The grades were based upon how many questions you answered correctly. It did not matter what other students answered. Why would it?
I've taken a test where the average grade was 23%. You are seriously arguing that the problem with that is that all the students failed, and not that the teacher gave a test harder than warranted?
The only class I had graded on a curve was a physics class. The scores were raised to get a 60% C or better. I had a 40% on a test that was an A. You seem to be presuming that a curve is lowering grades to distribute them, when the only time I was graded on a curve, it was an increase to distribute them. Harder tests is a good thing. It helps express that not everything is handed over easily, but some things are hard. But when going for hard, if you go too far, why would a curve to correct be a bad thing? The one 40% I mention was on a 4-question test. Nobody got full credit for any two questions. Everyone got one of fewer questions right. I didn't even attempt the question that was most answered. It was "easy" but lengthy. The harder, but shorter were better suited for points. The question I didn't attempt was "what's the force of the light of the Sun on the Earth?" (assume complete absorbtion, given the size of the Sun, Earth, distances, and considering only blackbody radiation of the sun, given the surface temperature of the Sun) Simple, but longer than some of the others.
In some schools, they rank the harder classes as worth more. I've seen people graduate with a 5.5 on a 4-point scale. Those in the dumb classes with perfect grades will not be in the top 5%, maybe not in the top 10%.
Personally, I was in the bottom half of the #1 public school in the nation. Still got in, but not my first choice. GPA didn't matter. With a high enough SAT score, the state schools discard class rank and grades.
That only matters if you get a non-internship offer for something in your field of study. So many, like me, go into something other than their major, in which case, nobody cares about GPA, as it's not related to the work at hand.
At least with the SATs my scores were retroactively changed when the test became easier. I went up almost 100 points to a 1500 in the "new" SATs (what they presume I'd have gotten if I'd taken today's test). I was similarly 90+% on my GRE, so when I went back to get an MBA 15 years after undergrad, they didn't care about undergrad scores. But then, it wasn't a competitive program, so not overly selective (but not something like UoPhoenix that's non-selective and after money above all).
Now you've converted web browsing into "P2P" to try to support your argument.
No, I've never stated anything about web browsing. That you incorrectly assumed it doesn't make it true (for that or any other arguments of yours).
Sir, if the law would prevent an ISP from throttling Netflix in preference to other web services, then it would prevent throttling other web services in preference to Netflix.
Nope. Netlfix isn't a *service*, it's a *company* that provides streaming video services. If you throttled Netflix, you'd be breaking any version of net neutrality. If you prioritized HTTP over streaming video, you'd not break any version of net neutrality.
Neutrality means "no preferences", not "well, it's ok because I want my Netflix and don't care about other people..."
No, it means no deliberate anti-competitive behavior. You can't throttle Netflix but have your video services run at full rate. You also can't throttle much when uncongested (the exceptions are malicious traffic, and such).
I am doing no such thing, and you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Yes, asking you to quote the definition of "net neutrality" you are using and then saying that since you are obviously not quoting a 3rd party, you are using a fictitious made up definition and incorrectly presenting it as fact. You don't understand what it is. Go read the bills submitted around it. Go read the FCC rules. You'll find all the official definitions agree with me, and not you.
It was named by the same people that named the USA PATRIOT Act. The name doesn't define the rules. Only the rules define the rules, and you refuse to quote them. Presumably because you have no idea what they are.
If you knew them, and I was as wrong as you say I am, then why wouldn't you quote them to prove me wrong? It's because the only person wrong here is you. Quote the rules that prove me wrong to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting. Forever (not that I'll wait forever, but that if I were waiting, I'd be waiting forever, because you are impotent).
I don't find the discussion frustrating, but I would find someone "abusing" the rules that I don't understand to be frustrating. Much like soccer, basketball and hockey are "non contact sports" according to the rules. But the rules aren't enforced as per written. Which is a reason why sports is confusing/frustrating to so many technical people (why rules-geeks end up anti-sports). Yes, hockey is non-contact. bumping someone is checking, and bumping someone while your stick is off the ground - even if the stick doesn't touch the other person, is cross-checking. Though the HNL has changed the official rules to match how games are played, and the play was an evolution of under-reffed street games, as so many sports evolve.
