corporations pay the most taxes and gives the most contribution
Have you got a source for that? Corps only pay taxes on profits, Citizens pay taxes on income. The corporations might be taxes at a much higher rate than individuals, but what they get to deduct is unbelievable.
Personally I am sick of this situation, either I should be taxed on my increase in net worth, or, corporations should be taxed on income. Entities which exist only on paper, granted that existence for the benefit of the citizenry get better treatment than the citizens!?!
And don't start on corporations being taxed twice, that is BS, everything is taxed over and over again... I pay income tax when I get money, I pay sales tax when I use it, the company purchased from (if they are lucky) pays taxes on profits, shareholders pay taxes on the dividends... If all money was taxed only once, then the government would have no (not small, literally zero) revenue, after all money changed hands once.
sorry I got into a rant there, I am just pissed about citizens being of secondary importance to businesses.
One last thing, the way the system works here, don't you think that the most contributions, would ensure not paying the most taxes?
VivianC was using that analogy to compair to email... Saying that her inbox is not open to the public, by compairing it to her house (which has a publicly available address). I was pointing out the difference, if his house was like her inbox, I would be able to come over and put something in it, unless he uses a non-public inbox (white list)... Meaning that her inbox is open to the public, but she can choose to close it, and yet she complains that certain members of the public (spammers) have no right to email her. I contend that the 1st gives them as much right to contact her, as I have, if she doesn't want email from the public, she should stop allowing it...
differences with your compairisons and email: I don't allow the public into my bedroom or my mother...
I don't think I can explain this any better without my coffee:) I hope that clears things up...
P.S. I hate spam just as much as the next guy, I guess I just love the 1st more than the next guy... for that reason I think we should go after spammers for fraud instead of for contacting us...
Freedom is being allowed to do what you like, if it doesn't harm another. Thus liberals oppose freedom.
Are you being sarcastic? Am I just missing it? I think that to allow government interference in the sex acts of consenting adults, not decriminalizing drugs taken by those who want to take them, banning tattooing, and regulating the adult entertainment industry would be opposing freedom...
There are some positions taken by many liberals that run counter to freedom, but conservatives are just as, if not more guilty.
I completely agree that it is not right either way, but...
Anyone (man or woman) deserves to be protected, but likewise, I am not to be caused harm... Any woman (or man) foolish enough to elevate a conflict to the level of striking me (I am a rather imposing 6'1" and 205 lbs marathoner who still benches his weight...) is no longer deserving of my protection. I will try not to do any more damage than is necesary to end the conflict, but, I WILL end the conflict at that point...
it assumes that spam is the same as person-to-person communications
If you can explain this point better, I could be a convert, but the only difference I have been able to see is that we don't want the contact from spammers, other than that, it is person (advertiser) to person (victim of spam).
Don't get me wrong, I hate spam, I just think it might be a little rash to attack the bill of rights over something that is already illegal in most cases (false advertising, fraud...).
That doesn't give you any kind of right to come in and leave your crap laying around.
In keeping with your analogy...
You are allowing me to come over leave my crap around, you are also allowing anyone else to, and even bussinesses you have delt with... You just don't want businesses you haven't delt with.
I know what I am about to do will be very unpopular, but... feel free to mod me down instead of having an intelligent discussion...
you are not free to shove it down my private inbox unsolicited.
That would be true if you didn't choose to make it public. You might own your inbox, but you choose to allow the public into it, If you don't want the public emailing you, switch to a white list system, then you will not get spam, or any other email from the public... But to allow the public, with the exception of spammers, is like saying Lowes can have a no Home Depot employees allowed policy...
I think we should be going after the spammers for fraud, false advertising... Instead of limiting the first.
I don't think we are bad, I do feel we have overused our military recently, but I do know that it is important to 'have a big stick'...
It just seems to me that with the fall of the USSR and the increasing range and speed of both carrier based and land based aircraft, we should need fewer carriers, rather than more.
I agree with you for the most part, but the part at the end really struck a nerve.
Some of my descendants were the people here before europeans "discovered" this land. Others were brought here to labour without pay helping to develop your infrastructure. I'll be gald to leave if you return my land and all the capital I helped produce. You may want to deny it but al large part of this economy was built off slave labor.
I really feel sorry for what your ancestors went through, but, the thought that you are owed something from the nation of which you are a citizen because of something that happened to them is completely backward.
