why the fuck would Mossad want my information for anything?
I am one of the most boring people on the internet. keeping my records is helping make it more difficult for them to find the people they're interested in, tbh. Let them store my info. Let some lawyer be paid $150/hr to see how many times I've been rickrolled. I'm not saying that stupid thing some say ("if you have nothing to hide you don't care.") I'm saying, I don't care because I have nothing to hide -- and I find it hilarious that someone would pay a lawyer to look at the shit I've done through google's services.
I know what I do with Google isn't going to be kept private, and I have that in mind every time I use them. So the idea that they have all this boring information amuses me.
I tried writing a response to this three times but I have other things to tend to.
I'm not saying the money was free, nor am I defending the decision to spend money/lives in Iraq. Reread my post, in the context of what I replied to, and comprehend what my point was. It had little to do with the funding of Iraq.
I'm not discussing the following on slashdot: Iraq, Katrina, Ron Paul. I reserve the right to add to this list at any time. Kthxbye.
Sorry, I don't buy it. It's like saying all the money spent on Iraq would have been spent on healthcare if we hadn't invaded Iraq. It wouldn't have been spent on Iraq, but it's not like Bush sat down and said "Okay, healthcare, or invasion..." when deciding what he wanted to do over his morning lucky charms or whatever. The money wasn't previously allocated to healthcare, just like the Windows license money wasn't previously budgeted for charity by most people. (Note to morons: plz don't take this as an opening to debate Iraq/national healthcare, as I am not going to argue either in a slashdot thread about RMS and Microsoft, or any slashdot thread, for that matter. This applies to all sides of both issues.)
Also, how many Linux users build their system from the ground up? I did, and not really to avoid the Microsoft "tax" (though I admit that was part of it) -- I did it to be sure the hardware freaking worked in Linux. Or what about people using second hand computers? Or converts after the fact? Dual booters?
If you don't want to pay Microsoft, you can find a way, and sometimes it will end up saving you more than just avoiding their license fees.
Well, he may or may not use the charity to his own benefit, but that's not what my post was mainly about; I was talking about taxes. Because it doesn't benefit him when it comes to taxes in the way a large portion of/. seems to think.
The general opinion seems to be that for every $1 he gives to charity, that's $1 he doesn't pay in taxes. That simply isn't true, which was my main point -- whether or not he benefits from the charity in another way is another matter altogether. But it is NOT doing for his taxes what some think.
Like when you're $10k over some limit that then causes you to pay an extra $20k in taxes.
Um, no.
Income Taxes in the US are a tiered system. If you're $10k over a limit, you pay a % of that $10k, not your overall income. And unless somewhere in our tax code there's a 200% tax bracket, you will not pay $20k taxes on a $10k overage.
Note especially the second bracket; you pay 10% exactly on the highest amount in the first bracket, then 15% on the amount in the second bracket. You do not pay 15% on your entire income. Thus, being $1 over the 10% range does not make you pay $15% on $7826 taxable income. Otherwise, that $1 would cost you $390.40 more than you would have paid*. (Also note that this is taxable income, not gross income. If you only make $7825 it's likely you won't pay a dime of federal income tax.)
The only way you'd end up paying $20k on $10k is if you owed the IRS that $10k and managed to accrue $10k in fines/interest on it. (Which isn't hard, I'd imagine -- but I make a habit of not getting on the bad side of the IRS, so I'm not sure.)
* Just so no one calls me on my math: 10% of 7825 is 782.50, 15% of 7826 is 1173.90. 1173.90 - 782.50 = 391.40, minus the dollar to get you to 7826 = 390.40.
Tax dodge--giving money to a charity reduces his personal income taxes.
But not by a greater amount than what he gives to charity. Here's how it works, because a lot of people don't seem to understand:
Off the top of my head, I think the top income tax rate in the US might be 38%. It might not be, could be lower, could be higher. Let's say 40% for simplicity. If Gates has $10,000 that is taxable at 40%, and $10,000 that is taxable at 30% (because it's a tiered system -- if you're in the top tax bracket, not all of your money is charged at that rate -- the first $X at %A, the next $Y at %B, and so on, up to the top, which is %C of all dollars over $Z, not including Social Security). In our made up, simplified example, he would pay $4,000 on the high percent and $3,000 on the lower percent. Total tax: $7,000.
Let's say he give $5,000 to his charity. Well, now he's paying $3,000 for the 30% range, and $2,000 for the 40% range. Total tax went down by $2,000. But now, he's out $10,000 total. He does not magically get that $5,000 he gave to his charity back -- it's just removed from his taxable income. Let's say he gives $10,000, well, now he's not paying any tax on that money in the 40% range, but he's still paying the $3,000 for the other -- and is now out $13,000, as opposed to his original $7,000.
