You are still relying on a seemingly purely rhetorical argument that putting money into the society which produces wealth is somehow negative for that society. If that was the case this country would have been decimated in the 50s and 60s when in fact it was at its strongest.
You can say that correlation does not prove causation all you want, but neither does it disprove it, and sometimes in a court its enough to go beyond a reasonable doubt.
Still to this day about half of the rich got that way because of pure genetic chance and its really hard to argue that they in some way deserve that status or have any functional purpose in keeping that wealth.
If we take some of that wealth and invest it in our society, cure the health crises, build some infrastructure, cure poverty, we will truly raise all ships.
I doubt you'll agree with any of this, but that's the way many of us see the world, and all the rhetoric in the world will not make robber-barrons any better for the working man.
Compare the top rate with the wealth gap and I think you'll see an inverse correlation.
In the 50's and 60's, when everyone says the middle class was at it's best place, the rich were taxed around 90% Today its around 35% plus loophole city.
Your analogy is actually right on. You don't change the scoreboard to make your team win. We've done that and that's why there is a problem. If we put the scoreboard back where it was maybe the "teams" will be able to play fair.
A. Houses in San Francisco are a bad investment. Housing prices are at a peak level and are dropping. Buying a house in that market now is stupid.
B. Millions do not have the financial resources to buy a house in the Bay Area but live quite happy lives.
C. Yes, you can buy a house in SF with an income of 100k and still be fine.
The average price of a house in the Bay Area is 611k (5k less than a year ago).
A 30 year mortgage can be had at 5.58%
At 30 years that mortgage would be $3499.92 / month if 100% financed.
The yearly cost of the payments would be $41999.04
Over the term of the loan you would pay $1259971.20
The average rental price in the Bay Area is $1450.00
The 30 year cost of this rent is $509400.00
The cost savings in renting vs. buying a house in SF is $750571.20, or $139571.20 more than the value of the house you don't have to sell (assuming it keeps it's value).
The problem is real in terms of percentile, and any other conclusion is either based on intentional deception or ignorance of the issue.
Here is a chart that says it all - the rich are getting richer as a percent of total wealth and that's bad for America.
Last time it was this bad we had a great depression.
If you don't like your 100k income in SF try making 15k there cleaning up after the 100k club. The so-called middle class has a very poor picture of how normal people actually live. You can live very very well on 100k in SF if you don't buy a lot of over priced crap.
Promote efficiency in the upper income brackets; tax 'em.
This, the repeal of Habius, Posse Comitatus, and amending the Insurrection Act all pave the way for a power grab unlike the world has ever seen.
Do you really think the government can be trusted not to abuse this system? Now one mistake in one file allows everyone from the White House to the cop down the street will allow them to arrest you because your name is in a shared system you can't access.
There should be a wall between the feds and the police. We're watching that wall being turned into an IP link.
All this two.oh talk is bunk. This is clearly more than a point level release though, so I suggest a new naming convention. We should lobby to have it named after a defunct car. This release is called Yugo. Next up is Chevette followed by the Pinto, the Nino and the Santo Maria. Oops, got off track.
Let's just take the current system and make it fractional. This release should now be known as 1 and 5/8. No decimal notation anymore. I can't wait for 33 and 1/3!
OK, name it whatever you want, just don't call it vista:)
"Doing the bare minimum at your job is not a praiseable accomplishment"
STAN
What do you think of a person who only does the bare minimum?
JOANNA
Huh. What do I think? Let me tell you what I think, Stan. If you want
me to wear thirty-seven pieces of flair like your pretty boy Brian over
there, then why don't you just make the minimum thirty-seven pieces of
flair?
STAN
Well, I thought I remember you saying you wanted to express yourself.
JOANNA
Yeah. Yeah. Y'know what? I do. I do want to express myself. Ok? And I
don't need thirty-seven pieces of flair to do it. All right? There's my flair! And this is me expressing myself.
Global Warming is Science Fact. Pure and simple. There are few who would state otherwise in the scientific community and as another poster put it they are mostly on the Phillip Morris payroll.
Now unfortunately global warming has caused enough changes in our world that it has become an issue of economic advantage. That is to say there is much money to be made on both sides of the "debate". That won't change. This is the curse of ignorance.
When politics becomes science that may be undesirable. When science becomes politicized that means there is opportunity for progress.
People don't sit down and listen exclusivly to music. We play it while we do other things for the most part.
Adding a video to the mix changes that. I don't think many people will be in to changing they way we spend our free time so we can watch some video that roughly sync's to a song we like. Just wont happen.