Do you want me (through my government and tax dollars) to give you something? My ancestors came here dirt poor and work for wages that couldn't afford a slave's standard of living in many cases for generations in coal mines. Do I owe you something? I bennefit from you ancestors misfortunes no more than you do...
I will admit it, I am very lucky, my father made it out of that dead end town in Appalachia and into college, I grew up in an upper middle class environment, and I am currently doing alright for myself. I think that those of us who are fortunate have an obligation to help out, I pay taxes at a higher rate than those who are less fortunate, and many of my taxes help less fortunate people have food and housing during hard times, and an education, I will gladly pay for these things. And if you are not fortunate, I am sorry, and I hope my tax dollars can help you. But, all people who are not fortunate deserve this help, not just those who are unfortunate because of actions taken in the past that harmed their ancestors. I am damn glad that my father got a government sponsored scholarship for pharmacy school. With out a system that supports those who are not as fortunate, I would probably be working in the paper mill right now (all the coal mines have closed...).
Lastly, if you have a good education and a good job, quit whining, and count your blessings.
What could France have done, say, if 9/11 had happened there? Nothing. What could Germany have done? Nothing. And that's why France and Germany kow-tow to terrorists and extremists, because they no ability to do anything if anyone attacks them, so they must roll over like dogs and pray that terrorists bother someone else.
Ummm... Do you get any news in that fantasy you live in? France has ongoing problems with Islamic terrorists within their own borders, which they frequently arrest people in connection with. I believe Germany was our biggest ally in the war on terror, until Bush tried to claim that Iraq was supporting terrorists. Germany busted up quite a few terrorist cells for us!
Besides, individually they don't need big offensive militaries, because if they ever really needed help, half the word would come to their aid. Also the French military is far from small (was either 2nd or 3rd largest ally in terms of troops and equipment in GWI) and have highly capable and respected special forces that have been active in Africa recently....that I'd rather have 12 aircraft carriers than try to rely on the good will of Osama Bin Laden.
How many air craft carriers does it take to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan? None of the terrorist have large conventional military that would take more than 1 or 2 carriers to get rid of... Don't even start on Iraq wrt this. If we had any actual reason to be afraid, I am quite sure we would have convinced more than just the Brits to come along on our little misadventure. This is why we had strong support in Afghanistan, there was evidence and a source of a continuing threat. Iraq was made up, or at the least mis-represented...
energy conservation is written in one reference frame
You forgot one key word, inertial...
The frame of the sail is not inertial because it is being accelerated by the photons... So you have the preimpact inertial reference fram and the post re-emission inertial frame, and red shift (doppler effect) in between...
It is true in the sails frame as well, since between impact and reflection some momentum is transfered resulting in a (small) velocity change before emission of the reflected photon...
That is what I was talking about, dumbass. I was just talking about the source of the energy which necessarily has to be transferred to transfer momentum, and the mechanism through which it might be obtained.
Wait a minute, I just reread your post... the photons start in one direction. after being reflected, they go in the opposite direction. So we can have a net change in momentum??? I don't think so! Are you claiming there is no momentum transfer, because the magnitude of the momentum of the photon is the same? I really hope that is not what you are doing... You do realize that momentum is a vector (magnitude and direction), right? The fact that the photon changed directions requires a change in momentum of the magnitude of twice the original momentum... (I really hope I misread your post the second time, and this is not what you thought)
a perfect mirror will reflect all the photons away from it, so that none of their energy is absorbed by the sail
I believe that energy could be imparted to the mirror in kinetic form... The photons would hit the mirror, adding a small amount of momentum (velocity...) and then when reemitted from the mirror, that has gained velocity, have a slightly longer wavelength, and slightly lower energy (the energy difference would be in the motion of the sail...). Like with red shift, light emitted from an object in motion has a slightly varied wavelength as a result of the velocity difference between emitter and observer...
Well formed argument, I disagree with you, but I respect you a lot for not degenerating into the ranting, ball of flame that usually comes out in this discussion.
I do have a couple of questions/counter points for you...
Do you think that it is only the top people in the nation that employ people? I this day of the individual middle class investor, a very large portion of people who are not rich own portions of American businesses, that means that they are employing others, right?
