Sales tax is regressive? How so? If my consumption goes up (i.e., I'm rich), then I pay more tax.
Sales tax is regressive because if you are poor, sales tax is a greater percentage of your income (i.e. a greater burden) than if you are rich. While you may buy more goods total if you are rich, the percentage of sales tax stays the same.
For example, say there are two people buying a car, Richard (who is wealthy) and Paul (who is poor).
Richard makes $300,000 per year Paul makes $20,000 per year
Richard buys a car for $60,000 and pays 5% sales tax, or $3000. This is 1% of his income. Paul buys a car for $20,000 and pays 5% sales tax, or $1000. This is 5% of his income.
Even though Paul spends $40,000 LESS on his cars, he's still paying 5 TIMES the percentage of his income. $1000 for Paul is 5 times the burden that $3000 is for Richard. Do you see why sales tax is regressive?
In contrast, federal income tax is progressive because the percentage increases as your income increases.
Altering any of the code for wall hacks in Hallo 3 for example will change the result of the signing algorithm and the 360 will refuse to run it.
What if I just alter the transparency of the textures?
There's a lot of data on the discs too. Is all of it signed? Or is it just the executable portion that is signed? If data, such as textures, is not signed, then the game would cheerfully load my newly-made transparent wall textures and neon-red enemy textures.
I honestly don't know...is the disc signed as a whole, or is it just the executable?
Kalamazoo, Michigan -... When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested....
St. Louis, Missouri -... Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President's policy on Iraq were ordered into a "protest zone" approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building. When the protesters refused, they were arrested....
Neville Island, Pennsylvania -... But when retired steelworker Bill Neel refused to enter the protest zone and insisted on being allowed to stand where the President's supporters were standing, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and detained until the President had departed....
Columbia, South Carolina -... When Bursey insisted on being allowed to remain where other members of the public stood, he was arrested on state and federal criminal charges....
Create a shortcut and enter DropMyRights.exe as the target executable, followed by the path to the application you want to execute in lower privilege.
For example:
Actually, if people is too stupid to punch all the way through a card, maybe it's a good thing they can't vote...
What a great idea! Why stop there? Let's issue IQ tests too...perhaps require a short essay. If you commit any grammatical errors, then you're not allowed to vote!
That is, unless you is too stupid.
Seriously though, the laws enacted by our government affect everyone, even the stupid. If idiots are having problems voting, maybe it's not their fault. Maybe the voting system should be idiot-proof. Now...IQ tests for the candidates, that's another story.;-)
Since when does the political leanings of the boss dictate the leanings of the Employees?... Most members of the main stream media lean hard to the left.... Rupert Murdoch be damned, the Lib Media Elites will report it the way they want to.
internal Fox News memos - quote: "They were issuing edicts to the reporters to control what they could say and how they could say it."
more Fox News whistleblowers - nice cross section of Fox News cutting people off, also former Fox News employees talking about the "mindset" at Fox News. (i believe the above link is a smaller piece of this video.)
Also, in regard to the first link (about the bovine growth hormone story) see the brief wikipedia entry about Jane Akre (my emphasis):
FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court.
So, do Rupert Murdoch or John Moody have control over what their reporters say? From where I'm sitting, it looks like an emphatic YES.
Er, exactly how would life begin on a meteorite? Exactly what chemistry would allow that to happen? I think it's a tad more likely that life would begin on a planet with the requisite natural resources.
The theory goes that there was life on that meteorite before it ever entered space. Suppose there was life on Mars a few billion years ago ago, and suppose some violent event occured (e.g volcano eruption, meteor impact) that could send planetary material hurtling into space. Some of that planetary material could possibly travel to earth, and carry along with it proteins (or amino acids or DNA or whatever) that would then serve as templates for earth's existing base chemicals.
what key thing would meteorites contribute that "explains" life?
My guess is that the odds of basic compounds (whichever ones around which life is built...i'm not a biochemist) randomly coming into an arrangement that's a protein or amino acid (or whatever) is so impossibly slim, that it's roughly equal to the odds that life's template flew here from Mars.
I'm just wondering who, way back in the days of yore, decided it would be better to measure fruit by liquid measurements and not by their mass.
I doubt anyone conciously decided, it's a matter of practicality. It's also not a liquid measure; it's specified in the US as "dry measure".
The baskets they used to hold the fruit are called "bushel baskets" or just bushels. How much fruit do you have? Count the baskets. I'm not positive, but I'd bet the basket was called a bushel before the measure of volume.
So in order for this to work in people, we'd need to genetically modify/engineer babies?
