No, they don't read them, but they do *count* them, and the higher the number of constituents voicing a position on a given topic, the more likely they are to pay attention. At any rate, apathy has never solved anything.
Sure am. And to be honest, even though the impetus was unpleasant and old ones are ruined, changing my shorts was long overdue. Thanks, government, for knowing what's best for me and how to get me to do it.
I would also REVOKE all personal donation limits to campaigns
That's a terrible idea. Individual contribution limits prevent those with the most money from having the most influence. Yes, more in theory than in practice, but making it easier for wealthy contributors to wield influence doesn't solve anything.
Even with our 32Mbit connection at work it would take about 40 hours in transfer time alone to get our data "out of the cloud" in a disaster scenario.
1) 40 hours is a hell of a lot faster than recreating the data from scratch. 2) In a disaster scenario, you'll probably have much bigger things to worry about than how fast you can download your data.
Actually, the great thing about interfacing with the brain is that he brain adapts to the interface so the interface doesn't have to be adapted to the brain, per se. (By which I mean it's not terrible important where/how an input is connected, though obviously it must provide a signal that the brain can process). It's not only possible to do something like re-route an optic nerve to the auditory complex, it's possible to add additional inputs, both natural and man-made, and the brain will learn to process the additional information in short order.
the software runs as root and the privacy implications are pretty severe.
Jesus. Next I bet the carriers will start directing all of their customers cellular voice, data, and SMS traffic through their servers, and maybe even their "strategic partners'"' servers as well. Just think of the potential privacy implications of that!
'Neither party shall visit the website of the otherâ(TM)s social network and post messages purporting to be the other[.]
Seems pretty easy to get around:
"Hi everyone, this is Dave's wife. I just wanted to let you all know that he cries during sex and he likes playing the catcher for my stap-on. Have a great day!"
Actually, the higher courts do create law -- case law -- but despite the gripings of the GP, that's their job. Similarly, the executive branch creates regulations with the force of law. All three branches create law, it's just the methods that differ, and ultimately the legislative branch has the authority to override regulations, rulings, and even the constitution itself.
Shit, I wish 100Mbit was only £35 ($56 US) here. Comcast technically offers it, but it's $199/mo, or $105 if you sign a 12 month contract AND subscribe to cable TV as well ($17/mo for basic), so $122/mo + tax at a minimum. And that doesn't include the $250 (yes, two hundred and fifty dollar) "installation" fee, which -- if you're an existing customer with acceptable signal levels and already rent or own your own DOCSIS 3 modem -- consists of the tech doing fuck all.
getting slightly more money from every customer is much more profitable than getting substantially more money from very few customers
Not always... it depends on the difference between median and average spending. If the median is above the average (i.e., more than 50% of users are paying above the average), then your proposal would actually either lower the total revenue or, if rates were adjusted to maintain the same level of revenue, then 50% of people would be paying a lot more than they did before, and would probably be unhappy enough to leave.
Not only that, but the upper 50% of subscribers would only be paying slightly less in that scenario, AND the networks would have to meet the demand of all subscribers simultaneously having access to the maximum bandwidth available, which is likely unfeasible, so more likely the max rated bandwidth would have to be scaled back and your "power users" would be pissed off.
Preventing guns and munitions from flowing to Mexico would have a much more significant impact.
Sure, the same way preventing drugs from flowing into the US has had such a significant impact. Hey, maybe if enough of us just stand under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, the smuggling operations will dry up overnight!
It's only prescribed/available as a topical anesthetic. I'm pretty sure a) that's not what the parent poster was referring to, b) it would draw a whole lot of scrutiny if it were prescribed repeatedly since schedule II drugs are non-refillable.
As for Vioxx, it wasn't a matter of its toxicity per se; it was a matter of insufficient testing and/or disclosure of the risks. Aside from that, anything is toxic in enough quantity.
Well sure, because they don't have the same borrowing power, just like you or I don't have the same borrowing power as a state or corporation, but we don't have the same revenue either. Just because the scale is smaller doesn't mean the deficit spending is any less ubiquitous or problematic, and there are plenty of states without balanced budgets...