Also, I heard bill clinton bitching about how he wants to pay taxes and he doesn't want the 80k he's going to save with bush's tax cut....but I don't see him donating it to the government. You can do that, you know, but even the very people who bitch the most about this tax cut won't take the opportunity to do so. That tells me far more than their rhetoric ever could.
I don't see it that way, because he (and I for that matter, although I will be getting far less than 80K) realize that it is the aggregate power of all the money being cut that is required, his 80K will just be pissing in the wind. A society where all tax is donation is a nice idea, but I think we do need laws to mandate equivalent contributions so that sufficient funds can be raised...
Personally the biggest change I would like to see in the tax code is fair treatment of all economic entities. Corporations don't pay income tax, they pay profit tax, why do people pay income tax? I say, either charge corporations income tax, or tax people on their increase in net worth.
The reason we always use mach numbers is because, in terms of how gases move it is far more important than the actual speed. Frankly we don't give a damn if we are going at 700 mph and Mach 1 or 400 mph and Mach 1.
The primary feature of the flow that we are concerned with at anything above Mach 1 (it is useful to note that in most wings there are local areas of M>1 if flight Mach nubmer is >.8) is the shock structure (rather than anything related to friction), what angles do they form at relative to bodies in the flow, are they attached (leading edge shock) or detached (bow shock), how many times do the shocks reflect in the inlet (read up on the SR-71 if you want a really cool lesson on supersonic inlets). All of these features result directly from the speed relative to the speed of sound (Mach number)...
In theory, sure. In practice, most of the time this will work. But sometimes things are defective, or just break, and I tend to be wary of those occasions.
Most definatly true, but we are talking about an ejection seat, I think taking the chance is prudent...
Slashdot Mirror
corporations pay the most taxes and gives the most contribution
Have you got a source for that? Corps only pay taxes on profits, Citizens pay taxes on income. The corporations might be taxes at a much higher rate than individuals, but what they get to deduct is unbelievable.
Personally I am sick of this situation, either I should be taxed on my increase in net worth, or, corporations should be taxed on income. Entities which exist only on paper, granted that existence for the benefit of the citizenry get better treatment than the citizens!?!
And don't start on corporations being taxed twice, that is BS, everything is taxed over and over again... I pay income tax when I get money, I pay sales tax when I use it, the company purchased from (if they are lucky) pays taxes on profits, shareholders pay taxes on the dividends... If all money was taxed only once, then the government would have no (not small, literally zero) revenue, after all money changed hands once.
sorry I got into a rant there, I am just pissed about citizens being of secondary importance to businesses.
One last thing, the way the system works here, don't you think that the most contributions, would ensure not paying the most taxes?
you are likely to be bounced around like a [insert lame simile here]. That doesn't happen in a car. At least not on the interstate.
Where do you drive?
VivianC was using that analogy to compair to email... Saying that her inbox is not open to the public, by compairing it to her house (which has a publicly available address). I was pointing out the difference, if his house was like her inbox, I would be able to come over and put something in it, unless he uses a non-public inbox (white list)... Meaning that her inbox is open to the public, but she can choose to close it, and yet she complains that certain members of the public (spammers) have no right to email her. I contend that the 1st gives them as much right to contact her, as I have, if she doesn't want email from the public, she should stop allowing it...
:) I hope that clears things up...
differences with your compairisons and email:
I don't allow the public into my bedroom or my mother...
I don't think I can explain this any better without my coffee
P.S. I hate spam just as much as the next guy, I guess I just love the 1st more than the next guy... for that reason I think we should go after spammers for fraud instead of for contacting us...
unanalogizing (if that is a word...)
I can send you email
If you still don't understand, read the grandparent...
Freedom is being allowed to do what you like, if it doesn't harm another. Thus liberals oppose freedom.
Are you being sarcastic? Am I just missing it? I think that to allow government interference in the sex acts of consenting adults, not decriminalizing drugs taken by those who want to take them, banning tattooing, and regulating the adult entertainment industry would be opposing freedom...
There are some positions taken by many liberals that run counter to freedom, but conservatives are just as, if not more guilty.
I completely agree that it is not right either way, but...
Anyone (man or woman) deserves to be protected, but likewise, I am not to be caused harm... Any woman (or man) foolish enough to elevate a conflict to the level of striking me (I am a rather imposing 6'1" and 205 lbs marathoner who still benches his weight...) is no longer deserving of my protection. I will try not to do any more damage than is necesary to end the conflict, but, I WILL end the conflict at that point...
