DNA molecules include two strands in a double helix configuration. The strands are connected via pairs of bases: adenosine-thymine, and cytosine-guanine if memory serves (AT, CG pairs); hence, give the full sequence of one side, and you should be able to determine the other and thus the molecule.
Regions of DNA may be used for determining which chemicals (proteins, mostly, IIRC -- but I'm reciting from memory that hasn't been exercised in this direction for years... might be pretty mixed up here) get synthesized by the cell. Unless you know exactly what chemical you can perform whatever function you're interested in, and how to encode that in DNA, then you're not going to be able to add that "function".
Hence, we can splice genes from jellyfish that cause the glow-in-the-dark (because we know what chemical causes that, and we know enough about their genes to find the relevant sequence), and put it into a mouse (again, because we know enough about mouse chromosomes).
We can't yet, say, engineer the Blob, giant insects, or incredibly violent bacteria that targets Americans, Russians, or what have you. In the first case, single-cell life is *tiny*, and there's not much multi-cellular that behaves remotely like it; the second falls flat because they'd either collapse or suffocate, if you just tried to stimulate their growth (even if we knew how); as for the third, we'd need to map more of the human genome and correlate with demographics information, and it probably still isn't possible because nations of immigrants do not conform well to restricted genotypes.
Many of the people filling out the poll probably don't remember names like Goering, or even Churchill. Hmmmm.
JFK, arguably, was influential. Not positively, in my opinion -- given that his actions regarding the "Bay of Pigs" invasion encouraged the Soviets to exploit his perceived weakness, letting the nation be saved from nuclear obliteration inside information from disaffected Soviets... but, apparently, there exists some mystique that still lingers in the media. That's influence. I hate it, but it's there.
Nixon arguably was also important on the world stage, for generally backing Kissinger, for engaging Mao, for massively increasing public distrust of Presidents, for completing the w/d from 'Nam, and so forth. He also brought about various social policies.
From either World War: Chamberlain, as a symbol of failed appeasement? Perhaps move up Hitler, instead, for exploiting that. Add Sir William Stephenson, Bill Donovan, or Admiral Canaris for espionage. Add perhaps Goebbels (showing the power of propaganda); Eichmann or Mengele (for reminding the world how truly foul and evil Man can be at his worst); Guderian (for blitzkrieg -- but there's probably someone else there.). Add McArthur, for symbolizing Allied resistance in the Pacific. Add Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, for helping the Soviets become an atomic power and thus possibly preventing a hot war by bringing about a nuclear standoff. Yamamoto should probably be there for demonstrating the dangers of complacency (on the Allied side). Eisenhower, as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, *definitely* had more impact this century than Madonna.
More recently, Gorbachev or possibly Yeltsin demand nods, and Reagan for accelerating the massively expensive arms race to a pace that forced the Soviets to a reckoning.
In the Middle East, we have Begin, Nasser (sp?), Assad, Khomeini, Ariel Sharon, Sadat, Arafat, King Hussein, Rabin, Peres... and Netanyahu, for possibly being the last symbol of intransigence.
And so forth. Heck, I'd toss in Orville and/or Wilbur Wright...
Considering that Communism demands complete abdication of property rights, and replaces the whole concept of "just desserts" with "needs", thus requiring totalitarian enforcement to actually get people to produce a mere fraction of what they would normally do so, yes it *can* be considered as evil. When you take away people's motivations to actually be productive, in their own name, and require a state to implement a supposedly state-less system -- yes, that's wrong-headed, non-functional and evil.
Then again, the world has never seen a true Marxist revolution *ever* take control of a significant nation, since we've never seen the industrial capitalism-out-of-control -> implosion -> proletarian revolution -> withering of the state.
Hussein, tho'? Really? I'm not convinced Hussein (Saddam, that is) had much impact on the century -- compared to other dictators or near-dictators, such as:
* Pol Pot. * Ho Chi Minh. * Heck, how about Assad? The former Ayatollah Khomeini, and the entire Iranian Islamic Revolution? How about Carter/Begin/Sadat? If you're looking at the Mideast, all those -- plus Hitler -- had more effect than Hussein, methinks. The only reason Hussein can be on the list is that his war w/ the US was recently televised; most of those voting him probably don't remember the Iran-Iraq war/stalemate.
In the case of HIV, it doesn't necessarily *all* have to go to new research. It'd probably be rather helpful to work on distribution of HIV testing equipment and related education throughout Africa, given that the majority of HIV cases on that continent arise through heterosexual contact.