These numbers are ridiculously simplified, and small compared to his fortune. But he doesn't get some special benefit for giving money to the charity, at least in the tax system.
Disclosure: I am not a tax attorney or financial expert but I do my own taxes.
MTV might not have been cool, but it wasn't all bad in the early 90s, either.
I didn't watch it religiously, so I only remember the stuff I liked and thus watched -- Aeon Flux, MTV's Oddities, and actual music videos before the R&B/Pop/whateverthehellNickelbackis/rap music videos that are mostly unimaginative crap. (There is *one* rap video, with different jerseys and booty dancers.)
Then they hired that weird annoying scarecrow VJ, and the boyband craze started, and Britney and eight THOUSAND Real World marathons and so on and so forth.
Of course, I was a young teenager, so maybe I just grew out of it. But Aeon Flux and the Oddities (c'mon, The Head needs to be on DVD!) are still cool, for cartoons came up with during cocaine binges. (And anybody that saw one episode of The Head knows what I mean...)
Hardware issues I don't have on the same machine with other browsers (ie, Epiphany, or previously, FF 2.0)?
No other application is misbehaving like this. What hardware issue is going to make Firefox randomly pop up an empty pop up while using Google Reader, then crash if I close it?
What could you possibly be doing to crash Firefox every 15 minutes?
Surfing the web with it.
Seriously, I've been using Firefox since before they called it that, and 3.0 is one of the most unstable versions I've ever come across. Of any browser, and I've used a lot of them.
For some reason, when using Google Reader, it randomly pops up an empty pop up window (even though I've told it not to open ANY pop ups), and if I close that window, Firefox simply vanishes. This is on a recent clean install of Ubuntu 8.04, so it's not Windows malware -- it's a fault in Firefox.
I also have a list of complaints as long as my arm about other issues with 3.0. Including the weird way it handles right clicks (sometimes, instead of getting a menu, I automatically get asked to name the bookmark, or an e-mail window pops up, or it automatically opens the link in a new window). I don't know if there's some "Gestures" bullshit I'm missing and can turn off, or if this version is just ass-tastic, but I'm better on the latter.
I am seriously considering downgrading to 2.0. (Actually, with the stability issues... might be an upgrade.)
Then you're going to jail for murder, instead of just robbery, and the cops are more likely to hunt for a murderer.
There's not a rash of "shoot first, rob second" killings in shall-issue states, so somehow, I don't see it happening now.
Every time a state turns shall-issue, someone rants their head off (usually from the Brady Campaign) about how there will be blood in the streets, and mentions the Old West. Yet it doesn't really happen.
Just today, the dickhead Mayor of Chicago whinged that "We should just return to the old west" yada yada. I'm thinking, "Dude, the handgun ban hasn't done *shit* for Chicago's crime rate."
Modern book burnings aren't really censorship; they're morons wasting money. No one is going to buy all of the books published, and as long as they're paying for them, I don't see a problem with it. I'm sure the publishers don't mind, either -- they get their money.
If anything, that sort of behavior makes people curious about the book in question. And when (not if) it turns out the book isn't so bad, then the idiots burning them just look like obstinate jackasses (see: Harry Potter and the religious people that are scared of it).
I know this, but I don't have to like it. We'd all be better off if that wasn't true. Pelosi is a shining example of one of the many flaws in our system.
My rep, a Democrat, did in fact vote for it. Given the rest of his record, this vote won't stop me from voting for him in November; there are other issues, and I will never have a candidate I agree with 100% unless I run for office (never happen, I'm too honest).
Okay, I don't usually do this for posts not my own, but who the hell moderated this as flamebait and why? It's a genuinely good point. At some point, if the two big parties are pissing you off, then you can do two things: Vote third party, or don't vote.
Personally, I'd rather someone vote if they're at least somewhat up to date on the issues, as GP appears to be. It's a LOT better than just wasting your vote*. There's nothing flamebaitish about asking someone to at least consider an alternative.
* I only consider not voting as a waste; even if you write in your own name that's at least something. Yes, third parties have a serious uphill battle. But if the people sitting out voted for them instead it would make an impact. And I get a feeling a lot of people will sit this one out.
Slashdot Mirror
why the fuck would Mossad want my information for anything?
I am one of the most boring people on the internet. keeping my records is helping make it more difficult for them to find the people they're interested in, tbh. Let them store my info. Let some lawyer be paid $150/hr to see how many times I've been rickrolled. I'm not saying that stupid thing some say ("if you have nothing to hide you don't care.") I'm saying, I don't care because I have nothing to hide -- and I find it hilarious that someone would pay a lawyer to look at the shit I've done through google's services.
I know what I do with Google isn't going to be kept private, and I have that in mind every time I use them. So the idea that they have all this boring information amuses me.