There may never be a Cinese programming language, so they wouldn't use Chinese script. Those in China who type, type in Roman characters. Though that may change once touchpads are ubiquitous, as stroking out a character may eventually surpass pinyin input.
A blog site of a frustrated adult doesn't seem to be related to your assertion that it takes twice as long for children to learn Chinese as a first language. Though even that, if true, is likely misleading. A 4 year old has verbal-skills only, for most people everywhere. So are you saying that the vocabulary of a 4 year old in China is less? I'd expect that to not be true. Or are you saying that the written vocabulary of a 10 year old is smaller in China? That may be true, but isn't the only measure of how long it takes to learn.
Great, but those with the means to lay the fiber aren't laying it. You are arguing that reality is wrong. That won't get you far.
I can buy a Raspberry Pi less cost than a high quality abacus. Guess which is faster. Hint: It's not the more expensive one.
Yes, but others see you as advocating forcing a Raspberry Pi on your neighbor, regardless of whether he wants it or not, and making abacuses illegal.
I work for an ISP. I've pointed out some of the studies that compared "home run" fiber to GPON, and showed that "home run" was cheaper, but they were dismissed, as it's logically impossible to deliver more for less money, or so say the people spending the billions.
And partly because then they lose control. If a homeowner owned his fiber from his house to a meet-me point in a CO, how can the person that laid the fiber extract infinite rent (extortion)? You'd have chaos. People choosing which carrier to use based on the carrier's performance. That type of freedom will not be allowed by the incumbents without a fight. And you are fighting the wrong fight. It's not with people on a message board about how "net neutrality" works (or should work). Net neutrality wouldn't be necessary if there were free choice. It's a requirement because the networks are all private and locked down. And that is why we'll only ever see GPON (and overloaded GPON,at that). If I could trace my fiber to a CO with a non-blocking path, I'd be able to put anyone else on the other end, and that is the problem.
It'll take Google getting 10+ cities wired with dedicated fiber before the incumbents wake up.
The WPA is more popular now because, aside from some roads in some national parks, the CCC's work was temporary and mostly gone, while much of the WPA's work remains. Also, over 50 years, the New Deal was devalued as a term, leading to, at least when I was in school, the WPA being considered synonymous with the New Deal. As if the CCC was a subset of the WPA, not a sister program. The WPA's works are much more visible. I've seen piles of town halls in small towns with WPA plaques on them, but I can't recall having ever seen a CCC work. The artsy part of the WPA may have made it less of a political win, but it seems to be the one that stood the test of time.
Of course it would. Net neutrality means NO PREFERENCES.
Your opinion of what you think it should mean is unrelated to what's actually in the bills. Try reading them again (or, likely, for the first time) and quote a section that would make throttling P2P in congested conditions illegal. You won't find it, because it's not there. But you are the one that's insisting it's there, so are the only one that can prove a positive. Go for it.
What, you mean that net neutrality means no preferential treatment, either by slowing Netflix in preference to "normal" web, or slowing other people's web browsing in preference to Netflix? Gosh, I don't know how that lie could have started. Maybe someone who actually read the FCC order?
I've read it. There's nothing in it that would have prevented an ISP from declaring Netflix to be real-time, and HTTP to be interactive, and give preference to real-time over interactive in congested conditions. Again, I can't prove it's not in there, without just quoting the whole thing and saying "see, it's not in there". Since you are so sure that reasonable prioritization in congested conditions would be illegal, please identify and quote the section that would do so.
The fact that you asked that question proves that you did not comprehend what you read. I "pushed" for nothing. I pointed out that there will be people who whine if an ISP cannot throttle others so that your Netflix can get through, and you conveniently made yourself known.
