If you think there is any real difference between the (R) and (D) besides flavor of bs at election time WAKE UP.
The last time they told us there was no difference between the (R) and the (D) we got Bush instead of Gore. I don't think we want to fall for that again.
Not that Democrats are angels, but I believe they'll at least lube up before they fuck us.
How does spending a bunch of money paying people to fix roads prevent "the market" from reorganizing?
By "reorganize," do you mean that people without jobs just need to go live with their parents? Or maybe die off quietly so they aren't a problem any more?
I'm more worried that this taxes people on their way to becoming rich.
Until wealth stops being the primary determining factor in who makes the laws that govern the world, I'm all for anything that keeps people from becoming rich, or at least makes it *very* difficult to a) become and b) remain rich. That said, anyone should be able to earn a decent living with an honest job, and a degree of financial freedom along with it as long as they spend responsibly, and if you disagree with this statement then I'm going to give you a nice big "fuck you, your attitude is part of the problem."
The problem with large concentrations of wealth is the distorting influence they have on both the economy and the government. The system of political influence has piggybacked itself onto our economic system, but the biggest problem with that is that very, very few people have access to that system of political influence. And the stronger, more entrenched that system becomes, the fewer people have access to it, because those in power continue distorting the system in their favor.
Now I don't believe that the people in power are necessarily greedy, evil megalomaniacs who want to rule the world; they're just using the system in their own rational self interest to promote their own agenda, which is exactly what libertarians claim is what guides the 'invisible hand.' The problem is that over decades and centuries of tweaks to this system, along with the effects of compound interest and the ability to use money to make money, the entrenched system we have today is clearly broken and heavily weighted in favor of those already extremely wealthy few, and any calls to attempt to shift the power back are met with shrill cries of "class warfare!"
That's not what happens. The higher your make the tax rate, the more people will find ways to not pay it and you will generally collect less. The lower the tax rate, the less incentive people have to find ways to not pay taxes. Somewhere along that curve is an "zone" that maximizes revenue...
Oh bullshit. Anyone making that kind of money already has a personal accountant doing all of their taxes who already knows about all the loopholes. Will this push some people along the edges of being "rich" into hiring an accountant? Sure. Will this have any effect on the accounting habits of the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1%, where all the money is? Nope.
You know, you dipshits with your conspiracy theories never cease to amaze me.
Warren Buffet suggests that people like him aren't paying enough in taxes: you immediately assume it's because he just wants to make more money selling his tax avoidance services, pat yourself on the back for being able to see through the bullshit, and even get mods to circle jerk you to a +3.
Glenn Beck says "Buy gold!" on his show, then during commercial breaks shills for a company that fucking deals in gold, and you see him as just giving helpful financial advice.
Of course, maybe this doesn't apply to you, personally, and in that case I apologize. However, most of the people who bitch about Warren Buffet are pretty predictable when it comes to their beliefs, so I'd be willing to put money on you being, in fact, one of these kinds of dipshits.
I love the fact that at its core Star Wars is a religious struggle between two extremists factions (Instead of dark and light let's call them far left and far right) in space but because these religions have cool tangible powers masses of intellectuals, agnostics and atheists brush off the religious and political overtones to cheer on their side.
It's easier to have fun and cheer on a side when *everyone* knows it's all just make-believe.
The government *should* be the cumulative will of its people. In that case, it obviously has to be more powerful than the individual. One person's desires shouldn't trump everyone else.
Unless, of course, you think that any random idiot should be able to stake a claim to any land anywhere they want, for instance. Oh, but that's one of the few things that libertarians agree a government *can* do -- enforce their property rights. How can a government enforce property rights if it has less power than individuals?
No, that's not just an unchallenged assumption; it's almost the very *definition* of government. If (all) individuals have more power than the government, what's its purpose? That's just anarchy.
Supply and Demand. Their is either a small supply of people qualified to be such a banker. Or there is such a demand of such a person that they get paid more.
You forgot option C: bankers have a disproportionate amount of influence on where money goes, and use that influence to make sure they get their "share."
Get rid of mental clutches and start using your brain is my advice. You'd be surprised how much you can learn if your tool doesn't stifle you.
This is some asinine advice. It makes about as much sense as telling a carpenter to get rid of the 'crutch' dovetailing jig on his router and go back to manually cutting them using a saw. There is merit to knowing the old methods so you can use them in a pinch; there is NO merit to refusing to use new tools because they make the job easier.
I use my brain to solve problems; I use my IDE to help me quickly generate the code that implements my solutions.
If, on the other hand, your notions of "improve energy efficiency" reduce to "everyone, everywhere, has to get rid of their old, inefficient devices and replace them RIGHT NOW with new, higher efficiency devices", then "improving energy efficiency" means hardship for all but the very rich everywhere.
Name a place where a policy like this has been enforced. Name just one. I dare you.
