I've bought both the database one and statistics one and I must say I agree with the review, these books does a great job of giving a novice a quick introduction to the world of databases/statistics.
Thanks, this is the first comment on the merit of the book and not on whether manga is good or nerdy. Is it good for database design though? I took such as class several years ago but haven't worked with DBs since. However I want to start working with them and am thinking about installing and experimenting with either PostgreSQL or Firebird though I may try MySQL. Perhaps I'll try all three. Which ever one I use it'll have to run on both Linux and OS X.
While not covering everything, they will build up some base for the reader to allow him to read more in-depth books that might have been to heavy to start out with.
Yea, I see this review says it's platform agnostic.
Except even "illegal aliens" or immigrants pay taxes. Allowing all immigrants to work but making them pay income taxes could help tax revenues. Having them pay into Social Security for instance without being able to collect SS may keep it from going bankrupt.
I hadn't thought of the stateless however even they pay taxes. The only way someone will not pay tax is if they are not part of a national or regional economy. For instance those lost tribes in Brazil and elsewhere.
Can't work out if this is meant to be a smartass reply, or you're actually missing the point that if Google threw a strop and refused to serve the UK then the remaining major search engines would be able to occupy that vacant market share.
It was a serious question. Taxing ads will not increase the market for ads. However if an ad business outside of the UK starts serving ads in the UK they will not have to collect and pay a UK tax. So they could charge a lower rate and still make as much money. Who would you pay to serve ads, one who had to pay a tax or one that didn't?
If the competitors have no physical presence in the UK how will the UK collect taxes?
I'd expect that those ads are directed towards users in the UK, so Google would still have to track it.
Yeap, whereas those ad servers with no physical presence in the UK wouldn't have to, which would be to their advantage. They would be able to make more money charging the same rates than servers who have a presence in the UK and had to pay taxes.
I'd expect rates would change accordingly (as well as Google possibly taking issue with the practice in general).
Therein those who don't have to pay a tax will have an advantage.
Yes I was serious. If a reduction in regulations is what's wanted Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives is the party that will do that.
oh wait you already cited the laffer curve without the caution that it's only valid for certain ranges.
Yes, I cited the Laffer Curve, and there is no agreement on what ranges are valid for it. If you have a link that shows there is an agreement please share it, I am willing to change my beliefs, even if other slashdotters aren't.
Dude just the other week I thought you were a pretty reasonable guy and now here you are spouting stuff that only someone that's brain is switched off could believe.
An open and willing to learn mind is better than a closed mind.
laffer curve is only valid for extremely high tax rates (>~60% marginal)
There is no agreement for what level of taxes there should be. It's not simply a matter of high taxes. "The point at which the curve achieves its maximum is subject to much theoretical speculation."
How so? The whole piece of legislation was nothing but everyone's pet projects from the past 8 years or more. Pork is bad enough in good times, but this was just inexcusable in a recession. Pelosi and friends urged everyone in congress to get this thing passed while knowing full well what was in it.
And here I always thought the Bridge To Nowhere was supported by a republican. Former Sen Ted Stevens wasn't a Republican? Or didn't he not support it?
pork accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget.
unless you define "anything but military spending" as pork
The level of military spending we have now is pork.
I'm not saying the banks misbehaved, in fact pretty much everybody (congress and POTUS included) say they did. We were left with three choices
A) let them fail and probably end up in Great Depression 2.0
Those banks that did not make bad loans would still be standing after the dust settled. The bailout of those banks that did make bad loans gave them an advantage over good banks.
B) give them low-interest loans till they can recover and pay us back [what we did] even knowing that to a certain extent they're going to be douchnozzles with some of it
No good deed goes unpunished.
C) nationalize them to prevent their failure
Let them go bankrupt and or break them up so they're not "too big to fail".
The whole reason for the housing crash in the first place is that the democrats forced the lenders to loan money to people who any sane lender would tell you could not afford a house.
