Failure to deliver a useable service should render the contract null & void. Contracts must be equitable.. I get something (internet) and you get something (money).. They don't have to be fair, but they MUST be equitable.
Nope. I've presented a logical more-efficient option than what the US is currently doing. Incentivize donations by attaching some desirable privileges, instead of by burning cash.
"Burning cash" is WORKING. You're not attaching privileges.. You're offering to strip away liberty. Our current system removes drivers licenses from people who commit crimes or have advanced in age to the point they can't safely drive anymore.. You're talking about removing the right to drive (absent a CRIME) as a carrot to force people to sign over body parts..
Don't you understand that this is the arrogance that those of us with a more conservative bent HATE? We have a system that works... But you'd rather run around swinging the club of government..
Have I resorted to personal attacks.. Yeah, I suppose I have, but only because I believe you're an idiot. Only idiots tear down a working system, replace it with an authoritarian setup, and then claim they've made it better.
The USA has gobs and gobs of plasma.. So much that we export it.. You guys won't/can't incentivize it, and you have a shortage.. Rather than look at the system that works (ours), you'd rather beat fuckers over the head with a license penalty....
So, is that the *only* one you're going to correct? Did you even read the rest of it?
Nope.. I missed that one... Jokes on me.. I can admit it.. Once I saw the first I stopped reading and offered a friendly correction. Yes yes, I missed it all, I suck...
I'd like to point out that the US and Canada are not the only countries in North America... There are 23 sovereign nations in North America. Did the author check to see if none of these countries have right to repair laws? I highly doubt it...
Furthermore, this would be in-line with the European Commission's directive 2002/98/EC that wants member states of the EU to encourage renumeration-free blood donations, specifically. Incentives that involve payment for cash are the opposite of their desired ends, and one has to respect that.
No I don't. I absolutely do not respect it. You're running around with your holier-than-thou bullshit and, at the same time, (as several others have pointed out) you're (Europe) buying your plasma products from the United States because we have more than we need. We have enough to sell because we cash incentivize our "donations".
Forcing people to be on a donation list? FUCK YOU. Fuck you in your ass for thinking you have the moral right to own someone's body parts.
Gains are not income.. If you buy a house and overnight it doubles in value, you don't have more money. You probably will have a larger tax bill (less money), but until you sell the house you are not a richer person. If you never sell the house then those gains mean absolutely nothing and should not be taxed.
Same with Buffet. His stock holdings might double in value, but unless he sells said stock, his income has not increased by a penny. If his dividends increase, then sure, he'll owe more taxes.
....dodged almost all the tax on that giving another chunk to charity
Holy fuck.. He gave money away and you're still unhappy...
Nobody is dodging taxes. It's the hypocrisy I hate the most. You know damn well you pay the exact amount of taxes you owe and not a dime more. I suspect you happily take every legal deduction you can. But when someone else does the exact same thing, you get pissed. Too bad..
Typical angry liberal who's mad that someone has more.. Sorry Charlie, but the Universe rewards those who excel. All of Darwinism is built upon that fact.
Considering the fact that the top 1% pay 42% of all income taxes, at what point would you be happy with not soaking them for even more? If they're paying 42% of ALL the personal income tax collected by the IRS, how much is enough? 50%? 100%?
This blurb is from a few years ago, but the gap his widened even more since.
An analysis of IRS data by the Tax Foundation shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government, the highest percentage in modern history. While the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden.
The top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.
Quit trying to act like a lawyer. You aren't one. You seem to be thinking of "patents". Copyright doesn't have a "significant change" doctrine. In fact, derivative works are specifically included in copyright law as belonging to the original author, not the person who made the changes.
I'm gonna point out, also, that not only are you totally mental, you're the most pure example of an evil communist possible. Rather than dangle a monetary carrot in front of someone to convince them to do what you want them to do, you'd rather use the full force of government against them and until you force them to bend to your will you'd deny them a freedom that is rarely banned in even the most heavily authoritarian regimes.
Simple:
Attach some essential privileges like maintaining a driver's license to donating at least 1 unit of blood once per year, or 1 unit of plasma at least once every 3 years.
Don't want to donate? Fine. But you cannot have a driver's license, and X other privileges,
unless you can show a proven medical reason that makes you ineligible to donate blood/plasma.
Holy fuck.... You're mental. I can't imagine your idea would be taken seriously in any western democracy. Not even the most socialist assholes would.... holy fucksticks...
