As I recall, it was required nation-wide during the late 70s. Then Reagan happened.
The use of the metric system has never been required by the Federal government. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 designates the metric system as the "preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce", but it did not make this mandatory, at least not for private citizens or businesses.
"The part you seem not to grasp is that if they go broke, they can't simply tax rich people for more money like a socialist government." You say that as though Japan does not have a socialist government.
I am hoping your list was in jest, as you can see each and every one of those daily including the last two.
To the same extent as if they weren't illegal? (Where they are illegal, that is.) You really think that the laws against these things have no deterrent value whatsoever?
Coat the windows in a layer of nonlinear optic material that only significantly attenuates light above a certain radiant density. It'd potentially make flying towards the sun less unpleasant as well.
Um, given this, don't you think that planes/pilots would already be equipped with this if it already existed?
Having lived with a GS3 for several months, I like the resolution but it's a little too big. I think the perfect balance would be a 1280x720 screen, but a little smaller - say 4.3 to 4.5 inches.
I would also like to see a tablet around 6 to 7 inches with the same PPI as the 720p smartphones, i.e. around 1600x900 pixels. Why are the current 7" tablets so pixel-deprived compared to the 4-5" phones and the 10" tablets, one of which is now up to a ridiculous 2560x1600 pixels??
And this is true for everybody: personally, I don't really care about how my car works, I just want that it works.
When it does not work, I go to a garage to solve my problem.
Your car has a limited, well-defined set of functions. A computer is programmable. What happens when you want your computer to do something that it doesn't already do? For some people, the answer is "I'll pay a guy to come in and make it do that new thing", i.e. write some new software for it. And that's fine, if the new thing is complex enough to warrant bringing in an expert, and you've got the money. But for some things, particularly simple things that don't warrant the overhead of bringing in an expert, meeting and discussing reqs and specs, contracts, etc. wouldn't it be nice to be able to do some of things on your own? I'm sure at least a few people would answer yes...? (I may be a bit biased, having a number of years of SW development experience...)
By analogy to your car - if you want it to have some really major new feature, like an ejection seat, you might call in a pro. But you might consider installing new speakers on your own...?
This sums up the real problem nicely:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
-- Alexander Fraser Tyler
But it can. If the population of that democracy is well-educated and far-sighted enough to realize how voting itself money from the Public Treasury would undermine the very basis of their community, it may just last. Case in point: Switzerland, whose employment law already dictates a minimum of four weeks' paid vacation per year recently held a public vote whether said minimum should be extended to six weeks'. The result? 67% of the voting public disliked the idea, a resounding no.
Switzerland has 8 million people,and very strict immigration policies; the US has 300+ million, and I'm afraid it's too late - we are way too ignorant and uneducated as a people to ever hope to be able to make wise decisions like that.
And let me add this... Why is it that investment income is capped at 15% for capital gains (now 20% as of 1/1 for people over $400,000) A rate that is much lower than taxes on the middle class who work.
Because income tax has already been paid on that money once; someone had to earn it as income (and pay income tax on it) before it could be invested. Why should it be taxed twice? (At least, that is the idea behind it AIUI.)
What is "their share" and why should it be more simply because they are more successful?
One simple reason: It takes money to make money. If you are making minimum wage or any amount slightly above the poverty line, all your money is going to living expenses. You do not have money to invest.
That explains why it's easier for wealthier people to pay more taxes; it doesn't explain why "their fair share" of taxes should be larger. Shouldn't you pay for what you get from the government in services? If I walk into a supermarket and buy a gallon of milk, they don't ask me how much I make before they set the price of the milk.
Don't get me wrong; I know that charging more in taxes to those who have more is necessary in order to fund a liberal society; I don't understand, however, what makes it "fair". It's forced charity, plain and simple.
Do you want to know what the biggest entitlement program in America is? Try being born to rich parents... Nobody has less incentive to work than somebody who is just handed millions of dollars.
Agreed... this is one reason I think we should focus on taxing wealth rather than income. It's not fair that one kid should be born rich and live off some trust fund with little tax, while another kid, born poor, busts his ass and becomes a doctor or lawyer or engineer with a good income but then has to pay tax through the nose because he has a high income but still less wealth than the rich kid.
Wow. No one I've ever met has said, "I would make more but I'd just get taxed more." No one.
That's because the days of 90% marginal tax rates are gone. If I knew that by working harder I could get a raise, but I'd only get to keep 10% of it? (Or less, after FICA etc.?) I don't know if I would bother.
You have hit the nail on the head with our tax code. Taxes A_R_E punishment. Really, they are. The government in fact knows that taxes are punitive, and approaches them with a carrot and stick mentality. Not all taxes may be intended to be punitive, but they all have a depressing effect on what they are levied upon.
