Everybody is allowed to deduct the costs directly involved in making money.
I've got to feed myself or I won't have the strength to make it to work. And then there's clothing and housing myself. Medical and dental expenses, transportation, etc. And all of the vacation and entertainment necessary to maintain my mental health and work productivity.
Like I said elsewhere, nobody seems to question a corporation spending hundreds of millions on granite and glass corporate headquarters when card tables in an unfinished warehouse space will do just fine.
The IRS has determined that the annual cost of me 'maintaining myself' as an income producing asset is $3900 and everything above that is consumption for my own benefit. Fine. So corporations should only get a $3900 per employee per year deduction from revenue when calculating their corporate taxes. Can't find a CEO who will work for that? Tough. Pay him or her whatever they want. But only $3900 goes toward their income producing ability.
But then the image looks pretty funky. OK for b&w security cam systems. But if the object of the paparazzi is to take salable photos, they'll be leaving that filter in place.
The Eclipse? Doesn't look like their anti-paparazzi system works all that well. I've got a couple of nice shots of it. Of course, my camera doesn't have all that auto focus, auto exposure nonsense that the aforementioned laser system is likely to interfere with.
... is shite now. It appears to have need Metro-ized (if that's a term). I don't use Windows, but I hear quite a bit from friends who do and complain continually that the UI is devolving into big buttons like child's toys have. Menu functions are increasingly well hidden.
Because I have revenue of $150K/year and, except for a few deductions the IRS allows* me to take, I pay taxes on the rest of it. I'd love to take my food, housing, medical, transportation and other costs of living off the top and pay taxes on the remainder.
*Essentially, the IRS determines a 'poverty level' of sustenance and bases the allowance on that. So why don't they tell Google that a brand new corporate HQ isn't an allowable expense? They could easily set up card tables in an abandoned Safeway and run their operation from there.
because Comcast is sucking down traffic so asymmetrically. This is happening because Comcast has been attempting to engineer their infrastructure to be as lopsided as possible
Because that's what the traffic looks like. If every Comcast customer uploaded every cat video they had, Netflix (and other streaming service) downloads would still beat the throughput by a wide margin.
The problem is that Comcast wants money from both ends of their pipe for the same service. Netflix pays Level3, who in turn pays Comcast for a certain quality of service. Now, Comcast wants the ability to throttle the end customers service (our view of the end effect of no net neutrality) with no consequences. They already took the money for the service from Netflix, through Level3. Now they don't want to deliver it.
Movers who try this same trick (pay us to pack up your house and then demand extra cash to unload the truck at the destination) get thrown into prison. Because they are common carriers. Time to put Comcast in the same place.
sell bandwidth to anyone that wants to offer services.
That's fine for broadband video streaming services. But that's not the way cable works. Content providers and cable companies negotiate to have those cable companies retail the providers' wholesale content to the end customers. And I'm not certain that Disney and others want to be in the Netflix/Hulu business. Dealing directly with consumers is a PITA and exposes people to masses of consumer protection regulation.
Comcast and other network operators make a bundle reselling this content, compared to just running the infrastructure for the streamers. Which is why they hate to have customers bypass their TV service using their own networks to access streaming services.
Comcast and others might wish for a simpler business model of just running a network. But the content suppliers pay them well to keep their mutual interests aligned. And they pay Congress well to keep them on board with this model as well.
You are confusing countries who have signed on to the Kyoto protocols with countries that have good environmental policies. Take a look at the map here. The entire group of 'developing countries' are exempt from binding targets under this agreement. Everything is voluntary. China, for example, has no obligation to meet any targets. So, as far as taxing their imports; forget it. And they can pump out as much pollution as they want.
Comcast/Xfinity and Time Warner cable service territories don't overlap much. So if you want cable, which ever one is in your neighborhood is the one you would have signed up for.
What will be stomped out* is the ability for each company, particularly Time Warner's content partners to access Comcast's customers via streaming services rather than a direct cable connection. The content owners are effectively trapped behind one network operator who can demand a bigger cut of the business.
*Assuming the FCC doesn't defend network neutrality, that is. If customers can bypass the cable TV service and stream whet they want over their broadband, competition will continue. By 'defend network neutrality', I envision rules that would have the likes of Verizon answering to the DoJ over issues like Netflix throttling. How this issue will be settled will say far more about content pricing for the consumer than who runs the cable up to my property line.