First, the study of climate (or astronomy) is not strictly a science. There are no opportunities to conduct controlled experiments.
Umm, I have to say BULL SHIT to this. There is no requirement that controlled experiments have to be possible to make something 'science'; only that it provides a prediction/hypothesis, that there's a way to test the prediction/hypothesis, and that the results are repeatable.
As for astronomy, you *can* conduct experiments and test hypotheses, and that's all science is. You say, "well, if there's X mass and Y energy in this system, we expect it to behave this way." Then you observe and see how the system behaves. Didn't go the way they thought? Well, try to come up with a new model to build a better hypothesis to predict how the system behaves. That's what astronomers do. That's science. End of story.
By your argument, even the study of evolution would be classified as "not strictly science" -- we can't drop stuff on an empty planet and watch for 5 billion years to perform a controlled experiment.
But I guess you probably just want to find some rationalization for why climate science isn't "real" science to validate the fact that you don't want to believe its conclusions.
Or another way to look at it: EA could deliver a game in a genre that would have given a somewhat unique experience that draws on games from a 20-year-old franchise, and people who were fans of those games might have bought them. They might also pick up some sales to people who just want to play something different.
Instead they're delivering a game that's just another in the glut of 1st person shooters out there, and the fans of the games it's "based" on won't buy it, and 1st person shooter fans probably won't buy it either, because it's not going to be a top-tier game that everyone else is playing.
The problem is that if Amazon loses this argument (not this particular case), it will set a precedent that the one person web site that sells stuff will, also, have to collect sales tax for every state and local that they ship to.
No, it doesn't. To paraphrase Walter: "You're out of your element. Shut the fuck up, Donny."
The reason Amazon should have to collect state sales tax in California is because they are a company with a presence in California, shipping to someone in California from a location in California.
The guy in Mississippi, in this case, would only be required to collect sales tax if they were shipping to Someplace, Mississippi. And even then, they'd likely be able to fly under the radar, and none of us would really care about it. The pragmatic solution is that laws should be applied where they have the largest net benefit; Amazon does a lot of business and forcing them to comply will recapture a lot of lost income for the state. Going after every housewife selling $100 worth jewelry or quilts per month on Ebay is hardly an effective use of resources.
When you find the government jailing housewives for not collecting every cent of sales tax, come back and talk to me. Until then you're just paranoid of a slippery slope argument.
Conservatives love what conservatives love, until it conflicts with something else they love more. At that point, the thing they used to love becomes an evil socialist progressive liberal idea, and was probably thought up by George Soros.
The money was taxed when it was given to me (in my paycheck) and will be taxed when Amazon announces their profits, and will be taxed again when Amazon uses it to pay their payroll or buy materials
Oh my Zod, you're right.
Then it will be taxed again when Amazon's employees spend it, then it will be taxed again when the employers that Amazon employees shop at pay their own employees, who will then be taxed again when *they* spend it, continuously and forever until all of the money is gone for good, snatched away into the government coffers!
Thank you for shedding light on this chilling fact.
Nobody expected Bush jr. to be anything but the incompetent warmongering buffoon he proved himself.
Actually, the 2000 election was mostly billed as "Gore and Bush are really so similar and centrist, it doesn't even matter who you vote for." Other than the shady dealings in Florida, the first 9 months of Bush were mostly ho-hum.
But the same thing can be said of fax machines; the cheap ones will break under heavy use. If you're doing a lot of faxing, you'll need to spring for a better machine.
And on top of that, if $100 vs. $300 for quality hardware is going to break your business, your business has far bigger problems than deciding between fax and email.
but it's another to put them in a tank and tell them to shell the neighborhood where they grew up.
Fortunately, they won't ever be told to do that. The guys from Iowa will be shipped off to California where they can blow shit up, while guys from Florida get to go shoot Yankees in the Northeast.
Shit, even cops who grew up in a smallish town are able to adopt an us-vs-them attitude towards the *people they grew up with.* It's not very difficult to envision random soldiers having no moral dilemmas when asked to protect the USA from domestic terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think there is any real difference between the (R) and (D) besides flavor of bs at election time WAKE UP.
The last time they told us there was no difference between the (R) and the (D) we got Bush instead of Gore. I don't think we want to fall for that again.
Not that Democrats are angels, but I believe they'll at least lube up before they fuck us.
--Jeremy
Was just curious, so I checked out a quick Google search for "you're completely pathetic."
A Slashdot thread was the #1 hit. Congrats, Mike.
--Jeremy -- not a pseudonym, but my mum's face probably did something for you to insult
How does spending a bunch of money paying people to fix roads prevent "the market" from reorganizing?
By "reorganize," do you mean that people without jobs just need to go live with their parents? Or maybe die off quietly so they aren't a problem any more?
--Jeremy
Instead [Samsung] are defending their right to use the the interface that Apple developed.
