You are correct with one caveat -- safety of pedestrians. On occasion there are pieces of road that would be perfectly safe at 50mi/h but because of the potential for people to run across the street (say, near a school) or in a few other places, such as if there are lots of houses with driveways along the street, the limit really does need to be dropped to 30-35mi/h... the fact that they typically set such limits at 25mi/h which is absurd is beside the point.
Google creates innovative technologies and technological implementations of other people's models.
Frequently the google implementation is vastly superior in some purely technological manner. In this way they are innovative.
Frequently, google is able to turn the superior technology into a superior user experience as well. In this way, too, they are innovative.
Frequently, google's cool creations are hyped beyond all belief. In this manner, they are... erm... the recipients of a geek love-affair, and not at all innovative.
I can scroll really fast, but I read pretty slow...
I don't know what to say about that. I can imagine finding the scroll-ghosting annoying if I could read that fast, but I can't read while scrolling anyway, and I can't read fast enough that it matters anyway...
Not so. the response time is the time it takes for the pixel to change color once it receives the instruction to do so. The refresh rate is how often it is given instructions.
If the response time were 16ms and the refresh rate was 60Hz, you could have a delay of up to 32.6667ms (up to 16.6667ms for the next refresh + 16ms to change color) between when an image was rendered and when it was actually visible. If the response time were 12ms instead, this maximum drops to 28ms. If the refresh rate were 75hz and you had a 12ms response time, you'd have a maximum of 25.3333ms delay.
Re:Are CRTs on the way out?
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I bought a Dell 2005FPW (20.1" wide screen, 1680x1050 resolution, 12ms response rate). I paid $407.85 for the monitor and a 5-pack of CD-RW discs (The discs brought the total over a minimum for an extra discount.
I like mine... I noticed ghosting problems when I ran those LCD tests that are designed to show such problems, but don't usually notice a problem when actually gaming...
I had a tendency to do just barely enough homework to get buy, but you know what... I did ok, and I learned plenty...
But you know what, I learned most of it *despite* having to waste so much energy on school. I mean hell, if 8 hours a day, 180+ days a year for 17 freaking years isn't enough to teach me...
And besides... on those rare occasions when I didn't have homework, I could *gasp* learn things that weren't part of the approved curriculum, like how to write code...
At the end of the day, if you have intelligent parents who want you to learn, you will do way better than if you don't.
Schools & teachers need to learn that they are not the owners of their students. They are theoretically employed by the parents for the limited purpose of providing superior education (and in some unfortunate cases, for mere behavioral supervision), not to dictate what said students will do every waking & sleeping minute of their lives for 12-17 years.
This was one of the changes "proposed" by the Sept 11th commission.
The anti-illegal-immigrant crowd has stupidly decided that this is an absolute necessity in the battle against illegal immigration.
While illegal immigration is an enormous problem, it can be solved just fine without the feds taking over state driver's licenses.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but over the last couple of months the illegal immigration issue has become more important -- due to the extreme publicity of things such as the minuteman project.
Unfortunately, what started out as a wonderful thing -- citizens who are pissed off finally seeing to it that something was done about illegal immigration -- has since turned into the rebirth of the national ID card... something that would not have passed (and in fact did not pass) as recently as December 2004.
Any store that advertises a price match policy has to honor it... except that if they refuse most people won't do anything about it, so they can get away with it.
"Oh, well, it might *look* the same in the *picture* but how do you *know* it's the same?"
"Uh, because the part number is the same!"
"Yeah, but how can you be sure it's really the same exact part. That one might be damaged, or returned. We can't match prices for damaged or returned products"
I'm giving up my right to mod this article, because your post gave me this insight:
Amazon recently "unleashed" the A9 search. It's a "search engine with a memory" or something like that.
It remembers what you searched for, and theoretically tailors your search results to things you've been looking for recently, and things you've bought from amazon.
You get a 1.57% (approx. pi/2) discount on all amazon orders if you use A9 search "enough"
I don't like using A9 -- and so only search for inane things on it, and just often enough to keep up the discount. Why? I don't *want* a search engine that figures out what I like to search for and filters those results.
Oh, sure, it'd make the results waaaaaaay more relevant. But I don't trust anybody, not even a component of future GoogleZon, with a highly organized and structured understanding of who I am at that level. Hell, even if I knew I'd be the only one to ever see the results, I don't know if I want to know what my searches and result-clickthroughs say about me!!!
Anyway, the important part of this post is: hey, take a look at A9. They seem to have been doing this for awhile now -- and very overtly -- read their marketing stuff...
