I agree. Some wannabe-journo "blogger" or someone looking to get a "news" website started plagiarized some newspaper content, and gets busted. I think it's a good thing, even though I'm generally in favor of weaker (meaning drastically shorter) copyrights.
Rule of law, people. Rule of law. If you don't like the law, get it changed though the various means available to you.
So here's a radical idea. Let's allow the failing businesses to fail, so they can be replaced by new businesses that will have (hopefully) learned from the mistakes of their predecessors.
The problem that I see is that we continue to prop up failing businesses at the expense of the taxpayer.
So I should pay more so someone in China doesn't have to starve?
Or, did you mean that I should pay LESS so someone in China doesn't have to starve?
How about this: I pay whatever it costs to produce a product with the design, functionality, and level of quality that I require, in the market that I participate in?
LED backlit LCD's consume about 1/2 the power of a florescent lit one, not to mention the lack of Mercury.
You mean like this fluorescent backlit 55" LCD (available from Costco) that consumes 122W, compared to this (also available from Costco), which is the LED-backlit version, which consumes 150W?
Er wait.
That's not right. Or maybe you're just making numbers up?
They have a contract for "free expanded basic cable". Does this contract define exactly what that is? Does it say what will take it's place should "expanded basic cable" cease to exist?
Sure, of course. I have no problem paying my taxes. I do, however, have a problem with those who draw from the pool but contribute nothing.
Once you remove the incentive to contribute, you'll have to start requiring those who produce to contribute more and more, because there's always a large group of lazy people who are willing to let everyone else take care of them.
You mean, that box on your front lawn that they own? Yeah, I guess they do have a monopoly on that. I bet if you put up a "FedEx" box on the front lawn, FedEx would deliver into that box for you instead of your doorstep.
I know America isn't ready to face a the simple truth: The government need to generate more revenue. There really sin't any service left we can cut without dramatically undermining the countries future.
This mean higher taxes. Taxing transaction might be a good start.
You say that as an absolute, but I disagree. I think America isn't ready to face THIS truth:
The people need to be responsible for themselves, and shouldn't expect others to take care of them. This means that there won't be government-funded health care, won't be government-funded welfare, won't be a "farm bill", won't be government bailouts, won't be government-funded home loans, won't be government-funded fixes when people insist on building their houses below sea level in hurricane zones.
I'd say there are PLENTY of programs to cut. The problem is, there are too many looters and not enough producers left.
What we need is a directive. Maybe we'll call it, oh, I dunno, 10-289. It'll require the USPS to continue to provide the current service at the current rates, indefinitely.
I mean, we don't want to give up Saturday delivery, right? And we don't want to give those fat cats any more money, so they can get richer while we suffer! Why should we have to suffer because they just want to get richer? Where's their sense of social responsibility?
How do you figure? The wealthy would only pay a smaller percentage if they spent less than they made. Even if they did that, they'd be paying *MORE* taxes than the poor, even if they only spent as much as the poor. In that case, who cares if they have piles of unspent cash laying around? The moment they spent it, the percentage of their income they paid in tax would be identical to the poor.
Since the volume of all transactions is estimated to be 100 times larger than the current tax base
That's a pretty fundamental point that wasn't substantiated (in my 2.5 minute reading of the website). All the numbers he gives hang on that being true. What if it turned out to be false?
It's called a Health Savings Account. You have to have a "High Deductible Health Plan" to be able to open one. Once the money's in there, it's yours. You can use it to pay for medical bills, or you can pay the tax on it and take it out in cash (similar to a Roth IRA, I believe).
I dunno. You seem to have more faith in humanity than I do. I *WANT* to believe, but man, it just seems like the intelligent people are vastly outnumbered...
Regardless, I have a close family member in the "biz". Companies do a LOT of market research. On a LOT of stuff that you wouldn't believe. They don't shoot from the hip. The information they receive isn't always *CORRECT*, but they put a lot of time and effort into gathering it.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Some wannabe-journo "blogger" or someone looking to get a "news" website started plagiarized some newspaper content, and gets busted. I think it's a good thing, even though I'm generally in favor of weaker (meaning drastically shorter) copyrights.
Rule of law, people. Rule of law. If you don't like the law, get it changed though the various means available to you.
So here's a radical idea. Let's allow the failing businesses to fail, so they can be replaced by new businesses that will have (hopefully) learned from the mistakes of their predecessors.
The problem that I see is that we continue to prop up failing businesses at the expense of the taxpayer.
So I should pay more so someone in China doesn't have to starve?