You are pushing hate. I do not now, nor have I ever, had a streaming Netflix account (I had a disc account before streaming, though). I'm only a person who has read the laws a number of times, and works for an ISP and discusses these legal issues on a regular basis. It's not about requiring that everything else be slowed to allow in Netflix. You are hating on one user, and using that as a justification for defending your opinion on net neutrality. You aren't quoting law. You aren't discussing what's in it. You are attacking a class of user you assert believes themselves to be privilidged. When you are interested in discussing net neutrality, let me know.
I let myself be known? So you took my offense at your wrong statements to mean that I must be the "enemy" (a netflix user). I'm not. Like everything else you've said, you are 100% wrong on this. Please feel free to make more random wild guesses about net neutrality and such. At least now we know you present your incorrect opinion as fact, and have no actual knowledge over that which you speak.
And I was pretty explicit in saying that net neutrality would NOT allow them to do that, and that people who want their Netflix at the expense of others will oppose net neutrality because they can't be special users and get priority handling if net neutrality is enforced.
As you are speaking out against net neutrality (by outlining the harm you incorrectly think it does), should I also presume you are in the privileged class of netflix user? And if you wanted to point out explicitly that net neutrality would NOT allow it. Please point to the section that does so. The one thing completely missing in your rants is a link to anything that substantiates your incorrect opinion.
So you just have a good reason to form it as a separate company. I'm sure a pile of lawyers could work it out. Get insurance. Shouldn't be that much, and should prove you intended to cover the liability.
What, I should google "daily double distribution" whenever Jeopardy comes on? Being on a tech site doesn't make one curious about things they don't care about.
Could you find any ruling that having sufficient capital for operations, but not when sued, results in such an act? Yes, small businesses are often under-capitalized, and have the owners held responsible, but that's only when the owner does a P&L balance sheet, but not a cashflow, and finds that it's "profitable" and incorrectly assumes that profit means more cash at the end of the year, and goes out of business with a profitable company that can't meet debt payments. That's either fraud or negligence. And what I found on intentional undercapitalization only counts when you (essentially) commit fraud by asking for credit you wouldn't reasonably have expected to pay off.
But being sued isn't asking for credit. You didn't intentionally defraud a creditor, so that doesn't meet the stated legal standard for what you describe to have happen. So long as the company was properly funded and founded as a licensed "private investigation" service, with the ability to meet all obligations thereof, I do not see that as underfunding the company. At best, it would be underinsured. I wonder what the rates would be for liability insurance in that case? $10,000,000 judgement + 10% revenue would round to $10,000,000 I've had a $1,000,000 policy for just a few hundred dollars a year.
Since bankruptcies are public record, they will show up on a background check, and a number of the negative consequences can be lifelong.
They don't seem to have hurt those with 5+, like Donald Trump and others.
Personally I think that there should be a return of the WPA. How many city halls were built under that, giving jobs to people that needed/wanted them, and gave us results around for almost 100 years? Instead, our modern idea of a bailout is to pay a private company to do something they would have done anyway. Paying a real estate developer to build a building, or paying a telco to pay cables. That's not stimulus, that's welfare for the rich.
Want to saddle a student with a lifetime of debt? Give them a job, so they at least have a chance to pay it off.
The non-dischargability of loans pre-dates the ACA, so your assertion that they are linked, and pointing them all to Democrats, when it was the Republicans who removed the dischargability seems odd to me. Are you sure you have your facts straight? Or did you align your recollection to justify your politicla stance?
US tax payers aren't on the hook for most of the loans that students have. It's not just government loans that are "protected". "Smart" students would get as many of those credit cards offered like candy they can, advance or buy stuff to sell (gift cards, iTunes cards), and declare bankruptcy the moment they graduate.
There's nothing stopping you from borrowing for other reasons, using the cash to pay off loans, then bankrupting youself out of the new debt. That would be the appropriate civil disobediance for the non-dischargeable loans.