Oh, and A9 is kinda cool, with a totally crappy interface... once you figure out all the stuff it does, its really nifty -- but scary for the same reasons...
Actually, since a very large percentage of computers are found in large office environments, the 1000-system-rollout does make for a large percentage of the user base.
Because, you see, if *he* switched, that counts as 1000 switches...
alas, but there is a gift tax. So long as you give less than, I believe it is $11,000 per person per year to a mazimum of $1 million over your life time, I think it is possible to avoid the gift tax.
Beyond that... you must pay (i forget how much).
I'm only about 95% certain I'm right... if I get bored this afternoon I'll look it up
Suppose a family of 4, both children under 18 and live at home. Tax year 2004
Standard Deduction: $ 9,700 Exemptions-Yourself $ 3,100 Exemptions--Spouse: $ 3,100 Exemptions-Children $ 6,200 Total Deductions..: $22,100
This means that a family of 4 pays no income tax on at least the first $22,100 of income. In addition there are credits such as the Earned Income Credit (for those making less than about $31k/yr) and the Child Credit, which can decrease your tax by several thousand dollars. Yes, they directly decrease your TAX, and can actually bring your TOTAL TAX to less than $0-- in which case the government will cut you a check for *more* than all the money witheld from your paycheck.
Generally speaking, families of 4 making about $32,000 or less pay absolutely no income tax.
Those making less than about $40,000 will typically pay very little, being able to deduct about $22,000, paying 10% on the next $14,000, and only paying the "normal" 25% rate on the last about 3,000 of income. That would make a guestimate of about $1,400 + $667 ~= $2075. And this is before the child tax credit which would decrease this by as much as $2,000 leaving a total tax liability of under $100.
(All sorts of bizarre limitations, conditions, and restrictions apply. Contact your tax advisor (for advice), or your senator (with complaints))
Please define "earn." Does earned mean paid-as-a-wage? Can it include money from sucessful investing in the stock market? How about money from entrepreneurship? If I start a business and it makes me rich...? What if mt parents started a business, but now I run it, and it's making me money.
What if they started a business and now I own it, but it practically manages itself, but makes me money?
I'm not saying that your idea is unworkable or foolish or anything of the sort. These are honest questions -- I want to know what you would consider earned and what would be not-earned and therefore taxable? I'd also be interested in the reasoning behind what goes on either side of the line...
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the definition of "the wealthy" is any family who earns more than $320,000 per year. (I am using the "Married Filing Jointly" status for this comparison. There are significant differences (unmarried individuals can earn $320,000 before entering the highest bracket, but married couples can total no more than the same $320,000 -- or about $160,000 each))
Let's also assume that the "average schmo" is family earning, oh... $58,500 per year. (Remember, that's the couple's total, not the individual -- for this calculation, individual is $29,050)
I am using 1999 as the standard for "before the tax cut" and 2004 as "after the tax cut". For the purposes of this calculation, I am assuming income to be the taxable income, if only to simplify calculations. I am aware that there were a myriad of little credits and deductions added to the tax code in the last several years, and that ignoring them decreases the accuracy of my comparison.
Feel free to do more in-depth research to get more-accurate numbers.
The Wealthy: in 1999, they earned $320,000 of taxable income, and were taxed as follows: (calc from the 1999 IRS Form 1040 Instructions)
Income over $283,150: Tax 90,200.50 + 39.6% of all income over $283,150. $90,200 + (.396)*(320000-283150) = $104,793 in taxes.
In 2004, they earned the same $320,000: Income over $319,100: Tax: $86,328 + 35% of all income over $319,100. $86,328 + (.35)*(320000-319100) = $86,643
$104,793 - $86,643 = $18,150 in tax cuts, a 17% decrease in income tax.
That's right, the family earning $320,000/yr pays 17% less now than before! Let's check out our "average schmo" family.
1999: If you make less than $100,000 you use the tax table instead of the rate schedule. In 1999, the tax table said married couples earning $58,500 in taxable income owe: $10,791
2004: Same rules apply, in 2004 the married couple owed: $8,106.
That means the tax cut saved them $10,791 - $8,106 = $2,685. This means that they owe 24.8% less tax today than they did before the tax cut.
That means the average couple saved over 24%, the wealthy couple saved about 17%. Not quite so unfair-to-the-average-schmo as you might think.
If you disagree with my definitions of average and wealthy, feel free to plug in your own numbers. I used these because they were near the cutoff points for different tax brackets, and I assumed that the government's definition of average and wealthy were based on those numbers.
