You are changing the subject. GP was talking about the dollars collected from the rich, not the rates they pay. When someone like Buffet pays 13% or whatever on $1 billion, or $130 million, that's orders of magnitude more that his secretary pays at 30% or whatever her rate is.
GP's point is accurate. The top few percent pay over half of all taxes collected by total dollar value, even though the rate may be lower due to various incentives built into the tax code. Whether that's fair is a different discussion, but the rich pay the same rate their secretaries do on the first $X they earn in regular income up to the secretaries' total income.
You're ignoring the economic incentive to increase exploration and extraction that comes with increased demand. The horizon for fossil fuels has been extended with the recent improvements in extraction technology that resulted in part from high demand, and we should expect similar improvements for uranium.
Things on your person can be searched based upon probable cause without the need for a warrant.
I guess you're not aware of this year's Supreme Court decision, Riley vs. California, in which they determined that police require a warrant to search your phone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06...
Freedom of speech and of the press guarantee the right to publish FACTUAL reports regarding events, current or historical. In the absence of misrepresentation of the facts, there's no reason that these articles should be "erased" from Google's search index. Of course, even with the erasure, other sources will rise to provide this information, e.g., this new site.
Instead of arguing this point, we need to make it very clear that anyone making or distributing 3D gun models should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If there isn't a law, make one - make TEN! I don't care.
Any such law would be blatantly unconstitutional. The right to publish 3D models of anything is guaranteed under the First Amendment. This is not a Second Amendment issue. Would you make publishing a book with the plans to build a gun illegal, too?
. . . nor was it referring to anything but 1-shot muskets.
Nor did the founders anticipate digital media, yet the 1st Amendment protects speech on the Internet. Are you suggesting that only the technology available at the time the Constitution was written should be protected?
. ..cops lie. They will lie to secure a conviction, but crowd-sourced photographic evidence is what will counter their culture of concealing misbehavior. Dash cams might help, too, but not as long as cops are in control of the on-off switch (see here and here).
I recently purchased a 2011 model-year GM Lambda-platform vehicle with the in-dash navigation unit. It has 2011-era bluetooth support (i.e., hands-free profile only), and a really craptastic USB implementation that doesn't easily allow third-party music apps to play over USB. Considering that model-year implies 2010 at best, we're talking tech that's at least four years old.
The map data is also from the 2011 model-year, so it is really old and the UX is terrible. Updating the maps requires a $200 DVD. WTF?
So, for around $500 more than the DVD upgrade, I can get all of the modern conveniences and map data that updates at Internet speed. I am at the edge of my seat waiting to see the options once they become widely available.
Where does it say "Apple head unit"? The head unit is branded by the component manufacturer and provides an interface to allow display and interaction with an Apple device.
Where do you come up with "super expensive'? The NEX devices from Pioneer are receiving firmware updates for existing installations. How is that expensive?
Not only did you not understand the article, but you don't understand CarPlay itself. I have no idea how you got mod points for your response.
“Though our nation has changed in ways which it is difficult to imagine that the Framers of the Constitution could have foreseen, the rights of criminal defendants which they sought to protect in the venue provisions of the Constitution are neither outdated nor outmoded.”... Just as this was true when we decided Passodelis in 1980 — after the advent of railroad, express mail, the telegraph, the telephone, the automobile, air travel, and satellite communications — it remains true in today’s Internet age. For the forgoing reasons, we will reverse the District Court’s venue determination and vacate Auernheimer’s conviction.
There are so many things left for us yet to discover and so many questions about our universe that are still unanswered. I can hardly believe that this is getting media exposure. But then again, it seems that just about anything can get exposure on the Internet these days.
I find this statement to be one of the best examples of the condescension that many religious people feel the need to express toward atheists. "Oh, my. I'm so sorry for you."
Atheists don't need an imaginary friend in the sky to make them feel that they are not alone. Instead, they surround themselves with friends and family, and enjoy this life because they know there won't be anything else.
If anything, I think atheists in general cherish the one life we have better because of the knowledge that this is all there is.
Furthermore, it might a violation of copyright. If the victim did know that she or he was being filmed, there is no guarantee that victim was not in fact the one who made arrangement for the film to be made and in fact the person with copyright. The person who releases the film may just be an participant who did not own the camera, or set up the production, and therefore has not right to communicate the film to the public.
If it's a copyright issue, the DMCA already empowers the copyright holder to have the violating images taken down. So, no new law is needed to address this.
Slashdot Mirror
If only there were a carbon-free option besides wind, solar, and hydro that could be deployed in that timeframe...
Should've reported it as 3.14 x 10^13 digits.
You are changing the subject. GP was talking about the dollars collected from the rich, not the rates they pay. When someone like Buffet pays 13% or whatever on $1 billion, or $130 million, that's orders of magnitude more that his secretary pays at 30% or whatever her rate is.
GP's point is accurate. The top few percent pay over half of all taxes collected by total dollar value, even though the rate may be lower due to various incentives built into the tax code. Whether that's fair is a different discussion, but the rich pay the same rate their secretaries do on the first $X they earn in regular income up to the secretaries' total income.