Cigarette tax - punishment for smoking
Sales tax - punishment for consuming
alcohol tax - punishment for drinking
exise tax - penalty for moving money in a way the government doesn't like, or creating a product the government wants to discourage.
etc etc, and yes taxes do work as a punitive function.
So, now, ask yourself what the income tax must be a punishment for...?
Which we pay for in taxes that go to farm subsidies, which these days end up in the pockets of mega-agribusinesses instead of working farmers...
subsidized oil
Which we pay for in massive taxes that get turned into the blood of innocent civilians in far-off lands via the Mean Green Machine...
a stable government, a reasonable approximation of a fair justice system
Which benefits everyone, not just the middle class, so why does the middle class have to pay a larger share of their income than the rest? (Besides, I would imagine that people at the top and bottom of the ladder see more of the court system than the middle class does...)
nor do we benefit from having our elders have some pension provided by the government
A pension which they themselves paid for in FICA taxes, and which, if they'd been able to keep the money to invest, would have given them a larger pension than Social Security does...
So why not just let us keep those taxes, since we're going to pay the money one way or the other? At least we would have more choice in our fiscal decisions...
The USA celebrates success: Bezos, Gates, Buffet, etc are lauded in the press; TV shows and movies makes riches the ultimate happy outcome; being rich gives you a huge benefit when dealing with the legal system. You can be rich here and there is zero demand that you use your money for social good - you can just buy 200 foot boats or hookers or drugs and no one yells at you (try that in Europe!)
The American people, by and large, celebrate success. The American government is another matter. Making someone pay for the "privilege" of being productive and innovative and creating wealth, and making them pay more the more successful they are, is a punishment. How else can you possibly spin it? I understand that someone has to pay for civilization, but we should tax something other than income - like, say, accumulated wealth/net worth (and capital shifted out of the US, to close that potential loophole). That way, the idle rich pay the lion's share, not the productive rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't most of the US now have highway speed limits of 65 mi/hr or higher?
You think it is not government control that set up the imperial standard in the first place?
Indeed. Why else would it be called "Imperial"?
As I recall, it was required nation-wide during the late 70s. Then Reagan happened.
The use of the metric system has never been required by the Federal government. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 designates the metric system as the "preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce", but it did not make this mandatory, at least not for private citizens or businesses.
"The part you seem not to grasp is that if they go broke, they can't simply tax rich people for more money like a socialist government." You say that as though Japan does not have a socialist government.
Don't asteroids usually spin? If you blast a crater on one side, then you have some serious aiming to do to hit the crater?
Then again, clearly it's possible to hit with photon torpedoes, and using the Force.
That'll work great, as long as there's an exhaust port on the asteroid about the size of a womprat. Then, all we need to do is build an X-Wing...
I am hoping your list was in jest, as you can see each and every one of those daily including the last two.
To the same extent as if they weren't illegal? (Where they are illegal, that is.) You really think that the laws against these things have no deterrent value whatsoever?
Coat the windows in a layer of nonlinear optic material that only significantly attenuates light above a certain radiant density. It'd potentially make flying towards the sun less unpleasant as well.
Um, given this, don't you think that planes/pilots would already be equipped with this if it already existed?
The law is stupid because the idea that laws serve as an effective deterrent is stupid.
Remember when they passed that law against __________, and now no one does __________ anymore? Hmm? Yeah, neither do I.
Yeah, you're right - laws are such a pain in the ass. We should just get rid of them and save ourselves the bother.
You're right - that's a crazy idea. The pilot's first indication that there is a beam in the vicinity may be when it hits his eye. Then what?
Plus, they are no longer conjoined; they are divided by the Panama Canal.
Having lived with a GS3 for several months, I like the resolution but it's a little too big. I think the perfect balance would be a 1280x720 screen, but a little smaller - say 4.3 to 4.5 inches. I would also like to see a tablet around 6 to 7 inches with the same PPI as the 720p smartphones, i.e. around 1600x900 pixels. Why are the current 7" tablets so pixel-deprived compared to the 4-5" phones and the 10" tablets, one of which is now up to a ridiculous 2560x1600 pixels??
And this is true for everybody: personally, I don't really care about how my car works, I just want that it works. When it does not work, I go to a garage to solve my problem.
Your car has a limited, well-defined set of functions. A computer is programmable. What happens when you want your computer to do something that it doesn't already do? For some people, the answer is "I'll pay a guy to come in and make it do that new thing", i.e. write some new software for it. And that's fine, if the new thing is complex enough to warrant bringing in an expert, and you've got the money. But for some things, particularly simple things that don't warrant the overhead of bringing in an expert, meeting and discussing reqs and specs, contracts, etc. wouldn't it be nice to be able to do some of things on your own? I'm sure at least a few people would answer yes...? (I may be a bit biased, having a number of years of SW development experience...)
