Carbonation is an acid. The effect on teeth is three-fold. The sugar is bad (Feeds the bacteria). The acid level rise damages teeth directly. The acid level rise is beneficial for the bacteria. The bacteria raise the acid level, and the acid ends up eating the enamel. So a sugary carbonated beverage is worse than a sugary drink with no carbonation, or a carbonated drink without sugar.
There are many such interactions we don't count. We think of everything on a "yes" or "no" basis, when often it could be more complex than that.
In the US, "club soda", and "Soda water" refer to sparking (carbonated) water.
Also, some sparkling mineral waters claim natural carbonation, thus aren't strictly "carbonated water" as they didn't have carbonation added, even if it's there.
But I'm sure he knew exactly what he was saying, and was just slamming the American slant of this American site.
no difference for diet sodas and non-carbonated SSBs.
No difference from the SSBs, or no difference from the fruit juice?
Based on that, it requires sugar and carbonation. Diet carbonated beverages are the same as non-carbonated SSBs. The problem isn't the sugar. The problem isn't the carbonation. It's the mix of both.
At least thats what I think you are saying. I don't have time to read it all at the moment.
So the problem is that OS X is too shitty to load hardware-independent, like every other OS does. Because you can do this with NT and Linux, as the "host" as well, but not with OS X as the second OS, because OS X refuses. Not because of some limitation of the primary OS.
You aren't being modded down because people miss the point. You are being modded down because you are wrong, and refuse to listen to anyone else.
But mainly, as I clearly stated above, what you are missing with other products is that you don't have the option of dual-booting AND, at the same time, running the SAME foreign OS install in VMWare or the like.
Because dual-simultaneous OS isn't "dual boot"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-booting "Multi-booting is the act of installing multiple operating systems on a computer, and being able to choose which one to boot when starting the computer." Dual booting is a subset of multi-booting with only two OS.
So dual-booting means choosing the OS on boot. I've done that in the early '90s with Windows. Yes, you can dual-boot NT without too much trouble. Maybe it wasn't until 4.0, but NT 3.51/ NT 4.0 dual boot was common. Two independent OSs, that counts, even if they are just versions of the same.
I didn't say dual-booting was unique to Mac. Read it again. What I wrote was that it's BETTER. Especially if you have VMWare.
Your words were different than you claim you meant. "Apple (unlike Windows or Linux) fully supports dual-boot out-of-the-box." makes it sound like you indicate Windows and Linux *can't* dual-boot out-of-the-box.
I'm not sure if there's a term for multi-OS (simultaneously) beyond VM. And Windows does build in VM support these days. Not sure how much is for VMWare and how much for VSphere. I just load VMWare, and run things in it, rather than loading a primary OS, and virtualizing others within it.
While that's a third-party product, it enables you to do what other OSes won't do, even with VMWare.
That's not what you said, and not correct even with your correction. I've used Windows with VMs loaded within the OS with no "extra" work.
What I think you are claiming is you can run OS1 and virtualize OS2, or boot into OS2, with no functional difference between the virtualizied OS2 or dual-booted OS2. I'm not sure, given that you are spending so much time insisting you didn't say what you obviously did (we can see the entire thread), you aren't explaining what you meant.
Whether or not the OP was a train wreck, the correction was wrong. Those are separate issues.
Also, English is proscriptive, not descriptive (yes, I know the Grammar Nazis hate that), so if the meaning is clear and unambiguous, and likely to have been used by a native speaker, then it's "correct". His train wreck was correct enough, and more correct than the wrong correction issued after.
Europe is a single "border". When I went to Europe for a recent trip, my entry into the "country" of Europe was recorded Electronically. As was my exit. Sure, they stamped me with a visa, but anyone who had any question would have been able to get the information from some computer somewhere.
And I travel some. Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand scanned my passport on entry and exit. I can only presume that the scans were stored for more than the 3 seconds necessary to compare my name to the list of bad guys. Crossing borders *within* Europe are theoretically uncontrolled, but many (especially the UK) use border crossings as a way of double-checking that the people entering were in Europe legally in the first place, though a person in the EU legally would get no stamp for a visit to England from the mainland.
Revenue neutral is a red herring. The tax rate was arbitrarily set to be revenue neutral in the first place, so any change to the UBI to cover SS/welfare, since that was a stated goal of Fair Tax, would just change the arbitrary tax rate to remain revenue neutral.
But complaing it's disadvantaged without even figuring out how much seems a silly argument. At that point, the argument is, "without thought, we think it might cause a disadvantage, so we'll argue against it without considering it, or any effects it might have."
