I also called upon you to do some research. If you don't feel the topic is important enough for you to do the research, I don't see what is the benefit of providing citations. Citations don't exist to prove statements. They don't act as proves even when they are given. They exist to allow a reader to further familiarize themselves with the details of what's being stated. You seem to have no interest in further familiarizing yourself. So citation is not needed.
"Society" generally refers to collections of people bound by certain criteria as a unifying abstraction. I am not sure how you can justify the implicit claim built into your statement that an abstraction called "society" can be anthropomorphised enough to make excuses. Excuses are generally actions taken by single-minded entities (not necessarily individuals, but at least entities which have the ability to act or speak with a single-minded purpose).
I was calling upon you to perform certain research. If you are not up to the task, I am not sure I have any reason to feel compelled to support the non-imperative part of my statement with citations.
That meant that some people had more gold than others. But you can't eat gold. The actual full amount of the food which could be produced was not sufficient to feed everyone.
Putting it in a different bucket does not amount to giving it away. It makes it nontaxable. Most of the wealth he "donates" ends up in a charity whose money he gets to spend on whatever. Only a small portion of the charity's money is actually spend on charitable expenses. That small portion is much smaller than what he would pay in capital gains taxes if he were to sell the shares.
He will not. The people who will pay a higher tax will be the people who compete with him in capital markets. It would effectively reduce his competitors ability to acquire companies (giving him better buying prices).
Can you explain what you mean? The only tax policy I heard him recommend recently were upward adjustments to capital gains.
He is essentially asking the government to tax his competition in the capital markets. And the tax levied against his competition would not apply to him or would only apply to a very small (incredibly small) portion of his wealth.
Meanwhile, he stashes his money in a "charity" which spends much smaller percentage of its money on charitable spending than the percentage which would be his tax burden if he were to sell his shares and the (already low) capital gains tax on them. Since he gets to direct how the money of the corporation gets spent, he gets to essentially keep the money and pay a small percent of it to charitable causes while spending the rest of it on anything he deems appropriate (which makes him rather than the charity the effective owner of that money).
He also never actually sells the shares he owns (so he never pays capital gains tax). Everything he does is related to running of his company, so most of his expenses are paid for from pre-tax capital expenditure of the corporation.
The fact is, representative government is about giving people what they want too. That is why it's based on consent.
If it doesn't reach its ideal, neither does yours.
That's a false dichotomy. You try to paint two things as equivalent when they are, in fact, different in matters of degree. The ethical parts of those actions are that they enable choice. But a representative government only allows as many choices as there are elections (few choices that is). Whereas selling useful products allows for choices on daily basis. So selling useful products is more ethical.
Are you suggesting that selling a popular product makes you a moral person?
Suggesting? I thought I was pretty explicit about it. Yes, it does.
you could still be a murderer in your spare time.
Just like you could be a murder in your spare time if you do any highly ethical act. But the fact that someone is engaging in one unethical activity does not make their ethical activity any less ethical.
Warren Buffet has gotten much less ethical in his old age. He used to enable businesses and growth. Now he is advocating destructive social trends in the hopes of getting away with the largest tax evasion scheme in history.
People were "poor" during Napolean's age because the world didn't produce enough food to feed everyone. When that's the case, some have to be poor -- there is no alternative. That's not the case today. And when there is enough resources to provide for everyone, the sentiment that one has to take from someone else by force, or else or go without, is much less prevalent.
well, maybe if your money comes from tax payer funds. but if you make your money by giving people what they want, you are by definition more moral than those who don't give as many people as much of what they want.
Triggering stop orders requires pushing the price around, which requires capital in order to take on large positions.
While it is synonymous with having a large capital, it doesn't in itself require a large capital. It is sufficient to have a large facility for selling off large share blocks to retail. Certainly someone like CF can do it. They don't need to own a large block of shares at any one time. They just need to have a contract to sell X number of shares over a period of time. This is not underwriting (where CF would have to buy out the entire X block before selling it off). It's a way to do an SPO without doing an SPO. It has nothing to do with HFT, by the way. The only reason I mention it is that there are facilities out there which a 3rd party player to sell a lot of company stock in order to scoop up the discounted shares of stops.
It doesn't matter. You can't unroll the loops on this one. So even the basic optimization cannot be done. The whole thing was done in 1 function, so no inlining would help either. I was using gcc 4.5.1. The hardware should be irrelevant. I ran both the java version and the g++ version on the same box under the same operating system. The Java version was 6_26. Both gcc and Java were 64-bit versions.
Ha? That's the main point of contention with Santorum. That would make it the apropos point of discussion rather than a strawman. The post to which I responded was stating that Santorum's views and their wide acceptance is what causes gay men to want to stay in the closet I am sorry, what made my question a strawman?
