How can you improve diversity among categories that are entirely defined by having proved invalid ways to categorize people in the past? Seriously, the discrimination model that explains why you have to feel guilty for something at this point isn't even thought crime, it claims that you are wrong... in your thoughts... about your reasons because of things other people who shared this invalid classification did to people whose only relationship is one of these invalid relationships.
Having the same junk doesn't relate you to anyone else with the same junk, any crime, or any thought, and nobody knows your motives better than you. Stop pretending psychology is or ever was science.
Is it good that there were backdoors in the products? Of course not. But a rash of these sort of incidents being reported in a short time isn't a bad thing, it means someone is reviewing, cleaning house, and being transparent about it which is actually a good sign going forward. This kind of thing isn't a reason to dump a company or service it's more like six months ago you should have dumped them and didn't know it but now they are actually stepping up and whoever you switch to might be hiding all kinds of skeletons.
"Putting aside the fact that home insurance isn't tax-funded to begin with, the "fair" amount that you should be paying toward insurance in general and fire protection in particular is a function of the value of your home (for the insurance), the cost of putting out a fire (including overhead / standby costs), your potential liability to others if a fire spreads, and the probability of a fire. Your income is completely irrelevant and should have no bearing on the amount you pay."
Right, insurance is a collective pot toward a specific purpose which is why I mentioned it as an example but the comparison to tax breaks down right there. But as you said, your liability and value of your home factor into what you should pay. Tax on the other hand is a collective pool for community benefit, you don't and should not need all the functions you'll pay tax toward and others in kind will be paying taxes for things which benefit you. The big difference is that your income and wealth are the equivalent of the home value in the case of taxes. If I get one dollar, and you get a million, equitable tax is attached to the dollars not the count of people because every dollar represents a share of all the collective wealth our society generates and the collective burden required to generate it including roads, health and education of workers, etc.
Personally I'm not a fan of income tax, because it does punish those who are working harder and simply being more successful. It doesn't really matter how much money you are churning via income and spending what matters is the accumulated excess, the extra. I'm a fan of a wealth tax.
"The "whole point" of imposing these taxes is to internalize the perceived external costs of burning gasoline so that they are reflected in the price at the pump. Paying to mitigate the effects of burning gasoline out of general income taxes rather than gasoline taxes would mean that those who do not burn gasoline are taxed to clean up the mess created by those who do. There is nothing "fair" or "equitable" in that."
Yes there is. First of all, gas is hardly the only thing contributing co2 to the atmosphere not by a large measure, secondly taxes are not penalties, taxes are for things we as a society have determined we both need and either have complications with supply and demand and/or are not something that will be handled by private industry. Once we determine there is such a matter, the distribution of that cost should be spread evenly among our collective wealth. Taxes are not to penalize, encourage, reduce, or otherwise manipulate individual behavior and paying them also does not entitle you to judge that behavior or the decisions of others. If using gas is determined harmful then it should be illegal not taxed.
Lets stop talking about the 1% because the 1% includes engineers, doctors, and people who work for a living. We are really talking about the.1% or even.01% who contribute nothing but loaning us back the interest they charged us last week. It baffles me, if we need to build a road and there is a building in the way we use imminent domain in the interest of the public but erasing the wealth of a tiny fraction of population smaller than would be impacted by tearing down that building and doubling the value of all wealth held by 99.9% of the population instantly we consider it "evil"
"but owning stocks does - it's money that can directly be used by the company to buy machinery and hire people to work."
For the most part stock has the losest possible connection to a company. It does not go up because a company is doing well, or down because a company is doing poorly, it is purely based on what outsiders FEEL is happening. There are executives and board members impacted by the stock price but the company itself, its bank accounts, and operational budget, and profits, are usually completely unattached to company stock.
Yes, they do, just not in a big vault. They hoard money in the form of debt. The reason most people NEED to take on debt is the.1% and the reason they'll need it again is because of the interest they paid on the debt the first time, they'll then be borrowing back the interest they paid for another round.
No the point is that actual brass tax and bottom line has little impact on emotional stress. My 1 year daughter is likely feeling more emotional trauma when I won't let her have another banana as I'd experience if my house burnt down. The problems might objectively be bigger for some than others but emotional stress and trauma are not.
As we age and experience more emotional trauma you become less sensitized or at least you should as you are encouraged to learn to shed it off and focus on the practical realities like "don't cry about it, call the insurance company and move on". Instead people are encouraged to embrace emotions, intentionally sensitized, and sheltered from all forms of emotional trauma. These days things are actually being outlawed that do nothing more than hurt someone's feelings. Gone is the attitude of "yup, that sucks, now stop whining we've got shit to do"
Is it really surprising that we have raised several generations of children who can't cope with the shit salad that is life?
