There are some real artists that happen to be under the RIAA umbrella, and I buy those folks.
For instance, the Barenaked Ladies (sp? two words or three?) are a favorite. I purchase their music to say "I like this band". I also happen to enjoy Vertical Horizon--another good band.
In the more uncommon sector, I also like Vanessa Mae, Josh Groban and Yoyo Ma (sp?). What do you do when the artists that you enjoy happen to be on RIAA labels? Do you boycott the artist too? Sure, I go to concerts when I can, but those are expensive, and I either have to go to Atlanta or miss a lot of good concerts.
When my favorite artists are distributing via channels other than the RIAA, then I will purchase that way (and if they do both, and the non-RIAA version is more expensive, I will still avoid the RIAA).
I hear about all these indie bands, but the problem of taste is REAL! If the indie bands play what I like, then I will listen. I will certainly check for music ont those sites, but if I don't like what I hear, then saying I should listen to those artists is rather obtuse.
I don't support the RIAA, but I do like some of the artists that happen to have put their lot in that basket.
I might ask you the same (about being bored). I've checked recently and the overwhelming number of responses to my posts have come from you.
Get a life.
FWIW, you didn't even look at what I said about VOIP and similar bandwidth hungry applications. Do you use them? If not, then you can't complain that no one needs more bandwidth than you and expect to be taken seriously. I honestly need a lot of bandwidth because I use VOIP. I use VOIP to save myself money. WHen your internet+phone drops from $100+ to $70 (and a fixed amount at that), then you realize that VOIP is a good thing. My bill for the two would be even lower but my ISP stinks and is highly overpriced.
Look, regarding where you can live: I quite intentionally changed from "anywhere you please" to "anywhere you can afford" to avoid the problem of people saying they should be allowed to live in a place like a store, or, even worse, in a big house they can't afford. But within one's financial means this, the right to live anywhere you like is well established. This did indeed change the nature of the argument, but I did so intentionally because I would agree that "anywhere you please" is rather extreme.
But within that change, there are reasonably strong precedence (and possibly laws, though I am not certain of that) for having the right to live where you like, provided you can afford to purchase or rent the property (and pay the relevant taxes...).
As far as what I attributed to the police as motivation for the speed limits, I would not say "evil", merely self-serving. The difference is in the fact that I don't believe that the police are out to hurt anyone--just to help themselves. They probably, for the most part, believe that speed limits increase safety. But they also don't make the laws (though they may have some input). The mayor/town council/whatever gov. body does--and they are the ones who benefit more directly from the added income. Once again, I don't think that most of them are doing so strictly because they want to hurt others (that would be evil), they just see it as a way to increase revenue while also (and _of course_ more importantly) increasing safety. What could possibly be wrong with that?
As for the idea that cops might have evil intentions being untenable, you might want to pay a little more attention. There are a lot of very good, dedicated officers that I respect a lot, but I would say that calling the suggestion that there might be some corrupt, self-serving or plain evil cops untenable or unjustified paramount to suggesting that it is untenable that any preist is a pedophile. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you assesment that anyone who is travelling faster than the posted limit poses a clear and present danger to other motorists. Allow me to provide a clear reason why one should choose traveling speed according to two factors: personal ability and road conditions.
First, personal ability is a HUGE factor in whether or not one is driving at a safe speed. For instance, some individuals suffer from contrast insensitivity. That is, they have trouble seeing low-contrast objects, such as white on a grey background. For these individuals, driving at night is a major challenge, and they should probably be driving well under the posted limit.
Second, road conditions (which encompasses a large number of possibilities) include things like velocity of traffic flow. If the posted limit is 65, but the average speed of the motorists is 80, then the ones who are truly posing a danger are those who are driving 65 despite the traffic moving considerably faster. Should those traveling 85 be driving that fast? Legally, no. Safety wise? That is debatable, but those who are driving slower ARE posing a danger.
On a different note, when was the last time you heard of someone getting pulled over for driving too slow (under the minimum)? If safety were the true goal of police officers, then they would be enforcing that equally. I have NEVER heard of anyone being pulled over for doing 35 in a minimum 45 zone! By your logic, however, they are posing a clear and present danger to motorists that are all driving above the minimum of 45.
Finally, the idea of my argument is that speed limits tend to be arbitrary, and should either be consistent or non-existant. When a limit is arbitrary, then you cannot reasonably expect a person to always know the limit. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the motive for posting a speed limit is not truly safety, but something else. If safety were TRULY the MAJOR or ONLY concern, then two things would change: first, uniformity of limits would be the norm (that is, if condition x exists and all cond
Do you use VOIP? IPTV? Video Conferencing? ANYTHING?
For you, surfing and IRC may be enough, but for many of us, the slower connection is hampering. I tend to download a LOT of linux distros to try out. This is slow and painful.
FWIW, if you use WinXP, some of the service packs are BIG, and require much time.
The idea is that we keep adding things that can be done over the internet, and soon, that will be the primary method of communication. Once that happens, bandwidth will be essential.
Sorry, but the right live anywhere you can afford to is pretty well established (except for places like New London Conneticut (sp?)). Property rights (in the US) are considered pretty strong.
As far as speeding tickets, I have little patience for police officers who set up speed traps in places where the speed limit has just changed or where the road changes zones or that type of thing. I think that there should be a law that no officer can set up a speed trap within 1/4 mile of a speed limit sign that changes the posted limit (or something similar).
This would prevent tickets from being given to people who are slowing down but haven't acheived travel velocity or who are unused to a newly posted limit. It would catch those who are blatantly driving over the limit.
That said, the concept of a speeding ticket is self serving for the police. They get money, and it helps defray the cost of paying the officers. THey will ALWAYS fight any measure that reduces the number of tickets that are handed out. The question always has been "who judges the judge?"
The system in the US is broken, and needs to be fixed.
Re:Obligatory joke coming..
on
Google Moon Debuts
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
There is a difference here in what I want and what you think I want.
Most people assume that companies abuse employees intentionally. I disagree. The simple concept is that companies want the most out of their employees for the money they pay.
It is fairly well supported by research that those employees who indicate a high level of job satisfaction are more likely to be productive and less likely to slack.
Sweatshops are only going to happen when employers know very little about psychology and how to best work with employees. There are plenty of those around, but they are diminishing as they have a tougher and tougher time existing without unions or finding good workers.
I can't argue with you all day, but the point is that there are other ways to fight corporate abuses than to unionize. I do think that unions are necessary in some situations (I think you missed that), but there are others where they have outlived their usefullness, and are hurting the company. Figuring out the difference is hard.