Not necessarily. I suppose you _could_ genetically engineer human offspring to carry this gene, but there appear to be other routes to take. From the article I already linked-to; specifically, section III of the summary:
However, these results show that the concept would work under the right circumstances. For example, if we identified the gene, it might be possible to take immune cells from a patient and insert that mutant gene into those cells in the test tube, then give these cells back to the same patient; this would then perhaps allow the mutant immune mechanism to work to reject tumor cells without the loss of the immune cells due to transplant rejection.
I'd highly reccomend reading this. It's absolutely fascinating, and it provides a great amount of detail that's written in terms most people will understand.
I'll try to answer your questions based on my read-through.
So these mice are "cancer-resistant"? When exposed to carcenigous, do they ignore them?
It seems that these mice have an immune system that is able to selectively identify and destroy cancer cells. So, no, they don't ignore carcinogens, they just kill the cells that are affected by the carcinogens.
Are these mice just impervious to cell mutation?...would that spell the end of evolution?
Nope. Again, the mice seem to have a "smarter" immune system that destroys only the cancerous cells.
The article talks about how our immune system may be constantly killing off cancerous cells. It may only be when a cell mutates beyond our body's ability to identify as such that it becomes a cancer. If so, that implies a previously unknown mechanism for our immune system to identify cancer cells. This property of our immune system would likely be determined by genetics; and it is quite likely that the unique immune-boosting gene these super-resistant mice posses has an equivalent in humans.
Growing, transporting, and distilling corn to make a gallon of ethanol uses almost as much energy as is contained in the ethanol itself. Sugar beets are a better source, producing nearly two units of energy for every unit used in production.
I agree completely with your post. Very well said. (except the "zero appeal"... I think it's still got some appeal, even if only for the angel battles)
It seems to me that NGE fell prey to "X-files syndrome":
Just keep hinting at something.
You have no idea what this something is, per se, but *wink**wink* *nudge**nudge* it's a HUGE secret. Big hints, little hints, obscure hints...all sorts of hints; but, and this is the important part, the writers have no big picture in mind.
I didn't assert that homosexuality is moral. (However, I do believe that there's nothing implicitly amoral about it.)
My assertion was that homosexuality is NOT a choice.
And since you bring it up...deviant behavior like that seen with the many pedophile-priest cases (i'm no expert, mind you) seems to be a direct result of trying to repress their natural sexual urges.
And since you bring it up...do you have "proof" that homosexuality is, in fact, amoral? I suppose it would depend on how you define amoral behavior, and if that definition hinges on causing harm, then it is not amoral. Two people of the same sex making love harms neither you nor I, nor anyone else in any tangible fashion.
The choice is in whether you succumb to that temptation or not. I wouldn't call someone had homosexual tendancies, but didn't have homosexual sex a homosexual, any more than I'd call someone who had an urge to drink, but never did, an alchoholic.
If you've never had an alcoholic drink in your life, you won't have any urge to drink. (at least not the type of "hunger" a reformed alcoholic might feel)
If you're homosexual, you'll know it whether or not you've previously "succumbed to temptation". Most people know their sexual preferences long before they're old enough to act on them. Homosexuality IS NOT analagous to an addictive substance. Would YOU be able to suppress your (assumedly) heterosexual tendacies if called-upon to do so? For your entire life?
Check out the news coverage of gaypenguins. To me, it appears that homosexuality is something that has probably existed in nature for thousands of years and will continue to do so.
Anyone have a case which shows the opposite? - inaction leads to liability? (without personal benefit ie a bribe not to enforce drug laws)
I was sure there _had_ to be a case like that, so I spent a while digging around. The closest US case I could find is CANTON v. HARRIS, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).
Canton v. Harris deals with the constitutional provision for medical care as part of Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. The policeman on duty had responsibilty for judging the arrested person's need for medical attention, and (incorrectly) did not provide it. The jury ruled that a "failure to train" the police staff properly resulted in municipal liability.
SCOTUS upheld that "under Circuit precedent, a municipality is liable for failure to train its police force, where the plaintiff proves that the municipality acted recklessly, intentionally, or with gross negligence, and that the lack of training was so reckless or grossly negligent that deprivation of persons' constitutional rights was substantially certain to result."
It seems like there must be a more clear-cut case of police inaction leading to liability in the US, but I can't find it...
There's also a case in England that's probably closer to what you were looking for. The case, [1979] 467 3 W.L.R. REGINA v. DYTHAM, involves a uniformed, on-duty police officer who watched a man get beaten to death outside a nightclub, then left the scene without summoning help or providing assistance.
Without a doubt, NannyMUD had (and perhaps still has) the best quest system I've ever had the pleasure of playing. In NannyMUD you need both QP (quest points) as well as traditional EXP points in order to level-up. Once players reached a certain level, they became wizards, and were given the ability to script their own portions of the game and create their own quests to go along with their areas. A very novel thing for a MUD, especially in 1990.