All the same I'd rather type it out each time than rely on some shortcut which may not work on other browsers. Anyone remember WordPerfect macros? (shudder)
There is a very strong tendency to persecute the masses of homeless / desperate people in our cities based upon a few (often unsubstantiated) stories of malfeasance.
That said, there is also an important principal which should not be overlooked here; there are good and bad ways to deal with institutional failures of society.
In the case of homeless persons, there are really only a few things one can do which truly help people. Here's what you can do to help:
1. Don't give anyone on the street anything directly. This is the hard one to accept, because you feel obligated to help people in need. The reasons for this are simple. Giving directly is tremendously inefficient. Would you rather pay for one person to maybe eat one meal at a restaurant they will feel uncomfortable in or potentially even contribute to a substance addiction, or would you like to feed 10 people at a soup kitchen where they will also have access to other services?
2. Do give to the soup kitchen / homeless shelters. It's simple and effective. Most shelters have structured giving plans and disclose their policies on religious indoctrination which should be kept to a minimum to encourage participation. I personally won't give to any shelter which requires any religious participation for services, but there are options in my city, so I'd probably change that policy if that was not the case.
3. Seek political changes. This is the only long term solution to the problem. Big cities need to act like small towns when helping those who fall through the cracks. Make the system diverse, distributed, and attractive to those who need help. LA is a counter example; they have spent 30 years learning that centralizing their system and ignoring people makes their city core a terrible place for everyone, not just the homeless. It costs an amazing amount to keep people in jail and fight crime caused by destitution, much more than providing transitional housing and services in the actual communities people live in to begin with.
So really all I'm saying here is we shouldn't focus on the people who somehow "work the system"; instead focus on giving people the tools they need to leave that lifestyle and either get the mental and substance abuse treatment they need or move back into the workforce and better themselves. No doubt there are people who won't / can't do this, but that's no excuse not to help those who are in desperation and willing to work for a better life.
The biggest ISP decided to partner with a lot of content providers and limit that content to their customers only? I think it would be called AOL and people would jump ship and go to smaller ISPs.
Just a simple misunderstanding, no reason to over-react. I think a simple statement of what the this is you're refering to next time would do. I completely agree, that's what SELinux is, what about Vista? I've seen nothing saying this is how Vista works, nor does that appear to be what the OP is saying at all...
I still don't see anything saying that vista is using MAC, or role based security as another poster said, but I'm open to learning more. That's why I asked in the first place:)
Slashdot Mirror
You are still relying on a seemingly purely rhetorical argument that putting money into the society which produces wealth is somehow negative for that society. If that was the case this country would have been decimated in the 50s and 60s when in fact it was at its strongest. You can say that correlation does not prove causation all you want, but neither does it disprove it, and sometimes in a court its enough to go beyond a reasonable doubt. Still to this day about half of the rich got that way because of pure genetic chance and its really hard to argue that they in some way deserve that status or have any functional purpose in keeping that wealth. If we take some of that wealth and invest it in our society, cure the health crises, build some infrastructure, cure poverty, we will truly raise all ships. I doubt you'll agree with any of this, but that's the way many of us see the world, and all the rhetoric in the world will not make robber-barrons any better for the working man.
Your argument makes sense only if the rates are at the "correct" point somehow and not the cause of the problem.
is a discussion of the top marginal income tax in the last century in the US.
Compare the top rate with the wealth gap and I think you'll see an inverse correlation.
In the 50's and 60's, when everyone says the middle class was at it's best place, the rich were taxed around 90% Today its around 35% plus loophole city.
Your analogy is actually right on. You don't change the scoreboard to make your team win. We've done that and that's why there is a problem. If we put the scoreboard back where it was maybe the "teams" will be able to play fair.
The Economist article the chart's from? Sure
A. Houses in San Francisco are a bad investment. Housing prices are at a peak level and are dropping. Buying a house in that market now is stupid.
B. Millions do not have the financial resources to buy a house in the Bay Area but live quite happy lives.
C. Yes, you can buy a house in SF with an income of 100k and still be fine.
The average price of a house in the Bay Area is 611k (5k less than a year ago).
A 30 year mortgage can be had at 5.58%
At 30 years that mortgage would be $3499.92 / month if 100% financed.
The yearly cost of the payments would be $41999.04
Over the term of the loan you would pay $1259971.20
The average rental price in the Bay Area is $1450.00
The 30 year cost of this rent is $509400.00
The cost savings in renting vs. buying a house in SF is $750571.20, or $139571.20 more than the value of the house you don't have to sell (assuming it keeps it's value).
The problem is real in terms of percentile, and any other conclusion is either based on intentional deception or ignorance of the issue.
Here is a chart that says it all - the rich are getting richer as a percent of total wealth and that's bad for America.
Last time it was this bad we had a great depression.
