You point out another issue that doesn't always get mentioned in scalper arguments - some bands actually do give a shit about their fans. It's crazy to believe that in the cynical times we live in, but some bands actually don't want their biggest fans to have to pay thousands of dollars to sit in the front row at their shows.
I don't think it's the "right-wing hate machine" they're worried about here, who's already mad that we're even discussing it. I think it's more a few senior military officials who don't like being told what to do by civilians.
The internet is over in the same way that MTV is over: they both exist in a gentrified form. And maybe if you stay up late, you'll actually catch them both staying true to their roots.:V
The problem on our side is that as a member of the WTO, we can't impose tariffs on imports - including importing work that takes place overseas.
I've heard here and there that the WTO will allow for certain tariffs to exist (such as Value Added Taxes) for certain externalities. I'm running around Google looking for examples... Here's a short example.Here's another.
While, yes, globalization has been driving down salaries of the middle class, it's also reduced the cost of living of the middle class...
Citation needed. Wage growth versus inflation has been very small over the past decade, the size of the middle class has shrunk, wealth concentration in the top bracket has gone up. While free trade may have decreased the costs of popular electronic and cheap Wal-Mart clothes, the "costs of living" have been steadily going up.
The trouble with these type of taxes is that the corporations simply pass it onto the customers.
I'm not sure how true this bit of common wisdom is. Another trope of the free market is that the price of goods is whatever the market will bear. That is to say, if a corporation thinks that people will pay more for whatever it is that they're selling, they'll charge more for it. Which is to say that if corporations were going to raise prices on their goods, they wouldn't wait for an increase in taxes to do it - they'd do it now to increase profits.
If corporations raise the price of their goods due to a tax increase, that could mean less sales as some customers balk at the price, or less sales as some customers go to purchase from competitors who aren't hampered by the same restrictions. And so the corporation has to bring prices back to where they were in order to keep business up, meaning that they either eat the loss out of their standard profits or they look for other ways to cut costs. That's an unproven anecdote, of course, but it's just as feasible as "more taxes = higher costs passed to consumers."
Reducing, I'd prefer them to be abolished, federal income and payroll taxes would allow employers to hire more employees and or pay them more.
Over the past decade or so, we've had great expansion in worker productivity in America, and we also boasted a high GDP. We also had anemic wage growth vs. inflation (especially against the prices of goods such as college education and health care) and nearly non-existant job growth. And this was after two separate substantial tax cut packages near the beginning of the decade. The lessons of the last decade appear to be that there is not always a direct link between job growth and increased business profits / lowered taxes - often, the business's shareholders just pocket those increases. So forgive some of us for being skeptical that additional cuts on payroll taxes will have any major effect.
Duchamp was basically a troll in the art world. He wasn't out to make art - he was out to fuck with people. And many of his art submissions (including "Fountain") were done under psuedonyms, where he would then write letters to the editor stating, "Oh, I thought that guy's Fountain thing was great!" So you could basically say that Duchamp was a member of Anonymous.
" And what you're going to get is the definition of the word 'art.' "
That's really the whole point. This isn't an argument about videogames - it's an argument about art. Ebert has a defintion of art that isn't well encapsulated by videogames, that art is about the artist giving the viewer a specific narrative. I'm sure Mr. Ebert has nothing against videogames per se, he just has a limited view of art like lots of other argumentative art students.
The problem here is that the public also has to be willing to learn something about the subject. You can write a barely technical article about a science advance and have people claiming that they don't get it, while you can write an article about football that's packed with jargon and stats that only someone who's been following football for years would... Well, this bit of parodical writing makes the point.
HOST: In sports news, Chelsea manager Carlo Ancelotti today heavily criticised a controversial offside decision which denied Didier Drogba a late goal, leaving Chelsea with a 1-all draw against Sunderland.
INTERCOM: Wait. Hold it. What was all that sports jargon?
HOST: It's just what's in the script. All I did was read it - I've got no idea what it's really on about.
INTERCOM: Nobody without a PhD in football's going to understand that. Who wrote this crap? It's elitist rubbish, people will just turn off when they hear it. "Late equaliser"? "Offside"? We've got to get this rewritten so it's more accessible.