I am currently a student (graduate school, transitioning into the PhD program from the Masters) in Industrial Psychology, and one of my MAJOR interests is union formation and what causes it (my primary interest is behavior of individuals within organizations, and what causes that behavior).
EVERYTHING that I have seen about unions indicates that a responsive management can do MORE for their employees without a union, and that a good management team will never have the problem of unions.
Unions are useful in their own time. I actually considered organizing one at one point (I was working in a mental health care facility at the time--there is no union for front line mental health workers), but left the job before I got too frustrated. I left to go back to school. I decided that I could do more good by getting a graduate degree and fighting corporate abuse of employees at higher levels.
I dislike unions though. They typically suck money from both the company and the employees (dues), and really make little difference in the overall job satisfaction of an employee.
I heard the story (don't know the source, sorry) of a guy running his own business who decided to do something radical--he let EVERY employee set their own salary. With the exception of only one person, everyone in the company chose reasonable salaries. That person changed their own salary after a few months (even though nothing was said by management). Now, I am not saying that this would work for every company, but that most people know what they are worth to a company, and are willing to work for that amount.
Currently I make far less than I am worth to the company I am employed at--IF I were to have the power to enact all the changes and whatnot that I know are necessary. I don't have that power, or the ability to make that call, so I make only slightly less than what I really need (minor gripe). If I could set my own salary it would be about $4/hour more than I make (which isn't really a lot).
I had a point in there (somewhere), but the idea is simple--unions are a huge problem when they get out of control and no one has the sanity to say, "look, I know that's what the employees want, but if we do that it will ruin the company."
You're correct as I stated it. The problem is that I assumed you would know more about the scenario: it is forced choice. Refusal to bet is not an option.
You're final statement (assuming forced choice scenarios) is a pointed example of what I wanted to point out. The value of the $50 difference in potential outcomes is viewed extremely differently if you already have the money. Remember, at the start of the scenario you have NOTHING, so ANYTHING you leave with is a GAIN. But if I give someone the $100 before they bet, they will view the $75 and the $125 outcomes VERY differently than if they start with $0. Objectively, the probability (assuming forced choice) of leaving with $75 or $125 is identical in both scenarios (50%), but almost no one will interpret it in that fashion.
You interpreted this exactly the way most people would (even those who understand probability quite well). Not that you aren't intelligent, but that you are typical. Read the book--it will help you make better decisions.
If you want a REALLY good overview of how people assess the probability of events (risk perception included) the BEST book you can read is "Rational Choice in an Uncertain World" by Hastie and Dawes.
They make good arguments about the nature of rational decision making, and then detail WHY people are so bad at it. Risk assessment is only a small part of it.
An example. Give people $100 and ask them to risk $25 with a 50-50 chance to win and then give them $0 and a 50-50 chance to win either $75 or $125, and they will choose differently. EITHER way they have the same chance of ending up with either $75 or $125, but they will favor different risks.
This is true for VERY simple choices, and it is known that people do worse as more options are added.
You are correct in that it does cost more, but ONLY because of the nature of the legal system. You have to account for the fact that most of us who advocate the death penalty ALSO advocate making the process much more quickly. In MANY, not all, cases the costs of an execution ALSO include the costs of appeals, court decisions, interim prisoning, and more. If you take the medical costs associated with simply bringing in a qualified coroner and physician and a lethal injection (which is the only reasonable method in my mind), and NOT the other costs, the amount is much more reasonable.
I advocate the death penalty, not as a deterrent, but as a punishment for those whose crimes are so heinous that there is no chance of reform that could be trusted (could you ever REALLY trust Charles Manson?) For murders committed as a child (single case, not killing sprees), and similar stuff, there is a decent chance that handled correctly, the person could reform (not in the current system, however--it does NOT encourage reform). I could not ever advocate the death penalty for that person. But for the Charles Manson's out there, I say rid the planet of their presence.
The right of appeal is important, but the process COULD be streamlined, simplified, and, ultimately, made much smoother. I say that unless a person is able to find new evidence, there is no chance of appeal. They get 5 years, during which they must work for the prison system (as a prisoner) to provide their own sustenance.* After that time, if there is no new evidence, then they must either find a way to convince the court that they do not deserv, or they get no appeal. You only get one chance. If the court denies it, then you are executed. Period.
I don't like to sound harsh, but there SHOULD be punishments which fit crimes. The more heinous the crime, the more permanent the punishment. Deterrance is part of that, of course. But mostly the safety of the group is the goal. If taking criminals and locking them up is sufficient, that is fine, but I can't even begin to pretend that that is always an option (the guys they have to keep in solitary so other prisoners don't kill them come to mind). Additionally, there comes a point where society cannot support the burden of keeping that many prisoners in jail. That is when SOMETHING must change. Some of it is how we run prisons (something I learned a fair bit about from my brother who worked in one for 14 years as a correctional officer (California, Maximum Security)). Generally the prisoners are there with zero responsibilities. They are also frequently left with little opportunity to improve their own lot. Prisons should be self-sufficient. They could probably even export goods and turn a profit. When the prisoner leaves, he could even take a portion of that profit with him (thus not being both jobless and penniless will discourage immediate theft as a means of survival, which is what frequently happens). How to make this work? I am not certain, but let me put it to you like this: if you WANT a system without the death penalty, then you need to change the system to something that makes it feasible to keep these guys off the streets without just being a gian money sink.
We spend millions, if not billions, on the prisons in this country. That needs to change. One way to do that is to reduce the number of appeals available to those sentenced to death. Another way is to make prison less pleasant and more self-sustaining. If you want to make changes, make them, but FIX the system.
*I think that self sutaining prisons are a necessity. I have NO desire to pay for Cable TV for people when I myself cannot afford it. Think about it.
I in no way think that the ideas I've presented are perfect, but I am all for reform. The system is broken, obviously so, and we should fix it. Cyber crime is a stupid idea.
Let me be blunt: I am all for the death penalty. Capital punishment is a useful, and appropriate, means of punishment for certain crimes.
Hacking a computer or delivering a virus is, in and of itself, NOT one of them. Anyone who thinks it is must be using some type of psychotropics. The very idea is insane.
As someone pointed out, however, there are instances where I would support the death penalty for some one who maliciously used a computer. Like if they hack the airline computers and crash an airplane full of people fullspeed into a terminal, causing (intentionally) the death of hundreds of people. An extreme example, but I would support the death penalty in that case--or any other where the crime would normally carry a death penalty if committed without a computer.