P.S. I ain't the AC
it assumes that spam is the same as person-to-person communications
If you can explain this point better, I could be a convert, but the only difference I have been able to see is that we don't want the contact from spammers, other than that, it is person (advertiser) to person (victim of spam).
Don't get me wrong, I hate spam, I just think it might be a little rash to attack the bill of rights over something that is already illegal in most cases (false advertising, fraud...).
That doesn't give you any kind of right to come in and leave your crap laying around.
In keeping with your analogy...
You are allowing me to come over leave my crap around, you are also allowing anyone else to, and even bussinesses you have delt with... You just don't want businesses you haven't delt with.
I know what I am about to do will be very unpopular, but... feel free to mod me down instead of having an intelligent discussion...
you are not free to shove it down my private inbox unsolicited.
That would be true if you didn't choose to make it public. You might own your inbox, but you choose to allow the public into it, If you don't want the public emailing you, switch to a white list system, then you will not get spam, or any other email from the public... But to allow the public, with the exception of spammers, is like saying Lowes can have a no Home Depot employees allowed policy...
I think we should be going after the spammers for fraud, false advertising... Instead of limiting the first.
I don't think we are bad, I do feel we have overused our military recently, but I do know that it is important to 'have a big stick'...
It just seems to me that with the fall of the USSR and the increasing range and speed of both carrier based and land based aircraft, we should need fewer carriers, rather than more.
I agree with you for the most part, but the part at the end really struck a nerve.
Some of my descendants were the people here before europeans "discovered" this land. Others were brought here to labour without pay helping to develop your infrastructure. I'll be gald to leave if you return my land and all the capital I helped produce. You may want to deny it but al large part of this economy was built off slave labor.
I really feel sorry for what your ancestors went through, but, the thought that you are owed something from the nation of which you are a citizen because of something that happened to them is completely backward.
Do you want me (through my government and tax dollars) to give you something? My ancestors came here dirt poor and work for wages that couldn't afford a slave's standard of living in many cases for generations in coal mines. Do I owe you something? I bennefit from you ancestors misfortunes no more than you do...
I will admit it, I am very lucky, my father made it out of that dead end town in Appalachia and into college, I grew up in an upper middle class environment, and I am currently doing alright for myself. I think that those of us who are fortunate have an obligation to help out, I pay taxes at a higher rate than those who are less fortunate, and many of my taxes help less fortunate people have food and housing during hard times, and an education, I will gladly pay for these things. And if you are not fortunate, I am sorry, and I hope my tax dollars can help you. But, all people who are not fortunate deserve this help, not just those who are unfortunate because of actions taken in the past that harmed their ancestors. I am damn glad that my father got a government sponsored scholarship for pharmacy school. With out a system that supports those who are not as fortunate, I would probably be working in the paper mill right now (all the coal mines have closed...).
Lastly, if you have a good education and a good job, quit whining, and count your blessings.
What could France have done, say, if 9/11 had happened there? Nothing. What could Germany have done? Nothing. And that's why France and Germany kow-tow to terrorists and extremists, because they no ability to do anything if anyone attacks them, so they must roll over like dogs and pray that terrorists bother someone else.
...that I'd rather have 12 aircraft carriers than try to rely on the good will of Osama Bin Laden.
Ummm... Do you get any news in that fantasy you live in? France has ongoing problems with Islamic terrorists within their own borders, which they frequently arrest people in connection with. I believe Germany was our biggest ally in the war on terror, until Bush tried to claim that Iraq was supporting terrorists. Germany busted up quite a few terrorist cells for us!
Besides, individually they don't need big offensive militaries, because if they ever really needed help, half the word would come to their aid. Also the French military is far from small (was either 2nd or 3rd largest ally in terms of troops and equipment in GWI) and have highly capable and respected special forces that have been active in Africa recently.
How many air craft carriers does it take to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan? None of the terrorist have large conventional military that would take more than 1 or 2 carriers to get rid of... Don't even start on Iraq wrt this. If we had any actual reason to be afraid, I am quite sure we would have convinced more than just the Brits to come along on our little misadventure. This is why we had strong support in Afghanistan, there was evidence and a source of a continuing threat. Iraq was made up, or at the least mis-represented...