Or, did you mean that I should pay LESS so someone in China doesn't have to starve?
How about this: I pay whatever it costs to produce a product with the design, functionality, and level of quality that I require, in the market that I participate in?
LED backlit LCD's consume about 1/2 the power of a florescent lit one, not to mention the lack of Mercury.
You mean like this fluorescent backlit 55" LCD (available from Costco) that consumes 122W, compared to this (also available from Costco), which is the LED-backlit version, which consumes 150W?
Er wait.
That's not right. Or maybe you're just making numbers up?
Ah, I see. It's *OUR* fault Dell sold infected motherboards.
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Just wondering, what's it caused by?
Yeah let's use Adobe(TM) wheels instead. They're much much better.
You're an aberration. Seriously. GP is right, the initiative almost always comes from environment (home, peer, school).
It can also be useful to use a using block to determine the scope of an object or objects after which they will be disposed.
"Disposed" and "garbage collected" are not the same thing. C# doesn't have deterministic finalization, and IDisposable/using does NOT change that.
That said, I love C# and I use it every day. Much much nicer than the VB/C/C++/Java I have used/also use.
They have a contract for "free expanded basic cable". Does this contract define exactly what that is? Does it say what will take it's place should "expanded basic cable" cease to exist?
Yeah, I don't know either.
Sure, of course. I have no problem paying my taxes. I do, however, have a problem with those who draw from the pool but contribute nothing.
Once you remove the incentive to contribute, you'll have to start requiring those who produce to contribute more and more, because there's always a large group of lazy people who are willing to let everyone else take care of them.
Right, I agree. At the end of the day, the people doing WORK (Ayn Rand would call them "Producers") are the ones paying taxes.
Wow, who can we elect to get THAT interpretation slimmed down?
Does that mean I can't pay DHL to deliver a letter for me without the USPS' permission?
You mean, that box on your front lawn that they own? Yeah, I guess they do have a monopoly on that. I bet if you put up a "FedEx" box on the front lawn, FedEx would deliver into that box for you instead of your doorstep.
Monopoly over?
H
I know America isn't ready to face a the simple truth:
The government need to generate more revenue. There really sin't any service left we can cut without dramatically undermining the countries future.
This mean higher taxes. Taxing transaction might be a good start.
You say that as an absolute, but I disagree. I think America isn't ready to face THIS truth:
The people need to be responsible for themselves, and shouldn't expect others to take care of them. This means that there won't be government-funded health care, won't be government-funded welfare, won't be a "farm bill", won't be government bailouts, won't be government-funded home loans, won't be government-funded fixes when people insist on building their houses below sea level in hurricane zones.
I'd say there are PLENTY of programs to cut. The problem is, there are too many looters and not enough producers left.
I agree.
What we need is a directive. Maybe we'll call it, oh, I dunno, 10-289. It'll require the USPS to continue to provide the current service at the current rates, indefinitely.
I mean, we don't want to give up Saturday delivery, right? And we don't want to give those fat cats any more money, so they can get richer while we suffer! Why should we have to suffer because they just want to get richer? Where's their sense of social responsibility?
And consumers pass them on to employers... And employers pass them on to customers... and so on. I think that noone, in reality, pays taxes.
How do you figure? The wealthy would only pay a smaller percentage if they spent less than they made. Even if they did that, they'd be paying *MORE* taxes than the poor, even if they only spent as much as the poor. In that case, who cares if they have piles of unspent cash laying around? The moment they spent it, the percentage of their income they paid in tax would be identical to the poor.
Since the volume of all transactions is estimated to be 100 times larger than the current tax base
That's a pretty fundamental point that wasn't substantiated (in my 2.5 minute reading of the website). All the numbers he gives hang on that being true. What if it turned out to be false?
Seems like that'd be the catch, to me.
What kinds of mail, exactly, does the USPS have a monopoly on?
It's called a Health Savings Account. You have to have a "High Deductible Health Plan" to be able to open one. Once the money's in there, it's yours. You can use it to pay for medical bills, or you can pay the tax on it and take it out in cash (similar to a Roth IRA, I believe).
Did you have actual arguments, or only ad hominem attacks?
I dunno. You seem to have more faith in humanity than I do. I *WANT* to believe, but man, it just seems like the intelligent people are vastly outnumbered...
Regardless, I have a close family member in the "biz". Companies do a LOT of market research. On a LOT of stuff that you wouldn't believe. They don't shoot from the hip. The information they receive isn't always *CORRECT*, but they put a lot of time and effort into gathering it.