higher animals, and that would simply not have arisen the same way elsewhere.
The only way this could work is if life in the galaxy were in constant exchange everywhere so that life on all life bearing planets in the galaxy shares the same evolutionary history and that history is synchronized.
Thanks for answering the question: nothing.
Despite all the endless education you got and all the books you have read, you have accomplished little, while Trump, despite reading very little, has accomplished a lot in his life. That's really at the root of your hatred of all things Trump.
And looking at your CV, what makes you rank above those "proudly ignorant" Americans?
I voted for Obama and used to think that was a good thing. But what has it gotten us? Executive overreach, deteriorating race relations, increasing inequality, a stuttering recovery, a missed opportunity on health care reform, political polarization, and foreign policy disasters. And the problem was exactly that Obama was really smart, wanted to do everything himself, and ended up micromanaging. Obama represents the hubris of technocrats, progressives, and intellectuals. And it's Obama's miserable performance as president that paved the way for Trump.
No, it is simply rude and authoritarian to send law enforcement messages to people who don't want to receive them.
You illustrate the kind of anti-privacy lowlifes that now make up the support of the EFF.
Thank you for giving examples of where gun control proponents are lying with statistics.
Opposing liars with a political agenda, i.e., people like you, is quite rational.
Bzzt. The correct answer is statism, progressivism, regulatory overreach, and bureaucracy.
Wars tend to leave countries and economies in ruin and it takes a long time to bring them back.
You're thinking like an environmentalist.
So, as I was saying, Not only can't the state pay me back (because it would lose its leverage), to keep its leverage, it actually has to keep demanding more and more money from my business [as it grows]. Hence my point: your scheme doesn't amount to an "exit tax" and it won't work. If you still don't understand why, you need to sit down and think it through more carefully.
Everything is on the side of the wealthy.
In different words, in a free market, if you do things for your fellow human beings that they find useful, lots of good things come your way.
Yet, that data doesn't seem to be used for enforcement, since we still have tens of millions of people living in the US illegally.
So, as I was saying If I pay a million dollars to Seattle and then get $100k deductions every year for the next ten years, I am a lot worse off than if I had invested that million dollars. That is, the whole point of starting a business is to get a return on a capital investment. Under your scheme, the state takes my capital and gives me nothing back for it. What possible reason would I have to start a business in such a state?
Furthermore, even if that were the scheme, as soon as the state pays me back my money, what would keep me from leaving? Or if my business grows enough that $1 million doesn't matter anymore, what would keep me from leaving then? Not only can't the state pay me back (because it would lose its leverage), to keep its leverage, it actually has to keep demanding more and more money from my business.
And for what? To start a business in places like California and Seattle, torn apart by inequality, social problems, racism, intolerance, and bigotry? Places that waste taxes for excessive pay and benefits for a bloated public sector? I don't think so.
A woman can use contraception, she can use abortion, she can give up the kid for adoption, she can leave the baby at a "safe haven baby box", she can even choose not to have sex before marriage. In what possible way is "being a single mother" not entirely and completely the choice of the woman?
Again, who is "not allowing them" that? Who are you claiming is taking away their choice?
Unfortunately, it's not Google's total security expertise that built the router, but a bunch of schmucks that got pushed into writing embedded code for a piece of hardware that will probably get canceled soon, not exactly the hottest job at Google.
When you need something to work, buy it from a company whose survival depends on it working; don't buy a "me too" product from a company who couldn't care less about the product.
You're welcome to try to devise such a scheme; you'll find that it is not "effectively an exit tax".
In fact, in essence, that's what high tax states are already trying to do, and it is why people are leaving in the first place. If I pay a million dollars to Seattle and then get $100k deductions every year for the next ten years, I am a lot worse off than if I had invested that million dollars.
I think we have found the source of your totalitarian impulses: you have trouble parsing basic English. It's no wonder that someone who can't understand or use language would think that "free speech is a myth".
Without massive government support, single motherhood is economically pretty much impossible because women can't simultaneously earn enough and take care of their kids. And even with government support, single motherhood statistically results in bad outcomes for kids and the mother. For example, most of the economic inequality between blacks/whites in the US is due to the consequences of single motherhood.
I would think that a reproductive choice that sets up your kids for a life of poverty, crime, and psychological problems might be called "not reasonable".
You don't like being called out for the fascist you are, Peter?
Sorry, but under the US Constitution, local and state jurisdictions cannot impose exit taxes.
When you tax vehicles/gas to cover road maintenance and pollution costs, you try to make sure that people pay for what they use. Yes, some people then find it advantageous to switch to cheaper transportation options; that is the intended effect.
If roads are paid for by road users, then the people who paid for them are using them. Why do you think it is "unfair" to exclude people from using infrastructure they didn't pay for?