And he's created $100 million in jobs (and materials) over that time and he didn't waste anyone else's money. More (or less) power to him. At least he is not the government...
I would love to drive myself to NYC from Jersey City by driving to Liberty State Park and right into the Hudson, and then pull right up on some ramp in Manhattan. The problem right now would be ramps. If you fall into the Hudson, there is practically no way to get out as a swimmer, let alone a vehicle.
You couldn't be more right. This is collusion by said companies to keep others out of the market. These companies love regulation and want a patent system that makes sure Joe Nobody can enter the market.
The populous thinks that we can get business out of government by controlling election spending, controlling "dinners" with politicians, etc... There are only 2 ways to remove business from government:
1. Shrink government so there are fewer benefits available to lobbying. 2. Algorithmic online/remote random representatives. Basically everyone is a rep and through the use of computer voting and statistics, determine support/dissent. Everyone is for the lobbying of everyone.
Yeah, I was thinking "We're all going to die!" How is this considered that major of a bug? I guess maybe they can get the session ID in a GET request and get to your banking website?
First, a vote for 3rd party is not a vote for the incumbent. Second, even along that line of thought, it is only a half vote for the one opposite who you would have voted for. Third, it is not a wasted vote when voting against the ruining of the country.
A vote for Obama or Mitt is VERY VERY BAD for this country. Like 50 years from now people will be looking in their history books studying why people were so stupid.
I understand that it doesn't have to parabolic. I understand that you know your stuff. But there must be a maximum. That maximum may shift based on the present conditions and it may be reached more than once, but there must be a maximum. Even under your quoted theorem, it shows that there must be a maximum (and a minimum).
In taxes, there are bounds. 0% to 100% and you can't have negative revenue (you can have a deficit, but that bring in spending). The minimum is already defined at 0% as $0 revenue. At some rate, 0-100%, there is a maximum. I don't see how you could argue that the function is not continuous. At a certain rate, it doesn't "jump". It may rise and fall many times and at different slopes, but it is still continuous. But I find it hard to believe that at 100% tax, that one could argue that there would be revenue. Maybe short term. Or maybe in a slave-driven society. But outside of that, there HAS TO BE a rate or rates that provide maximum revenue between 0% and 100%.
Under what scenario could it not have an internal maximum? And we are talking the simple case of income tax only. Maybe there are other properties of the Laffer Curve that I am ignoring... What is external? -5%? 110%? Maybe you are looking at a mix of different types of taxes.
This is like a car travelling from place A to place B. It has to stop at the A and B, but in between, there must have been a maximum speed.
I think 50% of the country (not of voters, but of people) should have to vote for a single person for that person to be President. If they don't get to 50%, then we should have the top 3 as a shared Presidency.
There are multiple factors at play in each example. Tax cuts could increase revenue, but doubtful where the rates are now.
The Laffer Curve is real. The debate is about where we are on that curve. All the Laffer Curve theory states is that with 0% tax there is no revenue. At 100% tax, there is also no revenue (since no one will work). Therefore, there must be a maximum revenue tax rate. No one really knows where we are on that curve. I and you believe we are on the left side, which means an increase in taxes equates to an increase in revenue.
But I hate when Liberals discount the Laffer Curve because they equate it to meaning we are on the right side of that curve. Just argue where we are on it, not that it is an invalid theory.
Does that mean that if I illegally use software that makes use of a patent, then I infringed on the patent? That would be dangerous well beyond the food industry. It brings patent infringement to users and not just producers.
A crime committed by a company. So Verizon should be charged. Just like anything the person does that is good within the company is owned by the company...anything he does bad should be owned by the company.
In the eyes of the law, the company should be prosecuted under Federal Wire Fraud charges...not the person. The person is just an agent of the company. The company can then try a civil suit against the person.
Better healthcare? That seems like a statement of perspective. I would bet that a majority of your neighbors to the south have better healthcare than a majority of Canadians.
No one should have ever viewed it as the "greener" thing to do. It is/was obvious. The main benefit here is less moving parts (less maintenance) and a diversified fuel source, which should bring more stable prices.
So when an employee does something great using the company's resources, the company gets the money. But when an employee does something illegal on the company resources, the company doesn't suffer?
I understand that guy getting something. But Cisco should be suing Verizon, not the person. Verizon would then sue their former employee.
You are looking at censorship in a different light. My point is that it is better to censor everyone than just most people. You are looking at it from a message standpoint. Of course censoring a message is already a special interest.
It is so stupid we waste money on crap like this. If they are going to do something "cool", at least make it useful too.
Build a "sky ride" that transports people from Battery Park to Staten Island. And have it go right in front of the Statue of Liberty's face at 250 ft high. This could be used as a tourist attraction and serve a function for commuters between the Financial District and Staten Island.
Slashdot Mirror
And he's created $100 million in jobs (and materials) over that time and he didn't waste anyone else's money. More (or less) power to him. At least he is not the government...
I would love to drive myself to NYC from Jersey City by driving to Liberty State Park and right into the Hudson, and then pull right up on some ramp in Manhattan. The problem right now would be ramps. If you fall into the Hudson, there is practically no way to get out as a swimmer, let alone a vehicle.