---
There will be an immediate response of "bah, percentages, average-guy saved under $3k, wealthy-guy saved over $18k!" to which I can only say, you can hardly consider it fair to decrease taxes on the average individual so far that they are being *paid* by the government...
And just what claim does the government have on my family's money if it's been gained by doing honest work? "To prevent some families gathering too much money" is a just a sad excuse for class envy and socialism.
I'm sorry I have no modpoints today... I can't figure out why this is flamebait while everyone else's comments are not...
You are, of course, correct. The estate tax is, primarily a way to redistribute wealth in an attempt to prevent permanent pseudo-nobility by limiting the number of generations across which nearly-infinite wealth can remain nearly infinite.
You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not (in my opinion, it is not), but you can not argue that this (and not "revenue generation") is the primary purpose of this tax.
What all of this has to do with the moon, however, is beyond me. Surely by now it has become obvious that the U.S. government is not going to be a major space player again. U.S. industry might someday, otherwise, I'm betting on the likes of Japan or China...
Maybe Japan... then the base could have a big earth in the middle of the flag instead of a big sun...
Suppose that 50 million people pay to see your film, and that 2.45 billion people all see copies without paying.
You spend $100 million, you make $500 million, you end up $400 million ahead.
You would refuse to make the movie because $400 million profit isn't worth having?
(NOTE: I *am not* suggesting that illegal duplication of movies is good. I *am not* suggesting that there is no real decrease in movie ticket (or other) sales due to illegal duplication/distribution. (I believe there is some such loss -- but less than the MPAA claims -- but either way, whether there is or isn't is irrelevant to this post))
Slashdot Mirror
I leave you with this last fact: You sir are a fucking idiot. Chew on this for a moment. You will see I am right.
Please forgive... can't resist...
"Luke, you are a fucking idiot. Search your feelings, you know it to be true."
You are correct with one caveat -- safety of pedestrians. On occasion there are pieces of road that would be perfectly safe at 50mi/h but because of the potential for people to run across the street (say, near a school) or in a few other places, such as if there are lots of houses with driveways along the street, the limit really does need to be dropped to 30-35mi/h... the fact that they typically set such limits at 25mi/h which is absurd is beside the point.
We don't do that around here, as it would tend to decrease profits from ticket-writing.
Google creates innovative technologies and technological implementations of other people's models.
Frequently the google implementation is vastly superior in some purely technological manner. In this way they are innovative.
Frequently, google is able to turn the superior technology into a superior user experience as well. In this way, too, they are innovative.
Frequently, google's cool creations are hyped beyond all belief. In this manner, they are... erm... the recipients of a geek love-affair, and not at all innovative.
Damn man.
I can scroll really fast, but I read pretty slow...
I don't know what to say about that. I can imagine finding the scroll-ghosting annoying if I could read that fast, but I can't read while scrolling anyway, and I can't read fast enough that it matters anyway...
Not so. the response time is the time it takes for the pixel to change color once it receives the instruction to do so. The refresh rate is how often it is given instructions.
If the response time were 16ms and the refresh rate was 60Hz, you could have a delay of up to 32.6667ms (up to 16.6667ms for the next refresh + 16ms to change color) between when an image was rendered and when it was actually visible. If the response time were 12ms instead, this maximum drops to 28ms. If the refresh rate were 75hz and you had a 12ms response time, you'd have a maximum of 25.3333ms delay.
I bought a Dell 2005FPW (20.1" wide screen, 1680x1050 resolution, 12ms response rate). I paid $407.85 for the monitor and a 5-pack of CD-RW discs (The discs brought the total over a minimum for an extra discount.
Watch http://www.dealmein.net/ every day for a month or so, and you'll find a similar deal.
I like mine... I noticed ghosting problems when I ran those LCD tests that are designed to show such problems, but don't usually notice a problem when actually gaming...
Hear, Hear!
I had a tendency to do just barely enough homework to get buy, but you know what... I did ok, and I learned plenty...
But you know what, I learned most of it *despite* having to waste so much energy on school. I mean hell, if 8 hours a day, 180+ days a year for 17 freaking years isn't enough to teach me...
And besides... on those rare occasions when I didn't have homework, I could *gasp* learn things that weren't part of the approved curriculum, like how to write code...
At the end of the day, if you have intelligent parents who want you to learn, you will do way better than if you don't.
