I spend 80% of my time in the right lane. When I encounter a vehicle in front of me, I move to the left lane, pass them, and move back to the right. Consequentially, I pass more people while in the right lane than the left lane.
You called out PA, but PA actually made a point of enforcing that about 10 years ago. They first started giving out warnings and then tickets. I don't know if they are still being strict about it. But for a time it was effective. To this day, PA drivers tend to stay in the right lane more than other states. Especially more than Ohio drivers. I don't think they know what a right lane is. They are so accustomed to trucks at a 55 mph speed limit (which has since changed) that they just refused to go in the right lane.
In Germany, you don't ride in the left lane. The faster car has the right-of-way. Roads are smoother and lanes are typically wider. Roads are clean of garbage, like tire shreds. They seem to clean them every day, during the day. They have speed limits in areas where it makes sense.
One thing I didn't expect: there are walls along the road where there are no trees. When going 100+ mph, the wind is far more noticeable and those walls are very useful.
I can't imagine a typical American driver getting passed by someone going 60 mph faster than they are going. The pull/push affect would completely screw them up and cause them to crash. And of course they'll blame the other guy.
The car has a lot to do with it too. On my trip to Germany, I was driving a Seat (Spanish?) station wagon. It worked well. 100 mph was comfortable. 110 mph started to get shaky. I hit 120 mph to get around someone quick enough to not slow down an Audi (it seems to always be an Audi) going like 180 mph.
That is the way it is done in Germany today. Whether it is a 2 lane road (1 each way) or a 6 lane road, the faster car seems to have the right-of-way. They have it right: the ones fully utilizing (going faster) a medium of transport should get the right-of-way.
Those shortcuts are not obvious at the time of coding. I always go back to my code weeks later, when I forgot what I wrote. Then refactor and comment where appropriate.
Does your tablet go weeks on the same charge? Reader devices are great at what they do. So great the a tablet will never touch them at their craft. But with a reader, you will only get reading capability. It is what it is. You can't say one is better than the other. It depends on what you are looking for. Is a car better than a bike? It depends on what you do...
If you weren't taxed the original $300K, then you would have invested $500K. You would have then turned that into $2.5M (400% gain, like you stated). So then your gain would have been $2M. So the gain was taxed. $1.2M in lost revenue.
They have less to invest because of the original tax. Therefore the gains were less than they should have been. Less by exactly the amount of tax they were already assessed. That is why it is called a "double tax".
The short term gains are still capital gains tax. They are just taxed at your income tax bracket, instead of the reduced 15% rate that long term gains see.
What is a tax return going to do about knowing if someone was bought off? And even if a tax return magically showed that candidate A got money from company B (which wouldn't be in a tax return anyway), how do you know that will influence candidate A?
Personally, I think the Presidency is the pinnacle. Once you are there, you can forget about money. You are set for life and have nothing greater to strive for. Why abandon your principles because of someone else's choice to give you money?
When was this the case with the IRS? If everyone's income tax is public, then their income is public. So no with one source of income had a private salary?
Is this stated in some poll? I don't think anyone should be required to divulge their tax information to anyone for any reason. I would think most of the country feels the same way. Only the diehard Democrats (not all Democrats) are going crazy over this.
(0) For certain cases, yes. If you want advanced treatment (like with cancer) and want the best quality, you are far better off in the American system. It may cost you, but not always.
(1) They have a "virtual monopoly" over certain parts of the health system. You basically stated this. Microsoft didn't have a "virtual monopoly" over computer systems, just the operating system and office suite.
The problem with the NHS is the same problem with anything that has a monopoly. In theory, they could be excellent. But in the long run, because you can't price things properly in a monopoly, quality or costs get out of control. It doesn't have to, but you need a bunch of selfless geniouses running the thing to hope for that to happen.
Which goes to the point about this thread. There's a guy in there trying to push his agenda. The key reason why central control is bad. Look at how the US has tried to fund more and more R&D. Proponents cheer. They say only government sees the need to do R&D (which must be a joke). But then when Bush shuts off funding around embryos, everyone is up in arms. That is a predictable consequence of putting a monopoly or market control into the hands of a democracy.
Now, there is an argument that despite these shortcomings, the current situation is better than if you didn't have it, but I don't think anyone on either side is open to discussing it. Especially when a Libertarian view is labelled as "going back 100 years", like we would be driving around in Model T cars. When it ignores that the lack of road would cause innovation to potentially bring about flying cars.
I was about to post a similar response. The stateless location of cars is worthless. You need to know where the car has been to predict where the car is going.
97% consensus on what? Not the extent of the human contribution. If 97% of climatologists think that 100% of the warming is because of human contribution, then I lose all respect for the science.
Slashdot Mirror
But we should have universal health care because the rest of the world does!
(sarcasm)
I've never seen a Muslim kill anyone because of a film without Muhammad in it
This is true.
#0 Self taught, Computer Scientists, & have spare-time projects
#1 Self taught & have spare-time projects
#2 Computer Scientists & have spare-time projects
#3 Self taught & Computer Scientists
#4 Have spare-time projects
#5 Self taught
#6 Computer Scientists
#7 Liberal Arts
I can't wait for 3D printing to become highly regulated so that innovation stops dead in its tracks!
It would be far easier and less costly to just use GPS and OCR on the tombstone to find a best match. Or present a list based on GPS.
But let's spend a bunch of money we don't need to spend...