The real problem is that Fair Tax was started by racists who wanted to see how "fair" they could be while increasing the tax burden on poor Blacks. So any suggestion about making it more fair for poor people was met with "get the fuck out, Nigger lover" (no really, at an official Fair Tax meeting, well, as official as they were near the beginning, asking about the prebate levels, and how it was decided to fix the UBI at 25% of poverty, I was called a "Nigger Lover"). Though, the "new" Fair Tax seems to be loophole ridden, and exemption full, as politicians get their hands on it.
So far every "inherently impossible" to meltdown design has been proven to be susceptible. The pebble reactors were meltdown-proof, until it was shown that the pebbles will, over time, change in a way that would eventually guarantee a meltdown, shortening the useful life, and greatly increasing the risk.
We've heard it before. So why should we believe it this time?
Of course, the proponents claim the problems are overblown, but nobody wants to find out. The only approved reactor was put on permanent hold. So we may never find out for sure.
Yes, it is. If I get to be the "owner" on paper, but my parents, through a trust, control the asset 100%, with 0% control on my part, who would you list as the person who "owns" or "controls" the capital?
So, in your mind, in a true capitalist society, there would be no military? Or would the military be private? I don't think you've thought this thing through.
You are incorectly presuming that the definitions be correct. They need not be internally consistent to embody the meaning imparted. People hold cognitively dissonant ideas in their head all the time. Requiring completely clear and consistent definitions would prevent you from using many words in the English language.
Also, you are incorrectly presuming that the US government couldn't commission a line of Hummers from GM without corrupting it. I'm not as naive as your argument requires I be.
You will never hear me say a bad word about labor unions.
In my rush this morning, I seemed to have mis-read your statement on unions. My bad.
Simply put, you are asserting that anyone who asserts it is wrong should be presumed wrong, until proven otherwise. "Flat earth has been torn apart many times." And if they don't have cites and details, we should take that statement as false until proven true. You are shifting the burden of proof.
Wealth taxes are the fairest. Whether they are sustainable is a separate issue. Where have they failed? I'm guessing it's because they weren't paid, not that they were and that caused the economy to collapse.
Nope, you get to claim back (or hold back) taxes already paid. The amount paid to the government is 10% of the largest amount paid for the item. It's not a "deduction" for the type of expense, as deduction currently means, but a rebate for taxes already paid. Depending on where you are, you buy it for $5 (paying $0.50 in tax when bought) and sell it for $20, collecting tax from the customer for $2 and sending $1.50 to the government, or collect $2 and send $2 to the government with a claim back for $0.50. It's not a deduction, but a credit for tax already paid.
PAYE simplifies it as much or more, and is more "fair". Pay As You Earn simply says, "how much did you earn this period? Send in XX%" (deducted by the employer and send in by them). You don't pay your taxes once a year, you pay them every paycheck. No returns to file. You estimate your annual tax to get the right bracket, and done. If there's an error (you lose your job half-way through the year, so your actual tax rate on the first half of the year should have been lower), then you can still file a return to correct it. Another nice side effect is all give-aways must be tax-free. You'll never have to pay $10,000 for winning a car again.
Apparently, because of how SS and Medicare taxes are considered, they are pure PAYE, but income tax isn't, as deducted tax is a pre-payment of a future bill, and strictly speaking, optional.
The Wiki entry indicates there is a deduction, but not exemption. I hadn't heard that before I checked. The initial Fair Tax (yes, from years ago) had *no* exemptions. The result was what you call "strawman" that served as an example that showed a hole and generated changes to the plan to accommodate.
So you are wrong that it's a strawman, and the people saying it are probably using old information, like when I call the Teabaggers Teabaggers. They called themselves teabaggers for a while, not realizing it was an insult. Until they admit they did, I'll take their denial of the events that I personally witnessed to be an admission of guilt.
Ultimately, while admittedly poorly named, and not without flaws, I've never seen a better suggestion.
My problem with it is that the people pushing it are insane. I once asked why the prebate was for poverty level, rather than double poverty, as the idea of a universal basic income has been talked about elsewhere, and Fair Tax is a UBI at 25% poverty. So turning it into a UBI at poverty would eliminate all welfare, SS and other "needs" by paying everyone a poverty level existance. But any talk of adjusting the UBI in Fair Tax to a livable UBI was met with hate, and in a few cases, death threats.
I started working against Fair Tax when asking a question about the rates was met with abuse and threats. "What would the tax rate have to be to provide a prebate of 4 x poverty level?"