Cyber-crime is no worse (or better) than any other type of crime, and should not carry a special penalty above the normal crime.
Although many here will think I am crazy for supporting the death penalty at any level, that is a personal belief (even if it has political and social consequences). I would not (ever) support the death penalty for theft, but in multiple manslaughter/homicide cases, I think that it is for the best.
Using a computer to steal $500,000,000 does not change the crime from theft to murder. Now, if you killed someone in the process of a robbery, then you would be tried for that as well.
The short story? I can't imagine what crazy world this guy lives in, but the death penalty is not an appropriate punishment for cybercrime just because a computer was involved! Idiots!
IIRC, in the US courts have used the "reasonable expectation of privacy" as a litmus test to see if a monitoring activity is intrusive.
Under this paradigm, NOTHING you do in the workplace other than going to the bathroom carries a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless someone with certain powers (such as the CEO) tells you (usually in writing) that a particular communication is private.
Most courts have taken a pretty open view about what an empoloyer may do to monitor employee behavior while on the jobsite. Essentially if you have an office or cube, all your conversations that might reasonably be overheard on accident are fair game. Certainly any communication via email is fair game.
This is simply because of the number of ways that a person might be publicly observed. The long and the short of it is that if you do it at work, you had better hope that your employer doesn't mind.
That sounds like a poorly designed policy. It also doesn't mean that all incoming emails aren't automatically stored on the mail server, regardless of what the user does. The server that we use keeps ALL emails that are sent or received through it. That's just the way it works.
I suspected as much, but was replying in the thread as the discussion had turned. That said, how DO they provide enough lift? If a blade is NOT moving relative (I assume this is what mu=1 is about) to the air, then there is not lift (correct?).
What if the blade is moving BACKWARDS relative to the air at that particular point in the rotation? Wouldn't that provide negative lift, thus throwing the vehicle off balance? A solution would be to have the blades tilt during the rotation along the long axis of the individual blade (acting like a wing in a plane). This would have to be adjusted based on air speed and rotation speed (among other things), but I can see how it would work.
Depending on the stroke this is no big accomplishment. First, as a sibling post points out, swimmers also use their legs (and most of their body, especially for a butterfly stroke). Second, their is the distinct possibility of a pause at the end of the stroke, especially in swimmers going for efficiency rather than speed (gliding). This isn't breaking the mu limitation, but rather about using more of your body. I think the mu limitation only applies to (in choppers) vehicles with no other means of propulsion. (Can't say for certain--not my area!).
I do--and I know a LOT of other folks who do. I happen to like the iTunes interface and capabilities. You have something that does everything it does and does it better? Let me know and I'll try it.
Until then, I will use iTunes. I don't have an iPod, nor does anyone that I know.
a pacifist states that it doesn't matter how much anyone suffers as a result of their non-action, it is still wrong to fight. This means that regardless of how strongly the oposition states, "we are going to torture, rape, torture, pillage, rape and murder all of you and your children", they will only say, "Let's talk."
To me that is not an acceptable position. I do not believe that it will lead to peace. I believe it will lead to one group of people getting slaughtered.
That said, I have a great deal of respect for those who, because of their interpretation of scripture, or their personal beliefs in some deity, have adopted this approach. I think everyone has a right to believe according to their own will, and should not be forced to violate deeply held beliefs.
However, there is absolutely no way that a civilization can base their existence on pacifism unless they have something with which to protect themselves that is not easily overcome. A good (viable) example of this is Switzerland. I know they maintain nuetrality, but they have an interesting (and perhaps unique) position--if they are attacked by any one group or nation, virtually every other nation on the planet will leap to their defense. So while this means that they could easily take the position of pacificism, they do it at the cost of everyone else either a) being pacifistic or b) everyone else fighting and getting killed to protect their ability to pacifistic and remain free. In order to be TRULY pacifistic without asking others to die for you should you be attacked, you MUST have an ULTIMATE defense--a method of protecting yourself (without causing damage to those attacking you) indefinitely. There is no technology to accomplish this at this time.
This is why there is no logical conclusion as to which is better in terms of justification--one requires you to accept the slaughter of innocents while you do nothing (even though you might be able to protect them by fighting back), and the other requires you to kill one person in order to protect others. Are these positions equally dispicable? I personally favor the protection of innocents, even if it means that I must kill someone in order to protect them. I could not sit by and watch my family get killed while I said, "No, it is wrong to fight." I would rather die (and even in doing so fail) to protect my family than do nothing.
The position that pacifism is the only way to prevent ever-increasing violence is patently false. History has shown that a sufficient show of force to demonstrate that you are superior on the battle field (bombing Nagasaki) can lead to bringing folks to the discussion table, and even lead to an eventual alliance between two previously warring parties (US & Japan are on pretty good terms). This has happened in other situations as well, and I think it demonstrates that the tenet of "avoiding increasing violence" is false.
I will not comment on the current situation--there is evidence that those who are rebelling against US Troops are not in majority, so the justification you supply is flawed.
If what you imply were true, then you would be correct. But I think (at least I hope) that if the majority of Iraqis told us to "get the hell out", then we would do so, but under the conditions that they never seek to attack us. Right now, however, I think that the majority do not want us out immediately.
Finally, I don't think that pacifism is the answer, but neither is aggression. Militaries exist for a single reason (in my mind)--to protect the country which they serve. Not to expand it, but to protect it. I personally support the war in Iraq (notice it is NOT the war ON Iraq), because I feel we are protecting ourselves. Many disagree with the concept that we are protecting ourselves, and say that it is all about oil. That position is debatable (but the only real reason for being there other than protection would be oil), and I recognize that.
I try to be reasonable--it isn't reasonable not too: or something like that.
I just had a moment of curiosity, though, as to why it would bother some people that others believe in something that they don't, when there is no "your soul is in danger" concept driving them to try to spread their beliefs.
For me, I can understand why some folks don't want to hear about religion--and I respect that. I disagree with them on a number of points, but I understand the desire to be left alone. After all, I am that way on a number of topics myself (I really don't want to hear some rather obscure theory about how George Bush (and all the other past leaders of all countries) is really the descendent of Martian super geniuses and that race is controlling all of us secretly--but if someone wants to believe that, then that's okay with me, until they do one of several things: First, try to force it on me; second, ignore repeated suggestions that they leave me alone; third, try to make it impossible for me to practically believe anything else.
Oh well, I am just getting way off now--have a good day, and I'll shut up.