Calling retards "retarded" is not bullying. It's calling things by their own names. Insisting that negative information must be sugar-coated or it can't be conveyed even to those who perfectly capable of handling it is not bullying. And, at times, political correctness actually brings about labels which are more harmful than the labels they replace. "African American", for example, is far more offensive than "black." It puts a qualifier on "American" as if the person were not as American as other Americans.
Because that's what the law does, of course. What else do you think it does?
It states ahead of time which actions are punishable and which are not. It removes the uncertainty about which behavior might bring about the punishment of "the strong arm of the law?" If it doesn't remove such an uncertainty, by the way, than it fails in its primary goal -- clarifying the boundaries. I am not sure I agree that the boundaries of good behavior should be established through such a rigorous procedure. This is how you end up with the laws which make it punishable to swear in front of women and children.
Why do we need it? We can still find him an ass hole without the court getting involved. What's the benefit of getting a legal stamp of approval on calling someone an ass hole? I mean we already know that he is an ass hole. What's the additional benefit?
This kind of puts the cart before the horse. It should be a crime before it can be a hate crime. I don't see how a motivation can make an act which is legal into an act which is illegal. Motivation can be considered as an aggravating factor in committing a crime, but the act has to be a crime to begin with. If all the guy did was post a video which he himself recorded while on his property, I don't see how that's illegal. The person who was videotaped was not a minor. Can it really be illegal to record persons in ones own domicile? And certainly if the recording wasn't illegal, then posting it wasn't illegal. So what's the crime? He was an ass? That's not in itself illegal. Nor should it be.
Slashdot Mirror
I also called upon you to do some research. If you don't feel the topic is important enough for you to do the research, I don't see what is the benefit of providing citations. Citations don't exist to prove statements. They don't act as proves even when they are given. They exist to allow a reader to further familiarize themselves with the details of what's being stated. You seem to have no interest in further familiarizing yourself. So citation is not needed.
"Society" generally refers to collections of people bound by certain criteria as a unifying abstraction. I am not sure how you can justify the implicit claim built into your statement that an abstraction called "society" can be anthropomorphised enough to make excuses. Excuses are generally actions taken by single-minded entities (not necessarily individuals, but at least entities which have the ability to act or speak with a single-minded purpose).
I was calling upon you to perform certain research. If you are not up to the task, I am not sure I have any reason to feel compelled to support the non-imperative part of my statement with citations.
Look at the scale of how much a society redistributes wealth and it will match the scale of how prevalent the poverty is.
That meant that some people had more gold than others. But you can't eat gold. The actual full amount of the food which could be produced was not sufficient to feed everyone.
Putting it in a different bucket does not amount to giving it away. It makes it nontaxable. Most of the wealth he "donates" ends up in a charity whose money he gets to spend on whatever. Only a small portion of the charity's money is actually spend on charitable expenses. That small portion is much smaller than what he would pay in capital gains taxes if he were to sell the shares.
He will not. The people who will pay a higher tax will be the people who compete with him in capital markets. It would effectively reduce his competitors ability to acquire companies (giving him better buying prices).
Can you explain what you mean? The only tax policy I heard him recommend recently were upward adjustments to capital gains.
He is essentially asking the government to tax his competition in the capital markets. And the tax levied against his competition would not apply to him or would only apply to a very small (incredibly small) portion of his wealth.
Meanwhile, he stashes his money in a "charity" which spends much smaller percentage of its money on charitable spending than the percentage which would be his tax burden if he were to sell his shares and the (already low) capital gains tax on them. Since he gets to direct how the money of the corporation gets spent, he gets to essentially keep the money and pay a small percent of it to charitable causes while spending the rest of it on anything he deems appropriate (which makes him rather than the charity the effective owner of that money).
He also never actually sells the shares he owns (so he never pays capital gains tax). Everything he does is related to running of his company, so most of his expenses are paid for from pre-tax capital expenditure of the corporation.
Well, certainly they are more ethical then politicians, for example. Pimps and drug dealers don't send you to jail if you don't buy their product.
The fact is, representative government is about giving people what they want too. That is why it's based on consent.
If it doesn't reach its ideal, neither does yours.
That's a false dichotomy. You try to paint two things as equivalent when they are, in fact, different in matters of degree. The ethical parts of those actions are that they enable choice. But a representative government only allows as many choices as there are elections (few choices that is). Whereas selling useful products allows for choices on daily basis. So selling useful products is more ethical.
Are you rich?
Not according to my wife.
Are you suggesting that selling a popular product makes you a moral person?
Suggesting? I thought I was pretty explicit about it. Yes, it does.
you could still be a murderer in your spare time.
Just like you could be a murder in your spare time if you do any highly ethical act. But the fact that someone is engaging in one unethical activity does not make their ethical activity any less ethical.
Warren Buffet has gotten much less ethical in his old age. He used to enable businesses and growth. Now he is advocating destructive social trends in the hopes of getting away with the largest tax evasion scheme in history.