You seem to be misinformed. Those "loopholes" aren't oversights.. They're put in deliberately, after the fact, usually in unrelated legislation that modifies other legislation. Buffet also uses the capital gains laws to his full advantage, and before you suggest closing all the "loopholes", realize that a person who owns a single home and sells it (CA is being referenced here) is hit with a 15% capital gains tax if they haven't lived in the house for 2+ years, so if you move the 15% tax to the higher personal income tax, you'll absolutely fuck anyone who buys a house, and then who has to sell it because circumstances force them to move somewhere else (job, health, etc). 15% is a big hit as it is, but 30%? It's not always the rich who benefit from the "loopholes"..
"Well, the government tells me not to breathe cinnamon, but fuck that! Just the MAN keeping me down! No way, I'd rather fucking choke myself to death on camera than take sound advice..." - Republicans are literally this dumb.
Democrats are dumb enough to bring up the regulation of inhaling anything when it was Republicans who insisted on locking up hippies for decades for simply inhaling a plant that they said you shouldn't inhale..
Here we are 20 years later and your dumb ass is actually promoting the government banning you from inhaling something. I know it's just a silly example, but you really need to think shit through... Maybe not everything the government declares to be dangerous really is.... Hrm?
Well, if the FDA is this quick to be adamantly against it, then it must be something good and beneficial.
Spoken like someone with access to the safest drug supply in the history of the world who then wants to shit on it from within. Everything is a conspiracy.. EVERYTHING
I donate things all the time. Time, money, and more. I do it without expecting any compensation because I'm not some emotionally stunted libertarian crank.
You're surrounded by civilization, maybe give it a try sometime and see if you like it.
Ah yes, the good old "Everyone who ever expects to be paid for anything I disagree with is a nazi, libertarian, asshole, meanie face.
It's good to see your donations are not altruistic. If they were you wouldn't be using them like clubs to beat shame into those who want to be paid for their time.
In the US, you might get $50 for each of your first few "donations"........... By law, you're limited to two bleedings per week.
No... While your statement regarding two "bleedings" per week might be valid for some jurisdictions, you specified the US as a whole, and your data is wrong.
California limits you to onebleeding per MONTH.
In California, you are only allowed to donate plasma every 28 days. If you are 16, you are only allowed to donate two times in a 12-month period.
That's no good, when the product's primarily donated to save lives
Too bad. Obviously if there's a shortage you need to convince more people to offer up plasma.. Want mine? Open your checkbook. I don't buy in to your communistic approach to products (plasma) that I generate with my body.
I highly suspect that there wouldn't be anything close to a plasma shortage if healthy people were incentivised to donate blood, with cash payments, at whatever level the free market decided it was worth.
I suspect your opposition to this idea is ideological and not rational.
This is going to be shot down by the SCOTUS. I'd bet on it.
In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which the Supreme Court struck down in 1997 as unconstitutional, saying the CDA "place(d) an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech."
Congress followed that defeat with the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which required commercial Web site operators to use credit cards or other adult access systems to prevent minors from viewing the material. The Supreme Court found that law was too broad in scope for practical enforcement.
Now define "unpleasant behavior", asshole.
Harassing other customers, or personell... should be obvious.
But it seems you are one of those rare autists/aspergers who need perfect fitting terms like "discrimination", otherwise you are unable to argue about a certain topic without getting enraged.
You're one of those morons who'll engage in discrimination but not have the balls to admit it. And you stared the name calling first, asshole. I simply followed suit. I'm detecting a pattern here.
You are not allowed to discriminate. The only reason to point one to the door is crime like theft, unpleasant behaviour, lack of hygiene etc..
Now define "unpleasant behavior", asshole.
Yeah, another arbitrary decision. What's unpleasant to one person might be totally acceptable to another. You're an asshole, by the way. (see how I've just made an arbitrary decision? It's awesome.... It's freedom.. I can decide you are a cocksucker, and another person might decide you're an angel.. But it's personal. You CANNOT force me to decide that you're super cool.
Pointing to the door for anything you listed is DISCRIMINATION. It's acceptable discrimination, but it's still discrimination.
discrimination:
n. The act of discriminating.
n. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
n. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
You see that second definition??
Here, you'd not be allowed in the store, because you're a cunt.
Slashdot Mirror
Failure to deliver a useable service should render the contract null & void. Contracts must be equitable.. I get something (internet) and you get something (money).. They don't have to be fair, but they MUST be equitable.
Nope. I've presented a logical more-efficient option than what the US is currently doing. Incentivize donations by attaching some desirable privileges, instead of by burning cash.