Until Fair Tax can answer that, they will be the Unfair Tax. I'm not even saying they need to do it, but at least think about the prebate level. The official answer I got (long ago, so you'll say it's a strawman) is that there was no thought behind the prebate level, and it was an arbitrary line picked, as low as they could put it and not be accused of being regressive. It was never thought of as a UBI, and, thought it is, calling it that is enough to get threatened with death by the "supporters" who want agreement, not discussion.
By your logic, pointing that out is a statement supporting Scientology.
The real idiotic statement you should be fighting against is all the morons who say "I can't think of a way to do it, so it's obviously impossible, and experts in the field could never have thought of something I didn't."
there is no government ownership of the means of production.
But that isn't the definition. Ownership or control of the means of production is the more common definition. It doesn't matter than most of the means of production in China is privately owned. It's not capitalist because the government still has tight controls on much of the economy.
The government "owns" Northrop Grumman, by the economic definition in capitalism because NG doesn't make much, if anything the government doesn't tell them to. That the order and bid process is "public" and "open" doesn't change that fact.
The military industrial complex invented to fight communism is communist. And the only president to apparently see the irony confessed to the evil in his farewell speech, as he created it.
The only reason we saw income inequality start to decline was because for a few decades labor unions were very strong.
Ah, never mind. I didn't look at who I was replying to, until I re-read that as posting. Yes, all evil comes from labor unions. Never mind there wasn't much middle class when labor unions didn't exist, and the labor unions invented the middle class, and saved the country, someone in some union somewhere in the past 20 years endorsed a Democratic candidate, so unions are spawns of satan, placed on Earth to eat babies. Your union dues are now two babies a week.
While the kid is at school, the school is the parents for the child, legally. This allows them to do things like obtain medical care in the case of a fall, but would also make any actions by the child that the parents are responsible for the school, as the school is legally the parent at that moment.
So fraud should be legal. Contracts should be illegal. Promising something is words, you should have the freedom to promise anything you want in exchange for money, and not be held liable for those promises, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't think it made sense that juice had benefits over control (whatever that is). What would "control" be? Water? Milk? Blood?
(I also recall reading somewhere that warm Coca-Cola is a very effective spermicide. Anybody know whether this is true?)
I heard warm (but not flat) cola is a paint stripper, drain cleaner, and fly-trap.
Not gonna try it's use as a spermacide. What is that, reverse lube? That stuff is sticky.
I've never seen people quote salary in monthly salary, even in Europe, but then, I've not been to Sweden.
Carbonation is an acid. The effect on teeth is three-fold. The sugar is bad (Feeds the bacteria). The acid level rise damages teeth directly. The acid level rise is beneficial for the bacteria. The bacteria raise the acid level, and the acid ends up eating the enamel. So a sugary carbonated beverage is worse than a sugary drink with no carbonation, or a carbonated drink without sugar.
There are many such interactions we don't count. We think of everything on a "yes" or "no" basis, when often it could be more complex than that.
In the US, "club soda", and "Soda water" refer to sparking (carbonated) water.
Also, some sparkling mineral waters claim natural carbonation, thus aren't strictly "carbonated water" as they didn't have carbonation added, even if it's there.
But I'm sure he knew exactly what he was saying, and was just slamming the American slant of this American site.
no difference for diet sodas and non-carbonated SSBs.
No difference from the SSBs, or no difference from the fruit juice?
Based on that, it requires sugar and carbonation. Diet carbonated beverages are the same as non-carbonated SSBs. The problem isn't the sugar. The problem isn't the carbonation. It's the mix of both.
At least thats what I think you are saying. I don't have time to read it all at the moment.
So the problem is that OS X is too shitty to load hardware-independent, like every other OS does. Because you can do this with NT and Linux, as the "host" as well, but not with OS X as the second OS, because OS X refuses. Not because of some limitation of the primary OS.
You aren't being modded down because people miss the point. You are being modded down because you are wrong, and refuse to listen to anyone else.
But mainly, as I clearly stated above, what you are missing with other products is that you don't have the option of dual-booting AND, at the same time, running the SAME foreign OS install in VMWare or the like.
Because dual-simultaneous OS isn't "dual boot"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-booting "Multi-booting is the act of installing multiple operating systems on a computer, and being able to choose which one to boot when starting the computer." Dual booting is a subset of multi-booting with only two OS.
So dual-booting means choosing the OS on boot. I've done that in the early '90s with Windows. Yes, you can dual-boot NT without too much trouble. Maybe it wasn't until 4.0, but NT 3.51/ NT 4.0 dual boot was common. Two independent OSs, that counts, even if they are just versions of the same.
I didn't say dual-booting was unique to Mac. Read it again. What I wrote was that it's BETTER. Especially if you have VMWare.