It's rather simplistic to blame one political party for the housing and market crashes. Yes, Democrats wanted it to be easy for the poor to get mortgages but Republicans wanted to and did reduce regulations. Ken Lay and others at Enron were big supporters of Bush. Clear Channel, who wanted the FCC to loosen ownership of local media regulation, was also a big supporter of Bush.
as one of the most fiscally "conservative" senators recently said "attempting to balance the budget during a recession is not adviseable" (or something along those lines)
the last time we were in this situation and we ignored it we ended up in the great depression
More like protectionism made the Great Depression worse and last longer than it would have otherwise. In 1930 government approved the protectionist law Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act on imports. In retaliation other nations enacted their own protectionist laws. This caused the price of imports to rise and the amount of exports to decrease. People were asked to pay more with less money. Businesses went out of business, making unemployment skyrocket.
The only thing Bush II did right was not sign Kyoto. He said some pretty words about some things like privatizing Social Security but there was no follow through. Unfortunately that's something I suffer from myself because of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury, I survived.
Obama has made the deficit much worse by continuing the bailouts and pushing that huge Omnibus bill. All of that can be laid directly at the democrats' feet. (the republicans aren't much better, but they weren't in power when all this happened)
Bush was president when he signed the Wall Street Bank bailout. I opposed both that bailout and the one Obama pushed for.
The US is probably going to end up defaulting on that debt since there is no feasible way to pay if off.
There is a way the government can service it's debt, without raising taxes. It can reduce the size of government. However neither the Democrats not the Republicans will agree to that until they are forced to.
I think the UK should declare independence from the UK...that's just my take though.
My take is that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland should declare independence from the UK leaving England alone as part of the UK. Then Cornwall should declare independence and separate from England as well.
They'll use this as an excuse to do it the first time and then it'll stay on come hell or high water. The only way to get rid of a tax is through revolution.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, so every bit of government spending must be regained in taxes. You can choose not to pay taxes, give up your citizenship and enjoy none of its benefits.
Except even "illegal aliens" or immigrants pay taxes. Allowing all immigrants to work but making them pay income taxes could help tax revenues. Having them pay into Social Security for instance without being able to collect SS may keep it from going bankrupt.
The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms.
Yes, and one of those admins, the Clinton admin, shrunk the national deficit he inherited. The Laffer curve illustrates that increasing taxes can actually reduce revenue not increase it. The lower taxes are the higher economic activity is which increases tax revenues.
we are sick of these politicians (People like Barney Frank and Pelosi especially come to mind)
More like Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes. As much as I didn't like Bill Clinton at least he turned the national deficit from the biggest one to a small one. Bush Jr took the deficit back into the stratosphere.
Why would Google, or any other advertiser, pay taxes to fund a public broadcast station? I don't see other commercial advertisers doing this (note, I'm not from the UK)
I disagree with advertizers such as Google paying a tax for the BBC, but everybody that owns a TV in the UK has to pay a yearly TV tax that goes to the BBC. I don't want to give anyone an idea, but to keep with this line a tax would be on ISPs not advertizers.
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't be the first tyme. Rock star Brian May of the rock band Queen, he wrote "We Will Rock You", was studying astrophysics.
Falcon
I've bought both the database one and statistics one and I must say I agree with the review, these books does a great job of giving a novice a quick introduction to the world of databases/statistics.
Thanks, this is the first comment on the merit of the book and not on whether manga is good or nerdy. Is it good for database design though? I took such as class several years ago but haven't worked with DBs since. However I want to start working with them and am thinking about installing and experimenting with either PostgreSQL or Firebird though I may try MySQL. Perhaps I'll try all three. Which ever one I use it'll have to run on both Linux and OS X.
While not covering everything, they will build up some base for the reader to allow him to read more in-depth books that might have been to heavy to start out with.
Yea, I see this review says it's platform agnostic.