I agree fundamentally; the problem is how to remove corruption and kickbacks such that a state or municipality doesn't end up in the position of Jefferson County, AL, or worse. Really that can only happen by electing officials who will take responsibility, and finding those people seems to be a crapshoot. Tea Party philosophers are correct that there can't be corruption if there's no money (defunding/decreased spending), but I don't think they've fully considered the consequences of such a policy. Decrease spending by rooting out and prosecuting corruption, then see where we stand.
I suspect we could get rid of much of it by long term by removing the power of impeachment from the legislature, perhaps giving the responsibility to the SCOTUS or state supreme courts, since they have the least to lose or gain by their votes. I suspect a jury of peers would be too susceptible to the influence of "star power," and obviously elected officials don't want to go against their party. Additionally the burden of proof should be "more likely than not," just as with civil cases. Honestly we need to make it much easier to get people out of office, because government is at the service of society, not the individuals serving therein, and society has little to lose by removing someone from office, and much to gain with added accountability.
When the internet first got going the feds made a rule that you couldn't charge state sales taxes over the internet.
This is an urban legend. There is, and will continue to be, a prohibition on taxing internet access, but the restriction on taxation of goods sold is wholly unrelated, and depends on whether the company in question has a nexus in the state where the goods are purchased. The definition of a nexus has fluctuated, but that concept stems from the fact that, as it stands, states do not have jurisdiction to tax interstate commerce.
Exactly how much tax is collected is a perfectly valid topic to discuss. But a successful nation needs to collect some kind of tax, and the tax being collected needs to be fair.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that; it's the definition of "fair" that seems to be the point of conflict.
I would argue that a "fair" tax rate would affect each person's standard of living (or potential standard of living) proportionally, rather than asking for the same amount of money from each person. The latter proposal would only be equitable if there was income equality, but we don't have anything even approaching that. Paying 50% of $10M is not at all the same as paying 50% of $25k. The former is the difference between owning several homes, while the latter is the difference between being homeless.
A sliding scale starting at the top 80% and beyond (and I say that knowing I fall well within that category) really just makes the most sense to me. It's not punishing success, rather it's acknowledging the importance of people who work their asses off to make ends meet and pay their bills, and rewarding their hard work by making their burden as light as possible. People like Rep. Boehner, who came up through the ranks and now favor tax breaks for "job creators," are ignoring the fact that many of their peers tried just as hard to attain his level of success, but every person's success comes at the cost of someone else's -- usually multiple other people. There can only be one CEO of a company. There can only be a handful of executives. Even if people have an equal shot, they also have an equal chance of failure. That's what we need to remember -- we could just as easily be in the same situation despite the merits of our efforts (or lack thereof, in some cases). Yes, the wealthy are job creators, but job creators wouldn't have companies to run without middle and lower incomes (I refuse to use the word class, because I've known poor people with far more class than many wealthy people). We are *interdependent* on one another, not independent from each other.
I sympathize with the cognitive dissonance of the wealthy, I really do, because we as a nation are far more wealthy than most other countries, and most of us don't give it a second thought. But change will come, and the only choice we have is whether we bury our heads in the sand until it's too late, and the change is violent, or whether we implement policies that contribute to the improvement of the lives of others.
Nonsense. Any time spending exceeds tax revenues, that's deficit spending. Any time you have to borrow money, whether through bonds, bank loans, or loans from other governments, that's deficit spending, and states and municipalities borrow money through such methods all the time.
Because, as he just said, the alternative is to doom the next generation(s) by allowing only foolish people (by your own definition) to have kids.
Besides, entire populations making stupid decisions is not exactly a new phenomenon in human history. So people, be they our children or ourselves, can waste time and energy blaming previous generations, or they can get to work solving the problem(s).
Are people really moving away from cars as the primary mode of transportation, or are they just giving up the 2rd/3nd vehicle in order to make their mortgage payments?
Slashdot Mirror
No, they don't read them, but they do *count* them, and the higher the number of constituents voicing a position on a given topic, the more likely they are to pay attention. At any rate, apathy has never solved anything.