The real beauty was the diversity and ingenuity of the quests. Many required no fighting, just a bit of logic and a little hunting around for what you need.
* The walking castle is sweet. You spend long enough inside it that you could be anywhere by the time you leave...often without a clue about which direction is home!
I don't know much about the Congressional laws surrounding Gitmo-like camps, but it doesn't seem to be unconstitutional.... Does Congress have authority to control prison camps operating outside our borders? If so, what part of the Constitution says so?
IANACS (constitutional scholar), but I think the section you're looking for is the 14th Amendment (Section 1, emphasis mine):
... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Does this apply to the likes of Gitmo and others? I would argue it does apply.
The base is a US military outpost in which the troops are subject to the Code of Military Justice, a US law. As US law applies on the base, it reasonably follows that the US Constitution, the supreme law of the US, also applies on the base. At the very least, the US certainly has "jurisdiction".
I suppose there's some room for alternate interpretations* of the amendment, but that's my take.
*e.g. maybe it only applies to US citizens...but i think the authors of the amendment would have said "citizens" if they meant citizens; instead they said "any person".
Slashdot Mirror
Sales tax is regressive because if you are poor, sales tax is a greater percentage of your income (i.e. a greater burden) than if you are rich. While you may buy more goods total if you are rich, the percentage of sales tax stays the same.
For example, say there are two people buying a car, Richard (who is wealthy) and Paul (who is poor).
Even though Paul spends $40,000 LESS on his cars, he's still paying 5 TIMES the percentage of his income. $1000 for Paul is 5 times the burden that $3000 is for Richard. Do you see why sales tax is regressive?
In contrast, federal income tax is progressive because the percentage increases as your income increases.
What if I just alter the transparency of the textures?
There's a lot of data on the discs too. Is all of it signed? Or is it just the executable portion that is signed? If data, such as textures, is not signed, then the game would cheerfully load my newly-made transparent wall textures and neon-red enemy textures.
I honestly don't know...is the disc signed as a whole, or is it just the executable?
Actually, you might get arrested for peacefully protesting against Bush.
From the link:
For shame! What's that directory doing on a computer at Microsoft Security Engineering?
I can't believe they're not releasing the book 2 weeks ealier!
The 7th book should really be released on 7/7/07.
What a great idea! Why stop there? Let's issue IQ tests too...perhaps require a short essay. If you commit any grammatical errors, then you're not allowed to vote!
That is, unless you is too stupid.
Seriously though, the laws enacted by our government affect everyone, even the stupid. If idiots are having problems voting, maybe it's not their fault. Maybe the voting system should be idiot-proof. Now...IQ tests for the candidates, that's another story. ;-)
Although I'm certain that most reporters _do_ lean to the left, they're not always permitted to express their views. Check out this video about Fox News suppressing a report about bovine growth hormone in milk.
Or look at these:
Also, in regard to the first link (about the bovine growth hormone story) see the brief wikipedia entry about Jane Akre (my emphasis):
So, do Rupert Murdoch or John Moody have control over what their reporters say? From where I'm sitting, it looks like an emphatic YES.
Agreed! Though I think you sell the human race a little short.
I think there just as many courteous and efficient drivers out there. A person simply tends to notice and remember the assholes.
Anonymity (like alcohol) doesn't always bring the best out of people, but it often brings out their true personality.
Perhaps it's because the White House itself hired a PR firm to create fake news reports.
The theory goes that there was life on that meteorite before it ever entered space. Suppose there was life on Mars a few billion years ago ago, and suppose some violent event occured (e.g volcano eruption, meteor impact) that could send planetary material hurtling into space. Some of that planetary material could possibly travel to earth, and carry along with it proteins (or amino acids or DNA or whatever) that would then serve as templates for earth's existing base chemicals.
My guess is that the odds of basic compounds (whichever ones around which life is built...i'm not a biochemist) randomly coming into an arrangement that's a protein or amino acid (or whatever) is so impossibly slim, that it's roughly equal to the odds that life's template flew here from Mars.
It began in 2004, but you might not notice until 2008.
I doubt anyone conciously decided, it's a matter of practicality. It's also not a liquid measure; it's specified in the US as "dry measure".
The baskets they used to hold the fruit are called "bushel baskets" or just bushels. How much fruit do you have? Count the baskets. I'm not positive, but I'd bet the basket was called a bushel before the measure of volume.
I wonder how many of the people afflicted drink diet soda...?
Not necessarily. I suppose you _could_ genetically engineer human offspring to carry this gene, but there appear to be other routes to take. From the article I already linked-to; specifically, section III of the summary:
I'd highly reccomend reading this. It's absolutely fascinating, and it provides a great amount of detail that's written in terms most people will understand.
