Not really. I think he is professing the KISS mantra.
It's often cheeper to throw money at newer, faster, unmanaged, unsophisticated hardware than to try to "manage" everything. People are often the most expensive part of running a business.
It's not just wages, its benefits, taxes, paperwork etc.
We aren't talking about corporate taxes, IIRC, just personal. But I have a way to solve this gross/net cunundrum. We should eliminate the corporate income tax. Just tax capital gains and dividends as income. That should partially balance out the loss of the corporate income tax and it would encourage more investment from the poor, since their tax rate is lower than the current capital gains rate.
Re:Sounds good, but there'd still be loopholes
on
No EZ Fix For The IRS
·
· Score: 1
...So eliminate the corporate income tax and tax capital gains and dividends at the same rate as income.
Pay has little to do with whether the work is hard or easy. It has to do with how much $$$ you make for the company and the availabilty of qualified people to do the job.
People need to stop thinking of pay as some sort of moral value judgement about who works "harder", because there is now real objective way to determine what is "fair".
While Apple does have "easy to use" computers, I think it's wrong to say they have the same mentality as the "AOL is the internet crowd". Apple users are "ignorant" in a different way. It's complex OS and hardware things that the Mac crowd doesn't want to be bothered with. Hence the "It just works" attitute. However, most Macophites are perfectly willing to learn things like applications and proper internet ettiquite. Thats part of being a USER. And it's a reasonable expectation, they want to be end users, not sysamins, and their Mac lets them do that.
As a side note, according to many surverys, Mac users tend to be weathier than the average computer user and more net savvy.
You don't think Redhat offers as much corporate backing as Novel/SuSE? Redhat's loss in market share is more a statistical trick than truth. Because now the FC users don't count. Look at how Redhat Enterprise is doing now, very well. I don't think Redhat ever expected home/SMB users to pony up for the enterprise linux. Thats why they finally released Pro for like $40.
I agree that preventing two men from getting married constitutes discrimination. The idea of marriage is inherently discriminatory however, so I don't find the argument legally compelling. (OTOH IANAL). Basically marriage is a priviledge, not a right, otherwise everyone show get the benefits. Of course I think laws banning cohabitation and the like constitute and unconstitutional invasion of government power. We are talking about confering special status to certain groups, If marriage excludes anyone (and is still constitutional) then banning homosexual marriage is constitutional. Of course if a state really wants to allow it through the democratic process our constitution is silent on such matters.
Let's get the timeline right. 1441 was passed, declaring that Iraq was in material breech of previous resolutions and the 1991 cease fire agreement. They WERE given a 2nd chance to readmit inspectors and give full cooperation (much like Libya is not). They did not cooperate fully of course, so the US asked the UN to endorse the resumption of the war. The UN was unable to agree to said endorsement. But did the US require explict UN approval, or was it just politically more expeditent?
"Are you saying that foreign treaties are binding, except if the president prefers to ignore them?"
No, he's saying that they aren't binding if the USSC rules them unconstitutional. Treaties have equivalent power to federal law, but they are still subject to the constitution.
The UN can't declare war, thats not part of its mission. What it did was express approval for going to war, the cease fire wasn't signed by the UN, its was signed by countries that actually had troops there.
While not all moral beliefs should be made into laws, the very idea of "human rights" is a moral belief. It wasn't always believed that individuals had rights, and in some cultures it still isn't.
That idea was primarily a product of the enlightenment. And the justification for rights was "religious" and relied on "devine rights". Go read the magna carta.
Actually most of our budget is spend on social spending
Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are well over half of the budget, and their share continues to grow, as it has been for a long time. Defense spending has been falling for a long time, compared to total tax revenue. Whether you agree with social spending or not, you cannot pretend that it doesn't make up the great majority of our budget.
Actually the US or EU will be most likely to move to alternative energy sources first. Simply because or the nature of our economies and the current level of research.
Look at yesterdays WSJ.
Thousands becoming extinct per day huh?
I hope you were just engaging in hyperbole, because I haven't seen any statistics that bad, even from the most wild eyed alarmist.
There are two solutions to this.
1. Webmail. (Yeah it sucks, but it is a workaround)
2. Use SMTP over SSL on the alternate port, if your sending domain offers it.
Firewalling port 25 is an ugly, desperate hack that Large ISPs use to keep their network from being blacklisted.
If your ISP adopts SPF records though it shouldn't need to block outgoing port 25, as it has a method for others to avoid spam generated by its customers.
Two problems with your arguement.
Firstly, at the time the constitution was written, that phrase "a well regulated milita" was basically any able-bodied and sane individual, certainly not a body formally in the employ of the government. Early on in the history of the US, there was heavy opposition to the existance of a standing army. There was a fundamental distrust of power, period. Your interpretation runs contrary to everything we know about US history.
If you think that the ammendment is archaic, then fine, you try to ammend the constitution. But don't try to convince me that it means something other than what it does.
Secondly, grammatically speaking, the opening clause isn't a restrictive clause. It doesn't contain any qualifiers. It doesn't restrict or change what follows. It DOES offer a rationale, nothing more or less.