Nah, this is teenagers and millennial. The inability to cope with shitty reality came alongside the shift away from the sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Everyone is sheltered and sensitized to emotional stress and they can't cope. Pain, both physical and emotional is something you should become desensitized to instead we focus on removing every potential opportunity to encounter it.
I'd live with DRM and streaming if streaming services actually bothered with decent audio instead of just worrying about video and if the content companies didn't distribute the content among them rather than combining together into a massive streaming service or selling to all of them with no exclusivity.
Movies and shows not being available on the major streaming platforms alongside live air time isn't acceptable, neither is movies and shows disappearing from streaming services, random episodes missing, seasons missing, etc.
That was a great dream, unfortunately the content companies spread their content across multiple services to keep you from just paying x/mo to a service and streaming everything. They also shift it around so that shows and movies you like disappear from the streaming services. Trust me, I know I have subscriptions to hulu, netflix, amazon prime, every premium cable and movie channel, and go to the movies here and there as well. I still have to pirate 99% of my content.
"So the upshot of this study is that people who consume a lot of content consume a lot of content, and they consume some of that content legally."
The study showed they consume more legal content than those who don't pirate. It doesn't matter if you consume boatloads of content and 90% of it is illegal if the 10% which is legal amounts for more than the people with no illegal content.
That doesn't even begin the scratch the surface. But we should really use the graduated, fair, and equitable system we have in income tax to pay for this and literally everything else we decide is worth spending tax dollars on. Everything else is someone finding some reason to get out of paying their share on something or something we don't need to spend tax dollars on.
If you live in the wealthy neighborhood, you should still pay a share toward the poor neighborhood schools, if your house didn't burn down, you should still pay for your share toward the insurance and fire department who took care of the one that did. And if you live off the grid in a solar house and walk everywhere, you should still pay your taxes and the price of gasoline should directly go up no more than the price of everything across the board goes up due to the increased tax. The whole point of the system is to pool and distribute tax costs not use them to hammer the affected industry.
Logging isn't actually a significant problem. Loggers plant new trees. The reason the rainforests are depeleting on the large scale is actually the millions of poor people who live in places with rainforest attempt to scrape some kind of a living off the land.
"lternatively, we have some temporary subsidies on a clean form of energy that will become the cheapest form of generation ever (cheaper than subsidised coal) within a few decades at most."
Oh what is that? It certainly isn't wind or solar at efficiencies they'll see... ever. Also solar is far from clean, just because it doesn't dump CO2 into the air doesn't make the manufacturing and composition of the panels even close to okay.
Well I don't know about you but for the past 35 years I've heard almost nothing about nuclear except captain plant massive lakes of glowing yellow ooze and how it is going to kill you. Nuclear has a serious PR problem.
Nothing results in a net reduction of carbon unless we are going to launch it into the sun but this offsets new carbon emission into the atmosphere. Hydrogen is in this thing called water. We actually have lots and lots of it.
The more expensive options that involved buying the carbon would actually reduce levels.
"many of who I bet were also supporters of Occupy Wall Street"
Okay, you had to me here. This, the complaint about wealth redistribution... the only reason to be opposed to these things if you are in the tiny fraction hoarding wealth at the expense of everyone else. I'd be all for it as well if I were one of the top.001%, by all means, keep paying me interest, having to borrow it back, and paying interest to me on that interest in a massive debt cycle while being too dumb to realize you outnumber me a 1000-to-1 and could erase that debt without impacting any significant number of people negatively. If you aren't in the 0.001% you must have somehow been duped into looking out for someone elses self interest. Here is a hint, if you and a thousand of your friends find yourselfs picking cotton, kill the guy with the whip, don't give two shits about his investment and plight, trust me it is the right plan.
Climate change denialism may be a rejection of science but that hardly makes ANYTHING under the environment and climate science umbrella "solid" science. Solid science gives accurate answers to 9 decimal places each and every time. Climate science models don't even give consistent accurate results or even agree on outcomes. Just because this science is our best guess doesn't mean our confidence level in it should be high. And really, I know the issue has gotten overly politicized so views are extreme but this particular wing of science and those who support it have been preaching various flavors of doom and gloom for decades to get funding and while the environmental movement is going strong the doom and gloom scenarios thus far have never come to pass.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you improve diversity among categories that are entirely defined by having proved invalid ways to categorize people in the past? Seriously, the discrimination model that explains why you have to feel guilty for something at this point isn't even thought crime, it claims that you are wrong... in your thoughts... about your reasons because of things other people who shared this invalid classification did to people whose only relationship is one of these invalid relationships.