Your words were different than you claim you meant. "Apple (unlike Windows or Linux) fully supports dual-boot out-of-the-box." makes it sound like you indicate Windows and Linux *can't* dual-boot out-of-the-box.
I'm not sure if there's a term for multi-OS (simultaneously) beyond VM. And Windows does build in VM support these days. Not sure how much is for VMWare and how much for VSphere. I just load VMWare, and run things in it, rather than loading a primary OS, and virtualizing others within it.
While that's a third-party product, it enables you to do what other OSes won't do, even with VMWare.
That's not what you said, and not correct even with your correction. I've used Windows with VMs loaded within the OS with no "extra" work.
What I think you are claiming is you can run OS1 and virtualize OS2, or boot into OS2, with no functional difference between the virtualizied OS2 or dual-booted OS2. I'm not sure, given that you are spending so much time insisting you didn't say what you obviously did (we can see the entire thread), you aren't explaining what you meant.
Whether or not the OP was a train wreck, the correction was wrong. Those are separate issues.
Also, English is proscriptive, not descriptive (yes, I know the Grammar Nazis hate that), so if the meaning is clear and unambiguous, and likely to have been used by a native speaker, then it's "correct". His train wreck was correct enough, and more correct than the wrong correction issued after.
Europe is a single "border". When I went to Europe for a recent trip, my entry into the "country" of Europe was recorded Electronically. As was my exit. Sure, they stamped me with a visa, but anyone who had any question would have been able to get the information from some computer somewhere.
And I travel some. Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand scanned my passport on entry and exit. I can only presume that the scans were stored for more than the 3 seconds necessary to compare my name to the list of bad guys. Crossing borders *within* Europe are theoretically uncontrolled, but many (especially the UK) use border crossings as a way of double-checking that the people entering were in Europe legally in the first place, though a person in the EU legally would get no stamp for a visit to England from the mainland.
Revenue neutral is a red herring. The tax rate was arbitrarily set to be revenue neutral in the first place, so any change to the UBI to cover SS/welfare, since that was a stated goal of Fair Tax, would just change the arbitrary tax rate to remain revenue neutral.
But complaing it's disadvantaged without even figuring out how much seems a silly argument. At that point, the argument is, "without thought, we think it might cause a disadvantage, so we'll argue against it without considering it, or any effects it might have."
The real problem is that Fair Tax was started by racists who wanted to see how "fair" they could be while increasing the tax burden on poor Blacks. So any suggestion about making it more fair for poor people was met with "get the fuck out, Nigger lover" (no really, at an official Fair Tax meeting, well, as official as they were near the beginning, asking about the prebate levels, and how it was decided to fix the UBI at 25% of poverty, I was called a "Nigger Lover"). Though, the "new" Fair Tax seems to be loophole ridden, and exemption full, as politicians get their hands on it.
So far every "inherently impossible" to meltdown design has been proven to be susceptible. The pebble reactors were meltdown-proof, until it was shown that the pebbles will, over time, change in a way that would eventually guarantee a meltdown, shortening the useful life, and greatly increasing the risk.
We've heard it before. So why should we believe it this time?
Of course, the proponents claim the problems are overblown, but nobody wants to find out. The only approved reactor was put on permanent hold. So we may never find out for sure.
A preponderance of the people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Your ignorance isn't a valid counter-argument.
Regulation is not control of capital.
Yes, it is. If I get to be the "owner" on paper, but my parents, through a trust, control the asset 100%, with 0% control on my part, who would you list as the person who "owns" or "controls" the capital?
So, in your mind, in a true capitalist society, there would be no military? Or would the military be private? I don't think you've thought this thing through.
You are incorectly presuming that the definitions be correct. They need not be internally consistent to embody the meaning imparted. People hold cognitively dissonant ideas in their head all the time. Requiring completely clear and consistent definitions would prevent you from using many words in the English language.
Also, you are incorrectly presuming that the US government couldn't commission a line of Hummers from GM without corrupting it. I'm not as naive as your argument requires I be.
You will never hear me say a bad word about labor unions.
In my rush this morning, I seemed to have mis-read your statement on unions. My bad.
Simply put, you are asserting that anyone who asserts it is wrong should be presumed wrong, until proven otherwise. "Flat earth has been torn apart many times." And if they don't have cites and details, we should take that statement as false until proven true. You are shifting the burden of proof.
Wealth taxes are the fairest. Whether they are sustainable is a separate issue. Where have they failed? I'm guessing it's because they weren't paid, not that they were and that caused the economy to collapse.
