Even their aims are different: a Ponzi scheme is meant to concentrate the wealth of many into the hands of the few people who are running the scheme. Social Security aims to achieve a level of wealth redistribution, nominally to ensure that people no longer in the workforce are able to support themselves. Whether or not you feel it achieves that aim is certainly something that can be discussed, but a Ponzi scheme it is not.
You should really look up the meaning of the word "definition". SS is only a Ponzi scheme in the politically-motivated opinions of extreme right-wing talking heads. A politically-motivated opinion does not equal "by definition".
...I suggest people think about this sort of thing. Not all businesses are scams, but the people raking in millions of dollars a year aren't earning it. Their inheriting it, winning it or stealing it, and they deserve to be taxed at a higher rate.
That initial crowd was mostly just curious users. I wanted to see it too, but after that it hasn't seen pretty much any usage.
This. I actually have two accounts set up--stupid Google won't let me merge my accounts--and I *never* use either one of them. When I check Gmail, I see that there's a little G+ icon at the top with a '1' in it, so they may be able to say that I've got sessions open, but I can't think of the last time I actually did anything in G+.
For all the complaints about Buzz being auto-integrated with Gmail, I actually like the idea of a social network just being built on top of my email client. The devil, of course, is in the details, but if I've got to go to yet another page to see messages sent to me, it's pretty much not going to happen.
Yeah. It’s just inherently more interesting to enter into an art directed alternate world, where you can go on adventures and get into fights and engage with the world that way, than it is to enter a world where all you can do is kind of stand around and chat.
Zing! I guess he doesn't have a fist-full of Linden Dollars he's spent long hours earning.
Apple has a monopoly on iOS software sales. On MacOS software sales, they have a very convenient, likely successful on-line store, but it's hardly a monopoly.
Microsoft is planning to have a monopoly on sales of Metro apps, but there's nothing to say that they'll do the same for Windows8 desktop apps. Very likely, they'll continue as they have since the dawn of time, possibly imitating Apple's App Store in the Windows context as well in order to compete.
But neither Microsoft nor Apple have a monopoly on the mobile market. Even combined, their numbers are dwarfed by Android phones + tablets. There's plenty of choice out there. If you don't like it, vote with your dollars. Not that Android is a panacea; there are issues on that side. But to claim that these are illegal monopolies that need to be broken up is just silly.
Sometimes you're on a crowded bus and you can tell that the person next to you decided they didn't have time to actually get clean, but thought they could mask their odor with deoderant. Unfortunately, in some cases, what you get is a retch-inducing mixture of BO and deodeo.
Solutions like this to the climate issue remind me of those folks on the bus. If there's a real problem and if there are real things we can do to address the cause, let's do them. If, instead, we don't address the cause but do something else to mask the issue, then it seems likely that we'll just end up with an even bigger mess. I can just imagine scientists from another planet examining the burnt out husk of Earth and saying, "There's no life there; the atmosphere is an unlivable mix of carbon dioxide and sulphates!"
Maybe not specifically better, but certainly interesting and in the same vein. Of course, the one time a federal breakup has been tried was when the south tried to secede in order to protect their *ahem* way of life. Makes one wonder how the splits would occur. Also, unfortunately, I don't know that we could simply write off all those war debts you're talking about just by splitting them up. Finally, regarding those war debts, do you know what that total is compared to our anachronistic 21st century wars we're still paying for? My gut says that the 20th century ones are a comparative pittance, although I don't know the numbers.
Thank you. And you're right. My idea is not even half baked. Not even quarter baked. I spent less time thinking about it than typing it. But to respond with a chant of FREEEEEEDOMMMM is crazy, isn't it? Freedom isn't freedom when the wealth delta between classes is as big as it is, and growing as it is.
OK, my suggestion was a paragraph long, not a 1600 page document with all the details outlined, but let's use some imagination here:
"Two companies" could be "two or more companies" to resolve your first question.
And the latter question could be addressed a number of ways, including raising the minimum threshold for taxation, and maybe allow a grace period for transitional income for someone starting a new business.