HOST: Let's try this again, then. In sports news, a London football referee has reinterpreted the rules of the game in a manner which is causing controversy among the footballing establishment.
You realize that the kid and his dad WERE on Tosh.O, and the kid seemed completely sane about it. He looked like he was having a good time, and the sketch allowed him to pretend to drug up his dad and get revenge on him. I'll bet the kid looks back on this later on in life and has a good laugh about it.
Overturning a law is a "ball-or-strikes" vote. Creating new law to replace the old law is not.
They were not asked to overturn the law. They were asked to decide whether or not "Hillary: The Movie" violated current law. Instead of making a decision on that ruling, that decided to throw out the case and called for a new court hearing to be held, in which they wanted the lawyers involved to argue whether or not the entire law was unconstitutional. They took the opportunity to step in and throw out a law without being lead to do so. Whether or not you agree with the outcome, they did not just overturn the law as a standard judicial practice - they took deliberate, "active" steps to do so.
How much are YOU getting charged to auction the spectrum off to the carriers? I don't get it. Especially since there actually is a lot of competition in the wireless market lately - it's worth noting that we're starting to see unlimited data plans on various 4G networks that rival the speeds and monthly costs of landline broadband.
John Roberts is more right than wrong when he says a SCOTUS judge should be an umpire, calling balls and strikes.
Would that be the same John Roberts who, when given a court case about the narrow legality of a certain case involving campaign contributions, declined to give a simple balls-or-strikes vote and instead called for a new hearing to decide whether or not the entire law should be overturned? (Link.) Whether or not you agree that the law was constitutional, you can't deny that this was an extraordinary step beyond the call of what the judges were asked to do. This is the problem that liberals have with your "umpire" analogy - that the people who call for judges to be umpires would not hesitate to advance their own ideologies if put on the court, same as everyone else.
In order to be considered to be a Supreme Court judge, you must have a deep, thorough understanding and appreciation of the law, and you must hold no opinions about it whatsoever. Good luck with that one.
They also said regulators failed to tell Obama that all active deepwater rigs passed an immediate re-inspection after the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank, with only two rigs reporting minor violations and the rest getting approval to continue operations.
Would those inspections be conducted by the MMS whose head was recently kicked out when it was discovered just how much they were in bed with the industry?
If you look at the economic impact of the President's decision - it's just as much of a catastrophe for the region as the Oil!
Oh yes, if you look at the impact of potentially wrecking the fishing and tourism industries of a thousand lines of coastline and compare that to the 6-month delay of constructing a number of new wells that equal about a percentage point of the wells currently out there, you'll find that they're absolutely equivalent catastrophes! Totally the same!
Speaking as someone who donates to Wikileaks, if they have to use some of that money for travel and hotels in order to maintain the privacy of whistleblowers and to keep the organization's head moving so that he isn't thrown into a holding cell somewhere, then I am perfectly fine with my money going to those functions.
Also worth noting that Britain and Canada and Japan all must have their own certain percentage of stupid people who do dumb things, and yet I believe they all treat those people under their policies as well, yet they still spend much less on their healthcare.
That chart shows how people spend money with their own personal spending. It doesn't mention how much money is spent by governments, businesses, and insurers on health care. Medicaid and Medicare run at about a sixth of our federal budget, IIRC. You shouldn't use personal spending alone to gauge the impact that health spending is having on the economy.
It seems as though this guy didn't leak the data for the public good, but rather because he was angry. He was getting back at people etc, etc. Well that sort of thinking doesn't lead to good decision making.
TFA has excerpts from the chat in which Manning had told Lamo that he wanted this material out in the public domain to spur debate, that he was having some moral issues with how the military was doing business. What's your source that he was doing this for revenge?
Slashdot Mirror
You point out another issue that doesn't always get mentioned in scalper arguments - some bands actually do give a shit about their fans. It's crazy to believe that in the cynical times we live in, but some bands actually don't want their biggest fans to have to pay thousands of dollars to sit in the front row at their shows.