"Burning cash" is WORKING. You're not attaching privileges.. You're offering to strip away liberty. Our current system removes drivers licenses from people who commit crimes or have advanced in age to the point they can't safely drive anymore.. You're talking about removing the right to drive (absent a CRIME) as a carrot to force people to sign over body parts..
Don't you understand that this is the arrogance that those of us with a more conservative bent HATE? We have a system that works... But you'd rather run around swinging the club of government..
Have I resorted to personal attacks.. Yeah, I suppose I have, but only because I believe you're an idiot. Only idiots tear down a working system, replace it with an authoritarian setup, and then claim they've made it better.
The USA has gobs and gobs of plasma.. So much that we export it.. You guys won't/can't incentivize it, and you have a shortage.. Rather than look at the system that works (ours), you'd rather beat fuckers over the head with a license penalty....
So sick and tired of you mouth breathers....
So, is that the *only* one you're going to correct? Did you even read the rest of it?
Nope.. I missed that one... Jokes on me.. I can admit it.. Once I saw the first I stopped reading and offered a friendly correction. Yes yes, I missed it all, I suck...
I hole-hardedly agree,
Just for your future reference, the phrase is whole-heartedly.. I.e. you agree with your whole heart.
Bullshit
I'd like to point out that the US and Canada are not the only countries in North America... There are 23 sovereign nations in North America. Did the author check to see if none of these countries have right to repair laws? I highly doubt it...
Furthermore, this would be in-line with the European Commission's directive 2002/98/EC that wants member states of the EU to encourage renumeration-free blood donations, specifically. Incentives that involve payment for cash are the opposite of their desired ends, and one has to respect that.
No I don't. I absolutely do not respect it. You're running around with your holier-than-thou bullshit and, at the same time, (as several others have pointed out) you're (Europe) buying your plasma products from the United States because we have more than we need. We have enough to sell because we cash incentivize our "donations".
Forcing people to be on a donation list? FUCK YOU. Fuck you in your ass for thinking you have the moral right to own someone's body parts.
Gains are not income.. If you buy a house and overnight it doubles in value, you don't have more money. You probably will have a larger tax bill (less money), but until you sell the house you are not a richer person. If you never sell the house then those gains mean absolutely nothing and should not be taxed.
Same with Buffet. His stock holdings might double in value, but unless he sells said stock, his income has not increased by a penny. If his dividends increase, then sure, he'll owe more taxes.
....dodged almost all the tax on that giving another chunk to charity
Holy fuck.. He gave money away and you're still unhappy...
Nobody is dodging taxes. It's the hypocrisy I hate the most. You know damn well you pay the exact amount of taxes you owe and not a dime more. I suspect you happily take every legal deduction you can. But when someone else does the exact same thing, you get pissed. Too bad..
I just want them to pay their share. If they have 90% of the income then they should pay 90% of the taxes.
Yeah, we all kinda decided that communism sucks. You want a free ride at someone else's expense. Nobody owes you anything.
Typical angry liberal who's mad that someone has more.. Sorry Charlie, but the Universe rewards those who excel. All of Darwinism is built upon that fact.
Considering the fact that the top 1% pay 42% of all income taxes, at what point would you be happy with not soaking them for even more? If they're paying 42% of ALL the personal income tax collected by the IRS, how much is enough? 50%? 100%?
This blurb is from a few years ago, but the gap his widened even more since.
An analysis of IRS data by the Tax Foundation shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government, the highest percentage in modern history. While the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden.
The top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.
Why isn't that enough?
Quit trying to act like a lawyer. You aren't one. You seem to be thinking of "patents". Copyright doesn't have a "significant change" doctrine. In fact, derivative works are specifically included in copyright law as belonging to the original author, not the person who made the changes.
I'm gonna point out, also, that not only are you totally mental, you're the most pure example of an evil communist possible. Rather than dangle a monetary carrot in front of someone to convince them to do what you want them to do, you'd rather use the full force of government against them and until you force them to bend to your will you'd deny them a freedom that is rarely banned in even the most heavily authoritarian regimes.
Simple: Attach some essential privileges like maintaining a driver's license to donating at least 1 unit of blood once per year, or 1 unit of plasma at least once every 3 years. Don't want to donate? Fine. But you cannot have a driver's license, and X other privileges, unless you can show a proven medical reason that makes you ineligible to donate blood/plasma.
Holy fuck.... You're mental. I can't imagine your idea would be taken seriously in any western democracy. Not even the most socialist assholes would.... holy fucksticks...