Education, contraceptives, a far-higher availability of screening, and judicial sanction against those who knowingly risk spreading the disease could all help reduce the infection rate, and the first three at the very least require resources. Some mass behaviorial modifications are necessary, however, unless people relish the possibility of the majority of the population on an entire continent being infected with HIV, or one really believes that a research breakthrough towards a safe, inexpensive vaccine will occur so rapidly that deployment of it could occur very soon. If Gates were to encourage spending in that direction, it would probably help.
Yah. I hope he gets his act together a tad; a lot of the money he has left should be invested with varying degrees of risk. After all, he's fairly young and can be expected to live many, many more years -- during which prices will increase and all. In addition, while I don't recall the article mention a family, if he ever started one -- a 4-year degree at a top-tier private school, barring scholarships, will be very expensive. Contingencies such as accidents or natural disasters could wreak havoc. So he's not in a long-term safe position.
While immediately giving it away to his friends and favorable causes may please the McGovern-ish streak within him, it's probably not the best thing to do. If he handles his cards right, 'tho, he may end up with the ability to either give away or indulge himself far more.
It's very deliberate. He doesn't want a kid who's never going to have to think, work or earn money.
Another point occurred to me: he's denying the government a vast fortune in estate taxes if he gives it away before he dies. From what I've read, the rates go up to at least 50%. It wouldn't surprise me if he'd prefer not to provide such a huge subsidy to 'em...
...and deliberately making sure that if his daughter wants to be *really* wealthy just like her pop, she'll have to be either pretty cunning with what she *does* inherit, or found another company. She'll be well-off, but not disgustingly so.
It's not that unusual for the self-made wealthy to prevent inheritance of most of their fortune with the intent of not raising a wealthy slacker who never has to work or even think.
When the Gov't is outnumbered by citizens by a billion or so people, there has to be some consent involved -- even if it's just the consensus that stability outweighs the price of chaos, and that more rights aren't worth risking your head for.
* My information largely comes from articles in print (the "NY Times", largely) and from particularly reputable news journalists (e.g. the crew of "60 Minutes"). I don't visit conspiracy sites, because I tend to believe in individual malice and greed rather than conspiracies. In particular, the Cox Report cites multiple instances of what I've mentioned, especially regarding the Hughes/Loral (not Lockheed; my bad) launches. Examine the recent string of successes of PRC launches, and compare and constrast that with their pathetic attempts before the alleged technology transfers: their capabilities improved dramatically. That is why Congressional reports found violations of national security.
* The SKS rifles probably did not go to "gun nuts"; most "nuts", as you term them, probably would not be happy w/ Czech-style non-automatic rifles; nor would they have been likely to buy as many as were shipped. The likely consumers would have been criminal organizations, given the quantity.
* The tooling devices were covered in the Times *and* in mainstream journalism, not just conspiracy theories. The devices were shown, still in their boxes, by touring reporters; but the dispute has not been resolved.
* No, not everybody who's Asiatic is a PRC sympathizer. Did I suggest such? Instead, what you do find is that they can capitalize on: 1. A tendency among scientists to believe in openness of information. 2. A refusal among such to frequently consider the military ramifications of such, or to believe that the recipients would use them for evil. 3. Yes, sometimes sympathy. There have been documented instances of PRC mil intel engaging their overseas students, probing for information and access. Of course they're going to focus on their own overseas students, as well as any known Maoist-sympathizers over here, in the same way that the CIA probably would be talking to potential sympathizers over there.
* Taiwan has been ruling itself ever since the KMT fled the Mainland; hence, de facto, they are a separate state and not a province. The reason that they are not recognized by most nations is the PRC habit of suspending relations and trade with those that do, namely blackmail.
Er, I _do_ understand Communist spirit; that's precisely why I oppose it, and why Marx, Engels and company occupy a fairly large part of my bookshelf at home...
Precisely. A 10% cut in rates; for instance, a 28% percent rate going to 25.2%. It is impossible to accurately and precisely predict what effect that would have on the economy and revenues, but people -- having more take-home pay -- very likely *would* spend more, creating jobs and so forth. This is not a nation of hoarders.