Not when those with the money make all the rules. Then the knife only cuts one way. People like Donald Trump argue that students shouldn't be able to wipe out student loans with a bankruptcy, while he's declared bankruptcy 5 or more times.
You can troll them, but not satirize them. There is no concept far enough over the top to be a satire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... was satire because there was a strong anti-poor movement, but they weren't proposing soylent green or selling your children into slavery, so a satire was possible.
But there do exist people with so radical of thoughts that it would be impossible to satirize them in the same way.
damages based on the greater of $10 Milliion, and 5 to 10% of the perpetrating company's annual revenues.
We'll have shell companies created with zero revenue acting as harassing entities. So if you find them out and sue and win, you'll get no damages, other than the $10,000,000 awarded, and they'll just close the doors if it looks like that would happen.
Now, are you talking the "person" paying the tax, or the "company" paying it? And what rebates/exemptions are in place? Many of the Irish companies make billions in one country, but transfer that profit to Irelant for lower taxes, so they won't pay a penny in Italy or wherever they made the profit. In other cases, the "taxes" paid are not taxes. Companies can deduct taxes paid twice (at different rates, but as it decreases profit as an expense, it's deductible there, plus taxes paid can be claimed back in many cases).
Do you know how much BP pays for the oil they pump out of the ground in Alaska? I'll give you a hint, according to the BP financial records, it's a zero-value "gift" from the state (and people) of Alaska.
But if Paris Hilton makes a billion dollars in a year, it's not Paris that makes it, but her company. And every party is deductible, as her party image is a PR expense. And private jets to jet around are a deductable expense, as business travel is an expense. The amount of personal income tax paid by someone like Paris Hilton to live one of the most extravagent lives on the planet is something people guess to be near (or not exactly) zero. And there are constant discussions on permanently and completely removing the estate tax, so she can get an infinite inheritance for "free" as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The grades were based upon how many questions you answered correctly. It did not matter what other students answered. Why would it?
I've taken a test where the average grade was 23%. You are seriously arguing that the problem with that is that all the students failed, and not that the teacher gave a test harder than warranted?
The only class I had graded on a curve was a physics class. The scores were raised to get a 60% C or better. I had a 40% on a test that was an A. You seem to be presuming that a curve is lowering grades to distribute them, when the only time I was graded on a curve, it was an increase to distribute them. Harder tests is a good thing. It helps express that not everything is handed over easily, but some things are hard. But when going for hard, if you go too far, why would a curve to correct be a bad thing? The one 40% I mention was on a 4-question test. Nobody got full credit for any two questions. Everyone got one of fewer questions right. I didn't even attempt the question that was most answered. It was "easy" but lengthy. The harder, but shorter were better suited for points. The question I didn't attempt was "what's the force of the light of the Sun on the Earth?" (assume complete absorbtion, given the size of the Sun, Earth, distances, and considering only blackbody radiation of the sun, given the surface temperature of the Sun) Simple, but longer than some of the others.
In some schools, they rank the harder classes as worth more. I've seen people graduate with a 5.5 on a 4-point scale. Those in the dumb classes with perfect grades will not be in the top 5%, maybe not in the top 10%.
Personally, I was in the bottom half of the #1 public school in the nation. Still got in, but not my first choice. GPA didn't matter. With a high enough SAT score, the state schools discard class rank and grades.
That only matters if you get a non-internship offer for something in your field of study. So many, like me, go into something other than their major, in which case, nobody cares about GPA, as it's not related to the work at hand.
At least with the SATs my scores were retroactively changed when the test became easier. I went up almost 100 points to a 1500 in the "new" SATs (what they presume I'd have gotten if I'd taken today's test). I was similarly 90+% on my GRE, so when I went back to get an MBA 15 years after undergrad, they didn't care about undergrad scores. But then, it wasn't a competitive program, so not overly selective (but not something like UoPhoenix that's non-selective and after money above all).
Now you've converted web browsing into "P2P" to try to support your argument.