Practically everyone in the private security and private investigations businesses has a few buddies in law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Access to restricted data for their benefit has been going on for years. Swapping login credentials to gain access to different silos of information as a part of this practice is pretty common. The only thing Snowden did that was different was to dump this data wholesale (more or less) in the lap of the press.
Heck, even the press and some well known authors have intelligence agency connections that they use to get their stories (either news or fiction) on the right track.
Well, would you consider someone at the coffee shop who jumped into group discussions with bad intentions to be a problem?
Yes. But many trolls are less confrontational in person. Meet them IRL and they don't get in your face. Its the ability to cause trouble on line, without risking physical violence that brings them out of the woodwork. In real life, sociopaths often engage in inappropriate activities like spreading false rumors, cheating and other sorts of harmful behaviors that, by themselves, don't qualify as symptoms of psychopathy (at least not to the lay person).
Applying the harsher term to the activity of trolling is going to give some pause when applying it to some of its practitioners. In fact, some of their power, either on line or in real life, is derived from the perception that they really aren't harmful people overall.
Another point: Either trolling on line or listening to gossip IRL requires the cooperation of other members of the group involved. You can easily avoid feeding the trolls or ostracize people who talk trash behind people's back. On the other hand, getting sucked into the troll's game is a mild form of sociopathy by itself. Start labeling a significant fraction of the population as psychopaths and nobody will take the diagnosis seriously.
What is the justification for labeling the personality trait as psychopathy? Both that ans sociopathy are characterized by a lack of remorse and empathy. The difference being (as I understand it) that psychopaths are considered to be dangerous to themselves and others. I'm not sure raising sh*t storms on various online sites for fun qualifies as 'dangerous'.
At first, I read that as NSA. And I asked myself, "Why would they be discrediting astronomy? Perhaps they don't want us looking up, staring at their satellites."
Slashdot Mirror
The work firewall just bitched at me!
What does it do? Pop up a message saying, "I'm sorry Dave. I can't do that."
Someone marked you troll most likely because they just hate you.
I thought it was "Insensitive clod! I have only one leg."
They're just lucky I didn't go on with "stickshift, transfer case lever, differential locks ...." Its just not a real car without those.
Oh, yeah. And what about the choke knob?
Everybody is allowed to deduct the costs directly involved in making money.
I've got to feed myself or I won't have the strength to make it to work. And then there's clothing and housing myself. Medical and dental expenses, transportation, etc. And all of the vacation and entertainment necessary to maintain my mental health and work productivity.
Like I said elsewhere, nobody seems to question a corporation spending hundreds of millions on granite and glass corporate headquarters when card tables in an unfinished warehouse space will do just fine.
The IRS has determined that the annual cost of me 'maintaining myself' as an income producing asset is $3900 and everything above that is consumption for my own benefit. Fine. So corporations should only get a $3900 per employee per year deduction from revenue when calculating their corporate taxes. Can't find a CEO who will work for that? Tough. Pay him or her whatever they want. But only $3900 goes toward their income producing ability.
This.
Don't forget the clutch pedal.
But then the image looks pretty funky. OK for b&w security cam systems. But if the object of the paparazzi is to take salable photos, they'll be leaving that filter in place.
What is this autofocus thing of which you speak?
The Eclipse? Doesn't look like their anti-paparazzi system works all that well. I've got a couple of nice shots of it. Of course, my camera doesn't have all that auto focus, auto exposure nonsense that the aforementioned laser system is likely to interfere with.
Because I have revenue of $150K/year and, except for a few deductions the IRS allows* me to take, I pay taxes on the rest of it. I'd love to take my food, housing, medical, transportation and other costs of living off the top and pay taxes on the remainder.
*Essentially, the IRS determines a 'poverty level' of sustenance and bases the allowance on that. So why don't they tell Google that a brand new corporate HQ isn't an allowable expense? They could easily set up card tables in an abandoned Safeway and run their operation from there.
because Comcast is sucking down traffic so asymmetrically. This is happening because Comcast has been attempting to engineer their infrastructure to be as lopsided as possible
Because that's what the traffic looks like. If every Comcast customer uploaded every cat video they had, Netflix (and other streaming service) downloads would still beat the throughput by a wide margin.