The increased commerce would very likely increase revenues. For those that remember, the Laffer curve is a very coarse suggestion that tax revenues will be lower at either extreme (minimalist rates, or oppressive -- the latter because people spend less. Remember the Democrat-sponsored "luxury good" tax? People spent less on so-called luxury goods, and revenue went *down*), and that their should in theory be a compromise region with better revenues.
However, a lot of it *does* go into boondoggles like large-scale pyramid schemes. For instance, Social Security is a *very* large-scale, expensive pyramid scheme; largely so, because people are living *much* longer.
The nation did not always have an income tax. In fact, there have been questions raised about the legality of the ratification processes of the Sixteenth, with possible violations in enough of the states that technically, it may never have been correctly ratified. Ever since the Progressives, however, the Gov't has seen fit to increase taxes in proportion to income, so that the marginal rate increases dramatically. In fact, depending upon your deductions, adding $X to your income can add more than $X to your tax liability, because of the Alternative Minimum Tax.
A lot of the existing money *does* go to feel-good projects that are their either to placate particular groups (social advocates, et cetera) or constituencies (like specific districts). Then, you get weirdness like the occasional military project that DoD doesn't want (gov't job creation/preservation), odd deployments (like basing a light inf. force... in Alaska), et cetera. There is a lot of money being flat-out wasted, and there *still* is a surplus. So why more?
Right. The primary interest of the Party is to preserve its own power: this is the basis for the traditional Marxist opposition to religion, for religions generally postulate a separate authority beyond the temporal. Religions that are allowed to persist (and, if memory serves, five or so are officially sanctioned by the PRC), are generally watched in the interests of maintaining power. All that bit about "opiate of the masses" and superstition is largely a red herring.
That means pre-emptively cracking down on all perceived threats. Any organization that can mobilize that number, and is led by an independent who apparently has some degree of charisma, matches that description.
Errrrrrrrr, just who *exactly* in the US Gov't do you thing would go after China for this? Think about it. We just reaffirmed their MFN status, after all. Despite all the hordes of scandals --
* Organized illicit campaign contributions traceable w/ very high probability to PRC military intelligence.
* US-built machine tools redirected to (military-related production) sites that they *specifically denied in advance* would be the recipients.
* Mass import of arms, such as illegal shipments of SKS rifles traced to PRC arms companies with very close ties to Beijing.
* Deliberate violations of US nat'l security through leakage of information regarding rocket launches, through Hughes (and, IIRC, maybe Lockheed).
* Theft of nuclear secrets, through suborning of PRC sympathizers with access to classified data.
* Repeated harrassment, threats and refusal to recognize reality regarding Taiwan/ROC.
And... we're trying to be all buddy-buddy to them, partly out of alleged guilt for nailing their Embassy. Frankly, I'd rather bail out our ex-foes based in Moscow, and ostracize Beijing. But no... This is a nation which has repeatedly voiced the threat that it could hit LA with a nuclear-armed ICBM. It is *not* like this Gov't will stand up to them.
Well, they could always make the sentencing guidelines scale somehow with how long it takes 'em to break the codes, or alternately pure key length... That might discourage people from using 2047-bit keys. Heh.
If people ever design an interface to allow people to implant "skill chips" or anything along those lines -- a chip/neural interface, or "jack" in certain parlance -- they're going to need to store lots of read-only data in whatever chip or cartridge that's used. Or, as it turns out, really tiny CD. Unless, of course, people would plug external drives into themselves...
Anything's possible, but I seriously doubt that would fly. Or, perhaps, would you randomly execute people whose cars broke down, on the possibly that they *might* have had a fatal accident were they still driving? Or, perhaps, should we seize all your assets based on the possiblity that you *might* have invested all your equity, taken out a mortgage, lost everything, been hit with a divorce and a frivolous paternity lawsuit, and ended up unemployable and broke? Gee, that sounds like fun! Let's randomly redistribute assets based on what might have been! La-la-la, we need a dictatorship to allow this, and now we can play "All men are equal but some are more equal than others", and of course the leader deserves more (job stress, ya know?), and...
Tough. While it's possible you'd find 12 people who'd buy it, it'd get tossed out in an instant unless you can *legally prove* that everybody has a lawful right to buy into an IPO, which would mean that RHAT would have to sell billions and billions of shares, meaning that they'd probably be worth less than the paper in the certificates. You want money? Either work, or assume the risk and trade on your own, or better yet start a business and pray you're in the minority that survives its first several years.