Nope, you get to claim back (or hold back) taxes already paid. The amount paid to the government is 10% of the largest amount paid for the item. It's not a "deduction" for the type of expense, as deduction currently means, but a rebate for taxes already paid. Depending on where you are, you buy it for $5 (paying $0.50 in tax when bought) and sell it for $20, collecting tax from the customer for $2 and sending $1.50 to the government, or collect $2 and send $2 to the government with a claim back for $0.50. It's not a deduction, but a credit for tax already paid.
PAYE simplifies it as much or more, and is more "fair". Pay As You Earn simply says, "how much did you earn this period? Send in XX%" (deducted by the employer and send in by them). You don't pay your taxes once a year, you pay them every paycheck. No returns to file. You estimate your annual tax to get the right bracket, and done. If there's an error (you lose your job half-way through the year, so your actual tax rate on the first half of the year should have been lower), then you can still file a return to correct it. Another nice side effect is all give-aways must be tax-free. You'll never have to pay $10,000 for winning a car again.
It'd also get rid of most of the need for the IRS. There are no audits in PAYE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Apparently, because of how SS and Medicare taxes are considered, they are pure PAYE, but income tax isn't, as deducted tax is a pre-payment of a future bill, and strictly speaking, optional.
"Flat tax is a tax system with a constant marginal rate,"
You can have a proportional tax with no deductions as well. Deductions and marginal rate are orthogonal.
Only by those who create FairTax strawmen so that they can tear them down (like no tax exemption for mortgage interest).
A strawman is a false statement put up to tear down. That's only a "strawman" if false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
The Wiki entry indicates there is a deduction, but not exemption. I hadn't heard that before I checked. The initial Fair Tax (yes, from years ago) had *no* exemptions. The result was what you call "strawman" that served as an example that showed a hole and generated changes to the plan to accommodate.
So you are wrong that it's a strawman, and the people saying it are probably using old information, like when I call the Teabaggers Teabaggers. They called themselves teabaggers for a while, not realizing it was an insult. Until they admit they did, I'll take their denial of the events that I personally witnessed to be an admission of guilt.
Ultimately, while admittedly poorly named, and not without flaws, I've never seen a better suggestion.
My problem with it is that the people pushing it are insane. I once asked why the prebate was for poverty level, rather than double poverty, as the idea of a universal basic income has been talked about elsewhere, and Fair Tax is a UBI at 25% poverty. So turning it into a UBI at poverty would eliminate all welfare, SS and other "needs" by paying everyone a poverty level existance. But any talk of adjusting the UBI in Fair Tax to a livable UBI was met with hate, and in a few cases, death threats.
I started working against Fair Tax when asking a question about the rates was met with abuse and threats. "What would the tax rate have to be to provide a prebate of 4 x poverty level?"
Until Fair Tax can answer that, they will be the Unfair Tax. I'm not even saying they need to do it, but at least think about the prebate level. The official answer I got (long ago, so you'll say it's a strawman) is that there was no thought behind the prebate level, and it was an arbitrary line picked, as low as they could put it and not be accused of being regressive. It was never thought of as a UBI, and, thought it is, calling it that is enough to get threatened with death by the "supporters" who want agreement, not discussion.
"Scientology has been torn apart many times."
By your logic, pointing that out is a statement supporting Scientology.
The real idiotic statement you should be fighting against is all the morons who say "I can't think of a way to do it, so it's obviously impossible, and experts in the field could never have thought of something I didn't."
there is no government ownership of the means of production.
But that isn't the definition. Ownership or control of the means of production is the more common definition. It doesn't matter than most of the means of production in China is privately owned. It's not capitalist because the government still has tight controls on much of the economy.
The government "owns" Northrop Grumman, by the economic definition in capitalism because NG doesn't make much, if anything the government doesn't tell them to. That the order and bid process is "public" and "open" doesn't change that fact.
The military industrial complex invented to fight communism is communist. And the only president to apparently see the irony confessed to the evil in his farewell speech, as he created it.
The only reason we saw income inequality start to decline was because for a few decades labor unions were very strong.
Ah, never mind. I didn't look at who I was replying to, until I re-read that as posting. Yes, all evil comes from labor unions. Never mind there wasn't much middle class when labor unions didn't exist, and the labor unions invented the middle class, and saved the country, someone in some union somewhere in the past 20 years endorsed a Democratic candidate, so unions are spawns of satan, placed on Earth to eat babies. Your union dues are now two babies a week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
That you don't think they do a good job of it doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
While the kid is at school, the school is the parents for the child, legally. This allows them to do things like obtain medical care in the case of a fall, but would also make any actions by the child that the parents are responsible for the school, as the school is legally the parent at that moment.
So fraud should be legal. Contracts should be illegal. Promising something is words, you should have the freedom to promise anything you want in exchange for money, and not be held liable for those promises, right?