Thief!
https://slashdot.org/comments....
What? I don't know th
NO CARRIER
You can have a very involved socialist oriented government ... and get good results
Citation needed.
... I no longer give a shit about what other people think.
Chaser:
... few people are willing to risk their life to fat shame me in person.
where is the incentive to go to extreme efforts?
Inherent lack of carbon emission.
You're ignoring the economic incentive to increase exploration and extraction that comes with increased demand. The horizon for fossil fuels has been extended with the recent improvements in extraction technology that resulted in part from high demand, and we should expect similar improvements for uranium.
Things on your person can be searched based upon probable cause without the need for a warrant.
I guess you're not aware of this year's Supreme Court decision, Riley vs. California, in which they determined that police require a warrant to search your phone. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06...
If it included the battery then that might mean something.
The 85 kWh battery is already warranted for 8 years and unlimited miles.
Freedom of speech and of the press guarantee the right to publish FACTUAL reports regarding events, current or historical. In the absence of misrepresentation of the facts, there's no reason that these articles should be "erased" from Google's search index. Of course, even with the erasure, other sources will rise to provide this information, e.g., this new site.
That decision was overturned. Stop spouting nonsense.
. . . It used to be a "right" to shout "fire" in a theater, but that "right" was not permitted under the 1st Amendment. . .
That is a common misconception. That decision has been overturned and you're free to shout "fire" any time you want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
The First Amendment protects us from people like you who would abridge our rights. I'm thankful that SCOTUS agrees with me.
Instead of arguing this point, we need to make it very clear that anyone making or distributing 3D gun models should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If there isn't a law, make one - make TEN! I don't care.
Any such law would be blatantly unconstitutional. The right to publish 3D models of anything is guaranteed under the First Amendment. This is not a Second Amendment issue. Would you make publishing a book with the plans to build a gun illegal, too?
. . . nor was it referring to anything but 1-shot muskets.
Nor did the founders anticipate digital media, yet the 1st Amendment protects speech on the Internet. Are you suggesting that only the technology available at the time the Constitution was written should be protected?
. . .cops lie. They will lie to secure a conviction, but crowd-sourced photographic evidence is what will counter their culture of concealing misbehavior. Dash cams might help, too, but not as long as cops are in control of the on-off switch (see here and here).
I recently purchased a 2011 model-year GM Lambda-platform vehicle with the in-dash navigation unit. It has 2011-era bluetooth support (i.e., hands-free profile only), and a really craptastic USB implementation that doesn't easily allow third-party music apps to play over USB. Considering that model-year implies 2010 at best, we're talking tech that's at least four years old.
The map data is also from the 2011 model-year, so it is really old and the UX is terrible. Updating the maps requires a $200 DVD. WTF?
So, for around $500 more than the DVD upgrade, I can get all of the modern conveniences and map data that updates at Internet speed. I am at the edge of my seat waiting to see the options once they become widely available.
How ignorant can you sound?
Where does it say "Apple head unit"? The head unit is branded by the component manufacturer and provides an interface to allow display and interaction with an Apple device.
Where do you come up with "super expensive'? The NEX devices from Pioneer are receiving firmware updates for existing installations. How is that expensive?
Not only did you not understand the article, but you don't understand CarPlay itself. I have no idea how you got mod points for your response.
It's very clearly explained in the opinion PDF linked in the summary.
“Though our nation has changed in ways which it is difficult to imagine that the Framers of the Constitution could have foreseen, the rights of criminal defendants which they sought to protect in the venue provisions of the Constitution are neither outdated nor outmoded.” ... Just as this was true when we decided Passodelis in 1980 — after the advent of railroad, express mail, the telegraph, the telephone, the automobile, air travel, and satellite communications — it remains true in today’s Internet age. For the forgoing reasons, we will reverse the District Court’s venue determination and vacate Auernheimer’s conviction.
There are so many things left for us yet to discover and so many questions about our universe that are still unanswered. I can hardly believe that this is getting media exposure. But then again, it seems that just about anything can get exposure on the Internet these days.
And yet you are alone... So very alone...
I find this statement to be one of the best examples of the condescension that many religious people feel the need to express toward atheists. "Oh, my. I'm so sorry for you."
Atheists don't need an imaginary friend in the sky to make them feel that they are not alone. Instead, they surround themselves with friends and family, and enjoy this life because they know there won't be anything else.
If anything, I think atheists in general cherish the one life we have better because of the knowledge that this is all there is.
The legislature quickly remedied that. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/...
Furthermore, it might a violation of copyright. If the victim did know that she or he was being filmed, there is no guarantee that victim was not in fact the one who made arrangement for the film to be made and in fact the person with copyright. The person who releases the film may just be an participant who did not own the camera, or set up the production, and therefore has not right to communicate the film to the public.
If it's a copyright issue, the DMCA already empowers the copyright holder to have the violating images taken down. So, no new law is needed to address this.