The problem is that Comcast wants money from both ends of their pipe for the same service. Netflix pays Level3, who in turn pays Comcast for a certain quality of service. Now, Comcast wants the ability to throttle the end customers service (our view of the end effect of no net neutrality) with no consequences. They already took the money for the service from Netflix, through Level3. Now they don't want to deliver it.
Movers who try this same trick (pay us to pack up your house and then demand extra cash to unload the truck at the destination) get thrown into prison. Because they are common carriers. Time to put Comcast in the same place.
sell bandwidth to anyone that wants to offer services.
That's fine for broadband video streaming services. But that's not the way cable works. Content providers and cable companies negotiate to have those cable companies retail the providers' wholesale content to the end customers. And I'm not certain that Disney and others want to be in the Netflix/Hulu business. Dealing directly with consumers is a PITA and exposes people to masses of consumer protection regulation.
Comcast and other network operators make a bundle reselling this content, compared to just running the infrastructure for the streamers. Which is why they hate to have customers bypass their TV service using their own networks to access streaming services.
Comcast and others might wish for a simpler business model of just running a network. But the content suppliers pay them well to keep their mutual interests aligned. And they pay Congress well to keep them on board with this model as well.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, Citigroup, Exxon Mobil, ....
"Only the little people pay taxes." - L. Helmsley
Dogbert
Negotiating book and movie deals?
Rewind.
You are confusing countries who have signed on to the Kyoto protocols with countries that have good environmental policies. Take a look at the map here. The entire group of 'developing countries' are exempt from binding targets under this agreement. Everything is voluntary. China, for example, has no obligation to meet any targets. So, as far as taxing their imports; forget it. And they can pump out as much pollution as they want.
3. Why then, do we have only 3 spatial dimensions?
That's what marketing negotiated with the customer. Don't blame me, I just write the damned code to spec.
Comcast/Xfinity and Time Warner cable service territories don't overlap much. So if you want cable, which ever one is in your neighborhood is the one you would have signed up for.
What will be stomped out* is the ability for each company, particularly Time Warner's content partners to access Comcast's customers via streaming services rather than a direct cable connection. The content owners are effectively trapped behind one network operator who can demand a bigger cut of the business.
*Assuming the FCC doesn't defend network neutrality, that is. If customers can bypass the cable TV service and stream whet they want over their broadband, competition will continue. By 'defend network neutrality', I envision rules that would have the likes of Verizon answering to the DoJ over issues like Netflix throttling. How this issue will be settled will say far more about content pricing for the consumer than who runs the cable up to my property line.
Practically everyone in the private security and private investigations businesses has a few buddies in law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Access to restricted data for their benefit has been going on for years. Swapping login credentials to gain access to different silos of information as a part of this practice is pretty common. The only thing Snowden did that was different was to dump this data wholesale (more or less) in the lap of the press.
Heck, even the press and some well known authors have intelligence agency connections that they use to get their stories (either news or fiction) on the right track.
Well, would you consider someone at the coffee shop who jumped into group discussions with bad intentions to be a problem?
Yes. But many trolls are less confrontational in person. Meet them IRL and they don't get in your face. Its the ability to cause trouble on line, without risking physical violence that brings them out of the woodwork. In real life, sociopaths often engage in inappropriate activities like spreading false rumors, cheating and other sorts of harmful behaviors that, by themselves, don't qualify as symptoms of psychopathy (at least not to the lay person).
Applying the harsher term to the activity of trolling is going to give some pause when applying it to some of its practitioners. In fact, some of their power, either on line or in real life, is derived from the perception that they really aren't harmful people overall.
Another point: Either trolling on line or listening to gossip IRL requires the cooperation of other members of the group involved. You can easily avoid feeding the trolls or ostracize people who talk trash behind people's back. On the other hand, getting sucked into the troll's game is a mild form of sociopathy by itself. Start labeling a significant fraction of the population as psychopaths and nobody will take the diagnosis seriously.
What is the justification for labeling the personality trait as psychopathy? Both that ans sociopathy are characterized by a lack of remorse and empathy. The difference being (as I understand it) that psychopaths are considered to be dangerous to themselves and others. I'm not sure raising sh*t storms on various online sites for fun qualifies as 'dangerous'.
Without sadists, masochists would live unfulfilled lives.
At first, I read that as NSA. And I asked myself, "Why would they be discrediting astronomy? Perhaps they don't want us looking up, staring at their satellites."