With broadband and DivX, downloading the movies is relatively fast and easy
But is it cheaper than postage?
they still only socialize with other gamers
Excuse me, but what is your point? Golfers hang out with other golfers, quilters hang out with other quilters, runners hang out with other runners...
Anyone with a hobby, likely socializes with others who have the same hobby.
A photon's momentum is equal to Planck's constant times frequency.
Go read a book...
energy conservation is written in one reference frame
You forgot one key word, inertial...
The frame of the sail is not inertial because it is being accelerated by the photons... So you have the preimpact inertial reference fram and the post re-emission inertial frame, and red shift (doppler effect) in between...
No, velocity changes to the sail between absorbsion and re-emittion DO matter, and WILL result in red shift (energy change...).
but if they aren't inertial, then there can be red shift, and the point is still correct...
It is true in the sails frame as well, since between impact and reflection some momentum is transfered resulting in a (small) velocity change before emission of the reflected photon...
Ever hear of MOMENTUM TRANSFER???
That is what I was talking about, dumbass. I was just talking about the source of the energy which necessarily has to be transferred to transfer momentum, and the mechanism through which it might be obtained.
Wait a minute, I just reread your post... the photons start in one direction. after being reflected, they go in the opposite direction. So we can have a net change in momentum??? I don't think so! Are you claiming there is no momentum transfer, because the magnitude of the momentum of the photon is the same? I really hope that is not what you are doing... You do realize that momentum is a vector (magnitude and direction), right? The fact that the photon changed directions requires a change in momentum of the magnitude of twice the original momentum... (I really hope I misread your post the second time, and this is not what you thought)
a perfect mirror will reflect all the photons away from it, so that none of their energy is absorbed by the sail
I believe that energy could be imparted to the mirror in kinetic form... The photons would hit the mirror, adding a small amount of momentum (velocity...) and then when reemitted from the mirror, that has gained velocity, have a slightly longer wavelength, and slightly lower energy (the energy difference would be in the motion of the sail...). Like with red shift, light emitted from an object in motion has a slightly varied wavelength as a result of the velocity difference between emitter and observer...
Doesn't even have to be neat surgery - it's not like they've gotta live very long
;)
Doesn't even have to be surgery...
Well formed argument, I disagree with you, but I respect you a lot for not degenerating into the ranting, ball of flame that usually comes out in this discussion.
I do have a couple of questions/counter points for you...
Do you think that it is only the top people in the nation that employ people? I this day of the individual middle class investor, a very large portion of people who are not rich own portions of American businesses, that means that they are employing others, right?
Also, I heard bill clinton bitching about how he wants to pay taxes and he doesn't want the 80k he's going to save with bush's tax cut....but I don't see him donating it to the government. You can do that, you know, but even the very people who bitch the most about this tax cut won't take the opportunity to do so. That tells me far more than their rhetoric ever could.
I don't see it that way, because he (and I for that matter, although I will be getting far less than 80K) realize that it is the aggregate power of all the money being cut that is required, his 80K will just be pissing in the wind. A society where all tax is donation is a nice idea, but I think we do need laws to mandate equivalent contributions so that sufficient funds can be raised...
Personally the biggest change I would like to see in the tax code is fair treatment of all economic entities. Corporations don't pay income tax, they pay profit tax, why do people pay income tax? I say, either charge corporations income tax, or tax people on their increase in net worth.
IAAA (I am an aerodynamicist)
The reason we always use mach numbers is because, in terms of how gases move it is far more important than the actual speed. Frankly we don't give a damn if we are going at 700 mph and Mach 1 or 400 mph and Mach 1.
The primary feature of the flow that we are concerned with at anything above Mach 1 (it is useful to note that in most wings there are local areas of M>1 if flight Mach nubmer is >.8) is the shock structure (rather than anything related to friction), what angles do they form at relative to bodies in the flow, are they attached (leading edge shock) or detached (bow shock), how many times do the shocks reflect in the inlet (read up on the SR-71 if you want a really cool lesson on supersonic inlets). All of these features result directly from the speed relative to the speed of sound (Mach number)...
In theory, sure. In practice, most of the time this will work. But sometimes things are defective, or just break, and I tend to be wary of those occasions.
Most definatly true, but we are talking about an ejection seat, I think taking the chance is prudent...