That's Apple's take on the matter, anyway. Most sane people think they're full of shit.
--Jeremy
Good job missing the entire point.
--Jeremy
I'm more worried that this taxes people on their way to becoming rich.
Until wealth stops being the primary determining factor in who makes the laws that govern the world, I'm all for anything that keeps people from becoming rich, or at least makes it *very* difficult to a) become and b) remain rich. That said, anyone should be able to earn a decent living with an honest job, and a degree of financial freedom along with it as long as they spend responsibly, and if you disagree with this statement then I'm going to give you a nice big "fuck you, your attitude is part of the problem."
The problem with large concentrations of wealth is the distorting influence they have on both the economy and the government. The system of political influence has piggybacked itself onto our economic system, but the biggest problem with that is that very, very few people have access to that system of political influence. And the stronger, more entrenched that system becomes, the fewer people have access to it, because those in power continue distorting the system in their favor.
Now I don't believe that the people in power are necessarily greedy, evil megalomaniacs who want to rule the world; they're just using the system in their own rational self interest to promote their own agenda, which is exactly what libertarians claim is what guides the 'invisible hand.' The problem is that over decades and centuries of tweaks to this system, along with the effects of compound interest and the ability to use money to make money, the entrenched system we have today is clearly broken and heavily weighted in favor of those already extremely wealthy few, and any calls to attempt to shift the power back are met with shrill cries of "class warfare!"
--Jeremy
That's not what happens. The higher your make the tax rate, the more people will find ways to not pay it and you will generally collect less. The lower the tax rate, the less incentive people have to find ways to not pay taxes. Somewhere along that curve is an "zone" that maximizes revenue...
Oh bullshit. Anyone making that kind of money already has a personal accountant doing all of their taxes who already knows about all the loopholes. Will this push some people along the edges of being "rich" into hiring an accountant? Sure. Will this have any effect on the accounting habits of the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1%, where all the money is? Nope.
--Jeremy
You know, you dipshits with your conspiracy theories never cease to amaze me.
Warren Buffet suggests that people like him aren't paying enough in taxes: you immediately assume it's because he just wants to make more money selling his tax avoidance services, pat yourself on the back for being able to see through the bullshit, and even get mods to circle jerk you to a +3.
Glenn Beck says "Buy gold!" on his show, then during commercial breaks shills for a company that fucking deals in gold, and you see him as just giving helpful financial advice.
Of course, maybe this doesn't apply to you, personally, and in that case I apologize. However, most of the people who bitch about Warren Buffet are pretty predictable when it comes to their beliefs, so I'd be willing to put money on you being, in fact, one of these kinds of dipshits.
--Jeremy
I love the fact that at its core Star Wars is a religious struggle between two extremists factions (Instead of dark and light let's call them far left and far right) in space but because these religions have cool tangible powers masses of intellectuals, agnostics and atheists brush off the religious and political overtones to cheer on their side.
It's easier to have fun and cheer on a side when *everyone* knows it's all just make-believe.
--Jeremy
The government *should* be the cumulative will of its people. In that case, it obviously has to be more powerful than the individual. One person's desires shouldn't trump everyone else.
Unless, of course, you think that any random idiot should be able to stake a claim to any land anywhere they want, for instance. Oh, but that's one of the few things that libertarians agree a government *can* do -- enforce their property rights. How can a government enforce property rights if it has less power than individuals?
No, that's not just an unchallenged assumption; it's almost the very *definition* of government. If (all) individuals have more power than the government, what's its purpose? That's just anarchy.
--Jeremy
We can leave false and misleading advertising to Obama's next speech.
I think you mean "We can leave false and misleading statements to the next time any politician running for office opens their mouth."
--Jeremy
Supply and Demand.
Their is either a small supply of people qualified to be such a banker. Or there is such a demand of such a person that they get paid more.
You forgot option C: bankers have a disproportionate amount of influence on where money goes, and use that influence to make sure they get their "share."
--Jeremy
Get rid of mental clutches and start using your brain is my advice. You'd be surprised how much you can learn if your tool doesn't stifle you.
This is some asinine advice. It makes about as much sense as telling a carpenter to get rid of the 'crutch' dovetailing jig on his router and go back to manually cutting them using a saw. There is merit to knowing the old methods so you can use them in a pinch; there is NO merit to refusing to use new tools because they make the job easier.
I use my brain to solve problems; I use my IDE to help me quickly generate the code that implements my solutions.
--Jeremy
If, on the other hand, your notions of "improve energy efficiency" reduce to "everyone, everywhere, has to get rid of their old, inefficient devices and replace them RIGHT NOW with new, higher efficiency devices", then "improving energy efficiency" means hardship for all but the very rich everywhere.
Name a place where a policy like this has been enforced. Name just one. I dare you.