Well, credit cards are one of the perennial stories that media reporters cycle back over time-and-time again. These include:
* Antibiotics. I don't know *how* many times the idea that bacteria evolve can be considered news, given that this is OLD.
* Credit cards. This is done as a human-interest story, where usually a sobbing family is portrayed as having ruined their names by abusing their credit and going into debt. Shame on the companies for sending these offers that you have to send in and abuse yourself! Never mind that people should be roughly aware of their limits, shame shame shame! And then they abruptly stop and shelve the story for a while. They'll still have the privilege of bashing those eeeeeeevil credit cards later, and begging for legislation.
It's silly. I've had my credit limit increased, despite using it only a few times a year, tops. It's not like I *ever* carry a balance, but perhaps they expect me to make a huge purchase and start making monthly payments for 10 years or something. Think they'll have to stay disappointed for quite some time more...
* Gambling/shopping addictions. Ditto; sobbing families that exceeded their limits, more human-interest stories. Sheesh.
So you'll see a quasi-periodic uproar and alleged sympathy for the afflicted, and possibly short-lived attempts at legislation, but that's about it.
Bah. "Ordinary" people like myself (and I'm not exactly in a high tax bracket, mind you -- being a grad student and all) can still profit on the market. I've placed some bets that turned out pretty well, and that's w/o IPOs, Street connections of any kind, "insider" data, and so forth. I certainly haven't been "fleeced" as you suggest. Perhaps that's because a) I *don't* trade like a madman, racking up the fees and taxes, and b) I don't go for unstable issues or particularly small companies. I'm not sure that the local gov't needs my funds in bonds, anyway, when it's been spending its time debating what the state country-style dance should be, or we keep building stadia that the citizens repeatedly reject. <sigh>.
Arguably, the companies I choose give back to the world through what they build or what services they offer... it's not like I could pick random John Q. Publics in my hometown and ask them to build a fully-functional jumbo jet, or sell refreshments worldwide, or develop life-saving drugs. Are the businesses driven by profit? Sure. But that's *doing* far more than "altruists" *wishing*, and people starting businesses risk far, far more than the consumers who live off their success.
Wishing would be nice, but ya wouldn't expect success. In the case of RHAT, it takes ability to achieve such a high degree of market penetration and branding that novices refer to "Linux 6.0" or so forth. Could you or I do that? More to the point, *do* we do that?
If a day-trader loses his house, that's his own damn fault. Nobody's forcing people to watch the spread and scramble to make dimes per share, hoping for some bizarre economy of scale to save themselves from the fees while in pursuit of the "easy money"; instead, they could -- and very likely should -- try for the long-term investment, unless they need the money *soon* (in which case they probably shouldn't be gambling). And you don't need to be in a mystical IPO either to gain; nor do you need to go through E-Trade, particularly if your bank provides such services or is partnered with a company that does...
True 'nuff. The same logic would imply ownership of SuSE, PHT (?), and so forth. Or, for that matter, the original authors of BSD Unix should now be among the wealthiest people 'round, since they provided (under an even more liberal license) the whole basis for vast amounts of code.
RHAT is more than just the code; it's also the business model, the market, services it provides and so forth. They may be bound by a sense of honor to give back, but the GPL is, essentially, a gift of code -- not a sale which demands a fiscal obligation in return. Perhaps one might obtain a job with RHAT or a similar group, maintaining / improving code, but otherwise...
It'd be vaguely akin to publishing an essay on SlashDot, expressly granting permission for everybody to redistribute without cost-- and then later being irritated at the lack of royalties pouring in. Explicit gifts do not mandate a ROI.
I think you answered your own question in the second paragraph: part of it is, some of us are *very* litigation happy.
There are lawyers who live by suing their neighbors; most would settle rather than go to court.
There have been numerous lawsuits by stockholders, day traders, and so forth.
There are, apparently, people who believe that the fact that GM did not design its cars to survive rollovers at 50+ MPH is worth a significant percentage of GM's entire market capitalization.
There are people who attempt to 'Net gamble, lose boatloads, and then disclaim responsibility by suggesting that the gambling be annulled, as it *might* have been illegal.
And so forth. We've got, what, 260-270+ million people here, and a lot of 'em who'll sue...
Slashdot Mirror
Right.
DNA molecules include two strands in a double helix configuration. The strands are connected via pairs of bases: adenosine-thymine, and cytosine-guanine if memory serves (AT, CG pairs); hence, give the full sequence of one side, and you should be able to determine the other and thus the molecule.