Sure am. And to be honest, even though the impetus was unpleasant and old ones are ruined, changing my shorts was long overdue. Thanks, government, for knowing what's best for me and how to get me to do it.
That's not what Wikipedia is about to say!
I would also REVOKE all personal donation limits to campaigns
That's a terrible idea. Individual contribution limits prevent those with the most money from having the most influence. Yes, more in theory than in practice, but making it easier for wealthy contributors to wield influence doesn't solve anything.
Even with our 32Mbit connection at work it would take about 40 hours in transfer time alone to get our data "out of the cloud" in a disaster scenario.
1) 40 hours is a hell of a lot faster than recreating the data from scratch.
2) In a disaster scenario, you'll probably have much bigger things to worry about than how fast you can download your data.
Actually, the great thing about interfacing with the brain is that he brain adapts to the interface so the interface doesn't have to be adapted to the brain, per se. (By which I mean it's not terrible important where/how an input is connected, though obviously it must provide a signal that the brain can process). It's not only possible to do something like re-route an optic nerve to the auditory complex, it's possible to add additional inputs, both natural and man-made, and the brain will learn to process the additional information in short order.
the software runs as root and the privacy implications are pretty severe.
Jesus. Next I bet the carriers will start directing all of their customers cellular voice, data, and SMS traffic through their servers, and maybe even their "strategic partners'"' servers as well. Just think of the potential privacy implications of that!
'Neither party shall visit the website of the otherâ(TM)s social network and post messages purporting to be the other[.]
Seems pretty easy to get around:
"Hi everyone, this is Dave's wife. I just wanted to let you all know that he cries during sex and he likes playing the catcher for my stap-on. Have a great day!"
Actually, the higher courts do create law -- case law -- but despite the gripings of the GP, that's their job. Similarly, the executive branch creates regulations with the force of law. All three branches create law, it's just the methods that differ, and ultimately the legislative branch has the authority to override regulations, rulings, and even the constitution itself.
Shit, I wish 100Mbit was only £35 ($56 US) here. Comcast technically offers it, but it's $199/mo, or $105 if you sign a 12 month contract AND subscribe to cable TV as well ($17/mo for basic), so $122/mo + tax at a minimum. And that doesn't include the $250 (yes, two hundred and fifty dollar) "installation" fee, which -- if you're an existing customer with acceptable signal levels and already rent or own your own DOCSIS 3 modem -- consists of the tech doing fuck all.
getting slightly more money from every customer is much more profitable than getting substantially more money from very few customers
Not always... it depends on the difference between median and average spending. If the median is above the average (i.e., more than 50% of users are paying above the average), then your proposal would actually either lower the total revenue or, if rates were adjusted to maintain the same level of revenue, then 50% of people would be paying a lot more than they did before, and would probably be unhappy enough to leave.
Not only that, but the upper 50% of subscribers would only be paying slightly less in that scenario, AND the networks would have to meet the demand of all subscribers simultaneously having access to the maximum bandwidth available, which is likely unfeasible, so more likely the max rated bandwidth would have to be scaled back and your "power users" would be pissed off.
Preventing guns and munitions from flowing to Mexico would have a much more significant impact.
Sure, the same way preventing drugs from flowing into the US has had such a significant impact. Hey, maybe if enough of us just stand under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, the smuggling operations will dry up overnight!
It's only prescribed/available as a topical anesthetic. I'm pretty sure a) that's not what the parent poster was referring to, b) it would draw a whole lot of scrutiny if it were prescribed repeatedly since schedule II drugs are non-refillable.
As for Vioxx, it wasn't a matter of its toxicity per se; it was a matter of insufficient testing and/or disclosure of the risks. Aside from that, anything is toxic in enough quantity.
Insufflate.
Well sure, because they don't have the same borrowing power, just like you or I don't have the same borrowing power as a state or corporation, but we don't have the same revenue either. Just because the scale is smaller doesn't mean the deficit spending is any less ubiquitous or problematic, and there are plenty of states without balanced budgets...