--Jeremy
First, the study of climate (or astronomy) is not strictly a science. There are no opportunities to conduct controlled experiments.
Umm, I have to say BULL SHIT to this. There is no requirement that controlled experiments have to be possible to make something 'science'; only that it provides a prediction/hypothesis, that there's a way to test the prediction/hypothesis, and that the results are repeatable.
As for astronomy, you *can* conduct experiments and test hypotheses, and that's all science is. You say, "well, if there's X mass and Y energy in this system, we expect it to behave this way." Then you observe and see how the system behaves. Didn't go the way they thought? Well, try to come up with a new model to build a better hypothesis to predict how the system behaves. That's what astronomers do. That's science. End of story.
By your argument, even the study of evolution would be classified as "not strictly science" -- we can't drop stuff on an empty planet and watch for 5 billion years to perform a controlled experiment.
But I guess you probably just want to find some rationalization for why climate science isn't "real" science to validate the fact that you don't want to believe its conclusions.
--Jeremy
Or another way to look at it: EA could deliver a game in a genre that would have given a somewhat unique experience that draws on games from a 20-year-old franchise, and people who were fans of those games might have bought them. They might also pick up some sales to people who just want to play something different.
Instead they're delivering a game that's just another in the glut of 1st person shooters out there, and the fans of the games it's "based" on won't buy it, and 1st person shooter fans probably won't buy it either, because it's not going to be a top-tier game that everyone else is playing.
--Jeremy
Now, if they did some of the things they talked about for 7 (which might have warranted it actually being version 7.0 instead of 6.1)
It's an arbitrary numbering scheme. Windows 7 is an arbitrary name. This is an idiotic complaint that brings back the specter of commodore_64_love.
--Jeremy
The problem is that if Amazon loses this argument (not this particular case), it will set a precedent that the one person web site that sells stuff will, also, have to collect sales tax for every state and local that they ship to.
No, it doesn't. To paraphrase Walter: "You're out of your element. Shut the fuck up, Donny."
The reason Amazon should have to collect state sales tax in California is because they are a company with a presence in California, shipping to someone in California from a location in California.
The guy in Mississippi, in this case, would only be required to collect sales tax if they were shipping to Someplace, Mississippi. And even then, they'd likely be able to fly under the radar, and none of us would really care about it. The pragmatic solution is that laws should be applied where they have the largest net benefit; Amazon does a lot of business and forcing them to comply will recapture a lot of lost income for the state. Going after every housewife selling $100 worth jewelry or quilts per month on Ebay is hardly an effective use of resources.
When you find the government jailing housewives for not collecting every cent of sales tax, come back and talk to me. Until then you're just paranoid of a slippery slope argument.
--Jeremy
Conservatives love what conservatives love, until it conflicts with something else they love more. At that point, the thing they used to love becomes an evil socialist progressive liberal idea, and was probably thought up by George Soros.
--Jeremy
The money was taxed when it was given to me (in my paycheck) and will be taxed when Amazon announces their profits, and will be taxed again when Amazon uses it to pay their payroll or buy materials
Oh my Zod, you're right.
Then it will be taxed again when Amazon's employees spend it, then it will be taxed again when the employers that Amazon employees shop at pay their own employees, who will then be taxed again when *they* spend it, continuously and forever until all of the money is gone for good, snatched away into the government coffers!
Thank you for shedding light on this chilling fact.
--Jeremy
This tired argument gets really old.
Believe it or not, there are quite a few people working for the federal government. It can work on more than one thing at a time.
--Jeremy
Nobody expected Bush jr. to be anything but the incompetent warmongering buffoon he proved himself.
Actually, the 2000 election was mostly billed as "Gore and Bush are really so similar and centrist, it doesn't even matter who you vote for." Other than the shady dealings in Florida, the first 9 months of Bush were mostly ho-hum.
In retrospect, I think we were all lied to.
--Jeremy
But the same thing can be said of fax machines; the cheap ones will break under heavy use. If you're doing a lot of faxing, you'll need to spring for a better machine.
And on top of that, if $100 vs. $300 for quality hardware is going to break your business, your business has far bigger problems than deciding between fax and email.
--Jeremy
So yes becoming too big is a problem since that leads to a communist system aka the opposite of capitalist
*sigh* Why are people who are still worried about the commies all so clueless? Or did I just answer my own question?
--Jeremy
but it's another to put them in a tank and tell them to shell the neighborhood where they grew up.
Fortunately, they won't ever be told to do that. The guys from Iowa will be shipped off to California where they can blow shit up, while guys from Florida get to go shoot Yankees in the Northeast.
Shit, even cops who grew up in a smallish town are able to adopt an us-vs-them attitude towards the *people they grew up with.* It's not very difficult to envision random soldiers having no moral dilemmas when asked to protect the USA from domestic terrorists.
--Jeremy