It's an interesting visualization, but how does it apply? We're talking about how the tax burden matches to income distribution and what that statistic about controlling wealth means--we're not talking about fairness of income distribution.
Please read the context. I was responding to the grandparent's silly breakdown of how much people would be paying--I wasn't commenting on the fairness of the distribution of the tax burden.
OK, I googled it. According to some of the results, the top 1% pay about a third. The top 5% pay a bit more than half.
Is someone "getting off light"? I don't know...Assuming you're remembering that statistic right, I suppose it would depend on what "control over 90% of the wealth" means. It doesn't sound like just income or taxable property to me. The owner of a factory or software company probably "controls" a heck of a lot more "wealth" than a factor worker, but the applicable taxes won't necessarily reflect that.
Look, if you're going to make ignorant, bigoted insults, at least put in the time and effort to make them properly constructed ignorant, bigoted insults. I mean, it's bad enough being a jackass--why make yourself a dork, too? See, you switched up "good" and "dead". What you said doesn't even make sense.
In america, our first ammendment (Freedom of speech) rights SHOULD protect spammers.
Email is closer to a fax than postal mail. Spam is no different from faxing unsolicited advertisement flyers. It can incur significant costs on the recipient. Thus, it should not be protected.
But it wasn't always illegal if it was for private use. An ancient concept called "fair use" would allow many people in the past to record things for their personal enjoyment.
Out of curiousity, would that really be a case of fair use? I mean...Just what are you "using" fairly? The ticket?
Did you even look at the page? We're not even talking about pop-ups for this site, let alone the hyper-obnoxious floating-across-the-screen ads. They're just banner ads. No hijacking.
Anyway, yes, you've made no deal with them. That's exactly the point! If you don't even want to see any banner ads, that's your choice. They don't want to show you their content if you block their banners. That's their choice.
Seriously, there's no problem here.
This site, which is very useful by the way, will not "work" if javascript is not enable or ads are not shown.
Sounds to me like they're taking a good approach. They're not attempting to circumvent anyone's ad-blocking software--anyone who doesn't want to see their ads, doesn't have to.
But they're providing a valuable service, and they deserve to be compensated. If you don't want to pay for it by letting them display their banner ads, then you don't get to use their site.
So, what you're saying is that it's for the benefit of the people who voted for them, who aren't competent to decide whether to marry a man or woman, listen to (c)rap music, smoke/shoot/snort/inject whatever...
Of course not. When someone elects a legislator who supports that sort of "Nanny State" legislation, they're doing it because they've already made those decisions for themselves--the catch is, they also want the government to make those decisions for everyone else, too. That's what everyone does, I'm sure yourself included.
You don't believe me? Well, just what are civil rights protections? They're the result of a whole bunch of people deciding it's wrong to do something--job discrimination on the basis of race, for instance--and also deciding they want the government to stop anyone else from doing it. It's the same with murder, rape, tax evasion, and every other act the government defines as criminal.
Laws that forbid consenting, mentally competent adults (who have never been convicted of violating anyone else's rights so as to deserve having their own curtailed - and losing the franchise!) from engaging in various kinds of behavior 'for their own good' simply do not compute.
Oh, so you think it's wrong for me to prohibit consenting, mentally competent adults from engaging in behavior that does not negatively affect anyone else simply because I don't think it's good for them. Guess what? I agree! Maybe that's what the grandparent poster was trying to get at--but that's not what he said.
Quote: Just give me one example where a do-gooder has ever proposed a law to protect themselves
There's three types of justification for legislation that we're talking about: (1) "I'll stop you from doing this because it hurts me." (2) "I'll stop you from doing this because it hurts other people." (3) "I'll stop you from doing this because it hurts yourself."
As I understood it, the grandparent wasn't just arguing against (3)--the way he said it, he was arguing against (2), as well.
Just give me one example where a do-gooder has ever proposed a law to protect themselves. It's always someone else they're trying to protect, isn't it?
I really don't get your point. I mean, your argument sounds really good and convincing...But what is it you're actually saying? They're called "representatives" for a reason--it's their job to propose laws entirely for the benefit of other people.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against censorship, legislating morality, etc. It's just that your argument seems rather silly. Just try applying it to other issues. Take prison rape, for instance. Does a legislator actually have to be afraid s/he will end up in prison before you'll allow them to change the system to make it less likely? Do you have to be black to be concerned about civil rights? Do you have to be a parent to protect children from child pornographers? Do you have to be victim to do the right thing?
If you disagree with them about the definition of the "right thing", fine, argue on those grounds. But it seems to me that you're criticizing them on a standard you wouldn't apply to anyone else.
However, SCO have argued elsewhere that the GPL is invalid. Therefore,
even though the GPL is a valid license, and would be a valid license for SCO's use of nmap, SCO is estopped from raising it in court as a defense.