No, I've never stated anything about web browsing. That you incorrectly assumed it doesn't make it true (for that or any other arguments of yours).
Sir, if the law would prevent an ISP from throttling Netflix in preference to other web services, then it would prevent throttling other web services in preference to Netflix.
Nope. Netlfix isn't a *service*, it's a *company* that provides streaming video services. If you throttled Netflix, you'd be breaking any version of net neutrality. If you prioritized HTTP over streaming video, you'd not break any version of net neutrality.
Neutrality means "no preferences", not "well, it's ok because I want my Netflix and don't care about other people..."
No, it means no deliberate anti-competitive behavior. You can't throttle Netflix but have your video services run at full rate. You also can't throttle much when uncongested (the exceptions are malicious traffic, and such).
I am doing no such thing, and you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Yes, asking you to quote the definition of "net neutrality" you are using and then saying that since you are obviously not quoting a 3rd party, you are using a fictitious made up definition and incorrectly presenting it as fact. You don't understand what it is. Go read the bills submitted around it. Go read the FCC rules. You'll find all the official definitions agree with me, and not you.
It was named by the same people that named the USA PATRIOT Act. The name doesn't define the rules. Only the rules define the rules, and you refuse to quote them. Presumably because you have no idea what they are.
If you knew them, and I was as wrong as you say I am, then why wouldn't you quote them to prove me wrong? It's because the only person wrong here is you. Quote the rules that prove me wrong to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting. Forever (not that I'll wait forever, but that if I were waiting, I'd be waiting forever, because you are impotent).
Yes, so attacks against one party are usually silly. Rarely is an argument not valid against both.
I don't find the discussion frustrating, but I would find someone "abusing" the rules that I don't understand to be frustrating. Much like soccer, basketball and hockey are "non contact sports" according to the rules. But the rules aren't enforced as per written. Which is a reason why sports is confusing/frustrating to so many technical people (why rules-geeks end up anti-sports). Yes, hockey is non-contact. bumping someone is checking, and bumping someone while your stick is off the ground - even if the stick doesn't touch the other person, is cross-checking. Though the HNL has changed the official rules to match how games are played, and the play was an evolution of under-reffed street games, as so many sports evolve.
There may never be a Cinese programming language, so they wouldn't use Chinese script. Those in China who type, type in Roman characters. Though that may change once touchpads are ubiquitous, as stroking out a character may eventually surpass pinyin input.
A blog site of a frustrated adult doesn't seem to be related to your assertion that it takes twice as long for children to learn Chinese as a first language. Though even that, if true, is likely misleading. A 4 year old has verbal-skills only, for most people everywhere. So are you saying that the vocabulary of a 4 year old in China is less? I'd expect that to not be true. Or are you saying that the written vocabulary of a 10 year old is smaller in China? That may be true, but isn't the only measure of how long it takes to learn.
I can buy a Raspberry Pi less cost than a high quality abacus. Guess which is faster. Hint: It's not the more expensive one.
Yes, but others see you as advocating forcing a Raspberry Pi on your neighbor, regardless of whether he wants it or not, and making abacuses illegal.
I work for an ISP. I've pointed out some of the studies that compared "home run" fiber to GPON, and showed that "home run" was cheaper, but they were dismissed, as it's logically impossible to deliver more for less money, or so say the people spending the billions.
And partly because then they lose control. If a homeowner owned his fiber from his house to a meet-me point in a CO, how can the person that laid the fiber extract infinite rent (extortion)? You'd have chaos. People choosing which carrier to use based on the carrier's performance. That type of freedom will not be allowed by the incumbents without a fight. And you are fighting the wrong fight. It's not with people on a message board about how "net neutrality" works (or should work). Net neutrality wouldn't be necessary if there were free choice. It's a requirement because the networks are all private and locked down. And that is why we'll only ever see GPON (and overloaded GPON,at that). If I could trace my fiber to a CO with a non-blocking path, I'd be able to put anyone else on the other end, and that is the problem.