Having the same junk doesn't relate you to anyone else with the same junk, any crime, or any thought, and nobody knows your motives better than you. Stop pretending psychology is or ever was science.
Everyone is losing who isn't some flavor of police.
It is news... the pattern suggests someone is actively cleaning house at cisco.
Is it good that there were backdoors in the products? Of course not. But a rash of these sort of incidents being reported in a short time isn't a bad thing, it means someone is reviewing, cleaning house, and being transparent about it which is actually a good sign going forward. This kind of thing isn't a reason to dump a company or service it's more like six months ago you should have dumped them and didn't know it but now they are actually stepping up and whoever you switch to might be hiding all kinds of skeletons.
"Putting aside the fact that home insurance isn't tax-funded to begin with, the "fair" amount that you should be paying toward insurance in general and fire protection in particular is a function of the value of your home (for the insurance), the cost of putting out a fire (including overhead / standby costs), your potential liability to others if a fire spreads, and the probability of a fire. Your income is completely irrelevant and should have no bearing on the amount you pay."
Right, insurance is a collective pot toward a specific purpose which is why I mentioned it as an example but the comparison to tax breaks down right there. But as you said, your liability and value of your home factor into what you should pay. Tax on the other hand is a collective pool for community benefit, you don't and should not need all the functions you'll pay tax toward and others in kind will be paying taxes for things which benefit you. The big difference is that your income and wealth are the equivalent of the home value in the case of taxes. If I get one dollar, and you get a million, equitable tax is attached to the dollars not the count of people because every dollar represents a share of all the collective wealth our society generates and the collective burden required to generate it including roads, health and education of workers, etc.
Personally I'm not a fan of income tax, because it does punish those who are working harder and simply being more successful. It doesn't really matter how much money you are churning via income and spending what matters is the accumulated excess, the extra. I'm a fan of a wealth tax.
"The "whole point" of imposing these taxes is to internalize the perceived external costs of burning gasoline so that they are reflected in the price at the pump. Paying to mitigate the effects of burning gasoline out of general income taxes rather than gasoline taxes would mean that those who do not burn gasoline are taxed to clean up the mess created by those who do. There is nothing "fair" or "equitable" in that."
Yes there is. First of all, gas is hardly the only thing contributing co2 to the atmosphere not by a large measure, secondly taxes are not penalties, taxes are for things we as a society have determined we both need and either have complications with supply and demand and/or are not something that will be handled by private industry. Once we determine there is such a matter, the distribution of that cost should be spread evenly among our collective wealth. Taxes are not to penalize, encourage, reduce, or otherwise manipulate individual behavior and paying them also does not entitle you to judge that behavior or the decisions of others. If using gas is determined harmful then it should be illegal not taxed.
Lets stop talking about the 1% because the 1% includes engineers, doctors, and people who work for a living. We are really talking about the .1% or even .01% who contribute nothing but loaning us back the interest they charged us last week. It baffles me, if we need to build a road and there is a building in the way we use imminent domain in the interest of the public but erasing the wealth of a tiny fraction of population smaller than would be impacted by tearing down that building and doubling the value of all wealth held by 99.9% of the population instantly we consider it "evil"
"but owning stocks does - it's money that can directly be used by the company to buy machinery and hire people to work."
For the most part stock has the losest possible connection to a company. It does not go up because a company is doing well, or down because a company is doing poorly, it is purely based on what outsiders FEEL is happening. There are executives and board members impacted by the stock price but the company itself, its bank accounts, and operational budget, and profits, are usually completely unattached to company stock.
Yes, they do, just not in a big vault. They hoard money in the form of debt. The reason most people NEED to take on debt is the .1% and the reason they'll need it again is because of the interest they paid on the debt the first time, they'll then be borrowing back the interest they paid for another round.
Why is this modded troll?
No the point is that actual brass tax and bottom line has little impact on emotional stress. My 1 year daughter is likely feeling more emotional trauma when I won't let her have another banana as I'd experience if my house burnt down. The problems might objectively be bigger for some than others but emotional stress and trauma are not.
As we age and experience more emotional trauma you become less sensitized or at least you should as you are encouraged to learn to shed it off and focus on the practical realities like "don't cry about it, call the insurance company and move on". Instead people are encouraged to embrace emotions, intentionally sensitized, and sheltered from all forms of emotional trauma. These days things are actually being outlawed that do nothing more than hurt someone's feelings. Gone is the attitude of "yup, that sucks, now stop whining we've got shit to do"
Is it really surprising that we have raised several generations of children who can't cope with the shit salad that is life?