In your rage, you missed my point, which is that the wealthiest among us make lots and lots of money not doing anything other than having fund managers play with their money. People with no money have to work to earn it, and they work hard. Most of the fruits of their labors, though, go to people who already have more money than the workers will see in their lifetimes.
When I was in the university, there was a mini-scandal when the Chancellor was accused of double-dipping because he got paid $90K for serving on a corporate board. This was in 1991, so that was *a lot* of money. His response was that he had done that work during his two-week vacation, and that was deemed an acceptable response. What struck me was that nobody seemed bothered that he could earn more than 3 times an average worker's annual salary at the time in two weeks' time. It's those sort of obscene levels of income that need to be attacked, de-normalized, and heavily taxed so that the economy can return to a more sane balance.
Well, I'd agree that it's a valuable metric, but it's not the only one by any stretch.
If a solar panel installer falls off a roof, he falls off a roof and there aren't isn't any other significant fallout (puns intended).
If a nuclear reactor explodes and one person dies, that's often not everything. Dozens of additional workers may get ill, have their lives shortened in ways that are difficult to pin to the specific event, or pass on issues to their unborn offspring. Additionally, dangerous contaminants may get into the air and water, and into the general ecosystem, causing an ongoing ripple effect that is--again--difficult to pin directly on the event.
I think the reason people react so strongly to events at nuclear facilities is the uncanny nature of the effects from these things. It's not like a mine can't explode or an oil rig can't leak. However, for the most part, neither of those things are likely to give you thyroid cancer 15 years after exposure. I think most people look at a tragic accident where a dozen people die as a tragic accident that should be prevented in the future. However, an accident which causes no immediate deaths, but which at least appears to lead to a dozen deaths over the next decade causes a terror reaction. The extra time is not a blessing, but a time bomb.
I think one other element of the anti-nuclear set is the vehement, zealous and complete denial of safety risk by nuclear boosters. Going by deaths per KWH without considering other effects is one example where people feel that the truth is being manipulated. Hell, we've seen this before with cigarettes: everyone in the world has known for decades that cigarettes will kill you, but the tobacco folks fought against any such insinuation which carried legal weight for years.
The problem is that the most extreme people on both sides of the issue dig in hard enough that it's clear that neither are telling the whole story. I posted something like this a couple of years back, and someone here on/. linked me to an ad for a portable nuclear power station which was built in such a way that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the containment vessel to be breached. I don't think I even bothered responding (until now, I guess) because that sort of hubris is exactly what causes the most fearsome problems.
The reactor in question was, I think, this. The idea is that it arrives at the site fully loaded, is buried underground to generate power for a community, and the vendor comes around every few years to take the reactor back, swap out the spent fuel for new fuel, and rebury the thing. I'm sure it's got all sorts of safety mechanisms built in, but since it's (a) built by people and (b) built to be opened and refueled, "impossible" is a really, titanically huge word to describe the likelihood of problems. And here's the thing: if something like this is deployed in a small remote town, and it breaks down for some reason and there's a containment breach, it's possible there would be no deaths, but that there would be residual health issues facing that whole community for generations. Or it could make the region uninhabitable.
The TL;DR version of this post is: deaths per KWH is not the only metric to consider by any stretch of the imagination.
Kill all IP laws, but force any company over 500 employees to split into two completely independent entities, neither of which has an employee base greater than 300. Then tax anyone who is earning anything--dividends, stocks, profit sharing or W2 income--from more than one organization at 90% for everything outside of their primary income.
Slashdot Mirror
Even their aims are different: a Ponzi scheme is meant to concentrate the wealth of many into the hands of the few people who are running the scheme. Social Security aims to achieve a level of wealth redistribution, nominally to ensure that people no longer in the workforce are able to support themselves. Whether or not you feel it achieves that aim is certainly something that can be discussed, but a Ponzi scheme it is not.
You should really look up the meaning of the word "definition". SS is only a Ponzi scheme in the politically-motivated opinions of extreme right-wing talking heads. A politically-motivated opinion does not equal "by definition".