Yes everyone can get a gun, drive thru, barring fealons or anyone the a court would deem legally insane. (Because you are allowed to restrict rights under those circumstances.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. I think he is professing the KISS mantra. It's often cheeper to throw money at newer, faster, unmanaged, unsophisticated hardware than to try to "manage" everything. People are often the most expensive part of running a business. It's not just wages, its benefits, taxes, paperwork etc.
We aren't talking about corporate taxes, IIRC, just personal. But I have a way to solve this gross/net cunundrum. We should eliminate the corporate income tax. Just tax capital gains and dividends as income. That should partially balance out the loss of the corporate income tax and it would encourage more investment from the poor, since their tax rate is lower than the current capital gains rate.
...So eliminate the corporate income tax and tax capital gains and dividends at the same rate as income.
Pay has little to do with whether the work is hard or easy. It has to do with how much $$$ you make for the company and the availabilty of qualified people to do the job. People need to stop thinking of pay as some sort of moral value judgement about who works "harder", because there is now real objective way to determine what is "fair".
Most people pushing a flat tax do include a standard deduction so that people below a certain income don't have to pay.
Ahh young grasshopper, you assume that the door has a handle. (or that they even have a door) Many public restrooms don't.
SPF doesn't really break the protocol...
As a side note, according to many surverys, Mac users tend to be weathier than the average computer user and more net savvy.
ROX doesn't solve the problem of different packages for different distros, unless you are going to statically compile everything. Talk about bloat.
You don't think Redhat offers as much corporate backing as Novel/SuSE? Redhat's loss in market share is more a statistical trick than truth. Because now the FC users don't count. Look at how Redhat Enterprise is doing now, very well. I don't think Redhat ever expected home/SMB users to pony up for the enterprise linux. Thats why they finally released Pro for like $40.
I agree that preventing two men from getting married constitutes discrimination. The idea of marriage is inherently discriminatory however, so I don't find the argument legally compelling. (OTOH IANAL). Basically marriage is a priviledge, not a right, otherwise everyone show get the benefits. Of course I think laws banning cohabitation and the like constitute and unconstitutional invasion of government power. We are talking about confering special status to certain groups, If marriage excludes anyone (and is still constitutional) then banning homosexual marriage is constitutional. Of course if a state really wants to allow it through the democratic process our constitution is silent on such matters.
(nt)
That was supposed to say "much like Libya is NOW".
Let's get the timeline right. 1441 was passed, declaring that Iraq was in material breech of previous resolutions and the 1991 cease fire agreement. They WERE given a 2nd chance to readmit inspectors and give full cooperation (much like Libya is not). They did not cooperate fully of course, so the US asked the UN to endorse the resumption of the war. The UN was unable to agree to said endorsement. But did the US require explict UN approval, or was it just politically more expeditent?
No, he's saying that they aren't binding if the USSC rules them unconstitutional. Treaties have equivalent power to federal law, but they are still subject to the constitution.
The UN can't declare war, thats not part of its mission. What it did was express approval for going to war, the cease fire wasn't signed by the UN, its was signed by countries that actually had troops there.
And how would they be unlawful??? I am curious? Were they asked to commit war crimes?
While not all moral beliefs should be made into laws, the very idea of "human rights" is a moral belief. It wasn't always believed that individuals had rights, and in some cultures it still isn't. That idea was primarily a product of the enlightenment. And the justification for rights was "religious" and relied on "devine rights". Go read the magna carta.
Actually most of our budget is spend on social spending Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are well over half of the budget, and their share continues to grow, as it has been for a long time. Defense spending has been falling for a long time, compared to total tax revenue. Whether you agree with social spending or not, you cannot pretend that it doesn't make up the great majority of our budget.
Actually the US or EU will be most likely to move to alternative energy sources first. Simply because or the nature of our economies and the current level of research. Look at yesterdays WSJ.
Thousands becoming extinct per day huh? I hope you were just engaging in hyperbole, because I haven't seen any statistics that bad, even from the most wild eyed alarmist.
There are two solutions to this. 1. Webmail. (Yeah it sucks, but it is a workaround) 2. Use SMTP over SSL on the alternate port, if your sending domain offers it. Firewalling port 25 is an ugly, desperate hack that Large ISPs use to keep their network from being blacklisted. If your ISP adopts SPF records though it shouldn't need to block outgoing port 25, as it has a method for others to avoid spam generated by its customers.
Oh yeah, and your suggestion with the semi-colon or period is grammatically incorrect as that phrase does not constitute a complete thought.
If you think that the ammendment is archaic, then fine, you try to ammend the constitution. But don't try to convince me that it means something other than what it does.
Secondly, grammatically speaking, the opening clause isn't a restrictive clause. It doesn't contain any qualifiers. It doesn't restrict or change what follows. It DOES offer a rationale, nothing more or less.
Yes everyone can get a gun, drive thru, barring fealons or anyone the a court would deem legally insane. (Because you are allowed to restrict rights under those circumstances.)
on the money invested. Raw dollar profits tell you very little about the kind of money a company is making. What kind of assets do they own, etc.