I spend 80% of my time in the right lane. When I encounter a vehicle in front of me, I move to the left lane, pass them, and move back to the right. Consequentially, I pass more people while in the right lane than the left lane.
You called out PA, but PA actually made a point of enforcing that about 10 years ago. They first started giving out warnings and then tickets. I don't know if they are still being strict about it. But for a time it was effective. To this day, PA drivers tend to stay in the right lane more than other states. Especially more than Ohio drivers. I don't think they know what a right lane is. They are so accustomed to trucks at a 55 mph speed limit (which has since changed) that they just refused to go in the right lane.
In Germany, you don't ride in the left lane. The faster car has the right-of-way. Roads are smoother and lanes are typically wider. Roads are clean of garbage, like tire shreds. They seem to clean them every day, during the day. They have speed limits in areas where it makes sense.
One thing I didn't expect: there are walls along the road where there are no trees. When going 100+ mph, the wind is far more noticeable and those walls are very useful.
I can't imagine a typical American driver getting passed by someone going 60 mph faster than they are going. The pull/push affect would completely screw them up and cause them to crash. And of course they'll blame the other guy.
The car has a lot to do with it too. On my trip to Germany, I was driving a Seat (Spanish?) station wagon. It worked well. 100 mph was comfortable. 110 mph started to get shaky. I hit 120 mph to get around someone quick enough to not slow down an Audi (it seems to always be an Audi) going like 180 mph.
That is the way it is done in Germany today. Whether it is a 2 lane road (1 each way) or a 6 lane road, the faster car seems to have the right-of-way. They have it right: the ones fully utilizing (going faster) a medium of transport should get the right-of-way.
Those shortcuts are not obvious at the time of coding. I always go back to my code weeks later, when I forgot what I wrote. Then refactor and comment where appropriate.
Does your tablet go weeks on the same charge? Reader devices are great at what they do. So great the a tablet will never touch them at their craft. But with a reader, you will only get reading capability. It is what it is. You can't say one is better than the other. It depends on what you are looking for. Is a car better than a bike? It depends on what you do...
If you weren't taxed the original $300K, then you would have invested $500K. You would have then turned that into $2.5M (400% gain, like you stated). So then your gain would have been $2M. So the gain was taxed. $1.2M in lost revenue.
They have less to invest because of the original tax. Therefore the gains were less than they should have been. Less by exactly the amount of tax they were already assessed. That is why it is called a "double tax".
The short term gains are still capital gains tax. They are just taxed at your income tax bracket, instead of the reduced 15% rate that long term gains see.
Learn math. Please.
If you earn X, and get taxed T1, and then invest the remainder. And then the remainder makes interest (gain) I, and then that gain gets taxed T2.
MOOLAH = X * (1-T1) + (X * (1-T1) * I) * (1-T2)
The second part of the formula (after the plus sign) is related to investments. Do you see T1 and T2 in there? I thought so.
What is a tax return going to do about knowing if someone was bought off? And even if a tax return magically showed that candidate A got money from company B (which wouldn't be in a tax return anyway), how do you know that will influence candidate A?
Personally, I think the Presidency is the pinnacle. Once you are there, you can forget about money. You are set for life and have nothing greater to strive for. Why abandon your principles because of someone else's choice to give you money?
When was this the case with the IRS? If everyone's income tax is public, then their income is public. So no with one source of income had a private salary?
It sounds like your problem is with the IRS.
PS: I don't support Romney
"most of us think should be public anyway"
Is this stated in some poll? I don't think anyone should be required to divulge their tax information to anyone for any reason. I would think most of the country feels the same way. Only the diehard Democrats (not all Democrats) are going crazy over this.
(0) For certain cases, yes. If you want advanced treatment (like with cancer) and want the best quality, you are far better off in the American system. It may cost you, but not always.
(1) They have a "virtual monopoly" over certain parts of the health system. You basically stated this. Microsoft didn't have a "virtual monopoly" over computer systems, just the operating system and office suite.
The problem with the NHS is the same problem with anything that has a monopoly. In theory, they could be excellent. But in the long run, because you can't price things properly in a monopoly, quality or costs get out of control. It doesn't have to, but you need a bunch of selfless geniouses running the thing to hope for that to happen.
Which goes to the point about this thread. There's a guy in there trying to push his agenda. The key reason why central control is bad. Look at how the US has tried to fund more and more R&D. Proponents cheer. They say only government sees the need to do R&D (which must be a joke). But then when Bush shuts off funding around embryos, everyone is up in arms. That is a predictable consequence of putting a monopoly or market control into the hands of a democracy.
Now, there is an argument that despite these shortcomings, the current situation is better than if you didn't have it, but I don't think anyone on either side is open to discussing it. Especially when a Libertarian view is labelled as "going back 100 years", like we would be driving around in Model T cars. When it ignores that the lack of road would cause innovation to potentially bring about flying cars.
Good post. But a 16 yr old working on phones in a Samsung factory more closely resembles a 16 yr old farmer than a 16 yr old coal miner.
I was about to post a similar response. The stateless location of cars is worthless. You need to know where the car has been to predict where the car is going.
97% consensus on what? Not the extent of the human contribution. If 97% of climatologists think that 100% of the warming is because of human contribution, then I lose all respect for the science.
So logically, if it weighs the same as duck...
I'm an idiot for understanding what insurance is. But you aren't an idiot for trying to equate health care with health insurance. I got it.
It depends on what your definition of "is" is. In all seriousness, does the European Convention interpret what is and what is not speech?