Regions of DNA may be used for determining which chemicals (proteins, mostly, IIRC -- but I'm reciting from memory that hasn't been exercised in this direction for years... might be pretty mixed up here) get synthesized by the cell. Unless you know exactly what chemical you can perform whatever function you're interested in, and how to encode that in DNA, then you're not going to be able to add that "function".
Hence, we can splice genes from jellyfish that cause the glow-in-the-dark (because we know what chemical causes that, and we know enough about their genes to find the relevant sequence), and put it into a mouse (again, because we know enough about mouse chromosomes).
We can't yet, say, engineer the Blob, giant insects, or incredibly violent bacteria that targets Americans, Russians, or what have you. In the first case, single-cell life is *tiny*, and there's not much multi-cellular that behaves remotely like it; the second falls flat because they'd either collapse or suffocate, if you just tried to stimulate their growth (even if we knew how); as for the third, we'd need to map more of the human genome and correlate with demographics information, and it probably still isn't possible because nations of immigrants do not conform well to restricted genotypes.
Many of the people filling out the poll probably don't remember names like Goering, or even Churchill. Hmmmm.
JFK, arguably, was influential. Not positively, in my opinion -- given that his actions regarding the "Bay of Pigs" invasion encouraged the Soviets to exploit his perceived weakness, letting the nation be saved from nuclear obliteration inside information from disaffected Soviets... but, apparently, there exists some mystique that still lingers in the media. That's influence. I hate it, but it's there.
Nixon arguably was also important on the world stage, for generally backing Kissinger, for engaging Mao, for massively increasing public distrust of Presidents, for completing the w/d from 'Nam, and so forth. He also brought about various social policies.
From either World War: Chamberlain, as a symbol of failed appeasement? Perhaps move up Hitler, instead, for exploiting that. Add Sir William Stephenson, Bill Donovan, or Admiral Canaris for espionage. Add perhaps Goebbels (showing the power of propaganda); Eichmann or Mengele (for reminding the world how truly foul and evil Man can be at his worst); Guderian (for blitzkrieg -- but there's probably someone else there.). Add McArthur, for symbolizing Allied resistance in the Pacific. Add Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, for helping the Soviets become an atomic power and thus possibly preventing a hot war by bringing about a nuclear standoff. Yamamoto should probably be there for demonstrating the dangers of complacency (on the Allied side). Eisenhower, as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, *definitely* had more impact this century than Madonna.
More recently, Gorbachev or possibly Yeltsin demand nods, and Reagan for accelerating the massively expensive arms race to a pace that forced the Soviets to a reckoning.
In the Middle East, we have Begin, Nasser (sp?), Assad, Khomeini, Ariel Sharon, Sadat, Arafat, King Hussein, Rabin, Peres... and Netanyahu, for possibly being the last symbol of intransigence.
And so forth. Heck, I'd toss in Orville and/or Wilbur Wright...
Phonies? Hmmmmmm. Kim Philby? Heh. Points to those that recognize that name...
Ed McMahon/Dick Clarke also come to mind.
Considering that Communism demands complete abdication of property rights, and replaces the whole concept of "just desserts" with "needs", thus requiring totalitarian enforcement to actually get people to produce a mere fraction of what they would normally do so, yes it *can* be considered as evil. When you take away people's motivations to actually be productive, in their own name, and require a state to implement a supposedly state-less system -- yes, that's wrong-headed, non-functional and evil.
Then again, the world has never seen a true Marxist revolution *ever* take control of a significant nation, since we've never seen the industrial capitalism-out-of-control -> implosion -> proletarian revolution -> withering of the state.
But that's just my take on it.
Hussein, tho'? Really? I'm not convinced Hussein (Saddam, that is) had much impact on the century -- compared to other dictators or near-dictators, such as:
* Pol Pot.
* Ho Chi Minh.
* Heck, how about Assad? The former Ayatollah Khomeini, and the entire Iranian Islamic Revolution? How about Carter/Begin/Sadat? If you're looking at the Mideast, all those -- plus Hitler -- had more effect than Hussein, methinks. The only reason Hussein can be on the list is that his war w/ the US was recently televised; most of those voting him probably don't remember the Iran-Iraq war/stalemate.
In the case of HIV, it doesn't necessarily *all* have to go to new research. It'd probably be rather helpful to work on distribution of HIV testing equipment and related education throughout Africa, given that the majority of HIV cases on that continent arise through heterosexual contact.
