Apple may well have many working prototypes at this stage, but they'd never let you know it the way google does. They don't like to release details of hardware until they're ready to ship.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but regressive means the rate gets lower for higher incomes. A flat tax is neither progressive nor regressive. It is flat.
You are incorrect. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally at the end of World War 2. The terms demanded by the allied powers were laid out in the Potsdam Declaration and require an unconditional surrender. These terms were initially rejected by the Japanese. After the bombings, the Japanese agreed to them and surrendered unconditionally.
The emperor was removed from power, as the terms required, but continues in a purely ceremonial role.
The legal system is a good example of how systems run by people will never function as intended. Indeed, it is hard for someone who really knows what they are talking about to point to changes we could make (in the US) to "fix" it (though there surely are minor improvements to be made). Most of the changes people suggest (like banning software patents) are arbitrary, unnecessary, and would ultimately be unfair and ineffective.
On paper, the justice system it looks good. But in practice it doles out justice very unevenly. Some people receive harsher sentences simply because they look suspicious or seem to be lying. Wealthy people are always able to hire an attorney to defend themselves and take advantage of the civil courts in contract disputes or other business matters, while the less well-off usually have to settle out of court because they can't afford to take time off to go to court (much less hire an expensive legal defense team).
Ultimately, I fail to see how more lawyers will solve the problem. Even if we had enough lawyers to bring the price of hiring an attorney down to where it was like hiring an auto-mechanic, most of the people who really need representation couldn't afford it (and that's impossible due the the cost involved in becoming a lawyer). Of late, society seems to be made up of an increasingly large portion of lawyers (in the US). But if anything the economic system has become more unequal and less fair.
Perhaps if the law were simplified, more people could learn enough about it to defend themselves in court, but I don't think so. On the other hand, since laws and court precedents are entirely made up and written down, it should be possible (were someone so inclined) to build an internet application that could present legal information in a way that is comprehensive, localized, and easy to understand. It would also need to handle forms and filing, since that trips up a lot of people. If you really want to help people, I'd suggest that that's probably a better way to do it. By making the law more accessible, people will be able help themselves rather than needing to pony up hundreds of dollars an hour for legal services.
I don't believe that buying a yacht is better than building a road. But that's not the point. What I mean trying to raise money by eliminating the rich is misguided. If you look at countries that have tried it, you notice that they don't have as much more to apply to infrastructure as you'd expect. That's because the wealth being saught is largely illusionary. 5 million dollars in yachts does not translate into five million dollars of roads. In the end, eliminating luxury goods is discourages work in many cases and it makes for a less productive society overall.
Money is symbolic only, simply moving it from one place to another does not accomplish anything real. But if you find someone with a lot of money to be particularly disagreeable, you can refuse to accept their money. Money's only real value to the individual is their ability to spend it, and if no one will accept it, it becomes worthless.
The Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs Credit allows investors in oil or gas exploration and development to “expense” (to deduct from their corporate or individual income tax) intangible drilling costs (IDCs). IDCs include wages, the costs of using machinery for grading and drilling and the cost of unsalvageable materials in constructing wells. These costs are “intangible” in comparison to costs for salvageable expenditures (such as pipes or casings) or costs related to acquiring property for drilling. The credit enables oil and gas producers to immediately write off as an expense these costs from income taxes rather than amortize them (spread the deductions out) over the productive life of the property.
It is not in any way surprising that the tax code lets companies write operating expenses out of their net income. It's the definition of net income. I'm not sure why any sensible person would consider this a subsidy.
The Alternative Fuel Production Credit, implemented in 1980, applies to oil produced from shale and tar sands and natural gas produced from geopressured brine, Devonian shale, coal seams or biomass. In 2005, the Energy Production Act added some facilities that produce coke and coke gas to the production credit. In 2006, the credit was worth about $7.05 per barrel of oil-equivalent fuels. The credit has helped promote unconventional gas production and, after 2005, synthetic fuels produced from chemically altered coal.