Or NYC
You couldn't be more right. This is collusion by said companies to keep others out of the market. These companies love regulation and want a patent system that makes sure Joe Nobody can enter the market.
The populous thinks that we can get business out of government by controlling election spending, controlling "dinners" with politicians, etc... There are only 2 ways to remove business from government:
1. Shrink government so there are fewer benefits available to lobbying.
2. Algorithmic online/remote random representatives. Basically everyone is a rep and through the use of computer voting and statistics, determine support/dissent. Everyone is for the lobbying of everyone.
Yeah, I was thinking "We're all going to die!" How is this considered that major of a bug? I guess maybe they can get the session ID in a GET request and get to your banking website?
First, a vote for 3rd party is not a vote for the incumbent.
Second, even along that line of thought, it is only a half vote for the one opposite who you would have voted for.
Third, it is not a wasted vote when voting against the ruining of the country.
A vote for Obama or Mitt is VERY VERY BAD for this country. Like 50 years from now people will be looking in their history books studying why people were so stupid.
I understand that it doesn't have to parabolic. I understand that you know your stuff. But there must be a maximum. That maximum may shift based on the present conditions and it may be reached more than once, but there must be a maximum. Even under your quoted theorem, it shows that there must be a maximum (and a minimum).
In taxes, there are bounds. 0% to 100% and you can't have negative revenue (you can have a deficit, but that bring in spending). The minimum is already defined at 0% as $0 revenue. At some rate, 0-100%, there is a maximum. I don't see how you could argue that the function is not continuous. At a certain rate, it doesn't "jump". It may rise and fall many times and at different slopes, but it is still continuous. But I find it hard to believe that at 100% tax, that one could argue that there would be revenue. Maybe short term. Or maybe in a slave-driven society. But outside of that, there HAS TO BE a rate or rates that provide maximum revenue between 0% and 100%.
Under what scenario could it not have an internal maximum? And we are talking the simple case of income tax only. Maybe there are other properties of the Laffer Curve that I am ignoring... What is external? -5%? 110%? Maybe you are looking at a mix of different types of taxes.
This is like a car travelling from place A to place B. It has to stop at the A and B, but in between, there must have been a maximum speed.
So you are saying that there would be revenue at 100% tax rate?
I think 50% of the country (not of voters, but of people) should have to vote for a single person for that person to be President. If they don't get to 50%, then we should have the top 3 as a shared Presidency.
They both like to regulate just as much...just different things.
There are multiple factors at play in each example. Tax cuts could increase revenue, but doubtful where the rates are now.
The Laffer Curve is real. The debate is about where we are on that curve. All the Laffer Curve theory states is that with 0% tax there is no revenue. At 100% tax, there is also no revenue (since no one will work). Therefore, there must be a maximum revenue tax rate. No one really knows where we are on that curve. I and you believe we are on the left side, which means an increase in taxes equates to an increase in revenue.
But I hate when Liberals discount the Laffer Curve because they equate it to meaning we are on the right side of that curve. Just argue where we are on it, not that it is an invalid theory.
Does that mean that if I illegally use software that makes use of a patent, then I infringed on the patent? That would be dangerous well beyond the food industry. It brings patent infringement to users and not just producers.
Because Apple is too cool to use standard USB connectors.
A crime committed by a company. So Verizon should be charged. Just like anything the person does that is good within the company is owned by the company...anything he does bad should be owned by the company.
In the eyes of the law, the company should be prosecuted under Federal Wire Fraud charges...not the person. The person is just an agent of the company. The company can then try a civil suit against the person.
Better healthcare? That seems like a statement of perspective. I would bet that a majority of your neighbors to the south have better healthcare than a majority of Canadians.
No one should have ever viewed it as the "greener" thing to do. It is/was obvious. The main benefit here is less moving parts (less maintenance) and a diversified fuel source, which should bring more stable prices.
So when an employee does something great using the company's resources, the company gets the money. But when an employee does something illegal on the company resources, the company doesn't suffer?
I understand that guy getting something. But Cisco should be suing Verizon, not the person. Verizon would then sue their former employee.
That is correct on Verizon when using anything but 4G LTE. 4G LTE works while on a call.
You are looking at censorship in a different light. My point is that it is better to censor everyone than just most people. You are looking at it from a message standpoint. Of course censoring a message is already a special interest.
If you tape everyone's mouth closed, it is bad. But it is much worse to tape closed 99% of the mouths.
Anything funded directly by public money or directly influences public policy should be public itself.
It was unfair to Ford. Just like bailing out the big banks was unfair to smaller banks. The health system involvement is just ramping up.
One of the many things that are worse than censorship is censorship subject to special interests.
It is so stupid we waste money on crap like this. If they are going to do something "cool", at least make it useful too.
Build a "sky ride" that transports people from Battery Park to Staten Island. And have it go right in front of the Statue of Liberty's face at 250 ft high. This could be used as a tourist attraction and serve a function for commuters between the Financial District and Staten Island.