Falcon
Except even "illegal aliens" or immigrants pay taxes. Allowing all immigrants to work but making them pay income taxes could help tax revenues. Having them pay into Social Security for instance without being able to collect SS may keep it from going bankrupt.
Actually, I was thinking of stateless people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_person
I hadn't thought of the stateless however even they pay taxes. The only way someone will not pay tax is if they are not part of a national or regional economy. For instance those lost tribes in Brazil and elsewhere.
Falcon
Can't work out if this is meant to be a smartass reply, or you're actually missing the point that if Google threw a strop and refused to serve the UK then the remaining major search engines would be able to occupy that vacant market share.
It was a serious question. Taxing ads will not increase the market for ads. However if an ad business outside of the UK starts serving ads in the UK they will not have to collect and pay a UK tax. So they could charge a lower rate and still make as much money. Who would you pay to serve ads, one who had to pay a tax or one that didn't?
Falcon
If the competitors have no physical presence in the UK how will the UK collect taxes?
I'd expect that those ads are directed towards users in the UK, so Google would still have to track it.
Yeap, whereas those ad servers with no physical presence in the UK wouldn't have to, which would be to their advantage. They would be able to make more money charging the same rates than servers who have a presence in the UK and had to pay taxes.
I'd expect rates would change accordingly (as well as Google possibly taking issue with the practice in general).
Therein those who don't have to pay a tax will have an advantage.
Falcon
you can't be serious....
Yes I was serious. If a reduction in regulations is what's wanted Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives is the party that will do that.
oh wait you already cited the laffer curve without the caution that it's only valid for certain ranges.
Yes, I cited the Laffer Curve, and there is no agreement on what ranges are valid for it. If you have a link that shows there is an agreement please share it, I am willing to change my beliefs, even if other slashdotters aren't.
Dude just the other week I thought you were a pretty reasonable guy and now here you are spouting stuff that only someone that's brain is switched off could believe.
An open and willing to learn mind is better than a closed mind.
Falcon
The Laffer curve illustrates that increasing taxes can actually reduce revenue not increase it.
It also illustrates that decreasing taxes can also reduce revenue, so your point is?..
That "raising spending and lowering taxes during booms" may not have caused to current recession or budget deficit.
Falcon
laffer curve is only valid for extremely high tax rates (>~60% marginal)
There is no agreement for what level of taxes there should be. It's not simply a matter of high taxes. "The point at which the curve achieves its maximum is subject to much theoretical speculation."
Falcon
How so? The whole piece of legislation was nothing but everyone's pet projects from the past 8 years or more. Pork is bad enough in good times, but this was just inexcusable in a recession. Pelosi and friends urged everyone in congress to get this thing passed while knowing full well what was in it.
And here I always thought the Bridge To Nowhere was supported by a republican. Former Sen Ted Stevens wasn't a Republican? Or didn't he not support it?
Falcon
pork accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget.
unless you define "anything but military spending" as pork
The level of military spending we have now is pork.
I'm not saying the banks misbehaved, in fact pretty much everybody (congress and POTUS included) say they did. We were left with three choices
A) let them fail and probably end up in Great Depression 2.0
Those banks that did not make bad loans would still be standing after the dust settled. The bailout of those banks that did make bad loans gave them an advantage over good banks.
B) give them low-interest loans till they can recover and pay us back [what we did] even knowing that to a certain extent they're going to be douchnozzles with some of it
No good deed goes unpunished.
C) nationalize them to prevent their failure
Let them go bankrupt and or break them up so they're not "too big to fail".
Falcon
The whole reason for the housing crash in the first place is that the democrats forced the lenders to loan money to people who any sane lender would tell you could not afford a house.
It's rather simplistic to blame one political party for the housing and market crashes. Yes, Democrats wanted it to be easy for the poor to get mortgages but Republicans wanted to and did reduce regulations. Ken Lay and others at Enron were big supporters of Bush. Clear Channel, who wanted the FCC to loosen ownership of local media regulation, was also a big supporter of Bush.