I am shocked, shocked, something called the Alternative Fuel Production Credit would apply to any unconventional means of producing fuel! This is scandalous.
A lot of apple fans have that too. But Apple was the underdog for a long, long time so it's taken while for people to get used to them being in charge.
In all fairness to Apple, is it really so much to ask that competitors not copy their design? You wouldn't expect Ferrari to be ok with Ford releasing a car that looks nearly identical to their own offerings, would you? No ones saying it's a huge technical achievement, but that's not what a design patent is for. Some companies like to set themselves apart by having a distinctive look, if you're a boring company that doesn't care about your design, you should just put it in a cheap, boring plastic box. You don't need to copy a design someone else has put a lot of time and effort into.
I doubt many people are upset by that. The thing that has people upset is that they will be required to buy health insurance. It seems like a gross infringement on individual rights to require people to buy something (especially something as scammy as health insurance).
Assuming someone was innocent, but for whatever reason they did not request a blood test (maybe they didn't know it was an option), would you contend that they should not be able to challenge the breathalyzer evidence even though there is a known issue that can cause it to be unreliable?
You can't retroactively say "don't stick the cellphone next to the breathalyzer machine" since it is unlikely someone would know this was an issue until long after they were tested.
What I'm seeing here from you is a lack of ability to empathize with someone who is a different situation. You can see what they "should" have done or not done, but you fail to realize how non-obvious these courses of action would have been at the time. It is unlikely you would have actually behaved the way you claim you would have if you were actually in that situation. And even if you would have, it doesn't mean that someone else is obligated to behave the same way.
I don't give a fuck if the machine says 0.55 or 0.95 if you were drinking. It is DUI. Period.
No, it's not. People are able to consume a small amount of alcohol and not become impaired. It is senseless to punish people for engaging in an activity that is fundamentally safe.
According to the article, cellphones in close proximity to the device can effect the accuracy of its results. Based on this ruling, defendants charged based on results from this equipment will not be able to challange the reliability of the results due to the proximity of a cell-phone, even though it is known to be an issue! How can you honestly not have a problem with that? Are you so blinded by your hatred of drunk drivers that you don't even believe people accused of it should have a right to a fair trial?
This is the totally wrong way to look at it. First of all, you will not be sued unless you are successful. Secondly, if you incorporate, you will be able to keep whatever money you make if they sue you into bankruptcy. But they won't do that, because they are like parasites. A dead host is useless to them. Instead, they will charge you what they think you can bare. If you are really passionate abut something, the threat of a patent lawsuit shouldn't detur you.
How did we come to a place where a judge can simply decide a machine, which has been proven unreliable, is in fact reliable? How will these people sleep at night knowing they are punishing people who were innocent? Is our whole society run by sociopaths now?
Maybe corporations should begin to control their price on the stock exchange. If enough shareholder want to sell, they could vote to lower the price, and if they want to hold they cold vote to raise it. Then the corporation would set the exchange price from day to day (rather than ms to ms) and a lot less trading would happen in general.
But how long will it be before any carriculum you'd want will be freely available? Those publishers you spoke of would be having a going out of business sale right now if they had any sense at all.
There are a number of ways tablets are better than a pencil and paper. They are connected to the Internet and to the local network. That means students can acess internet resources for help, and teachers can review the notes students are making to help them. Files generated are searchable, can be stored indefinitely, and transferred between students and teachers. They can include the notes and the textbooks in the same place, so they will weigh less and students will be able to carry all their textbooks with them. Also, they will enable students to learn by playing games or other non-traditional learning techniques.
As far as being better than a pencil and paper for writing notes and diagrams whatnot, typing on an onscreen keyboard is already much faster than writing by hand. Drawing, in my experience, is also pretty easy, as long as you bear in mind that you're drawing simple diagrams, not trying to make a masterpiece. Of course, you'd want to use the whole screen, then shrink It down later. The benefit is that you can enter notes on your diagram using the on screen keyboard, and that you will never run out of space at the end of your screen since you could design the canvas to expand as needed. Also, you can use any color you want, and erase unwanted sections easily.