Schools & teachers need to learn that they are not the owners of their students. They are theoretically employed by the parents for the limited purpose of providing superior education (and in some unfortunate cases, for mere behavioral supervision), not to dictate what said students will do every waking & sleeping minute of their lives for 12-17 years.
Actually, I spent about the same $65 on a great wirelss KB/Mouse combo as I did on my LOTR geek box...
but that's because I liked the Logitech Cordless MX Duo set, and because I shopped around for the geek box.
Actually some people do.
I count myself among them. (Except that I probably wouldn't pick Wal-Mart as my example -- because I generally don't buy clothing there either...)
Not particularly secret.
This was one of the changes "proposed" by the Sept 11th commission.
The anti-illegal-immigrant crowd has stupidly decided that this is an absolute necessity in the battle against illegal immigration.
While illegal immigration is an enormous problem, it can be solved just fine without the feds taking over state driver's licenses.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but over the last couple of months the illegal immigration issue has become more important -- due to the extreme publicity of things such as the minuteman project.
Unfortunately, what started out as a wonderful thing -- citizens who are pissed off finally seeing to it that something was done about illegal immigration -- has since turned into the rebirth of the national ID card... something that would not have passed (and in fact did not pass) as recently as December 2004.
Any store that advertises a price match policy has to honor it... except that if they refuse most people won't do anything about it, so they can get away with it.
"Oh, well, it might *look* the same in the *picture* but how do you *know* it's the same?"
"Uh, because the part number is the same!"
"Yeah, but how can you be sure it's really the same exact part. That one might be damaged, or returned. We can't match prices for damaged or returned products"
and so on...
perhaps signing a check before you fill in the amount is not a good idea?
That's true, because I can't afford to give somebody unrestricted access to my credit card.
I'm giving up my right to mod this article, because your post gave me this insight:
Amazon recently "unleashed" the A9 search. It's a "search engine with a memory" or something like that.
It remembers what you searched for, and theoretically tailors your search results to things you've been looking for recently, and things you've bought from amazon.
You get a 1.57% (approx. pi/2) discount on all amazon orders if you use A9 search "enough"
I don't like using A9 -- and so only search for inane things on it, and just often enough to keep up the discount. Why? I don't *want* a search engine that figures out what I like to search for and filters those results.
Oh, sure, it'd make the results waaaaaaay more relevant. But I don't trust anybody, not even a component of future GoogleZon, with a highly organized and structured understanding of who I am at that level. Hell, even if I knew I'd be the only one to ever see the results, I don't know if I want to know what my searches and result-clickthroughs say about me!!!
Anyway, the important part of this post is: hey, take a look at A9. They seem to have been doing this for awhile now -- and very overtly -- read their marketing stuff...
Oh, and A9 is kinda cool, with a totally crappy interface... once you figure out all the stuff it does, its really nifty -- but scary for the same reasons...
Re sig:
no, we have 10, and other people just *think* we have sixteen.
True... but it would take millenia to actually build all of those files and then filter for length and right-formattedness.
Actually, since a very large percentage of computers are found in large office environments, the 1000-system-rollout does make for a large percentage of the user base.
Because, you see, if *he* switched, that counts as 1000 switches...
alas, but there is a gift tax. So long as you give less than, I believe it is $11,000 per person per year to a mazimum of $1 million over your life time, I think it is possible to avoid the gift tax.
Beyond that... you must pay (i forget how much).
I'm only about 95% certain I'm right... if I get bored this afternoon I'll look it up
What makes you so certain that those who make $500,000/yr don't have productive, useful things to do with that money and therefore "won't miss" 20%?
Suppose a family of 4, both children under 18 and live at home. Tax year 2004This means that a family of 4 pays no income tax on at least the first $22,100 of income. In addition there are credits such as the Earned Income Credit (for those making less than about $31k/yr) and the Child Credit, which can decrease your tax by several thousand dollars. Yes, they directly decrease your TAX, and can actually bring your TOTAL TAX to less than $0-- in which case the government will cut you a check for *more* than all the money witheld from your paycheck.
Generally speaking, families of 4 making about $32,000 or less pay absolutely no income tax.
Those making less than about $40,000 will typically pay very little, being able to deduct about $22,000, paying 10% on the next
$14,000, and only paying the "normal" 25% rate on the last about 3,000 of income. That would make a guestimate of about $1,400 + $667 ~= $2075. And this is before the child tax credit which would decrease this by as much as $2,000 leaving a total tax liability of under $100.