Falcon
as one of the most fiscally "conservative" senators recently said "attempting to balance the budget during a recession is not adviseable" (or something along those lines)
the last time we were in this situation and we ignored it we ended up in the great depression
More like protectionism made the Great Depression worse and last longer than it would have otherwise. In 1930 government approved the protectionist law Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act on imports. In retaliation other nations enacted their own protectionist laws. This caused the price of imports to rise and the amount of exports to decrease. People were asked to pay more with less money. Businesses went out of business, making unemployment skyrocket.
Falcon
The only thing Bush II did right was not sign Kyoto. He said some pretty words about some things like privatizing Social Security but there was no follow through. Unfortunately that's something I suffer from myself because of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury, I survived.
Obama has made the deficit much worse by continuing the bailouts and pushing that huge Omnibus bill. All of that can be laid directly at the democrats' feet. (the republicans aren't much better, but they weren't in power when all this happened)
Bush was president when he signed the Wall Street Bank bailout. I opposed both that bailout and the one Obama pushed for.
The US is probably going to end up defaulting on that debt since there is no feasible way to pay if off.
There is a way the government can service it's debt, without raising taxes. It can reduce the size of government. However neither the Democrats not the Republicans will agree to that until they are forced to.
Falcon
Ah, so growth industries never grow because they're innovative or finding a new niche; rather it's because they're not taxed.
Where did you read I said industries didn't grow because they innovate? I don't recall saying such as thing. Are you blowing smoke up people's ass?
Falcon
Will the UK stop giving Obama and Pelosi ideas!!! I'm part of the 40% that do pay taxes in the US.
Everybody, including "illegal immigrants" pay taxes in the US.
Falcon
I think the UK should declare independence from the UK...that's just my take though.
My take is that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland should declare independence from the UK leaving England alone as part of the UK. Then Cornwall should declare independence and separate from England as well.
Falcon
They'll use this as an excuse to do it the first time and then it'll stay on come hell or high water. The only way to get rid of a tax is through revolution.
It's past tyme to throw another Boston Tea Party.
Falcon
At best, wouldn't those agencies have introduce a hike of their own?
If the competitors have no physical presence in the UK how will the UK collect taxes?
Falcon
Except that if Yahoo, MSN etc. are willing to pay the tax they'll gain lots of market-share.
They already have market share, where would they get more?
Falcon
Couldn't Google et al just block the UK instead of paying the tax?
Google has server farms all over the world. Google even has a .uk domain.
Falcon
There is no such thing as a free lunch, so every bit of government spending must be regained in taxes. You can choose not to pay taxes, give up your citizenship and enjoy none of its benefits.
Except even "illegal aliens" or immigrants pay taxes. Allowing all immigrants to work but making them pay income taxes could help tax revenues. Having them pay into Social Security for instance without being able to collect SS may keep it from going bankrupt.
Falcon
The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms.
Yes, and one of those admins, the Clinton admin, shrunk the national deficit he inherited. The Laffer curve illustrates that increasing taxes can actually reduce revenue not increase it. The lower taxes are the higher economic activity is which increases tax revenues.
Falcon
we are sick of these politicians (People like Barney Frank and Pelosi especially come to mind)
More like Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes. As much as I didn't like Bill Clinton at least he turned the national deficit from the biggest one to a small one. Bush Jr took the deficit back into the stratosphere.
Falcon
This government is actually moronic enough to make me wish the Tories were in power.
No, a better choice would be the Conservatives' Margaret Thatcher.
Fslcon
Why would Google, or any other advertiser, pay taxes to fund a public broadcast station? I don't see other commercial advertisers doing this (note, I'm not from the UK)
I disagree with advertizers such as Google paying a tax for the BBC, but everybody that owns a TV in the UK has to pay a yearly TV tax that goes to the BBC. I don't want to give anyone an idea, but to keep with this line a tax would be on ISPs not advertizers.
Falcon