Has SCO actually claimed in court has the GPL is invalid? It doesn't seem that estoppel applies to statements made to the press--SCO can say one thing to the media and another in court all they want. They only have to be consistent in official legal proceedings.
So I'm just imagining the part where half the settlers started weirding everyone out by having secret meetings in the nude?
I'm reading the series for the first time now--I'm about half way through Blue Mars. No, you didn't imagine that scene. Yeah, the other poster was exaggerating when he said "That's not part of the story at all." It did happen, and it was weird freaky group sex. It also took up a grand total of 4 out of 572 pages in Red Mars. So far, nothing remotely similar has happened in Blue Mars. In fact, the only mention of sex so far has been two or three passing references to couples "making love".
The series didn't "become" weird group sex--it happened, once, in a brief scene. Otherwise, it's a fascinating, complex, realistic (though somewhat to the left of Marx) picture of human exploration/expansion.
We'd resort to "terrorism" should we ever find ourselves in a losing or weak position. Everyone will. When it's die or be terribly oppressed, nearly everyone will resort to "terrorism."
I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. There are moral lines involved that many people--if not the majority--simply will not cross, regardless of the circumstances. It doesn't matter how oppressive and evil a government was, I would not specifically, intentionally target a schoolbus, or a public restaurant. (I'm thinking of Palestinian suicide bombers, here.) Even if the society itself was whole-heartedly condoning the oppression, I just wouldn't do it. I would not destroy buildings with thousands of men, women, and children. (That's even ignoring one aspect of the Twin Towers, that many Muslims worked there as well.)
it makes you perhaps understand why there are people who believe that *Civillians* here in the US ought to be targets.
I can understand how someone might start believing that, but I still have no trouble condemning them for doing it.
The primary difference between acts of war and acts terrorism is the target. When al Qaeda destroyed the Twin Towers, that was terrorism. When they crashed into the Pentagon, that was war. Terrorism is the specific targetting of civilians for the purpose of inspiring fear.
That said, certain elements of the US media would do well to remember this distinction. If I hear Fox News calling attacks on military installations in Iraq "terrorism", I'll start suspecting them of bias.:)
Slashdot Mirror
In addition I just reviewed the last few comments and I think we are talking past each other...
You're wrong! Tax burdens are fair! Stop insulting my mother!
Er... Yeah. What you said. Talking past each other.
You know what, I think the math is a bit more complicated. We haven't broken it down into nearly enough brackets to obtain meaningful information.
It's an interesting visualization, but how does it apply? We're talking about how the tax burden matches to income distribution and what that statistic about controlling wealth means--we're not talking about fairness of income distribution.
Please read the context. I was responding to the grandparent's silly breakdown of how much people would be paying--I wasn't commenting on the fairness of the distribution of the tax burden.
For example, it is more likely that the rest of this article will contain the word 'music' than the word 'sausage'.
Guards, guards! Stop that man! He's violating the laws of physics!
OK, I googled it. According to some of the results, the top 1% pay about a third. The top 5% pay a bit more than half.
Is someone "getting off light"? I don't know...Assuming you're remembering that statistic right, I suppose it would depend on what "control over 90% of the wealth" means. It doesn't sound like just income or taxable property to me. The owner of a factory or software company probably "controls" a heck of a lot more "wealth" than a factor worker, but the applicable taxes won't necessarily reflect that.
You do know that richer people pay more in taxes than others, right? Doesn't the richest 10% pay about 50% of the total annual tax revenue?
Apparently, no, it's Insightful.
A good faggot is a dead faggot. Good riddance
Look, if you're going to make ignorant, bigoted insults, at least put in the time and effort to make them properly constructed ignorant, bigoted insults. I mean, it's bad enough being a jackass--why make yourself a dork, too? See, you switched up "good" and "dead". What you said doesn't even make sense.
Please, next time don't post as an AC. I want to add you to my friends list.
OK. This is really me again, not some karma-whoring credit-stealing bastard.
Really.
In america, our first ammendment (Freedom of speech) rights SHOULD protect spammers.
Email is closer to a fax than postal mail. Spam is no different from faxing unsolicited advertisement flyers. It can incur significant costs on the recipient. Thus, it should not be protected.
Next?
We would have found the 18 ultra-microcopic nano-nuclear warheads hidden in the Arabian desert, but Clinton's dog ate them.
But it wasn't always illegal if it was for private use. An ancient concept called "fair use" would allow many people in the past to record things for their personal enjoyment.
Out of curiousity, would that really be a case of fair use? I mean...Just what are you "using" fairly? The ticket?
Did you even look at the page? We're not even talking about pop-ups for this site, let alone the hyper-obnoxious floating-across-the-screen ads. They're just banner ads. No hijacking. Anyway, yes, you've made no deal with them. That's exactly the point! If you don't even want to see any banner ads, that's your choice. They don't want to show you their content if you block their banners. That's their choice. Seriously, there's no problem here.