I'll try to answer your questions based on my read-through.
It seems that these mice have an immune system that is able to selectively identify and destroy cancer cells. So, no, they don't ignore carcinogens, they just kill the cells that are affected by the carcinogens.
Nope. Again, the mice seem to have a "smarter" immune system that destroys only the cancerous cells.
The article talks about how our immune system may be constantly killing off cancerous cells. It may only be when a cell mutates beyond our body's ability to identify as such that it becomes a cancer. If so, that implies a previously unknown mechanism for our immune system to identify cancer cells. This property of our immune system would likely be determined by genetics; and it is quite likely that the unique immune-boosting gene these super-resistant mice posses has an equivalent in humans.
From here:
I agree completely with your post. Very well said.
(except the "zero appeal"... I think it's still got some appeal, even if only for the angel battles)
It seems to me that NGE fell prey to "X-files syndrome":
Just keep hinting at something.
You have no idea what this something is, per se, but *wink**wink* *nudge**nudge* it's a HUGE secret. Big hints, little hints, obscure hints...all sorts of hints; but, and this is the important part, the writers have no big picture in mind.
Very true. This is exactly why anonymity is critical to protecting free speech from those who wish to suppress it.
Um, if your house doesn't have windows or doors, no one's getting in.
I didn't assert that homosexuality is moral. (However, I do believe that there's nothing implicitly amoral about it.)
My assertion was that homosexuality is NOT a choice.
And since you bring it up...deviant behavior like that seen with the many pedophile-priest cases (i'm no expert, mind you) seems to be a direct result of trying to repress their natural sexual urges.
And since you bring it up...do you have "proof" that homosexuality is, in fact, amoral? I suppose it would depend on how you define amoral behavior, and if that definition hinges on causing harm, then it is not amoral. Two people of the same sex making love harms neither you nor I, nor anyone else in any tangible fashion.
If you've never had an alcoholic drink in your life, you won't have any urge to drink. (at least not the type of "hunger" a reformed alcoholic might feel)
If you're homosexual, you'll know it whether or not you've previously "succumbed to temptation". Most people know their sexual preferences long before they're old enough to act on them. Homosexuality IS NOT analagous to an addictive substance. Would YOU be able to suppress your (assumedly) heterosexual tendacies if called-upon to do so? For your entire life?
Check out the news coverage of gay penguins. To me, it appears that homosexuality is something that has probably existed in nature for thousands of years and will continue to do so.
On a less serious note...perhaps tux is in on the gay penguin consiracy
I was sure there _had_ to be a case like that, so I spent a while digging around. The closest US case I could find is CANTON v. HARRIS, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).
Canton v. Harris deals with the constitutional provision for medical care as part of Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. The policeman on duty had responsibilty for judging the arrested person's need for medical attention, and (incorrectly) did not provide it. The jury ruled that a "failure to train" the police staff properly resulted in municipal liability.
It seems like there must be a more clear-cut case of police inaction leading to liability in the US, but I can't find it...
There's also a case in England that's probably closer to what you were looking for. The case, [1979] 467 3 W.L.R. REGINA v. DYTHAM, involves a uniformed, on-duty police officer who watched a man get beaten to death outside a nightclub, then left the scene without summoning help or providing assistance.
Could it be this pumpkin that gets blocked? ...not so innocent after all!
Without a doubt, NannyMUD had (and perhaps still has) the best quest system I've ever had the pleasure of playing. In NannyMUD you need both QP (quest points) as well as traditional EXP points in order to level-up. Once players reached a certain level, they became wizards, and were given the ability to script their own portions of the game and create their own quests to go along with their areas. A very novel thing for a MUD, especially in 1990.
The real beauty was the diversity and ingenuity of the quests. Many required no fighting, just a bit of logic and a little hunting around for what you need.
A few of my favorites:
* The walking castle is sweet. You spend long enough inside it that you could be anywhere by the time you leave...often without a clue about which direction is home!
IANACS (constitutional scholar), but I think the section you're looking for is the 14th Amendment (Section 1, emphasis mine):
Does this apply to the likes of Gitmo and others? I would argue it does apply.
The base is a US military outpost in which the troops are subject to the Code of Military Justice, a US law. As US law applies on the base, it reasonably follows that the US Constitution, the supreme law of the US, also applies on the base. At the very least, the US certainly has "jurisdiction".
I suppose there's some room for alternate interpretations* of the amendment, but that's my take.
*e.g. maybe it only applies to US citizens...but i think the authors of the amendment would have said "citizens" if they meant citizens; instead they said "any person".