Show me where $10k more of personal income is going to net you $20k more of taxes, then.
...Sigh.
I tried writing a response to this three times but I have other things to tend to.
I'm not saying the money was free, nor am I defending the decision to spend money/lives in Iraq. Reread my post, in the context of what I replied to, and comprehend what my point was. It had little to do with the funding of Iraq.
I'm not discussing the following on slashdot: Iraq, Katrina, Ron Paul. I reserve the right to add to this list at any time. Kthxbye.
I'm aware; I was pointing out to OP that companies DO make money from Linux, which he/she seemed to be insisting was impossible because of RMS.
Tivo was just the first example of a company I know makes money off of Linux. Probably because there is some controversy about it.
However, I do appreciate the much better examples.
Sorry, I don't buy it. It's like saying all the money spent on Iraq would have been spent on healthcare if we hadn't invaded Iraq. It wouldn't have been spent on Iraq, but it's not like Bush sat down and said "Okay, healthcare, or invasion..." when deciding what he wanted to do over his morning lucky charms or whatever. The money wasn't previously allocated to healthcare, just like the Windows license money wasn't previously budgeted for charity by most people. (Note to morons: plz don't take this as an opening to debate Iraq/national healthcare, as I am not going to argue either in a slashdot thread about RMS and Microsoft, or any slashdot thread, for that matter. This applies to all sides of both issues.)
Also, how many Linux users build their system from the ground up? I did, and not really to avoid the Microsoft "tax" (though I admit that was part of it) -- I did it to be sure the hardware freaking worked in Linux. Or what about people using second hand computers? Or converts after the fact? Dual booters?
If you don't want to pay Microsoft, you can find a way, and sometimes it will end up saving you more than just avoiding their license fees.
Well, he may or may not use the charity to his own benefit, but that's not what my post was mainly about; I was talking about taxes. Because it doesn't benefit him when it comes to taxes in the way a large portion of /. seems to think.
The general opinion seems to be that for every $1 he gives to charity, that's $1 he doesn't pay in taxes. That simply isn't true, which was my main point -- whether or not he benefits from the charity in another way is another matter altogether. But it is NOT doing for his taxes what some think.
Like when you're $10k over some limit that then causes you to pay an extra $20k in taxes.
Um, no.
Income Taxes in the US are a tiered system. If you're $10k over a limit, you pay a % of that $10k, not your overall income. And unless somewhere in our tax code there's a 200% tax bracket, you will not pay $20k taxes on a $10k overage.
See here:
2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules.
Note especially the second bracket; you pay 10% exactly on the highest amount in the first bracket, then 15% on the amount in the second bracket. You do not pay 15% on your entire income. Thus, being $1 over the 10% range does not make you pay $15% on $7826 taxable income. Otherwise, that $1 would cost you $390.40 more than you would have paid*. (Also note that this is taxable income, not gross income. If you only make $7825 it's likely you won't pay a dime of federal income tax.)
The only way you'd end up paying $20k on $10k is if you owed the IRS that $10k and managed to accrue $10k in fines/interest on it. (Which isn't hard, I'd imagine -- but I make a habit of not getting on the bad side of the IRS, so I'm not sure.)
* Just so no one calls me on my math: 10% of 7825 is 782.50, 15% of 7826 is 1173.90. 1173.90 - 782.50 = 391.40, minus the dollar to get you to 7826 = 390.40.
err, I don't really personally like RMS all that much...
But I'm pretty certain companies do in fact use Linux to make money.
Let's start with Tivo...
Tax dodge--giving money to a charity reduces his personal income taxes.
But not by a greater amount than what he gives to charity. Here's how it works, because a lot of people don't seem to understand:
Off the top of my head, I think the top income tax rate in the US might be 38%. It might not be, could be lower, could be higher. Let's say 40% for simplicity. If Gates has $10,000 that is taxable at 40%, and $10,000 that is taxable at 30% (because it's a tiered system -- if you're in the top tax bracket, not all of your money is charged at that rate -- the first $X at %A, the next $Y at %B, and so on, up to the top, which is %C of all dollars over $Z, not including Social Security). In our made up, simplified example, he would pay $4,000 on the high percent and $3,000 on the lower percent. Total tax: $7,000.
Let's say he give $5,000 to his charity. Well, now he's paying $3,000 for the 30% range, and $2,000 for the 40% range. Total tax went down by $2,000. But now, he's out $10,000 total. He does not magically get that $5,000 he gave to his charity back -- it's just removed from his taxable income. Let's say he gives $10,000, well, now he's not paying any tax on that money in the 40% range, but he's still paying the $3,000 for the other -- and is now out $13,000, as opposed to his original $7,000.
