In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
1.7 million is not almost nobody, unless you have a really strange definition of the word almost.
The point is that the only way to not pay those taxes for this hypothetical person is for he/she to have a kid or 2, but none of that was taken into account in his scenario, therefore you have to assume taxes, at even a base rate..
Logical fallacy at its best, but with all the other fallacies.. Your statement was that no serious economists would support it, which was in itself a logical fallacy, then when pointed out that at least 7 do support it you start making up random number, and assume that only those 7 are about of that subset that support it. All while ignoring that they were 7 US prize winners out of a pool that consists of the entire world.
And in a capitalistic economy there is a direct relationship between the amount of money you have and the quantity of goods and services that you can enjoy, so once again you make a ridiculously simple and incorrect statement.
What about taxes, you assume in your math there are not any taxes, and while if you have kids or are that poor you can get away with little federal, you still got state. What about a car? In the US you need a car to get around except in large cities, where the rent is much higher. The median car payment is is $380, plus insurance, so about $450, well that ate up your left over and we still have not gotten to food/clothing/Utilities.. Electric bills are expensive as well, ranging from $75 up depending on time of year. Water bills, all these other things..
Look over the statement the ignorant one is you. You cherry pick your data without looking at the whole picture. Having worked for $15 an hour 10 years ago I can tell you I could not have made it if I did not life with other people. It is far from a cozy life style, and again that was 10 years ago.
No matter how you look at it, it is not a permit cost. It is either a construction cost or a utility cost, not a permit cost. Also living in the city typically will not require digging up the street, because they already have the connections there.
Your first comparison of 42000 to 30000 does not prove your point, and your using of a seasoned contractor twists the argument. A seasoned contractor gets his materials from bulk, not typically time of year. Also part of building costs are the appliances, such as stove, which are considered in most places as part of the house.
There is plenty of justification, such heartbleed and other vulnerabilities that pop up all the time. It is your job so you are biased against these people from the start because it takes POTENTIAL revenue from your company, but to claim it is not their job is a load of BS.
I would be willing to bet when you penetration test you use known vulnerabilities and not zero day vulnerabilities, after all it is your job to test, not to research. And that right there would be why your statement is flawed. If they wanna license, go for it, but done block what the researchers are doing.
That is in no way what is being reported here. Possibly the initial discovery of the number because of a poorly designed application, but not the trying pins.. Do you like to come up with fallacies?
And why should it be that way? The owner is not the only person who uses that system, every person with an account uses it. If you cannot find out if there is a security hole in the system then it leaves everyone open to a black hat wanting to steal stuff. It should be illegal to steal data while doing so, or to ransom said bug, both of which are already crimes. It should not be illegal to hack to find and report vulnerabilities.
So you should have to be invited to test to ensure that the systems are secure from exploits? Under that philosophy the black hats will win almost every time.
The IRS scandal was just another made up scandal. Reports show that Dems were harassed just as much if not more than the repubs. Just goes to show you that you can trust the repubs just as much if not less than the dems.
So you are saying you did not setup your network to handle the capacity you promised your users? The case you have to make is *why* it is the companies fault, and not yours as an extension of your users.
Notice I used users, not user, as in the plural, not singular
What costs? You have not made a case that there is extra costs. If the users request it and are within their bandwidth then there is no extra cost then what is expected.
First of all, according to that article Chris' is perfectly fine, so you either need to find a better source or stop making the personal attacks, probably both.
and even still you are incorrect, based on these coworkers with master degrees in English, it does not matter if you use 's or ', as long as it sounds good.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fcps%2Fminwage2011.htm&ei=SsyNU4m-H8e-sQSEy4GIAg&usg=AFQjCNGhmyPob_eopcXz8n3WS6t3aqWgZw&bvm=bv.68191837,d.cWc
In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
1.7 million is not almost nobody, unless you have a really strange definition of the word almost.
The point is that the only way to not pay those taxes for this hypothetical person is for he/she to have a kid or 2, but none of that was taken into account in his scenario, therefore you have to assume taxes, at even a base rate..
