it would be a fitting end for such an important person to science.
I don't want to belittle his achievements, but he really isn't that important to science. He is more famous for his disability than his contributions. If you mention his name, plenty of people will say "that's the smart guy in the wheelchair with the funny voice", but very few of them would know about anything that he has done. He theorized that black holes emit radiation, and came up with some hypothesis about quantum gravity... and that's about it.
I would rather do a year in prison than 6 months in jail.
I have never been to prison, but I was in jail, and I didn't think the experience was so bad. It was far better than what I expected from watching TV. Most people were polite and cooperative, and it was a great opportunity to practice my conversational Spanish. Even the guards were friendly. The only big downside was the food. I am a vegetarian, and most meals were baloney sandwiches. They also had peanut butter, but that got really monotonous.
This was the Santa Clara County Jail in San Jose, California, so it is probably a nicer than average jail.
Hogwash. If that was true the people complaining about Trump's golfing would be the exact same people that were complaining about Obama playing golf, and that is not true at all.
10% is because of how it shows Trump as a hypocrite and fraud.
Then you should complain about his hypocrisy rather than his golfing.
But here's some free advice: You should complain about neither. Trump's supporters don't care about his golfing or hypocrisy any more than Obama supporters cared about his birth certificate. If you want to change people's minds, you should criticize his policies rather than his hobbies and personal faults.
Have you ever looked at the demographics of America's prison population? Hint: It is about race and socioeconomics.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Sometime two wrongs do make a right, especially if one of the people wrong is now motivated to fix the problem. You don't care about injustice for a poor black kid falsely accused of a gang murder, because you assume that such an accusation will never be directed at you. But a false accusation of child porn could actually happen to YOU, so you care. So now you are motivated to vote for the guy that wants to fix the justice system, rather than the guy that wants to build more prisons.
Address each problem separately.
No. That is exactly what we should NOT do. We should fix compelled self-incrimination for everyone, not just for those that know about encryption and can afford fancy lawyers.
Reasonable doubt (of not being guilty) => you walk.
Sure. But in practice, "reasonable doubt" means that you are 90% sure that they did it. We can, and do, tolerate a false conviction rate of more than 10%. So if you believe that 9 out of 10 people that claim they forgot their password are lying, then you should be okay with throwing all 10 in jail. If you do NOT think that is okay, then you should be calling for broad reform of our criminal justice system, rather than just defending this guy.
How about we work on improving justice for all without regard to socioeconomic status or race.
Sure. But if we fix it only for the rich white guys, then they no longer have any motivation to fix the system for others, and it is they that are empowered to do so. We should indeed fix it for everyone. But we need to start at the bottom.
what if a defendant really doesn't remember the password? Throw him in jail forever?
Sure. Why not? The criteria is "reasonable doubt" not "certainty". In practice, the standard for "reasonable doubt" is not very high. When DNA evidence first became valid in court, the Innocence Project reviewed thousands of old cases, and determined that about 10% of them could not possibly have committed the crimes for which they were convicted. One case overturned was the Central Park Five, which EVERYONE, including our president, was absolutely certain were guilty. There are many, many other cases with no DNA evidence, but there is no reason to believe the false conviction rate is any lower for those.
So if 90% certainly is good enough to lock up some poor black kids for life, why isn't it good enough for a rich white guy with a Macbook Pro?
I'm sure he'll get around to all of that when he gets back from his taxpayer funded golf trips.
It is funny that the people that complain about Donald playing golf are the same people that complain when he stays at his desk and gets stuff done.
Personally, I think the more time he spends playing golf the better.
There was a famous meeting while Eisenhower was president to discuss sending American troops into Vietnam following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. He cut the meeting short and left because he had a golf game, and the troops never went in. If LBJ was more dedicated to his game, the Vietnam War might have been avoided a second time.
And if their profits are lower they pay their workers less.
No necessarily. If there is a competitive market for labor, they would lose workers if they pay less. A company may pass on tax costs to customers (as higher prices), to workers (as lower wages), to shareholders (as lower dividends or share price) or even to suppliers (by demanding lower costs).
If the government prefers one of these over another, such as lower dividends rather than lower wages, then it makes more sense to just tax dividends directly at the individual level.
He could probably repeal them a little quicker if he played a little less golf or spend less time getting into twitter feuds with celebrities.
"Working hard" is negatively correlated with presidential success. Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover were famously hard working, yet both failed to achieve many of their objectives, and were not re-elected. Lazy presidents set general directions, and delegate details to others, so more gets done and they can avoid blame if things go wrong.