Folks, war is not a simple thing, and trying to make it sound simple is foolish. In war, there are things that happen that undeniably should not--I won't justify that. But there are too many people that question things that a) can't be changed and b) try to make all war seem evil.
A) is not so bad, as we can learn from past mistakes--and I think that the military would avoid using nuclear weapons (talking about US military, as well as European militaries) at all costs. There can be, however, a point beyond which it is no use to travel in your inspection of the past.
B) is foolish in the extreme. I had a coworker who, at one point, stated that she felt ALL war was wrong, and there was no point at which it would be justified to fight a war. This is foolish. At some point (and what point that is is debatable) there comes a time where if you do not fight, you allow innocent civilians to be slaughtered by an enemy who will torture and rape and abuse, just because the enemy has the ability to do so (I don't think that the majority of us would have liked it if Nazi Germany had won). In the case of WWII, if no one had opposed Hitler, then we still would have had concentration camps and the Holocaust. I don't think that appeals to most of us.
Does that justify, then, the use of nuclear weapons? I don't know. I do know, however, that there is NO way that you can ever be certain that if we hadn't done that that the Japanese (at that time) wouldn't have ended up winning the war. Maybe we would have had to use the nuclear bomb, but instead of hitting Japan, an enemy-occupied US city (possible). From a military standpoint, you always stop the enemy before they take your land. Especially when it is a war across oceans, where if Japan had taken and held Hawaii, it would have given them a major advantage.
So, "just following orders" is more complicated than you seem to think. That's why we aren't in the military (or I assume you are not). I, at the very least, would want to know why I should storm a particular hill or destroy a particular area. Sometimes an action may seem odd, or even wrong, but in the interest of winning a war, it may be absolutely essential. Without knowing the entire picture, however, you can't always be certain that an action is not the best thing. I'm not talking about rape or abuse or defying the Geneva conventions (those are always wrong, and then the soldier should take the moral ground and refuse, knowing that the senior officer might just have him severely punished (and in some cases killed), but defying the orders all the same), but about taking a village or bombing a particular target. So while I agree that there are some situations and actions that are extremely hard to justify (rape is never justified in my mind), don't be quick to judge a soldier's defense that he was just following orders. If the Milgram studies taught us anything it was that authority is more powerful than we tend to think, and that most people will obey orders when asked to do something the would never do on their own (shocking someone with a supposedly lethal charge)--just because they were told to do it by someone with authority (experimenter). Think about it a little more before you discount that particular defense!
I find it interesting how many people find bashing religion important enough to post about it here.
If you aren't religious, what do you care if others believe in something higher than themselves ($DEITY)?
Think about it like this: if a religion makes people happy and gives them a way to feel better about themselves, why should an atheist care? Does it really affect you if scientist $x also happens to believe in a God who knows more than him?
Honestly, I think one of the most dangerous ideas in religion is that God has revealed everything that wants us to know about him in the Bible. I think that is a foolish assertion, and I see no evidence for it. Why is this relevant? Because of what you say: if a religion claims to have ALL truth, then you may know that religion is false. Isn't a complete understanding of what makes the universe work as it does part of "ALL TRUTH"? If so, then religions of today do not have "ALL TRUTH". Even mine (and I am a very religious person).
Thus, what religion is, and should be, is a personal search for greater understanding of the self and for ultimate happiness. Ultimately, the most religious person should be the most dedicated scientist--trying to puzzle things out and understand what is going on. This was fairly well understood in certain times, but there has been an unfortunate slew of "feel-good" religions that do nothing more than justify people's behavior. If you are atheist, then you only need the justification that it isn't illegal, but so many religions (which claim to morality as a domain of control) do nothing more than justify actions that are prohibited by most ancient religions.
I see no reason science should conflict with religion. If both of them are what they claim to be, then they will eventually converge (assuming, of course that there is a God--I believe there is, but many do not). Religion doesn't claim to be the truth, it merely claims that it has access to certain truths that are not readibly accessible via other methods.
Pay attention--the rebate check to cover spending up to the poverty level addresses this. Sheesh. Read something.
I don't mean to be offensive, its just that people who bash the fairtax are seeming to fall into two categories: 1. those who have heard something bad, and are parroting what they've heard 2. those who don't understand it because they only read part of it.
It takes very little to understand that the FairTax plan is robust--it handles things like poverty line spending, and those who live at the higher end of the curve. Don't you think that these "obvious flaws" are obvious enough to those of us who support the plan to be seen and addressed?
When someone comes to me with a detailed analysis and then says, "Hey, I've run the numbers, and it doesn't work", then I'll sit up and pay attention. IN the meantime, let us all work on making the FairTax a reality.
YOu, sir, aren't paying attention (or possibly didn't really read up on the plan).
(You are a SIR, aren't you? One never knows, but this is/.!).
The rich get taxed. The poor get taxed. Under the current plan, there are returns based on overpayment, and some other things (such as family size v. income). The tax backets are useful, and they usually end up helping the poor (I know, cause I'm there--for now).
Under the fair tax, everyone gets a rebate check monthly. This amount is enough to cover a very basic set of necessities, and would actually end up being more than most poor families get in returns each year. For the rich, it would represent so very little money as to be ridiculous.
You claim that spending is so little for the rich, but you seem to forget your statistics (as have others). Even though the rich person doesn't spend much continously (although that is arguable), there is a tendency to spend in large chunks--frequently more than I make in a year will be spent in a moment--$30k for a wedding, $20k for a boat, $50k for a new car, $1000k for a new house (or more), $$$$$$ for a new jet (ultra rich).
These are figures that I will never spend. Now these may not represent monthly or yearly purchases, but for many of the really rich (foolishly rich), a new car every year is no big deal. I'll be lucky if I get to buy a brand new car in the next 10 years. There are enough celebrities and whatnot that spend in this fashion to keep the average amount spent in a given year fairly high!
Thus, the rich will, as always, be paying the lion's share of taxes, and getting a poor return on it. After all, the government isn't known for being ultra efficient (spend _all_ your budget boys!).
Finally, I am of the understanding that with the FairTax, that initial investment will also be taxed, thus helping raise the amount sent to government coffers. It would also reduce the size of the IRS, thus reducing the drain of collecting taxes.
I think that anyone who is against the FairTax isn't paying attention!
Slashdot Mirror
There are some real artists that happen to be under the RIAA umbrella, and I buy those folks.
For instance, the Barenaked Ladies (sp? two words or three?) are a favorite. I purchase their music to say "I like this band". I also happen to enjoy Vertical Horizon--another good band.