I understand that there is not an application today that does everything I've described, but the capability is there.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple may well have many working prototypes at this stage, but they'd never let you know it the way google does. They don't like to release details of hardware until they're ready to ship.
I hope they actually build it. It would be the most amazing ever.
Whether or not a something is socially regressive is a matter of opinion, since people view social progress differently.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but regressive means the rate gets lower for higher incomes. A flat tax is neither progressive nor regressive. It is flat.
You are incorrect. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally at the end of World War 2. The terms demanded by the allied powers were laid out in the Potsdam Declaration and require an unconditional surrender. These terms were initially rejected by the Japanese. After the bombings, the Japanese agreed to them and surrendered unconditionally.
The emperor was removed from power, as the terms required, but continues in a purely ceremonial role.
The legal system is a good example of how systems run by people will never function as intended. Indeed, it is hard for someone who really knows what they are talking about to point to changes we could make (in the US) to "fix" it (though there surely are minor improvements to be made). Most of the changes people suggest (like banning software patents) are arbitrary, unnecessary, and would ultimately be unfair and ineffective.
On paper, the justice system it looks good. But in practice it doles out justice very unevenly. Some people receive harsher sentences simply because they look suspicious or seem to be lying. Wealthy people are always able to hire an attorney to defend themselves and take advantage of the civil courts in contract disputes or other business matters, while the less well-off usually have to settle out of court because they can't afford to take time off to go to court (much less hire an expensive legal defense team).
Ultimately, I fail to see how more lawyers will solve the problem. Even if we had enough lawyers to bring the price of hiring an attorney down to where it was like hiring an auto-mechanic, most of the people who really need representation couldn't afford it (and that's impossible due the the cost involved in becoming a lawyer). Of late, society seems to be made up of an increasingly large portion of lawyers (in the US). But if anything the economic system has become more unequal and less fair.
Perhaps if the law were simplified, more people could learn enough about it to defend themselves in court, but I don't think so. On the other hand, since laws and court precedents are entirely made up and written down, it should be possible (were someone so inclined) to build an internet application that could present legal information in a way that is comprehensive, localized, and easy to understand. It would also need to handle forms and filing, since that trips up a lot of people. If you really want to help people, I'd suggest that that's probably a better way to do it. By making the law more accessible, people will be able help themselves rather than needing to pony up hundreds of dollars an hour for legal services.
I don't believe that buying a yacht is better than building a road. But that's not the point. What I mean trying to raise money by eliminating the rich is misguided. If you look at countries that have tried it, you notice that they don't have as much more to apply to infrastructure as you'd expect. That's because the wealth being saught is largely illusionary. 5 million dollars in yachts does not translate into five million dollars of roads. In the end, eliminating luxury goods is discourages work in many cases and it makes for a less productive society overall.
Money is symbolic only, simply moving it from one place to another does not accomplish anything real. But if you find someone with a lot of money to be particularly disagreeable, you can refuse to accept their money. Money's only real value to the individual is their ability to spend it, and if no one will accept it, it becomes worthless.
It is not in any way surprising that the tax code lets companies write operating expenses out of their net income. It's the definition of net income. I'm not sure why any sensible person would consider this a subsidy.
I am shocked, shocked, something called the Alternative Fuel Production Credit would apply to any unconventional means of producing fuel! This is scandalous.
A lot of apple fans have that too. But Apple was the underdog for a long, long time so it's taken while for people to get used to them being in charge.
In all fairness to Apple, is it really so much to ask that competitors not copy their design? You wouldn't expect Ferrari to be ok with Ford releasing a car that looks nearly identical to their own offerings, would you? No ones saying it's a huge technical achievement, but that's not what a design patent is for. Some companies like to set themselves apart by having a distinctive look, if you're a boring company that doesn't care about your design, you should just put it in a cheap, boring plastic box. You don't need to copy a design someone else has put a lot of time and effort into.