...I suggest people think about this sort of thing. Not all businesses are scams, but the people raking in millions of dollars a year aren't earning it. Their inheriting it, winning it or stealing it, and they deserve to be taxed at a higher rate.
I think I speak for all of us when I say, "Ew. Gross."
That initial crowd was mostly just curious users. I wanted to see it too, but after that it hasn't seen pretty much any usage.
This. I actually have two accounts set up--stupid Google won't let me merge my accounts--and I *never* use either one of them. When I check Gmail, I see that there's a little G+ icon at the top with a '1' in it, so they may be able to say that I've got sessions open, but I can't think of the last time I actually did anything in G+.
For all the complaints about Buzz being auto-integrated with Gmail, I actually like the idea of a social network just being built on top of my email client. The devil, of course, is in the details, but if I've got to go to yet another page to see messages sent to me, it's pretty much not going to happen.
That reminds me... I haven't checked FaceBook in a few hours!
Yeah. It’s just inherently more interesting to enter into an art directed alternate world, where you can go on adventures and get into fights and engage with the world that way, than it is to enter a world where all you can do is kind of stand around and chat.
Zing! I guess he doesn't have a fist-full of Linden Dollars he's spent long hours earning.
No problem... HEY WAIT! That was mean :~(~~~~ Why, I oughtta...
;)
Apple has a monopoly on iOS software sales. On MacOS software sales, they have a very convenient, likely successful on-line store, but it's hardly a monopoly.
Microsoft is planning to have a monopoly on sales of Metro apps, but there's nothing to say that they'll do the same for Windows8 desktop apps. Very likely, they'll continue as they have since the dawn of time, possibly imitating Apple's App Store in the Windows context as well in order to compete.
But neither Microsoft nor Apple have a monopoly on the mobile market. Even combined, their numbers are dwarfed by Android phones + tablets. There's plenty of choice out there. If you don't like it, vote with your dollars. Not that Android is a panacea; there are issues on that side. But to claim that these are illegal monopolies that need to be broken up is just silly.
It's painful to read more than a few sentences from most people.
Sometimes you're on a crowded bus and you can tell that the person next to you decided they didn't have time to actually get clean, but thought they could mask their odor with deoderant. Unfortunately, in some cases, what you get is a retch-inducing mixture of BO and deodeo.
Solutions like this to the climate issue remind me of those folks on the bus. If there's a real problem and if there are real things we can do to address the cause, let's do them. If, instead, we don't address the cause but do something else to mask the issue, then it seems likely that we'll just end up with an even bigger mess. I can just imagine scientists from another planet examining the burnt out husk of Earth and saying, "There's no life there; the atmosphere is an unlivable mix of carbon dioxide and sulphates!"
Actually, the amount of management overhead grows significantly as organizations grow.
We do. They're called dollar stores.
Maybe not specifically better, but certainly interesting and in the same vein. Of course, the one time a federal breakup has been tried was when the south tried to secede in order to protect their *ahem* way of life. Makes one wonder how the splits would occur. Also, unfortunately, I don't know that we could simply write off all those war debts you're talking about just by splitting them up. Finally, regarding those war debts, do you know what that total is compared to our anachronistic 21st century wars we're still paying for? My gut says that the 20th century ones are a comparative pittance, although I don't know the numbers.
Thank you. And you're right. My idea is not even half baked. Not even quarter baked. I spent less time thinking about it than typing it. But to respond with a chant of FREEEEEEDOMMMM is crazy, isn't it? Freedom isn't freedom when the wealth delta between classes is as big as it is, and growing as it is.
OK, my suggestion was a paragraph long, not a 1600 page document with all the details outlined, but let's use some imagination here:
"Two companies" could be "two or more companies" to resolve your first question.
And the latter question could be addressed a number of ways, including raising the minimum threshold for taxation, and maybe allow a grace period for transitional income for someone starting a new business.