It'll take Google getting 10+ cities wired with dedicated fiber before the incumbents wake up.
If you were planning on never incurring the liability, why have insurance? People don't insure cars they don't have.
Getting a cash advance on a credit card is fraud? Who was defrauded, and what was the deception told to gain the money?
The WPA is more popular now because, aside from some roads in some national parks, the CCC's work was temporary and mostly gone, while much of the WPA's work remains. Also, over 50 years, the New Deal was devalued as a term, leading to, at least when I was in school, the WPA being considered synonymous with the New Deal. As if the CCC was a subset of the WPA, not a sister program. The WPA's works are much more visible. I've seen piles of town halls in small towns with WPA plaques on them, but I can't recall having ever seen a CCC work. The artsy part of the WPA may have made it less of a political win, but it seems to be the one that stood the test of time.
Of course it would. Net neutrality means NO PREFERENCES.
Your opinion of what you think it should mean is unrelated to what's actually in the bills. Try reading them again (or, likely, for the first time) and quote a section that would make throttling P2P in congested conditions illegal. You won't find it, because it's not there. But you are the one that's insisting it's there, so are the only one that can prove a positive. Go for it.
What, you mean that net neutrality means no preferential treatment, either by slowing Netflix in preference to "normal" web, or slowing other people's web browsing in preference to Netflix? Gosh, I don't know how that lie could have started. Maybe someone who actually read the FCC order?
I've read it. There's nothing in it that would have prevented an ISP from declaring Netflix to be real-time, and HTTP to be interactive, and give preference to real-time over interactive in congested conditions. Again, I can't prove it's not in there, without just quoting the whole thing and saying "see, it's not in there". Since you are so sure that reasonable prioritization in congested conditions would be illegal, please identify and quote the section that would do so.
The fact that you asked that question proves that you did not comprehend what you read. I "pushed" for nothing. I pointed out that there will be people who whine if an ISP cannot throttle others so that your Netflix can get through, and you conveniently made yourself known.
You are pushing hate. I do not now, nor have I ever, had a streaming Netflix account (I had a disc account before streaming, though). I'm only a person who has read the laws a number of times, and works for an ISP and discusses these legal issues on a regular basis. It's not about requiring that everything else be slowed to allow in Netflix. You are hating on one user, and using that as a justification for defending your opinion on net neutrality. You aren't quoting law. You aren't discussing what's in it. You are attacking a class of user you assert believes themselves to be privilidged. When you are interested in discussing net neutrality, let me know.
I let myself be known? So you took my offense at your wrong statements to mean that I must be the "enemy" (a netflix user). I'm not. Like everything else you've said, you are 100% wrong on this. Please feel free to make more random wild guesses about net neutrality and such. At least now we know you present your incorrect opinion as fact, and have no actual knowledge over that which you speak.
And I was pretty explicit in saying that net neutrality would NOT allow them to do that, and that people who want their Netflix at the expense of others will oppose net neutrality because they can't be special users and get priority handling if net neutrality is enforced.
As you are speaking out against net neutrality (by outlining the harm you incorrectly think it does), should I also presume you are in the privileged class of netflix user? And if you wanted to point out explicitly that net neutrality would NOT allow it. Please point to the section that does so. The one thing completely missing in your rants is a link to anything that substantiates your incorrect opinion.
So you just have a good reason to form it as a separate company. I'm sure a pile of lawyers could work it out. Get insurance. Shouldn't be that much, and should prove you intended to cover the liability.
What, I should google "daily double distribution" whenever Jeopardy comes on? Being on a tech site doesn't make one curious about things they don't care about.
Could you find any ruling that having sufficient capital for operations, but not when sued, results in such an act? Yes, small businesses are often under-capitalized, and have the owners held responsible, but that's only when the owner does a P&L balance sheet, but not a cashflow, and finds that it's "profitable" and incorrectly assumes that profit means more cash at the end of the year, and goes out of business with a profitable company that can't meet debt payments. That's either fraud or negligence. And what I found on intentional undercapitalization only counts when you (essentially) commit fraud by asking for credit you wouldn't reasonably have expected to pay off.