I don't think it's the "right-wing hate machine" they're worried about here, who's already mad that we're even discussing it. I think it's more a few senior military officials who don't like being told what to do by civilians.
The internet is over in the same way that MTV is over: they both exist in a gentrified form. And maybe if you stay up late, you'll actually catch them both staying true to their roots. :V
The problem on our side is that as a member of the WTO, we can't impose tariffs on imports - including importing work that takes place overseas.
I've heard here and there that the WTO will allow for certain tariffs to exist (such as Value Added Taxes) for certain externalities. I'm running around Google looking for examples... Here's a short example. Here's another.
While, yes, globalization has been driving down salaries of the middle class, it's also reduced the cost of living of the middle class...
Citation needed. Wage growth versus inflation has been very small over the past decade, the size of the middle class has shrunk, wealth concentration in the top bracket has gone up. While free trade may have decreased the costs of popular electronic and cheap Wal-Mart clothes, the "costs of living" have been steadily going up.
The trouble with these type of taxes is that the corporations simply pass it onto the customers.
I'm not sure how true this bit of common wisdom is. Another trope of the free market is that the price of goods is whatever the market will bear. That is to say, if a corporation thinks that people will pay more for whatever it is that they're selling, they'll charge more for it. Which is to say that if corporations were going to raise prices on their goods, they wouldn't wait for an increase in taxes to do it - they'd do it now to increase profits.
If corporations raise the price of their goods due to a tax increase, that could mean less sales as some customers balk at the price, or less sales as some customers go to purchase from competitors who aren't hampered by the same restrictions. And so the corporation has to bring prices back to where they were in order to keep business up, meaning that they either eat the loss out of their standard profits or they look for other ways to cut costs. That's an unproven anecdote, of course, but it's just as feasible as "more taxes = higher costs passed to consumers."
Reducing, I'd prefer them to be abolished, federal income and payroll taxes would allow employers to hire more employees and or pay them more.
Over the past decade or so, we've had great expansion in worker productivity in America, and we also boasted a high GDP. We also had anemic wage growth vs. inflation (especially against the prices of goods such as college education and health care) and nearly non-existant job growth. And this was after two separate substantial tax cut packages near the beginning of the decade. The lessons of the last decade appear to be that there is not always a direct link between job growth and increased business profits / lowered taxes - often, the business's shareholders just pocket those increases. So forgive some of us for being skeptical that additional cuts on payroll taxes will have any major effect.
Duchamp was basically a troll in the art world. He wasn't out to make art - he was out to fuck with people. And many of his art submissions (including "Fountain") were done under psuedonyms, where he would then write letters to the editor stating, "Oh, I thought that guy's Fountain thing was great!" So you could basically say that Duchamp was a member of Anonymous.
" And what you're going to get is the definition of the word 'art.' "
That's really the whole point. This isn't an argument about videogames - it's an argument about art. Ebert has a defintion of art that isn't well encapsulated by videogames, that art is about the artist giving the viewer a specific narrative. I'm sure Mr. Ebert has nothing against videogames per se, he just has a limited view of art like lots of other argumentative art students.
The problem here is that the public also has to be willing to learn something about the subject. You can write a barely technical article about a science advance and have people claiming that they don't get it, while you can write an article about football that's packed with jargon and stats that only someone who's been following football for years would... Well, this bit of parodical writing makes the point.
HOST: In sports news, Chelsea manager Carlo Ancelotti today heavily criticised a controversial offside decision which denied Didier Drogba a late goal, leaving Chelsea with a 1-all draw against Sunderland.
INTERCOM: Wait. Hold it. What was all that sports jargon?
HOST: It's just what's in the script. All I did was read it - I've got no idea what it's really on about.
INTERCOM: Nobody without a PhD in football's going to understand that. Who wrote this crap? It's elitist rubbish, people will just turn off when they hear it. "Late equaliser"? "Offside"? We've got to get this rewritten so it's more accessible.
HOST: Let's try this again, then. In sports news, a London football referee has reinterpreted the rules of the game in a manner which is causing controversy among the footballing establishment.