These numbers are ridiculously simplified, and small compared to his fortune. But he doesn't get some special benefit for giving money to the charity, at least in the tax system.
Disclosure: I am not a tax attorney or financial expert but I do my own taxes.
Yeah, and we all know people that use Linux instead donate the cost of the Windows license to charity.
MTV might not have been cool, but it wasn't all bad in the early 90s, either.
I didn't watch it religiously, so I only remember the stuff I liked and thus watched -- Aeon Flux, MTV's Oddities, and actual music videos before the R&B/Pop/whateverthehellNickelbackis/rap music videos that are mostly unimaginative crap. (There is *one* rap video, with different jerseys and booty dancers.)
Then they hired that weird annoying scarecrow VJ, and the boyband craze started, and Britney and eight THOUSAND Real World marathons and so on and so forth.
Of course, I was a young teenager, so maybe I just grew out of it. But Aeon Flux and the Oddities (c'mon, The Head needs to be on DVD!) are still cool, for cartoons came up with during cocaine binges. (And anybody that saw one episode of The Head knows what I mean...)
Considering some of the insane problems I've had with 8.04, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that somehow this is a problem with Ubuntu.
Hardware issues I don't have on the same machine with other browsers (ie, Epiphany, or previously, FF 2.0)?
No other application is misbehaving like this. What hardware issue is going to make Firefox randomly pop up an empty pop up while using Google Reader, then crash if I close it?
Unless my mouse suddenly got a raging case of the retarded coinciding with me installing FF3.0, and yours did, too, then I don't think so.
I never had this trouble with Firefox 2.0...
Surfing the web with it.
Seriously, I've been using Firefox since before they called it that, and 3.0 is one of the most unstable versions I've ever come across. Of any browser, and I've used a lot of them.
For some reason, when using Google Reader, it randomly pops up an empty pop up window (even though I've told it not to open ANY pop ups), and if I close that window, Firefox simply vanishes. This is on a recent clean install of Ubuntu 8.04, so it's not Windows malware -- it's a fault in Firefox.
I also have a list of complaints as long as my arm about other issues with 3.0. Including the weird way it handles right clicks (sometimes, instead of getting a menu, I automatically get asked to name the bookmark, or an e-mail window pops up, or it automatically opens the link in a new window). I don't know if there's some "Gestures" bullshit I'm missing and can turn off, or if this version is just ass-tastic, but I'm better on the latter.
I am seriously considering downgrading to 2.0. (Actually, with the stability issues... might be an upgrade.)
Then stop giving ISPs money to get broadband to John Boy.
I can second Gandi. They may not be the cheapest registrar but I have had *zero* problems with them.
Trigger locks aren't a requirement in the rest of the country, either.
And the death rates aren't nearly as high as anti-gun people want to make you think.
Then you're going to jail for murder, instead of just robbery, and the cops are more likely to hunt for a murderer.
There's not a rash of "shoot first, rob second" killings in shall-issue states, so somehow, I don't see it happening now.
Every time a state turns shall-issue, someone rants their head off (usually from the Brady Campaign) about how there will be blood in the streets, and mentions the Old West. Yet it doesn't really happen.
Just today, the dickhead Mayor of Chicago whinged that "We should just return to the old west" yada yada. I'm thinking, "Dude, the handgun ban hasn't done *shit* for Chicago's crime rate."
Modern book burnings aren't really censorship; they're morons wasting money. No one is going to buy all of the books published, and as long as they're paying for them, I don't see a problem with it. I'm sure the publishers don't mind, either -- they get their money.
If anything, that sort of behavior makes people curious about the book in question. And when (not if) it turns out the book isn't so bad, then the idiots burning them just look like obstinate jackasses (see: Harry Potter and the religious people that are scared of it).
Not everyone lives in a place with a choice for ISPs.
Should they move, too, just because an ISP is shitty?
I know this, but I don't have to like it. We'd all be better off if that wasn't true. Pelosi is a shining example of one of the many flaws in our system.
My rep, a Democrat, did in fact vote for it. Given the rest of his record, this vote won't stop me from voting for him in November; there are other issues, and I will never have a candidate I agree with 100% unless I run for office (never happen, I'm too honest).
Okay, I don't usually do this for posts not my own, but who the hell moderated this as flamebait and why? It's a genuinely good point. At some point, if the two big parties are pissing you off, then you can do two things: Vote third party, or don't vote.
Personally, I'd rather someone vote if they're at least somewhat up to date on the issues, as GP appears to be. It's a LOT better than just wasting your vote*. There's nothing flamebaitish about asking someone to at least consider an alternative.
* I only consider not voting as a waste; even if you write in your own name that's at least something. Yes, third parties have a serious uphill battle. But if the people sitting out voted for them instead it would make an impact. And I get a feeling a lot of people will sit this one out.