This is the loophole which needs closed
You seem to be misinformed. Those "loopholes" aren't oversights.. They're put in deliberately, after the fact, usually in unrelated legislation that modifies other legislation. Buffet also uses the capital gains laws to his full advantage, and before you suggest closing all the "loopholes", realize that a person who owns a single home and sells it (CA is being referenced here) is hit with a 15% capital gains tax if they haven't lived in the house for 2+ years, so if you move the 15% tax to the higher personal income tax, you'll absolutely fuck anyone who buys a house, and then who has to sell it because circumstances force them to move somewhere else (job, health, etc). 15% is a big hit as it is, but 30%? It's not always the rich who benefit from the "loopholes"..
"Well, the government tells me not to breathe cinnamon, but fuck that! Just the MAN keeping me down! No way, I'd rather fucking choke myself to death on camera than take sound advice..." - Republicans are literally this dumb.
Democrats are dumb enough to bring up the regulation of inhaling anything when it was Republicans who insisted on locking up hippies for decades for simply inhaling a plant that they said you shouldn't inhale..
Here we are 20 years later and your dumb ass is actually promoting the government banning you from inhaling something. I know it's just a silly example, but you really need to think shit through... Maybe not everything the government declares to be dangerous really is.... Hrm?
Well, if the FDA is this quick to be adamantly against it, then it must be something good and beneficial.
Spoken like someone with access to the safest drug supply in the history of the world who then wants to shit on it from within. Everything is a conspiracy.. EVERYTHING
I donate things all the time. Time, money, and more. I do it without expecting any compensation because I'm not some emotionally stunted libertarian crank.
You're surrounded by civilization, maybe give it a try sometime and see if you like it.
Ah yes, the good old "Everyone who ever expects to be paid for anything I disagree with is a nazi, libertarian, asshole, meanie face.
It's good to see your donations are not altruistic. If they were you wouldn't be using them like clubs to beat shame into those who want to be paid for their time.
In the US, you might get $50 for each of your first few "donations"........... By law, you're limited to two bleedings per week.
No... While your statement regarding two "bleedings" per week might be valid for some jurisdictions, you specified the US as a whole, and your data is wrong.
California limits you to one bleeding per MONTH.
In California, you are only allowed to donate plasma every 28 days. If you are 16, you are only allowed to donate two times in a 12-month period.
That's no good, when the product's primarily donated to save lives
Too bad. Obviously if there's a shortage you need to convince more people to offer up plasma.. Want mine? Open your checkbook. I don't buy in to your communistic approach to products (plasma) that I generate with my body.
I highly suspect that there wouldn't be anything close to a plasma shortage if healthy people were incentivised to donate blood, with cash payments, at whatever level the free market decided it was worth.
I suspect your opposition to this idea is ideological and not rational.
In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which the Supreme Court struck down in 1997 as unconstitutional, saying the CDA "place(d) an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech."
Congress followed that defeat with the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which required commercial Web site operators to use credit cards or other adult access systems to prevent minors from viewing the material. The Supreme Court found that law was too broad in scope for practical enforcement.
it is ALWAYS up to the shop owner.
No it is not.
Hence we have laws.
Can't be so hard to grasp.
The shop owner has no right to put someone outside and keep him outside unless he is a DANGER .... stupid moron.
Thanks for misquoting me, asshole. That's not what I said.
Here, except for race, and a few other classes, it is ALWAYS up to the shop owner.
That is what I said. Word for word. You see where I said HERE? Now you're deliberately misquoting me. You're a fuck face, you know that right?
Now define "unpleasant behavior", asshole. Harassing other customers, or personell ... should be obvious.
But it seems you are one of those rare autists/aspergers who need perfect fitting terms like "discrimination", otherwise you are unable to argue about a certain topic without getting enraged.
You're one of those morons who'll engage in discrimination but not have the balls to admit it. And you stared the name calling first, asshole. I simply followed suit. I'm detecting a pattern here.
You are not allowed to discriminate. The only reason to point one to the door is crime like theft, unpleasant behaviour, lack of hygiene etc..
Now define "unpleasant behavior", asshole.
Yeah, another arbitrary decision. What's unpleasant to one person might be totally acceptable to another. You're an asshole, by the way. (see how I've just made an arbitrary decision? It's awesome.... It's freedom.. I can decide you are a cocksucker, and another person might decide you're an angel.. But it's personal. You CANNOT force me to decide that you're super cool.
Pointing to the door for anything you listed is DISCRIMINATION. It's acceptable discrimination, but it's still discrimination.
discrimination:
n. The act of discriminating.
n. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
n. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
You see that second definition??
Here, you'd not be allowed in the store, because you're a cunt.