I agree fundamentally; the problem is how to remove corruption and kickbacks such that a state or municipality doesn't end up in the position of Jefferson County, AL, or worse. Really that can only happen by electing officials who will take responsibility, and finding those people seems to be a crapshoot. Tea Party philosophers are correct that there can't be corruption if there's no money (defunding/decreased spending), but I don't think they've fully considered the consequences of such a policy. Decrease spending by rooting out and prosecuting corruption, then see where we stand.
I suspect we could get rid of much of it by long term by removing the power of impeachment from the legislature, perhaps giving the responsibility to the SCOTUS or state supreme courts, since they have the least to lose or gain by their votes. I suspect a jury of peers would be too susceptible to the influence of "star power," and obviously elected officials don't want to go against their party. Additionally the burden of proof should be "more likely than not," just as with civil cases. Honestly we need to make it much easier to get people out of office, because government is at the service of society, not the individuals serving therein, and society has little to lose by removing someone from office, and much to gain with added accountability.
When the internet first got going the feds made a rule that you couldn't charge state sales taxes over the internet.
This is an urban legend. There is, and will continue to be, a prohibition on taxing internet access, but the restriction on taxation of goods sold is wholly unrelated, and depends on whether the company in question has a nexus in the state where the goods are purchased. The definition of a nexus has fluctuated, but that concept stems from the fact that, as it stands, states do not have jurisdiction to tax interstate commerce.
Exactly how much tax is collected is a perfectly valid topic to discuss. But a successful nation needs to collect some kind of tax, and the tax being collected needs to be fair.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that; it's the definition of "fair" that seems to be the point of conflict.
I would argue that a "fair" tax rate would affect each person's standard of living (or potential standard of living) proportionally, rather than asking for the same amount of money from each person. The latter proposal would only be equitable if there was income equality, but we don't have anything even approaching that. Paying 50% of $10M is not at all the same as paying 50% of $25k. The former is the difference between owning several homes, while the latter is the difference between being homeless.
A sliding scale starting at the top 80% and beyond (and I say that knowing I fall well within that category) really just makes the most sense to me. It's not punishing success, rather it's acknowledging the importance of people who work their asses off to make ends meet and pay their bills, and rewarding their hard work by making their burden as light as possible. People like Rep. Boehner, who came up through the ranks and now favor tax breaks for "job creators," are ignoring the fact that many of their peers tried just as hard to attain his level of success, but every person's success comes at the cost of someone else's -- usually multiple other people. There can only be one CEO of a company. There can only be a handful of executives. Even if people have an equal shot, they also have an equal chance of failure. That's what we need to remember -- we could just as easily be in the same situation despite the merits of our efforts (or lack thereof, in some cases). Yes, the wealthy are job creators, but job creators wouldn't have companies to run without middle and lower incomes (I refuse to use the word class, because I've known poor people with far more class than many wealthy people). We are *interdependent* on one another, not independent from each other.
I sympathize with the cognitive dissonance of the wealthy, I really do, because we as a nation are far more wealthy than most other countries, and most of us don't give it a second thought. But change will come, and the only choice we have is whether we bury our heads in the sand until it's too late, and the change is violent, or whether we implement policies that contribute to the improvement of the lives of others.
Nonsense. Any time spending exceeds tax revenues, that's deficit spending. Any time you have to borrow money, whether through bonds, bank loans, or loans from other governments, that's deficit spending, and states and municipalities borrow money through such methods all the time.
Composed of 251 adult citizens with college educations
Sounds good, but obviously public universities won't count, and let's tack on "land owners" while we're at it.
Because, as he just said, the alternative is to doom the next generation(s) by allowing only foolish people (by your own definition) to have kids.
Besides, entire populations making stupid decisions is not exactly a new phenomenon in human history. So people, be they our children or ourselves, can waste time and energy blaming previous generations, or they can get to work solving the problem(s).
Are people really moving away from cars as the primary mode of transportation, or are they just giving up the 2rd/3nd vehicle in order to make their mortgage payments?
What do they care as long as they get their free lunch?
Obviously they forgot to say enhance.
If Nokia sold them equipment/technology that was against U.S. policy, then by all means, prosecute.
Nokia isn't a US company. Neither is Ericsson. (Though to be fair, you're not the only one who missed this rather crucial detail.)