If you don't like your 100k income in SF try making 15k there cleaning up after the 100k club. The so-called middle class has a very poor picture of how normal people actually live. You can live very very well on 100k in SF if you don't buy a lot of over priced crap.
Promote efficiency in the upper income brackets; tax 'em.
You could say 2% make most of their financial gains from the work of half of the rest of us.
If you put it that way taxing them to a larger degree sounds almost fair, doesn't it?
You have Fox News on 24/7 don't you?
The government is off to a great start on skynet.
This, the repeal of Habius, Posse Comitatus, and amending the Insurrection Act all pave the way for a power grab unlike the world has ever seen.
Do you really think the government can be trusted not to abuse this system? Now one mistake in one file allows everyone from the White House to the cop down the street will allow them to arrest you because your name is in a shared system you can't access.
There should be a wall between the feds and the police. We're watching that wall being turned into an IP link.
All this two.oh talk is bunk. This is clearly more than a point level release though, so I suggest a new naming convention. We should lobby to have it named after a defunct car. This release is called Yugo. Next up is Chevette followed by the Pinto, the Nino and the Santo Maria. Oops, got off track.
:)
Let's just take the current system and make it fractional. This release should now be known as 1 and 5/8. No decimal notation anymore. I can't wait for 33 and 1/3!
OK, name it whatever you want, just don't call it vista
Global Warming is Science Fact. Pure and simple. There are few who would state otherwise in the scientific community and as another poster put it they are mostly on the Phillip Morris payroll.
Now unfortunately global warming has caused enough changes in our world that it has become an issue of economic advantage. That is to say there is much money to be made on both sides of the "debate". That won't change. This is the curse of ignorance.
When politics becomes science that may be undesirable. When science becomes politicized that means there is opportunity for progress.
vi. definitely vi.
People don't sit down and listen exclusivly to music. We play it while we do other things for the most part.
Adding a video to the mix changes that. I don't think many people will be in to changing they way we spend our free time so we can watch some video that roughly sync's to a song we like. Just wont happen.
1 2 3 4 5
. o r g (enter)
All the same I'd rather type it out each time than rely on some shortcut which may not work on other browsers. Anyone remember WordPerfect macros? (shudder)
There is a very strong tendency to persecute the masses of homeless / desperate people in our cities based upon a few (often unsubstantiated) stories of malfeasance.
That said, there is also an important principal which should not be overlooked here; there are good and bad ways to deal with institutional failures of society.
In the case of homeless persons, there are really only a few things one can do which truly help people. Here's what you can do to help:
1. Don't give anyone on the street anything directly. This is the hard one to accept, because you feel obligated to help people in need. The reasons for this are simple. Giving directly is tremendously inefficient. Would you rather pay for one person to maybe eat one meal at a restaurant they will feel uncomfortable in or potentially even contribute to a substance addiction, or would you like to feed 10 people at a soup kitchen where they will also have access to other services?
2. Do give to the soup kitchen / homeless shelters. It's simple and effective. Most shelters have structured giving plans and disclose their policies on religious indoctrination which should be kept to a minimum to encourage participation. I personally won't give to any shelter which requires any religious participation for services, but there are options in my city, so I'd probably change that policy if that was not the case.
3. Seek political changes. This is the only long term solution to the problem. Big cities need to act like small towns when helping those who fall through the cracks. Make the system diverse, distributed, and attractive to those who need help. LA is a counter example; they have spent 30 years learning that centralizing their system and ignoring people makes their city core a terrible place for everyone, not just the homeless. It costs an amazing amount to keep people in jail and fight crime caused by destitution, much more than providing transitional housing and services in the actual communities people live in to begin with.
So really all I'm saying here is we shouldn't focus on the people who somehow "work the system"; instead focus on giving people the tools they need to leave that lifestyle and either get the mental and substance abuse treatment they need or move back into the workforce and better themselves. No doubt there are people who won't / can't do this, but that's no excuse not to help those who are in desperation and willing to work for a better life.
"My name is Gates, king of kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Flamebait? Obviously someone has a poor sense of humor.
The biggest ISP decided to partner with a lot of content providers and limit that content to their customers only? I think it would be called AOL and people would jump ship and go to smaller ISPs.
Doesn't the same apply here?
Just a simple misunderstanding, no reason to over-react. I think a simple statement of what the this is you're refering to next time would do. I completely agree, that's what SELinux is, what about Vista? I've seen nothing saying this is how Vista works, nor does that appear to be what the OP is saying at all...
I still don't see anything saying that vista is using MAC, or role based security as another poster said, but I'm open to learning more. That's why I asked in the first place :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
Different and better in what way? You described privilege separation, something that user based permissions have been doing well for years...