Education, contraceptives, a far-higher availability of screening, and judicial sanction against those who knowingly risk spreading the disease could all help reduce the infection rate, and the first three at the very least require resources. Some mass behaviorial modifications are necessary, however, unless people relish the possibility of the majority of the population on an entire continent being infected with HIV, or one really believes that a research breakthrough towards a safe, inexpensive vaccine will occur so rapidly that deployment of it could occur very soon. If Gates were to encourage spending in that direction, it would probably help.
Yah. I hope he gets his act together a tad; a lot of the money he has left should be invested with varying degrees of risk. After all, he's fairly young and can be expected to live many, many more years -- during which prices will increase and all. In addition, while I don't recall the article mention a family, if he ever started one -- a 4-year degree at a top-tier private school, barring scholarships, will be very expensive. Contingencies such as accidents or natural disasters could wreak havoc. So he's not in a long-term safe position.
While immediately giving it away to his friends and favorable causes may please the McGovern-ish streak within him, it's probably not the best thing to do. If he handles his cards right, 'tho, he may end up with the ability to either give away or indulge himself far more.
It's very deliberate. He doesn't want a kid who's never going to have to think, work or earn money.
Another point occurred to me: he's denying the government a vast fortune in estate taxes if he gives it away before he dies. From what I've read, the rates go up to at least 50%. It wouldn't surprise me if he'd prefer not to provide such a huge subsidy to 'em...
...and deliberately making sure that if his daughter wants to be *really* wealthy just like her pop, she'll have to be either pretty cunning with what she *does* inherit, or found another company. She'll be well-off, but not disgustingly so.
It's not that unusual for the self-made wealthy to prevent inheritance of most of their fortune with the intent of not raising a wealthy slacker who never has to work or even think.
When the Gov't is outnumbered by citizens by a billion or so people, there has to be some consent involved -- even if it's just the consensus that stability outweighs the price of chaos, and that more rights aren't worth risking your head for.
* My information largely comes from articles in print (the "NY Times", largely) and from particularly reputable news journalists (e.g. the crew of "60 Minutes"). I don't visit conspiracy sites, because I tend to believe in individual malice and greed rather than conspiracies. In particular, the Cox Report cites multiple instances of what I've mentioned, especially regarding the Hughes/Loral (not Lockheed; my bad) launches. Examine the recent string of successes of PRC launches, and compare and constrast that with their pathetic attempts before the alleged technology transfers: their capabilities improved dramatically. That is why Congressional reports found violations of national security.
* The SKS rifles probably did not go to "gun nuts"; most "nuts", as you term them, probably would not be happy w/ Czech-style non-automatic rifles; nor would they have been likely to buy as many as were shipped. The likely consumers would have been criminal organizations, given the quantity.
* The tooling devices were covered in the Times *and* in mainstream journalism, not just conspiracy theories. The devices were shown, still in their boxes, by touring reporters; but the dispute has not been resolved.
* No, not everybody who's Asiatic is a PRC sympathizer. Did I suggest such? Instead, what you do find is that they can capitalize on: 1. A tendency among scientists to believe in openness of information. 2. A refusal among such to frequently consider the military ramifications of such, or to believe that the recipients would use them for evil. 3. Yes, sometimes sympathy. There have been documented instances of PRC mil intel engaging their overseas students, probing for information and access. Of course they're going to focus on their own overseas students, as well as any known Maoist-sympathizers over here, in the same way that the CIA probably would be talking to potential sympathizers over there.
* Taiwan has been ruling itself ever since the KMT fled the Mainland; hence, de facto, they are a separate state and not a province. The reason that they are not recognized by most nations is the PRC habit of suspending relations and trade with those that do, namely blackmail.
Er, I _do_ understand Communist spirit; that's precisely why I oppose it, and why Marx, Engels and company occupy a fairly large part of my bookshelf at home...
Precisely. A 10% cut in rates; for instance, a 28% percent rate going to 25.2%. It is impossible to accurately and precisely predict what effect that would have on the economy and revenues, but people -- having more take-home pay -- very likely *would* spend more, creating jobs and so forth. This is not a nation of hoarders.