People were "poor" during Napolean's age because the world didn't produce enough food to feed everyone. When that's the case, some have to be poor -- there is no alternative. That's not the case today. And when there is enough resources to provide for everyone, the sentiment that one has to take from someone else by force, or else or go without, is much less prevalent.
well, maybe if your money comes from tax payer funds. but if you make your money by giving people what they want, you are by definition more moral than those who don't give as many people as much of what they want.
Triggering stop orders requires pushing the price around, which requires capital in order to take on large positions.
While it is synonymous with having a large capital, it doesn't in itself require a large capital. It is sufficient to have a large facility for selling off large share blocks to retail. Certainly someone like CF can do it. They don't need to own a large block of shares at any one time. They just need to have a contract to sell X number of shares over a period of time. This is not underwriting (where CF would have to buy out the entire X block before selling it off). It's a way to do an SPO without doing an SPO. It has nothing to do with HFT, by the way. The only reason I mention it is that there are facilities out there which a 3rd party player to sell a lot of company stock in order to scoop up the discounted shares of stops.
// findPrimes6 gets called N number of times with some large parameter (say 20 million)
/*for (int i=0;i<primesArr.size();++i)
#define CONSIDER_NUMBER(last,ringSize,position) \
isPrime = true; \
for (int i=0;i<=position;++i) \
{ \
divisers_considered++;\
if (primesSquaredArr[i] > last) \
break; \
if (last % primesArr[i] == 0) \
{ \
isPrime = false; \
break; \
} \
} \
if (isPrime){ \
primesSquaredArr[position]=last*last;\
primesArr[position++]=last;\
} \
last += ringSize; \
numbers_considered++;
template<typename prime_type>
void findPrimes6(const int count)
{
std::cout<<"findPrimes6"<<std::endl;
std::vector<prime_type> primesVec(count+1);
prime_type * primesArr = primesVec.data();
primesArr[0]=prime_type(2);
primesArr[1]=prime_type(3);
std::vector<prime_type> primesSquaredVec(count+1);
prime_type * primesSquaredArr = primesSquaredVec.data();
primesSquaredArr[0]=prime_type(4);
primesSquaredArr[1]=prime_type(9);
register prime_type last1=7;
register prime_type last5=5;
register int numbers_considered=0;
register int divisers_considered=0;
register int pos=2;
while(pos <count)
{
bool isPrime;
CONSIDER_NUMBER(last5,6,pos)
CONSIDER_NUMBER(last1,6,pos)
}
{
std::cout<<"prime # "<<i<<" is "<<primesArr[i]<<std::endl;
}*/
std::cout<<"last prime is "<<primesArr[count-1]<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"numbers considered: "<<numbers_considered<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"divisers considered: "<<divisers_considered<<std::endl;
}
It doesn't matter. You can't unroll the loops on this one. So even the basic optimization cannot be done. The whole thing was done in 1 function, so no inlining would help either. I was using gcc 4.5.1. The hardware should be irrelevant. I ran both the java version and the g++ version on the same box under the same operating system. The Java version was 6_26. Both gcc and Java were 64-bit versions.
Ha? That's the main point of contention with Santorum. That would make it the apropos point of discussion rather than a strawman. The post to which I responded was stating that Santorum's views and their wide acceptance is what causes gay men to want to stay in the closet I am sorry, what made my question a strawman?
Calling retards "retarded" is not bullying. It's calling things by their own names. Insisting that negative information must be sugar-coated or it can't be conveyed even to those who perfectly capable of handling it is not bullying. And, at times, political correctness actually brings about labels which are more harmful than the labels they replace. "African American", for example, is far more offensive than "black." It puts a qualifier on "American" as if the person were not as American as other Americans.
Umm, so you think gay men don't want anyone to know that they are gay because of illegality of gay marriage?
You are trying to portray what isn't forbidden by law as something which is explicitly endorsed by the law. It isn't so.
Because that's what the law does, of course. What else do you think it does?
It states ahead of time which actions are punishable and which are not. It removes the uncertainty about which behavior might bring about the punishment of "the strong arm of the law?" If it doesn't remove such an uncertainty, by the way, than it fails in its primary goal -- clarifying the boundaries. I am not sure I agree that the boundaries of good behavior should be established through such a rigorous procedure. This is how you end up with the laws which make it punishable to swear in front of women and children.
Why do we need it? We can still find him an ass hole without the court getting involved. What's the benefit of getting a legal stamp of approval on calling someone an ass hole? I mean we already know that he is an ass hole. What's the additional benefit?
This kind of puts the cart before the horse. It should be a crime before it can be a hate crime. I don't see how a motivation can make an act which is legal into an act which is illegal. Motivation can be considered as an aggravating factor in committing a crime, but the act has to be a crime to begin with. If all the guy did was post a video which he himself recorded while on his property, I don't see how that's illegal. The person who was videotaped was not a minor. Can it really be illegal to record persons in ones own domicile? And certainly if the recording wasn't illegal, then posting it wasn't illegal. So what's the crime? He was an ass? That's not in itself illegal. Nor should it be.