In your rage, you missed my point, which is that the wealthiest among us make lots and lots of money not doing anything other than having fund managers play with their money. People with no money have to work to earn it, and they work hard. Most of the fruits of their labors, though, go to people who already have more money than the workers will see in their lifetimes.
When I was in the university, there was a mini-scandal when the Chancellor was accused of double-dipping because he got paid $90K for serving on a corporate board. This was in 1991, so that was *a lot* of money. His response was that he had done that work during his two-week vacation, and that was deemed an acceptable response. What struck me was that nobody seemed bothered that he could earn more than 3 times an average worker's annual salary at the time in two weeks' time. It's those sort of obscene levels of income that need to be attacked, de-normalized, and heavily taxed so that the economy can return to a more sane balance.
Sorry, forgot to mention that nobody making less than $50k would be taxed, and raise that number by $25k per child or disabled dependent.
Well, I'd agree that it's a valuable metric, but it's not the only one by any stretch.
/. linked me to an ad for a portable nuclear power station which was built in such a way that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the containment vessel to be breached. I don't think I even bothered responding (until now, I guess) because that sort of hubris is exactly what causes the most fearsome problems.
If a solar panel installer falls off a roof, he falls off a roof and there aren't isn't any other significant fallout (puns intended).
If a nuclear reactor explodes and one person dies, that's often not everything. Dozens of additional workers may get ill, have their lives shortened in ways that are difficult to pin to the specific event, or pass on issues to their unborn offspring. Additionally, dangerous contaminants may get into the air and water, and into the general ecosystem, causing an ongoing ripple effect that is--again--difficult to pin directly on the event.
I think the reason people react so strongly to events at nuclear facilities is the uncanny nature of the effects from these things. It's not like a mine can't explode or an oil rig can't leak. However, for the most part, neither of those things are likely to give you thyroid cancer 15 years after exposure. I think most people look at a tragic accident where a dozen people die as a tragic accident that should be prevented in the future. However, an accident which causes no immediate deaths, but which at least appears to lead to a dozen deaths over the next decade causes a terror reaction. The extra time is not a blessing, but a time bomb.
I think one other element of the anti-nuclear set is the vehement, zealous and complete denial of safety risk by nuclear boosters. Going by deaths per KWH without considering other effects is one example where people feel that the truth is being manipulated. Hell, we've seen this before with cigarettes: everyone in the world has known for decades that cigarettes will kill you, but the tobacco folks fought against any such insinuation which carried legal weight for years.
The problem is that the most extreme people on both sides of the issue dig in hard enough that it's clear that neither are telling the whole story. I posted something like this a couple of years back, and someone here on
The reactor in question was, I think, this. The idea is that it arrives at the site fully loaded, is buried underground to generate power for a community, and the vendor comes around every few years to take the reactor back, swap out the spent fuel for new fuel, and rebury the thing. I'm sure it's got all sorts of safety mechanisms built in, but since it's (a) built by people and (b) built to be opened and refueled, "impossible" is a really, titanically huge word to describe the likelihood of problems. And here's the thing: if something like this is deployed in a small remote town, and it breaks down for some reason and there's a containment breach, it's possible there would be no deaths, but that there would be residual health issues facing that whole community for generations. Or it could make the region uninhabitable.
The TL;DR version of this post is: deaths per KWH is not the only metric to consider by any stretch of the imagination.
Dog-Cow appears to be an architecture critic critic.
Kill all IP laws, but force any company over 500 employees to split into two completely independent entities, neither of which has an employee base greater than 300. Then tax anyone who is earning anything--dividends, stocks, profit sharing or W2 income--from more than one organization at 90% for everything outside of their primary income.
That'll encourage competition.
nuclear energy + genetic engineering + nanoparticles = clean planet
Yes. Maybe a little *too* clean. In other words, I, for one, welcome our new nuclear-fed, genetic engineered nano particle overlords.
NT
I personally would love to see a .RRR TLD. Or would it be .ARR?
That was hilarious.
I heard most of those rioters wore shoes. Maybe shoe companies should be taken to task for all the malfeasance they enable.