I wasn't asking to have it both ways.
The latest version of Objective C has automated reference counting, so garbage collection is no longer an issue.
They found that requiring people to purchase insurance was unconstitutional. But they found that it does not require people to purchase insurance.
I doubt many people are upset by that. The thing that has people upset is that they will be required to buy health insurance. It seems like a gross infringement on individual rights to require people to buy something (especially something as scammy as health insurance).
Of course Americans wouldn't trust Romney to deal with an alien invasion. He's probably one of them.
Assuming someone was innocent, but for whatever reason they did not request a blood test (maybe they didn't know it was an option), would you contend that they should not be able to challenge the breathalyzer evidence even though there is a known issue that can cause it to be unreliable?
You can't retroactively say "don't stick the cellphone next to the breathalyzer machine" since it is unlikely someone would know this was an issue until long after they were tested.
What I'm seeing here from you is a lack of ability to empathize with someone who is a different situation. You can see what they "should" have done or not done, but you fail to realize how non-obvious these courses of action would have been at the time. It is unlikely you would have actually behaved the way you claim you would have if you were actually in that situation. And even if you would have, it doesn't mean that someone else is obligated to behave the same way.
No, it's not. People are able to consume a small amount of alcohol and not become impaired. It is senseless to punish people for engaging in an activity that is fundamentally safe.
Absolutely no one can challenge the results under this ruling.
It should be. They have an appalling safety record. Why anyone would sell them an oil lease is beyond me.
According to the article, cellphones in close proximity to the device can effect the accuracy of its results. Based on this ruling, defendants charged based on results from this equipment will not be able to challange the reliability of the results due to the proximity of a cell-phone, even though it is known to be an issue! How can you honestly not have a problem with that? Are you so blinded by your hatred of drunk drivers that you don't even believe people accused of it should have a right to a fair trial?
This is the totally wrong way to look at it. First of all, you will not be sued unless you are successful. Secondly, if you incorporate, you will be able to keep whatever money you make if they sue you into bankruptcy. But they won't do that, because they are like parasites. A dead host is useless to them. Instead, they will charge you what they think you can bare. If you are really passionate abut something, the threat of a patent lawsuit shouldn't detur you.
How did we come to a place where a judge can simply decide a machine, which has been proven unreliable, is in fact reliable? How will these people sleep at night knowing they are punishing people who were innocent? Is our whole society run by sociopaths now?
That would be a direct tax, and require apportionment among the states.
Maybe corporations should begin to control their price on the stock exchange. If enough shareholder want to sell, they could vote to lower the price, and if they want to hold they cold vote to raise it. Then the corporation would set the exchange price from day to day (rather than ms to ms) and a lot less trading would happen in general.
But how long will it be before any carriculum you'd want will be freely available? Those publishers you spoke of would be having a going out of business sale right now if they had any sense at all.
There are a number of ways tablets are better than a pencil and paper. They are connected to the Internet and to the local network. That means students can acess internet resources for help, and teachers can review the notes students are making to help them. Files generated are searchable, can be stored indefinitely, and transferred between students and teachers. They can include the notes and the textbooks in the same place, so they will weigh less and students will be able to carry all their textbooks with them. Also, they will enable students to learn by playing games or other non-traditional learning techniques.
As far as being better than a pencil and paper for writing notes and diagrams whatnot, typing on an onscreen keyboard is already much faster than writing by hand. Drawing, in my experience, is also pretty easy, as long as you bear in mind that you're drawing simple diagrams, not trying to make a masterpiece. Of course, you'd want to use the whole screen, then shrink It down later. The benefit is that you can enter notes on your diagram using the on screen keyboard, and that you will never run out of space at the end of your screen since you could design the canvas to expand as needed. Also, you can use any color you want, and erase unwanted sections easily.
I understand that there is not an application today that does everything I've described, but the capability is there.
(I wrote this on my iPad)