In the more uncommon sector, I also like Vanessa Mae, Josh Groban and Yoyo Ma (sp?). What do you do when the artists that you enjoy happen to be on RIAA labels? Do you boycott the artist too? Sure, I go to concerts when I can, but those are expensive, and I either have to go to Atlanta or miss a lot of good concerts.
When my favorite artists are distributing via channels other than the RIAA, then I will purchase that way (and if they do both, and the non-RIAA version is more expensive, I will still avoid the RIAA).
I hear about all these indie bands, but the problem of taste is REAL! If the indie bands play what I like, then I will listen. I will certainly check for music ont those sites, but if I don't like what I hear, then saying I should listen to those artists is rather obtuse.
I don't support the RIAA, but I do like some of the artists that happen to have put their lot in that basket.
I might ask you the same (about being bored). I've checked recently and the overwhelming number of responses to my posts have come from you.
Get a life.
FWIW, you didn't even look at what I said about VOIP and similar bandwidth hungry applications. Do you use them? If not, then you can't complain that no one needs more bandwidth than you and expect to be taken seriously. I honestly need a lot of bandwidth because I use VOIP. I use VOIP to save myself money. WHen your internet+phone drops from $100+ to $70 (and a fixed amount at that), then you realize that VOIP is a good thing. My bill for the two would be even lower but my ISP stinks and is highly overpriced.
Look, regarding where you can live: I quite intentionally changed from "anywhere you please" to "anywhere you can afford" to avoid the problem of people saying they should be allowed to live in a place like a store, or, even worse, in a big house they can't afford. But within one's financial means this, the right to live anywhere you like is well established. This did indeed change the nature of the argument, but I did so intentionally because I would agree that "anywhere you please" is rather extreme.
But within that change, there are reasonably strong precedence (and possibly laws, though I am not certain of that) for having the right to live where you like, provided you can afford to purchase or rent the property (and pay the relevant taxes...).
As far as what I attributed to the police as motivation for the speed limits, I would not say "evil", merely self-serving. The difference is in the fact that I don't believe that the police are out to hurt anyone--just to help themselves. They probably, for the most part, believe that speed limits increase safety. But they also don't make the laws (though they may have some input). The mayor/town council/whatever gov. body does--and they are the ones who benefit more directly from the added income. Once again, I don't think that most of them are doing so strictly because they want to hurt others (that would be evil), they just see it as a way to increase revenue while also (and _of course_ more importantly) increasing safety. What could possibly be wrong with that?
As for the idea that cops might have evil intentions being untenable, you might want to pay a little more attention. There are a lot of very good, dedicated officers that I respect a lot, but I would say that calling the suggestion that there might be some corrupt, self-serving or plain evil cops untenable or unjustified paramount to suggesting that it is untenable that any preist is a pedophile. Think about it.
I have to disagree with you assesment that anyone who is travelling faster than the posted limit poses a clear and present danger to other motorists. Allow me to provide a clear reason why one should choose traveling speed according to two factors: personal ability and road conditions.
First, personal ability is a HUGE factor in whether or not one is driving at a safe speed. For instance, some individuals suffer from contrast insensitivity. That is, they have trouble seeing low-contrast objects, such as white on a grey background. For these individuals, driving at night is a major challenge, and they should probably be driving well under the posted limit.
Second, road conditions (which encompasses a large number of possibilities) include things like velocity of traffic flow. If the posted limit is 65, but the average speed of the motorists is 80, then the ones who are truly posing a danger are those who are driving 65 despite the traffic moving considerably faster. Should those traveling 85 be driving that fast? Legally, no. Safety wise? That is debatable, but those who are driving slower ARE posing a danger.
On a different note, when was the last time you heard of someone getting pulled over for driving too slow (under the minimum)? If safety were the true goal of police officers, then they would be enforcing that equally. I have NEVER heard of anyone being pulled over for doing 35 in a minimum 45 zone! By your logic, however, they are posing a clear and present danger to motorists that are all driving above the minimum of 45.
Finally, the idea of my argument is that speed limits tend to be arbitrary, and should either be consistent or non-existant. When a limit is arbitrary, then you cannot reasonably expect a person to always know the limit. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the motive for posting a speed limit is not truly safety, but something else. If safety were TRULY the MAJOR or ONLY concern, then two things would change: first, uniformity of limits would be the norm (that is, if condition x exists and all cond
Do you use VOIP? IPTV? Video Conferencing? ANYTHING?
For you, surfing and IRC may be enough, but for many of us, the slower connection is hampering. I tend to download a LOT of linux distros to try out. This is slow and painful.
FWIW, if you use WinXP, some of the service packs are BIG, and require much time.
The idea is that we keep adding things that can be done over the internet, and soon, that will be the primary method of communication. Once that happens, bandwidth will be essential.
Sorry, but the right live anywhere you can afford to is pretty well established (except for places like New London Conneticut (sp?)). Property rights (in the US) are considered pretty strong.
As far as speeding tickets, I have little patience for police officers who set up speed traps in places where the speed limit has just changed or where the road changes zones or that type of thing. I think that there should be a law that no officer can set up a speed trap within 1/4 mile of a speed limit sign that changes the posted limit (or something similar).
This would prevent tickets from being given to people who are slowing down but haven't acheived travel velocity or who are unused to a newly posted limit. It would catch those who are blatantly driving over the limit.
That said, the concept of a speeding ticket is self serving for the police. They get money, and it helps defray the cost of paying the officers. THey will ALWAYS fight any measure that reduces the number of tickets that are handed out. The question always has been "who judges the judge?"
The system in the US is broken, and needs to be fixed.
I think you messed it up:
on the moon, the new Overlords welcome you!
There is a difference here in what I want and what you think I want.
Most people assume that companies abuse employees intentionally. I disagree. The simple concept is that companies want the most out of their employees for the money they pay.
It is fairly well supported by research that those employees who indicate a high level of job satisfaction are more likely to be productive and less likely to slack.
Sweatshops are only going to happen when employers know very little about psychology and how to best work with employees. There are plenty of those around, but they are diminishing as they have a tougher and tougher time existing without unions or finding good workers.
I can't argue with you all day, but the point is that there are other ways to fight corporate abuses than to unionize. I do think that unions are necessary in some situations (I think you missed that), but there are others where they have outlived their usefullness, and are hurting the company. Figuring out the difference is hard.
Absolutely spot on!