The increased commerce would very likely increase revenues. For those that remember, the Laffer curve is a very coarse suggestion that tax revenues will be lower at either extreme (minimalist rates, or oppressive -- the latter because people spend less. Remember the Democrat-sponsored "luxury good" tax? People spent less on so-called luxury goods, and revenue went *down*), and that their should in theory be a compromise region with better revenues.
Or... British English. :-)
Ahhh. Isn't the line-item veto still in affect for a spending bill? Or wouldn't this be classified as such?
I agree, 'tho, that both sides are playing this for political points.
However, a lot of it *does* go into boondoggles like large-scale pyramid schemes. For instance, Social Security is a *very* large-scale, expensive pyramid scheme; largely so, because people are living *much* longer.
The nation did not always have an income tax. In fact, there have been questions raised about the legality of the ratification processes of the Sixteenth, with possible violations in enough of the states that technically, it may never have been correctly ratified. Ever since the Progressives, however, the Gov't has seen fit to increase taxes in proportion to income, so that the marginal rate increases dramatically. In fact, depending upon your deductions, adding $X to your income can add more than $X to your tax liability, because of the Alternative Minimum Tax.
A lot of the existing money *does* go to feel-good projects that are their either to placate particular groups (social advocates, et cetera) or constituencies (like specific districts). Then, you get weirdness like the occasional military project that DoD doesn't want (gov't job creation/preservation), odd deployments (like basing a light inf. force... in Alaska), et cetera. There is a lot of money being flat-out wasted, and there *still* is a surplus. So why more?
Right. The primary interest of the Party is to preserve its own power: this is the basis for the traditional Marxist opposition to religion, for religions generally postulate a separate authority beyond the temporal. Religions that are allowed to persist (and, if memory serves, five or so are officially sanctioned by the PRC), are generally watched in the interests of maintaining power. All that bit about "opiate of the masses" and superstition is largely a red herring.
That means pre-emptively cracking down on all perceived threats. Any organization that can mobilize that number, and is led by an independent who apparently has some degree of charisma, matches that description.
Errrrrrrrr, just who *exactly* in the US Gov't do you thing would go after China for this? Think about it. We just reaffirmed their MFN status, after all. Despite all the hordes of scandals --
* Organized illicit campaign contributions traceable w/ very high probability to PRC military intelligence.
* US-built machine tools redirected to (military-related production) sites that they *specifically denied in advance* would be the recipients.
* Mass import of arms, such as illegal shipments of SKS rifles traced to PRC arms companies with very close ties to Beijing.
* Deliberate violations of US nat'l security through leakage of information regarding rocket launches, through Hughes (and, IIRC, maybe Lockheed).
* Theft of nuclear secrets, through suborning of PRC sympathizers with access to classified data.
* Repeated harrassment, threats and refusal to recognize reality regarding Taiwan/ROC.
And... we're trying to be all buddy-buddy to them, partly out of alleged guilt for nailing their Embassy. Frankly, I'd rather bail out our ex-foes based in Moscow, and ostracize Beijing. But no... This is a nation which has repeatedly voiced the threat that it could hit LA with a nuclear-armed ICBM. It is *not* like this Gov't will stand up to them.
Well, they could always make the sentencing guidelines scale somehow with how long it takes 'em to break the codes, or alternately pure key length... That might discourage people from using 2047-bit keys. Heh.
:-)
If people ever design an interface to allow people to implant "skill chips" or anything along those lines -- a chip/neural interface, or "jack" in certain parlance -- they're going to need to store lots of read-only data in whatever chip or cartridge that's used. Or, as it turns out, really tiny CD. Unless, of course, people would plug external drives into themselves...
Anything's possible, but I seriously doubt that would fly. Or, perhaps, would you randomly execute people whose cars broke down, on the possibly that they *might* have had a fatal accident were they still driving? Or, perhaps, should we seize all your assets based on the possiblity that you *might* have invested all your equity, taken out a mortgage, lost everything, been hit with a divorce and a frivolous paternity lawsuit, and ended up unemployable and broke? Gee, that sounds like fun! Let's randomly redistribute assets based on what might have been! La-la-la, we need a dictatorship to allow this, and now we can play "All men are equal but some are more equal than others", and of course the leader deserves more (job stress, ya know?), and...
Tough. While it's possible you'd find 12 people who'd buy it, it'd get tossed out in an instant unless you can *legally prove* that everybody has a lawful right to buy into an IPO, which would mean that RHAT would have to sell billions and billions of shares, meaning that they'd probably be worth less than the paper in the certificates. You want money? Either work, or assume the risk and trade on your own, or better yet start a business and pray you're in the minority that survives its first several years.