But being sued isn't asking for credit. You didn't intentionally defraud a creditor, so that doesn't meet the stated legal standard for what you describe to have happen. So long as the company was properly funded and founded as a licensed "private investigation" service, with the ability to meet all obligations thereof, I do not see that as underfunding the company. At best, it would be underinsured. I wonder what the rates would be for liability insurance in that case? $10,000,000 judgement + 10% revenue would round to $10,000,000 I've had a $1,000,000 policy for just a few hundred dollars a year.
Since bankruptcies are public record, they will show up on a background check, and a number of the negative consequences can be lifelong.
They don't seem to have hurt those with 5+, like Donald Trump and others.
Personally I think that there should be a return of the WPA. How many city halls were built under that, giving jobs to people that needed/wanted them, and gave us results around for almost 100 years? Instead, our modern idea of a bailout is to pay a private company to do something they would have done anyway. Paying a real estate developer to build a building, or paying a telco to pay cables. That's not stimulus, that's welfare for the rich.
Want to saddle a student with a lifetime of debt? Give them a job, so they at least have a chance to pay it off.
The non-dischargability of loans pre-dates the ACA, so your assertion that they are linked, and pointing them all to Democrats, when it was the Republicans who removed the dischargability seems odd to me. Are you sure you have your facts straight? Or did you align your recollection to justify your politicla stance?
US tax payers aren't on the hook for most of the loans that students have. It's not just government loans that are "protected". "Smart" students would get as many of those credit cards offered like candy they can, advance or buy stuff to sell (gift cards, iTunes cards), and declare bankruptcy the moment they graduate.
There's nothing stopping you from borrowing for other reasons, using the cash to pay off loans, then bankrupting youself out of the new debt. That would be the appropriate civil disobediance for the non-dischargeable loans.
Not when those with the money make all the rules. Then the knife only cuts one way. People like Donald Trump argue that students shouldn't be able to wipe out student loans with a bankruptcy, while he's declared bankruptcy 5 or more times.
The knee jerk reaction of "big companies bad, individuals good" is not always accurate.
But it's more likely true than not.
You can troll them, but not satirize them. There is no concept far enough over the top to be a satire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... was satire because there was a strong anti-poor movement, but they weren't proposing soylent green or selling your children into slavery, so a satire was possible.
But there do exist people with so radical of thoughts that it would be impossible to satirize them in the same way.
damages based on the greater of $10 Milliion, and 5 to 10% of the perpetrating company's annual revenues.
We'll have shell companies created with zero revenue acting as harassing entities. So if you find them out and sue and win, you'll get no damages, other than the $10,000,000 awarded, and they'll just close the doors if it looks like that would happen.
Now, are you talking the "person" paying the tax, or the "company" paying it? And what rebates/exemptions are in place? Many of the Irish companies make billions in one country, but transfer that profit to Irelant for lower taxes, so they won't pay a penny in Italy or wherever they made the profit. In other cases, the "taxes" paid are not taxes. Companies can deduct taxes paid twice (at different rates, but as it decreases profit as an expense, it's deductible there, plus taxes paid can be claimed back in many cases).
Do you know how much BP pays for the oil they pump out of the ground in Alaska? I'll give you a hint, according to the BP financial records, it's a zero-value "gift" from the state (and people) of Alaska.
But if Paris Hilton makes a billion dollars in a year, it's not Paris that makes it, but her company. And every party is deductible, as her party image is a PR expense. And private jets to jet around are a deductable expense, as business travel is an expense. The amount of personal income tax paid by someone like Paris Hilton to live one of the most extravagent lives on the planet is something people guess to be near (or not exactly) zero. And there are constant discussions on permanently and completely removing the estate tax, so she can get an infinite inheritance for "free" as well.
Are you sure you know how taxes work?