This site, which is very useful by the way, will not "work" if javascript is not enable or ads are not shown.
Sounds to me like they're taking a good approach. They're not attempting to circumvent anyone's ad-blocking software--anyone who doesn't want to see their ads, doesn't have to.
But they're providing a valuable service, and they deserve to be compensated. If you don't want to pay for it by letting them display their banner ads, then you don't get to use their site.
Is it a bad sign that when I first skimmed over the headline, I thought there was going to be an Alias/Stargate SG1 crossover?
I mean, seriously, man--why get worked up about politics when you're throwing a party?
So, what you're saying is that it's for the benefit of the people who voted for them, who aren't competent to decide whether to marry a man or woman, listen to (c)rap music, smoke/shoot/snort/inject whatever...
Of course not. When someone elects a legislator who supports that sort of "Nanny State" legislation, they're doing it because they've already made those decisions for themselves--the catch is, they also want the government to make those decisions for everyone else, too. That's what everyone does, I'm sure yourself included.
You don't believe me? Well, just what are civil rights protections? They're the result of a whole bunch of people deciding it's wrong to do something--job discrimination on the basis of race, for instance--and also deciding they want the government to stop anyone else from doing it. It's the same with murder, rape, tax evasion, and every other act the government defines as criminal.
Laws that forbid consenting, mentally competent adults (who have never been convicted of violating anyone else's rights so as to deserve having their own curtailed - and losing the franchise!) from engaging in various kinds of behavior 'for their own good' simply do not compute.
Oh, so you think it's wrong for me to prohibit consenting, mentally competent adults from engaging in behavior that does not negatively affect anyone else simply because I don't think it's good for them. Guess what? I agree! Maybe that's what the grandparent poster was trying to get at--but that's not what he said.
Quote:
Just give me one example where a do-gooder has ever proposed a law to protect themselves
There's three types of justification for legislation that we're talking about: (1) "I'll stop you from doing this because it hurts me." (2) "I'll stop you from doing this because it hurts other people." (3) "I'll stop you from doing this because it hurts yourself."
As I understood it, the grandparent wasn't just arguing against (3)--the way he said it, he was arguing against (2), as well.
Just give me one example where a do-gooder has ever proposed a law to protect themselves. It's always someone else they're trying to protect, isn't it?
I really don't get your point. I mean, your argument sounds really good and convincing...But what is it you're actually saying? They're called "representatives" for a reason--it's their job to propose laws entirely for the benefit of other people.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against censorship, legislating morality, etc. It's just that your argument seems rather silly. Just try applying it to other issues. Take prison rape, for instance. Does a legislator actually have to be afraid s/he will end up in prison before you'll allow them to change the system to make it less likely? Do you have to be black to be concerned about civil rights? Do you have to be a parent to protect children from child pornographers? Do you have to be victim to do the right thing?
If you disagree with them about the definition of the "right thing", fine, argue on those grounds. But it seems to me that you're criticizing them on a standard you wouldn't apply to anyone else.
Spread, my little hegemony. Spread.
First the keyboards, then the language! Before long, we'll have them speaking English in the UK! Mwahahahaha!
This is a terrible idea! You couldn't surf the internet while the power is out!
Has SCO actually claimed in court has the GPL is invalid? It doesn't seem that estoppel applies to statements made to the press--SCO can say one thing to the media and another in court all they want. They only have to be consistent in official legal proceedings.
The series didn't "become" weird group sex--it happened, once, in a brief scene. Otherwise, it's a fascinating, complex, realistic (though somewhat to the left of Marx) picture of human exploration/expansion.
We'd resort to "terrorism" should we ever find ourselves in a losing or weak position. Everyone will. When it's die or be terribly oppressed, nearly everyone will resort to "terrorism."
I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. There are moral lines involved that many people--if not the majority--simply will not cross, regardless of the circumstances. It doesn't matter how oppressive and evil a government was, I would not specifically, intentionally target a schoolbus, or a public restaurant. (I'm thinking of Palestinian suicide bombers, here.) Even if the society itself was whole-heartedly condoning the oppression, I just wouldn't do it. I would not destroy buildings with thousands of men, women, and children. (That's even ignoring one aspect of the Twin Towers, that many Muslims worked there as well.)
it makes you perhaps understand why there are people who believe that *Civillians* here in the US ought to be targets.
I can understand how someone might start believing that, but I still have no trouble condemning them for doing it.
The primary difference between acts of war and acts terrorism is the target. When al Qaeda destroyed the Twin Towers, that was terrorism. When they crashed into the Pentagon, that was war. Terrorism is the specific targetting of civilians for the purpose of inspiring fear.
:)
That said, certain elements of the US media would do well to remember this distinction. If I hear Fox News calling attacks on military installations in Iraq "terrorism", I'll start suspecting them of bias.