Well, credit cards are one of the perennial stories that media reporters cycle back over time-and-time again. These include:
* Antibiotics. I don't know *how* many times the idea that bacteria evolve can be considered news, given that this is OLD.
* Credit cards. This is done as a human-interest story, where usually a sobbing family is portrayed as having ruined their names by abusing their credit and going into debt. Shame on the companies for sending these offers that you have to send in and abuse yourself! Never mind that people should be roughly aware of their limits, shame shame shame! And then they abruptly stop and shelve the story for a while. They'll still have the privilege of bashing those eeeeeeevil credit cards later, and begging for legislation.
It's silly. I've had my credit limit increased, despite using it only a few times a year, tops. It's not like I *ever* carry a balance, but perhaps they expect me to make a huge purchase and start making monthly payments for 10 years or something. Think they'll have to stay disappointed for quite some time more...
* Gambling/shopping addictions. Ditto; sobbing families that exceeded their limits, more human-interest stories. Sheesh.
So you'll see a quasi-periodic uproar and alleged sympathy for the afflicted, and possibly short-lived attempts at legislation, but that's about it.
Yet another business-basher, I see.
Bah. "Ordinary" people like myself (and I'm not exactly in a high tax bracket, mind you -- being a grad student and all) can still profit on the market. I've placed some bets that turned out pretty well, and that's w/o IPOs, Street connections of any kind, "insider" data, and so forth. I certainly haven't been "fleeced" as you suggest. Perhaps that's because a) I *don't* trade like a madman, racking up the fees and taxes, and b) I don't go for unstable issues or particularly small companies. I'm not sure that the local gov't needs my funds in bonds, anyway, when it's been spending its time debating what the state country-style dance should be, or we keep building stadia that the citizens repeatedly reject. <sigh>.
Arguably, the companies I choose give back to the world through what they build or what services they offer... it's not like I could pick random John Q. Publics in my hometown and ask them to build a fully-functional jumbo jet, or sell refreshments worldwide, or develop life-saving drugs. Are the businesses driven by profit? Sure. But that's *doing* far more than "altruists" *wishing*, and people starting businesses risk far, far more than the consumers who live off their success.
Wishing would be nice, but ya wouldn't expect success. In the case of RHAT, it takes ability to achieve such a high degree of market penetration and branding that novices refer to "Linux 6.0" or so forth. Could you or I do that? More to the point, *do* we do that?
If a day-trader loses his house, that's his own damn fault. Nobody's forcing people to watch the spread and scramble to make dimes per share, hoping for some bizarre economy of scale to save themselves from the fees while in pursuit of the "easy money"; instead, they could -- and very likely should -- try for the long-term investment, unless they need the money *soon* (in which case they probably shouldn't be gambling). And you don't need to be in a mystical IPO either to gain; nor do you need to go through E-Trade, particularly if your bank provides such services or is partnered with a company that does...
True 'nuff. The same logic would imply ownership of SuSE, PHT (?), and so forth. Or, for that matter, the original authors of BSD Unix should now be among the wealthiest people 'round, since they provided (under an even more liberal license) the whole basis for vast amounts of code.
RHAT is more than just the code; it's also the business model, the market, services it provides and so forth. They may be bound by a sense of honor to give back, but the GPL is, essentially, a gift of code -- not a sale which demands a fiscal obligation in return. Perhaps one might obtain a job with RHAT or a similar group, maintaining / improving code, but otherwise...
It'd be vaguely akin to publishing an essay on SlashDot, expressly granting permission for everybody to redistribute without cost-- and then later being irritated at the lack of royalties pouring in. Explicit gifts do not mandate a ROI.
I think you answered your own question in the second paragraph: part of it is, some of us are *very* litigation happy.
There are lawyers who live by suing their neighbors; most would settle rather than go to court.
There have been numerous lawsuits by stockholders, day traders, and so forth.
There are, apparently, people who believe that the fact that GM did not design its cars to survive rollovers at 50+ MPH is worth a significant percentage of GM's entire market capitalization.
There are people who attempt to 'Net gamble, lose boatloads, and then disclaim responsibility by suggesting that the gambling be annulled, as it *might* have been illegal.
And so forth. We've got, what, 260-270+ million people here, and a lot of 'em who'll sue...