If almost no one makes minimum wage then this increase will not be an issue, especially since it is not an all at once increase.
Logical fallacy at its best, but with all the other fallacies.. Your statement was that no serious economists would support it, which was in itself a logical fallacy, then when pointed out that at least 7 do support it you start making up random number, and assume that only those 7 are about of that subset that support it. All while ignoring that they were 7 US prize winners out of a pool that consists of the entire world.
And in a capitalistic economy there is a direct relationship between the amount of money you have and the quantity of goods and services that you can enjoy, so once again you make a ridiculously simple and incorrect statement.
What about taxes, you assume in your math there are not any taxes, and while if you have kids or are that poor you can get away with little federal, you still got state. What about a car? In the US you need a car to get around except in large cities, where the rent is much higher. The median car payment is is $380, plus insurance, so about $450, well that ate up your left over and we still have not gotten to food/clothing/Utilities.. Electric bills are expensive as well, ranging from $75 up depending on time of year. Water bills, all these other things..
Look over the statement the ignorant one is you. You cherry pick your data without looking at the whole picture. Having worked for $15 an hour 10 years ago I can tell you I could not have made it if I did not life with other people. It is far from a cozy life style, and again that was 10 years ago.
Well good/bad is an opinion. Many people look at those the list and agree, some will not.
Can you please link me to this? The only permit in Cali that I know of to connect to the water system is for public works, not individuals.
No matter how you look at it, it is not a permit cost. It is either a construction cost or a utility cost, not a permit cost. Also living in the city typically will not require digging up the street, because they already have the connections there.
Still, water connection is a construction cost, not a permit cost. It is a requirement to pass inspection.
Your first comparison of 42000 to 30000 does not prove your point, and your using of a seasoned contractor twists the argument. A seasoned contractor gets his materials from bulk, not typically time of year. Also part of building costs are the appliances, such as stove, which are considered in most places as part of the house.
There is plenty of justification, such heartbleed and other vulnerabilities that pop up all the time. It is your job so you are biased against these people from the start because it takes POTENTIAL revenue from your company, but to claim it is not their job is a load of BS.
I would be willing to bet when you penetration test you use known vulnerabilities and not zero day vulnerabilities, after all it is your job to test, not to research. And that right there would be why your statement is flawed. If they wanna license, go for it, but done block what the researchers are doing.
That is in no way what is being reported here. Possibly the initial discovery of the number because of a poorly designed application, but not the trying pins.. Do you like to come up with fallacies?
And why should it be that way? The owner is not the only person who uses that system, every person with an account uses it. If you cannot find out if there is a security hole in the system then it leaves everyone open to a black hat wanting to steal stuff. It should be illegal to steal data while doing so, or to ransom said bug, both of which are already crimes. It should not be illegal to hack to find and report vulnerabilities.
So you should have to be invited to test to ensure that the systems are secure from exploits? Under that philosophy the black hats will win almost every time.
The IRS scandal was just another made up scandal. Reports show that Dems were harassed just as much if not more than the repubs. Just goes to show you that you can trust the repubs just as much if not less than the dems.
By that logic you cannot blame a robere, as what he is doing may be in his best interest.
By the email address tied to the account?
The cert was showing expired, and now it seems to be redirecting https to http
If you cant beat them, join them, seems to be the dem's new motto.
Better than India's version? You know where you dont have to blow everyone and their moms just to get on the ballot?
So you are saying you did not setup your network to handle the capacity you promised your users? The case you have to make is *why* it is the companies fault, and not yours as an extension of your users.
Notice I used users, not user, as in the plural, not singular
What costs? You have not made a case that there is extra costs. If the users request it and are within their bandwidth then there is no extra cost then what is expected.
and bachelor of arts in mathematics plus
First of all, according to that article Chris' is perfectly fine, so you either need to find a better source or stop making the personal attacks, probably both.
and even still you are incorrect, based on these coworkers with master degrees in English, it does not matter if you use 's or ', as long as it sounds good.