I am currently a student (graduate school, transitioning into the PhD program from the Masters) in Industrial Psychology, and one of my MAJOR interests is union formation and what causes it (my primary interest is behavior of individuals within organizations, and what causes that behavior).
EVERYTHING that I have seen about unions indicates that a responsive management can do MORE for their employees without a union, and that a good management team will never have the problem of unions.
Unions are useful in their own time. I actually considered organizing one at one point (I was working in a mental health care facility at the time--there is no union for front line mental health workers), but left the job before I got too frustrated. I left to go back to school. I decided that I could do more good by getting a graduate degree and fighting corporate abuse of employees at higher levels.
I dislike unions though. They typically suck money from both the company and the employees (dues), and really make little difference in the overall job satisfaction of an employee.
I heard the story (don't know the source, sorry) of a guy running his own business who decided to do something radical--he let EVERY employee set their own salary. With the exception of only one person, everyone in the company chose reasonable salaries. That person changed their own salary after a few months (even though nothing was said by management). Now, I am not saying that this would work for every company, but that most people know what they are worth to a company, and are willing to work for that amount.
Currently I make far less than I am worth to the company I am employed at--IF I were to have the power to enact all the changes and whatnot that I know are necessary. I don't have that power, or the ability to make that call, so I make only slightly less than what I really need (minor gripe). If I could set my own salary it would be about $4/hour more than I make (which isn't really a lot).
I had a point in there (somewhere), but the idea is simple--unions are a huge problem when they get out of control and no one has the sanity to say, "look, I know that's what the employees want, but if we do that it will ruin the company."
You're correct as I stated it. The problem is that I assumed you would know more about the scenario: it is forced choice. Refusal to bet is not an option.
You're final statement (assuming forced choice scenarios) is a pointed example of what I wanted to point out. The value of the $50 difference in potential outcomes is viewed extremely differently if you already have the money. Remember, at the start of the scenario you have NOTHING, so ANYTHING you leave with is a GAIN. But if I give someone the $100 before they bet, they will view the $75 and the $125 outcomes VERY differently than if they start with $0. Objectively, the probability (assuming forced choice) of leaving with $75 or $125 is identical in both scenarios (50%), but almost no one will interpret it in that fashion.
You interpreted this exactly the way most people would (even those who understand probability quite well). Not that you aren't intelligent, but that you are typical. Read the book--it will help you make better decisions.
If you want a REALLY good overview of how people assess the probability of events (risk perception included) the BEST book you can read is "Rational Choice in an Uncertain World" by Hastie and Dawes.
They make good arguments about the nature of rational decision making, and then detail WHY people are so bad at it. Risk assessment is only a small part of it.
An example. Give people $100 and ask them to risk $25 with a 50-50 chance to win and then give them $0 and a 50-50 chance to win either $75 or $125, and they will choose differently. EITHER way they have the same chance of ending up with either $75 or $125, but they will favor different risks.
This is true for VERY simple choices, and it is known that people do worse as more options are added.
Read that book--it's great reading.
You are correct in that it does cost more, but ONLY because of the nature of the legal system. You have to account for the fact that most of us who advocate the death penalty ALSO advocate making the process much more quickly. In MANY, not all, cases the costs of an execution ALSO include the costs of appeals, court decisions, interim prisoning, and more. If you take the medical costs associated with simply bringing in a qualified coroner and physician and a lethal injection (which is the only reasonable method in my mind), and NOT the other costs, the amount is much more reasonable.
I advocate the death penalty, not as a deterrent, but as a punishment for those whose crimes are so heinous that there is no chance of reform that could be trusted (could you ever REALLY trust Charles Manson?) For murders committed as a child (single case, not killing sprees), and similar stuff, there is a decent chance that handled correctly, the person could reform (not in the current system, however--it does NOT encourage reform). I could not ever advocate the death penalty for that person. But for the Charles Manson's out there, I say rid the planet of their presence.
The right of appeal is important, but the process COULD be streamlined, simplified, and, ultimately, made much smoother. I say that unless a person is able to find new evidence, there is no chance of appeal. They get 5 years, during which they must work for the prison system (as a prisoner) to provide their own sustenance.* After that time, if there is no new evidence, then they must either find a way to convince the court that they do not deserv, or they get no appeal. You only get one chance. If the court denies it, then you are executed. Period.
I don't like to sound harsh, but there SHOULD be punishments which fit crimes. The more heinous the crime, the more permanent the punishment. Deterrance is part of that, of course. But mostly the safety of the group is the goal. If taking criminals and locking them up is sufficient, that is fine, but I can't even begin to pretend that that is always an option (the guys they have to keep in solitary so other prisoners don't kill them come to mind). Additionally, there comes a point where society cannot support the burden of keeping that many prisoners in jail. That is when SOMETHING must change. Some of it is how we run prisons (something I learned a fair bit about from my brother who worked in one for 14 years as a correctional officer (California, Maximum Security)). Generally the prisoners are there with zero responsibilities. They are also frequently left with little opportunity to improve their own lot. Prisons should be self-sufficient. They could probably even export goods and turn a profit. When the prisoner leaves, he could even take a portion of that profit with him (thus not being both jobless and penniless will discourage immediate theft as a means of survival, which is what frequently happens). How to make this work? I am not certain, but let me put it to you like this: if you WANT a system without the death penalty, then you need to change the system to something that makes it feasible to keep these guys off the streets without just being a gian money sink.
We spend millions, if not billions, on the prisons in this country. That needs to change. One way to do that is to reduce the number of appeals available to those sentenced to death. Another way is to make prison less pleasant and more self-sustaining. If you want to make changes, make them, but FIX the system.
*I think that self sutaining prisons are a necessity. I have NO desire to pay for Cable TV for people when I myself cannot afford it. Think about it.
I in no way think that the ideas I've presented are perfect, but I am all for reform. The system is broken, obviously so, and we should fix it. Cyber crime is a stupid idea.
Let me be blunt: I am all for the death penalty. Capital punishment is a useful, and appropriate, means of punishment for certain crimes.
Hacking a computer or delivering a virus is, in and of itself, NOT one of them. Anyone who thinks it is must be using some type of psychotropics. The very idea is insane.
As someone pointed out, however, there are instances where I would support the death penalty for some one who maliciously used a computer. Like if they hack the airline computers and crash an airplane full of people fullspeed into a terminal, causing (intentionally) the death of hundreds of people. An extreme example, but I would support the death penalty in that case--or any other where the crime would normally carry a death penalty if committed without a computer.
Cyber-crime is no worse (or better) than any other type of crime, and should not carry a special penalty above the normal crime.