You know who else was satisfied with their conditions? Concentration camp Jews suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. HITLER.
(And I pray the mods understand sarcasm.)
You realize that the kid and his dad WERE on Tosh.O, and the kid seemed completely sane about it. He looked like he was having a good time, and the sketch allowed him to pretend to drug up his dad and get revenge on him. I'll bet the kid looks back on this later on in life and has a good laugh about it.
It's true - he's the most moderate secret Islamofascist communist that I know!
Overturning a law is a "ball-or-strikes" vote. Creating new law to replace the old law is not.
They were not asked to overturn the law. They were asked to decide whether or not "Hillary: The Movie" violated current law. Instead of making a decision on that ruling, that decided to throw out the case and called for a new court hearing to be held, in which they wanted the lawyers involved to argue whether or not the entire law was unconstitutional. They took the opportunity to step in and throw out a law without being lead to do so. Whether or not you agree with the outcome, they did not just overturn the law as a standard judicial practice - they took deliberate, "active" steps to do so.
How much are YOU getting charged to auction the spectrum off to the carriers? I don't get it. Especially since there actually is a lot of competition in the wireless market lately - it's worth noting that we're starting to see unlimited data plans on various 4G networks that rival the speeds and monthly costs of landline broadband.
John Roberts is more right than wrong when he says a SCOTUS judge should be an umpire, calling balls and strikes.
Would that be the same John Roberts who, when given a court case about the narrow legality of a certain case involving campaign contributions, declined to give a simple balls-or-strikes vote and instead called for a new hearing to decide whether or not the entire law should be overturned? (Link.) Whether or not you agree that the law was constitutional, you can't deny that this was an extraordinary step beyond the call of what the judges were asked to do. This is the problem that liberals have with your "umpire" analogy - that the people who call for judges to be umpires would not hesitate to advance their own ideologies if put on the court, same as everyone else.
In order to be considered to be a Supreme Court judge, you must have a deep, thorough understanding and appreciation of the law, and you must hold no opinions about it whatsoever. Good luck with that one.
Seriously, if Obama is Hitler and Bush is Hitler, what does that make Hitler?
I wonder if there were any hyperbolic editorialists in those days saying, "Hitler is just like Napoleon!"
As a discussion about Civilization increases in length, the probability that someone will suggest a sequel to Alpha Centauri approaches 1.
They also said regulators failed to tell Obama that all active deepwater rigs passed an immediate re-inspection after the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank, with only two rigs reporting minor violations and the rest getting approval to continue operations.
Would those inspections be conducted by the MMS whose head was recently kicked out when it was discovered just how much they were in bed with the industry?
If you look at the economic impact of the President's decision - it's just as much of a catastrophe for the region as the Oil!
Oh yes, if you look at the impact of potentially wrecking the fishing and tourism industries of a thousand lines of coastline and compare that to the 6-month delay of constructing a number of new wells that equal about a percentage point of the wells currently out there, you'll find that they're absolutely equivalent catastrophes! Totally the same!
Speaking as someone who donates to Wikileaks, if they have to use some of that money for travel and hotels in order to maintain the privacy of whistleblowers and to keep the organization's head moving so that he isn't thrown into a holding cell somewhere, then I am perfectly fine with my money going to those functions.
Also worth noting that Britain and Canada and Japan all must have their own certain percentage of stupid people who do dumb things, and yet I believe they all treat those people under their policies as well, yet they still spend much less on their healthcare.
That chart shows how people spend money with their own personal spending. It doesn't mention how much money is spent by governments, businesses, and insurers on health care. Medicaid and Medicare run at about a sixth of our federal budget, IIRC. You shouldn't use personal spending alone to gauge the impact that health spending is having on the economy.
It seems as though this guy didn't leak the data for the public good, but rather because he was angry. He was getting back at people etc, etc. Well that sort of thinking doesn't lead to good decision making.
TFA has excerpts from the chat in which Manning had told Lamo that he wanted this material out in the public domain to spur debate, that he was having some moral issues with how the military was doing business. What's your source that he was doing this for revenge?