(All sorts of bizarre limitations, conditions, and restrictions apply. Contact your tax advisor (for advice), or your senator (with complaints))
Out of curiosity:
Please define "earn." Does earned mean paid-as-a-wage? Can it include money from sucessful investing in the stock market? How about money from entrepreneurship? If I start a business and it makes me rich...? What if mt parents started a business, but now I run it, and it's making me money.
What if they started a business and now I own it, but it practically manages itself, but makes me money?
I'm not saying that your idea is unworkable or foolish or anything of the sort. These are honest questions -- I want to know what you would consider earned and what would be not-earned and therefore taxable? I'd also be interested in the reasoning behind what goes on either side of the line...
Just to correct a small point:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the definition of "the wealthy" is any family who earns more than $320,000 per year. (I am using the "Married Filing Jointly" status for this comparison. There are significant differences (unmarried individuals can earn $320,000 before entering the highest bracket, but married couples can total no more than the same $320,000 -- or about $160,000 each))
Let's also assume that the "average schmo" is family earning, oh... $58,500 per year. (Remember, that's the couple's total, not the individual -- for this calculation, individual is $29,050)
I am using 1999 as the standard for "before the tax cut" and 2004 as "after the tax cut". For the purposes of this calculation, I am assuming income to be the taxable income, if only to simplify calculations. I am aware that there were a myriad of little credits and deductions added to the tax code in the last several years, and that ignoring them decreases the accuracy of my comparison.
Feel free to do more in-depth research to get more-accurate numbers.
The Wealthy:
in 1999, they earned $320,000 of taxable income, and were taxed as follows: (calc from the 1999 IRS Form 1040 Instructions)
Income over $283,150: Tax 90,200.50 + 39.6% of all income over $283,150.
$90,200 + (.396)*(320000-283150) = $104,793 in taxes.
In 2004, they earned the same $320,000:
Income over $319,100: Tax: $86,328 + 35% of all income over $319,100.
$86,328 + (.35)*(320000-319100) = $86,643
$104,793 - $86,643 = $18,150 in tax cuts, a 17% decrease in income tax.
That's right, the family earning $320,000/yr pays 17% less now than before! Let's check out our "average schmo" family.
1999:
If you make less than $100,000 you use the tax table instead of the rate schedule. In 1999, the tax table said married couples earning $58,500 in taxable income owe: $10,791
2004:
Same rules apply, in 2004 the married couple owed: $8,106.
That means the tax cut saved them
$10,791 - $8,106 = $2,685. This means that they owe 24.8% less tax today than they did before the tax cut.
That means the average couple saved over 24%, the wealthy couple saved about 17%. Not quite so unfair-to-the-average-schmo as you might think.
If you disagree with my definitions of average and wealthy, feel free to plug in your own numbers. I used these because they were near the cutoff points for different tax brackets, and I assumed that the government's definition of average and wealthy were based on those numbers.
---
There will be an immediate response of "bah, percentages, average-guy saved under $3k, wealthy-guy saved over $18k!" to which I can only say, you can hardly consider it fair to decrease taxes on the average individual so far that they are being *paid* by the government...
And just what claim does the government have on my family's money if it's been gained by doing honest work? "To prevent some families gathering too much money" is a just a sad excuse for class envy and socialism.
I'm sorry I have no modpoints today...
I can't figure out why this is flamebait while everyone else's comments are not...
You are, of course, correct. The estate tax is, primarily a way to redistribute wealth in an attempt to prevent permanent pseudo-nobility by limiting the number of generations across which nearly-infinite wealth can remain nearly infinite.
You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not (in my opinion, it is not), but you can not argue that this (and not "revenue generation") is the primary purpose of this tax.
What all of this has to do with the moon, however, is beyond me. Surely by now it has become obvious that the U.S. government is not going to be a major space player again. U.S. industry might someday, otherwise, I'm betting on the likes of Japan or China...
Maybe Japan... then the base could have a big earth in the middle of the flag instead of a big sun...
I'll bite.
Suppose you make a $100 million film.
Suppose that tickets cost $10.
Suppose that 50 million people pay to see your film, and that 2.45 billion people all see copies without paying.
You spend $100 million, you make $500 million, you end up $400 million ahead.
You would refuse to make the movie because $400 million profit isn't worth having?
(NOTE: I *am not* suggesting that illegal duplication of movies is good. I *am not* suggesting that there is no real decrease in movie ticket (or other) sales due to illegal duplication/distribution. (I believe there is some such loss -- but less than the MPAA claims -- but either way, whether there is or isn't is irrelevant to this post))