Although many here will think I am crazy for supporting the death penalty at any level, that is a personal belief (even if it has political and social consequences). I would not (ever) support the death penalty for theft, but in multiple manslaughter/homicide cases, I think that it is for the best.
Using a computer to steal $500,000,000 does not change the crime from theft to murder. Now, if you killed someone in the process of a robbery, then you would be tried for that as well.
The short story? I can't imagine what crazy world this guy lives in, but the death penalty is not an appropriate punishment for cybercrime just because a computer was involved! Idiots!
IIRC, in the US courts have used the "reasonable expectation of privacy" as a litmus test to see if a monitoring activity is intrusive.
Under this paradigm, NOTHING you do in the workplace other than going to the bathroom carries a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless someone with certain powers (such as the CEO) tells you (usually in writing) that a particular communication is private.
Most courts have taken a pretty open view about what an empoloyer may do to monitor employee behavior while on the jobsite. Essentially if you have an office or cube, all your conversations that might reasonably be overheard on accident are fair game. Certainly any communication via email is fair game.
This is simply because of the number of ways that a person might be publicly observed. The long and the short of it is that if you do it at work, you had better hope that your employer doesn't mind.
That sounds like a poorly designed policy. It also doesn't mean that all incoming emails aren't automatically stored on the mail server, regardless of what the user does. The server that we use keeps ALL emails that are sent or received through it. That's just the way it works.
I suspected as much, but was replying in the thread as the discussion had turned. That said, how DO they provide enough lift? If a blade is NOT moving relative (I assume this is what mu=1 is about) to the air, then there is not lift (correct?).
What if the blade is moving BACKWARDS relative to the air at that particular point in the rotation? Wouldn't that provide negative lift, thus throwing the vehicle off balance? A solution would be to have the blades tilt during the rotation along the long axis of the individual blade (acting like a wing in a plane). This would have to be adjusted based on air speed and rotation speed (among other things), but I can see how it would work.
Any thoughts on that?
Depending on the stroke this is no big accomplishment. First, as a sibling post points out, swimmers also use their legs (and most of their body, especially for a butterfly stroke). Second, their is the distinct possibility of a pause at the end of the stroke, especially in swimmers going for efficiency rather than speed (gliding). This isn't breaking the mu limitation, but rather about using more of your body. I think the mu limitation only applies to (in choppers) vehicles with no other means of propulsion. (Can't say for certain--not my area!).
I do--and I know a LOT of other folks who do. I happen to like the iTunes interface and capabilities. You have something that does everything it does and does it better? Let me know and I'll try it.
Until then, I will use iTunes. I don't have an iPod, nor does anyone that I know.
Like I stated--I have little knowledge of the history of Switzerland, just that only a stark raving lunatic would attack them.
I have to disagree-think about it like this:
a pacifist states that it doesn't matter how much anyone suffers as a result of their non-action, it is still wrong to fight. This means that regardless of how strongly the oposition states, "we are going to torture, rape, torture, pillage, rape and murder all of you and your children", they will only say, "Let's talk."
To me that is not an acceptable position. I do not believe that it will lead to peace. I believe it will lead to one group of people getting slaughtered.
That said, I have a great deal of respect for those who, because of their interpretation of scripture, or their personal beliefs in some deity, have adopted this approach. I think everyone has a right to believe according to their own will, and should not be forced to violate deeply held beliefs.
However, there is absolutely no way that a civilization can base their existence on pacifism unless they have something with which to protect themselves that is not easily overcome. A good (viable) example of this is Switzerland. I know they maintain nuetrality, but they have an interesting (and perhaps unique) position--if they are attacked by any one group or nation, virtually every other nation on the planet will leap to their defense. So while this means that they could easily take the position of pacificism, they do it at the cost of everyone else either a) being pacifistic or b) everyone else fighting and getting killed to protect their ability to pacifistic and remain free. In order to be TRULY pacifistic without asking others to die for you should you be attacked, you MUST have an ULTIMATE defense--a method of protecting yourself (without causing damage to those attacking you) indefinitely. There is no technology to accomplish this at this time.
This is why there is no logical conclusion as to which is better in terms of justification--one requires you to accept the slaughter of innocents while you do nothing (even though you might be able to protect them by fighting back), and the other requires you to kill one person in order to protect others. Are these positions equally dispicable? I personally favor the protection of innocents, even if it means that I must kill someone in order to protect them. I could not sit by and watch my family get killed while I said, "No, it is wrong to fight." I would rather die (and even in doing so fail) to protect my family than do nothing.
The position that pacifism is the only way to prevent ever-increasing violence is patently false. History has shown that a sufficient show of force to demonstrate that you are superior on the battle field (bombing Nagasaki) can lead to bringing folks to the discussion table, and even lead to an eventual alliance between two previously warring parties (US & Japan are on pretty good terms). This has happened in other situations as well, and I think it demonstrates that the tenet of "avoiding increasing violence" is false.
I will not comment on the current situation--there is evidence that those who are rebelling against US Troops are not in majority, so the justification you supply is flawed.
If what you imply were true, then you would be correct. But I think (at least I hope) that if the majority of Iraqis told us to "get the hell out", then we would do so, but under the conditions that they never seek to attack us. Right now, however, I think that the majority do not want us out immediately.
Finally, I don't think that pacifism is the answer, but neither is aggression. Militaries exist for a single reason (in my mind)--to protect the country which they serve. Not to expand it, but to protect it. I personally support the war in Iraq (notice it is NOT the war ON Iraq), because I feel we are protecting ourselves. Many disagree with the concept that we are protecting ourselves, and say that it is all about oil. That position is debatable (but the only real reason for being there other than protection would be oil), and I recognize that.
If,
I try to be reasonable--it isn't reasonable not too: or something like that.
I just had a moment of curiosity, though, as to why it would bother some people that others believe in something that they don't, when there is no "your soul is in danger" concept driving them to try to spread their beliefs.
For me, I can understand why some folks don't want to hear about religion--and I respect that. I disagree with them on a number of points, but I understand the desire to be left alone. After all, I am that way on a number of topics myself (I really don't want to hear some rather obscure theory about how George Bush (and all the other past leaders of all countries) is really the descendent of Martian super geniuses and that race is controlling all of us secretly--but if someone wants to believe that, then that's okay with me, until they do one of several things: First, try to force it on me; second, ignore repeated suggestions that they leave me alone; third, try to make it impossible for me to practically believe anything else.