Nah, this is teenagers and millennial. The inability to cope with shitty reality came alongside the shift away from the sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Everyone is sheltered and sensitized to emotional stress and they can't cope. Pain, both physical and emotional is something you should become desensitized to instead we focus on removing every potential opportunity to encounter it.
I'd live with DRM and streaming if streaming services actually bothered with decent audio instead of just worrying about video and if the content companies didn't distribute the content among them rather than combining together into a massive streaming service or selling to all of them with no exclusivity.
Movies and shows not being available on the major streaming platforms alongside live air time isn't acceptable, neither is movies and shows disappearing from streaming services, random episodes missing, seasons missing, etc.
That was a great dream, unfortunately the content companies spread their content across multiple services to keep you from just paying x/mo to a service and streaming everything. They also shift it around so that shows and movies you like disappear from the streaming services. Trust me, I know I have subscriptions to hulu, netflix, amazon prime, every premium cable and movie channel, and go to the movies here and there as well. I still have to pirate 99% of my content.
"So the upshot of this study is that people who consume a lot of content consume a lot of content, and they consume some of that content legally."
The study showed they consume more legal content than those who don't pirate. It doesn't matter if you consume boatloads of content and 90% of it is illegal if the 10% which is legal amounts for more than the people with no illegal content.
That doesn't even begin the scratch the surface. But we should really use the graduated, fair, and equitable system we have in income tax to pay for this and literally everything else we decide is worth spending tax dollars on. Everything else is someone finding some reason to get out of paying their share on something or something we don't need to spend tax dollars on.
If you live in the wealthy neighborhood, you should still pay a share toward the poor neighborhood schools, if your house didn't burn down, you should still pay for your share toward the insurance and fire department who took care of the one that did. And if you live off the grid in a solar house and walk everywhere, you should still pay your taxes and the price of gasoline should directly go up no more than the price of everything across the board goes up due to the increased tax. The whole point of the system is to pool and distribute tax costs not use them to hammer the affected industry.
"Let's be honest, and say that we need to tax people for buying products that release CO2 in the atmosphere."
We don't, we need to tax people profiting from products that release CO2 into the atmosphere.
wow hold on there, don't go confusing rockets with jets.
Yeah, in fact I've heard of a chemical system that works on this principal.... PLANTS
Sure, but they do plant trees to replace them. The big issue is the rain forest and most of that is being chopped down by the locals not loggers.
Logging isn't actually a significant problem. Loggers plant new trees. The reason the rainforests are depeleting on the large scale is actually the millions of poor people who live in places with rainforest attempt to scrape some kind of a living off the land.
"lternatively, we have some temporary subsidies on a clean form of energy that will become the cheapest form of generation ever (cheaper than subsidised coal) within a few decades at most."
Oh what is that? It certainly isn't wind or solar at efficiencies they'll see... ever. Also solar is far from clean, just because it doesn't dump CO2 into the air doesn't make the manufacturing and composition of the panels even close to okay.
Well I don't know about you but for the past 35 years I've heard almost nothing about nuclear except captain plant massive lakes of glowing yellow ooze and how it is going to kill you. Nuclear has a serious PR problem.
Nothing results in a net reduction of carbon unless we are going to launch it into the sun but this offsets new carbon emission into the atmosphere. Hydrogen is in this thing called water. We actually have lots and lots of it.
The more expensive options that involved buying the carbon would actually reduce levels.
"many of who I bet were also supporters of Occupy Wall Street"
.001%, by all means, keep paying me interest, having to borrow it back, and paying interest to me on that interest in a massive debt cycle while being too dumb to realize you outnumber me a 1000-to-1 and could erase that debt without impacting any significant number of people negatively. If you aren't in the 0.001% you must have somehow been duped into looking out for someone elses self interest. Here is a hint, if you and a thousand of your friends find yourselfs picking cotton, kill the guy with the whip, don't give two shits about his investment and plight, trust me it is the right plan.
Okay, you had to me here. This, the complaint about wealth redistribution... the only reason to be opposed to these things if you are in the tiny fraction hoarding wealth at the expense of everyone else. I'd be all for it as well if I were one of the top
Climate change denialism may be a rejection of science but that hardly makes ANYTHING under the environment and climate science umbrella "solid" science. Solid science gives accurate answers to 9 decimal places each and every time. Climate science models don't even give consistent accurate results or even agree on outcomes. Just because this science is our best guess doesn't mean our confidence level in it should be high. And really, I know the issue has gotten overly politicized so views are extreme but this particular wing of science and those who support it have been preaching various flavors of doom and gloom for decades to get funding and while the environmental movement is going strong the doom and gloom scenarios thus far have never come to pass.