By analogy to your car - if you want it to have some really major new feature, like an ejection seat, you might call in a pro. But you might consider installing new speakers on your own...?
But it can. If the population of that democracy is well-educated and far-sighted enough to realize how voting itself money from the Public Treasury would undermine the very basis of their community, it may just last. Case in point: Switzerland, whose employment law already dictates a minimum of four weeks' paid vacation per year recently held a public vote whether said minimum should be extended to six weeks'. The result? 67% of the voting public disliked the idea, a resounding no.
Switzerland has 8 million people,and very strict immigration policies; the US has 300+ million, and I'm afraid it's too late - we are way too ignorant and uneducated as a people to ever hope to be able to make wise decisions like that.
And let me add this... Why is it that investment income is capped at 15% for capital gains (now 20% as of 1/1 for people over $400,000) A rate that is much lower than taxes on the middle class who work.
Because income tax has already been paid on that money once; someone had to earn it as income (and pay income tax on it) before it could be invested. Why should it be taxed twice? (At least, that is the idea behind it AIUI.)
What is "their share" and why should it be more simply because they are more successful?
One simple reason: It takes money to make money. If you are making minimum wage or any amount slightly above the poverty line, all your money is going to living expenses. You do not have money to invest.
That explains why it's easier for wealthier people to pay more taxes; it doesn't explain why "their fair share" of taxes should be larger. Shouldn't you pay for what you get from the government in services? If I walk into a supermarket and buy a gallon of milk, they don't ask me how much I make before they set the price of the milk. Don't get me wrong; I know that charging more in taxes to those who have more is necessary in order to fund a liberal society; I don't understand, however, what makes it "fair". It's forced charity, plain and simple.
Do you want to know what the biggest entitlement program in America is? Try being born to rich parents... Nobody has less incentive to work than somebody who is just handed millions of dollars.
Agreed... this is one reason I think we should focus on taxing wealth rather than income. It's not fair that one kid should be born rich and live off some trust fund with little tax, while another kid, born poor, busts his ass and becomes a doctor or lawyer or engineer with a good income but then has to pay tax through the nose because he has a high income but still less wealth than the rich kid.
Wow. No one I've ever met has said, "I would make more but I'd just get taxed more." No one.
That's because the days of 90% marginal tax rates are gone. If I knew that by working harder I could get a raise, but I'd only get to keep 10% of it? (Or less, after FICA etc.?) I don't know if I would bother.
So, now, ask yourself what the income tax must be a punishment for...?
We don't benefit from artificially cheap food
Which we pay for in taxes that go to farm subsidies, which these days end up in the pockets of mega-agribusinesses instead of working farmers...
subsidized oil
Which we pay for in massive taxes that get turned into the blood of innocent civilians in far-off lands via the Mean Green Machine...
a stable government, a reasonable approximation of a fair justice system
Which benefits everyone, not just the middle class, so why does the middle class have to pay a larger share of their income than the rest? (Besides, I would imagine that people at the top and bottom of the ladder see more of the court system than the middle class does...)
nor do we benefit from having our elders have some pension provided by the government
A pension which they themselves paid for in FICA taxes, and which, if they'd been able to keep the money to invest, would have given them a larger pension than Social Security does... So why not just let us keep those taxes, since we're going to pay the money one way or the other? At least we would have more choice in our fiscal decisions...
The USA celebrates success: Bezos, Gates, Buffet, etc are lauded in the press; TV shows and movies makes riches the ultimate happy outcome; being rich gives you a huge benefit when dealing with the legal system. You can be rich here and there is zero demand that you use your money for social good - you can just buy 200 foot boats or hookers or drugs and no one yells at you (try that in Europe!)
The American people, by and large, celebrate success. The American government is another matter. Making someone pay for the "privilege" of being productive and innovative and creating wealth, and making them pay more the more successful they are, is a punishment. How else can you possibly spin it? I understand that someone has to pay for civilization, but we should tax something other than income - like, say, accumulated wealth/net worth (and capital shifted out of the US, to close that potential loophole). That way, the idle rich pay the lion's share, not the productive rich.
The code puts out random positive space objects while the mind sees a single, complex negative space.
I don't even see the random positive space objects anymore. I just see blonde, brunette, redhead...
Go outside. NOW.
TFA does not say that no loops are used. From TFA: "There aren’t any variables. It uses a GOTO instead of a more elegant loop."
"Do they have direct access to the planes?"
Only if they went along to the last arms symposium and bought some. You do realise that things like that are available to all?
Not our stealth stuff. We do not sell F-117s, B-2s, or F-22s to anyone. The F-35 is only available to a short list of friendly countries.
There's more than one kind of libertarian. Anarcho-capitalists would not agree with your position on the importance of law. (Not that I'm an A-C...)
Do you have your head literally buried in the sand, or are you just in denial?