Oh well, I am just getting way off now--have a good day, and I'll shut up.
It is MUCH stickier than that.
Folks, war is not a simple thing, and trying to make it sound simple is foolish. In war, there are things that happen that undeniably should not--I won't justify that. But there are too many people that question things that a) can't be changed and b) try to make all war seem evil.
A) is not so bad, as we can learn from past mistakes--and I think that the military would avoid using nuclear weapons (talking about US military, as well as European militaries) at all costs. There can be, however, a point beyond which it is no use to travel in your inspection of the past.
B) is foolish in the extreme. I had a coworker who, at one point, stated that she felt ALL war was wrong, and there was no point at which it would be justified to fight a war. This is foolish. At some point (and what point that is is debatable) there comes a time where if you do not fight, you allow innocent civilians to be slaughtered by an enemy who will torture and rape and abuse, just because the enemy has the ability to do so (I don't think that the majority of us would have liked it if Nazi Germany had won). In the case of WWII, if no one had opposed Hitler, then we still would have had concentration camps and the Holocaust. I don't think that appeals to most of us.
Does that justify, then, the use of nuclear weapons? I don't know. I do know, however, that there is NO way that you can ever be certain that if we hadn't done that that the Japanese (at that time) wouldn't have ended up winning the war. Maybe we would have had to use the nuclear bomb, but instead of hitting Japan, an enemy-occupied US city (possible). From a military standpoint, you always stop the enemy before they take your land. Especially when it is a war across oceans, where if Japan had taken and held Hawaii, it would have given them a major advantage.
So, "just following orders" is more complicated than you seem to think. That's why we aren't in the military (or I assume you are not). I, at the very least, would want to know why I should storm a particular hill or destroy a particular area. Sometimes an action may seem odd, or even wrong, but in the interest of winning a war, it may be absolutely essential. Without knowing the entire picture, however, you can't always be certain that an action is not the best thing. I'm not talking about rape or abuse or defying the Geneva conventions (those are always wrong, and then the soldier should take the moral ground and refuse, knowing that the senior officer might just have him severely punished (and in some cases killed), but defying the orders all the same), but about taking a village or bombing a particular target. So while I agree that there are some situations and actions that are extremely hard to justify (rape is never justified in my mind), don't be quick to judge a soldier's defense that he was just following orders. If the Milgram studies taught us anything it was that authority is more powerful than we tend to think, and that most people will obey orders when asked to do something the would never do on their own (shocking someone with a supposedly lethal charge)--just because they were told to do it by someone with authority (experimenter). Think about it a little more before you discount that particular defense!
THis is way OT, but I don't care...
I find it interesting how many people find bashing religion important enough to post about it here.
If you aren't religious, what do you care if others believe in something higher than themselves ($DEITY)?
Think about it like this: if a religion makes people happy and gives them a way to feel better about themselves, why should an atheist care? Does it really affect you if scientist $x also happens to believe in a God who knows more than him?
Honestly, I think one of the most dangerous ideas in religion is that God has revealed everything that wants us to know about him in the Bible. I think that is a foolish assertion, and I see no evidence for it. Why is this relevant? Because of what you say: if a religion claims to have ALL truth, then you may know that religion is false. Isn't a complete understanding of what makes the universe work as it does part of "ALL TRUTH"? If so, then religions of today do not have "ALL TRUTH". Even mine (and I am a very religious person).
Thus, what religion is, and should be, is a personal search for greater understanding of the self and for ultimate happiness. Ultimately, the most religious person should be the most dedicated scientist--trying to puzzle things out and understand what is going on. This was fairly well understood in certain times, but there has been an unfortunate slew of "feel-good" religions that do nothing more than justify people's behavior. If you are atheist, then you only need the justification that it isn't illegal, but so many religions (which claim to morality as a domain of control) do nothing more than justify actions that are prohibited by most ancient religions.
I see no reason science should conflict with religion. If both of them are what they claim to be, then they will eventually converge (assuming, of course that there is a God--I believe there is, but many do not). Religion doesn't claim to be the truth, it merely claims that it has access to certain truths that are not readibly accessible via other methods.
And on a day without modpoints (and now the possibility of coming back to mod you up)!
Somebody please mod the parent and grandparent up!
Pay attention--the rebate check to cover spending up to the poverty level addresses this. Sheesh. Read something.
I don't mean to be offensive, its just that people who bash the fairtax are seeming to fall into two categories:
1. those who have heard something bad, and are parroting what they've heard
2. those who don't understand it because they only read part of it.
It takes very little to understand that the FairTax plan is robust--it handles things like poverty line spending, and those who live at the higher end of the curve. Don't you think that these "obvious flaws" are obvious enough to those of us who support the plan to be seen and addressed?
When someone comes to me with a detailed analysis and then says, "Hey, I've run the numbers, and it doesn't work", then I'll sit up and pay attention. IN the meantime, let us all work on making the FairTax a reality.
YOu, sir, aren't paying attention (or possibly didn't really read up on the plan).
/.!).
(You are a SIR, aren't you? One never knows, but this is
The rich get taxed. The poor get taxed. Under the current plan, there are returns based on overpayment, and some other things (such as family size v. income). The tax backets are useful, and they usually end up helping the poor (I know, cause I'm there--for now).
Under the fair tax, everyone gets a rebate check monthly. This amount is enough to cover a very basic set of necessities, and would actually end up being more than most poor families get in returns each year. For the rich, it would represent so very little money as to be ridiculous.
You claim that spending is so little for the rich, but you seem to forget your statistics (as have others). Even though the rich person doesn't spend much continously (although that is arguable), there is a tendency to spend in large chunks--frequently more than I make in a year will be spent in a moment--$30k for a wedding, $20k for a boat, $50k for a new car, $1000k for a new house (or more), $$$$$$ for a new jet (ultra rich).
These are figures that I will never spend. Now these may not represent monthly or yearly purchases, but for many of the really rich (foolishly rich), a new car every year is no big deal. I'll be lucky if I get to buy a brand new car in the next 10 years. There are enough celebrities and whatnot that spend in this fashion to keep the average amount spent in a given year fairly high!
Thus, the rich will, as always, be paying the lion's share of taxes, and getting a poor return on it. After all, the government isn't known for being ultra efficient (spend _all_ your budget boys!).
Finally, I am of the understanding that with the FairTax, that initial investment will also be taxed, thus helping raise the amount sent to government coffers. It would also reduce the size of the IRS, thus reducing the drain of collecting taxes.
I think that anyone who is against the FairTax isn't paying attention!