Effective government should not depend on trust of specific individuals. Designing laws and institutions is like designing a network protocol: You build in self-corrections for lack of integrity.
NO, it should be based on how much money they take in from the consumers
That is a "sales tax" (GST in NZ), which Apple already collects on their sales in NZ.
When TFA says Apple pays "$0 in taxes" they mean Apple pays "$0 in taxes after you subtract all the taxes (GST, payroll, excise tax, etc) that they DO pay."
Probably around 3x what they charged you for every ride.
Last year Uber had revenue of $5.5B and spent $8.5B, for a $3B loss. So there is no way they are subsidizing rides by 200% as you claim. Much of the losses were a result of their rivalry with Didi Chuxing, which is now resolved, and their harebrained project to develop their own SDCs, rather than just licensing the tech from Google or Tesla. They are likely subsidizing rides (to gain market share) by no more than 20-30% over market rates.
Companies rely on government investment in infrastructure like roads, power, shipping, airports, rail, military, police and fire services as well as a 1000 other more services without which they could not exist in those countries.
How much "road use" does Apple need to haul iPhones from the airport to the retail outlet?
What about a company that sells, say, ebooks, and uses no government infrastructure? Should they pay no taxes?
If you are going to justify corporate taxes based on "infrastructure use" then it should be in proportion to how much they use that infrastructure.
That is a meaningless difference. If I pay $500 for an iPhone, and Apple gets $450 and the government gets $50, it doesn't really matter if I hand the money to them before or after the government gets their cut. The result is exactly the same either way.
Presumably because company policy (they, after all, are paying for the seat) requires him to take cheapest seat available
Wouldn't it make more sense to change that internal policy rather than force a new regulation on an entire industry, and imposing additional costs on millions of people?
Actually, they would not. When people fly their top three concerns are: 1. The cost 2. The airfare 3. The ticket price The reason seats have shrunk is because it allows the airlines to cut costs and reduce prices. That is what most passengers care about. Current seat sizes are fine for most people. For those that want more room, and are willing to pay for it, there is already "economy plus".
Nah. This is just a Democrat posturing for some free publicity
It is odd that a Democrat is proposing this, since most fat people are Republicans. But he is from Tennessee, which is a Republican state and has plenty of fatties.
So why should short people subsidize you? If you need extra room, then pay for it yourself. Many airlines already offer "economy plus", so you already have that option. Why should that option be forced on everyone?
Making every seat fit someone that is 6'6" will mean fewer people will fit on the plane, wasting fuel, and jacking up the ticket prices for everyone.
It's not like they are too poor or stupid to use toilets.
Too poor? No. Too stupid? Yes. Even when toilets are available, many Indians prefer to shit on the ground. It is a filthy habit, spreads disease, and is one of the main reasons for India's sky high infant mortality rate. The Indian government has spent billions of rupees to install public toilets in villages, but many of them are used. Changing the plumbing is easier than changing the culture.
Slashdot Mirror
it would be a fitting end for such an important person to science.
I don't want to belittle his achievements, but he really isn't that important to science. He is more famous for his disability than his contributions. If you mention his name, plenty of people will say "that's the smart guy in the wheelchair with the funny voice", but very few of them would know about anything that he has done. He theorized that black holes emit radiation, and came up with some hypothesis about quantum gravity ... and that's about it.
I would rather do a year in prison than 6 months in jail.
I have never been to prison, but I was in jail, and I didn't think the experience was so bad. It was far better than what I expected from watching TV. Most people were polite and cooperative, and it was a great opportunity to practice my conversational Spanish. Even the guards were friendly. The only big downside was the food. I am a vegetarian, and most meals were baloney sandwiches. They also had peanut butter, but that got really monotonous.
This was the Santa Clara County Jail in San Jose, California, so it is probably a nicer than average jail.
90% of it is because it is now on our dime.
Hogwash. If that was true the people complaining about Trump's golfing would be the exact same people that were complaining about Obama playing golf, and that is not true at all.
10% is because of how it shows Trump as a hypocrite and fraud.
Then you should complain about his hypocrisy rather than his golfing.
But here's some free advice: You should complain about neither. Trump's supporters don't care about his golfing or hypocrisy any more than Obama supporters cared about his birth certificate. If you want to change people's minds, you should criticize his policies rather than his hobbies and personal faults.
So it is suddenly about race or socioeconomics?
Have you ever looked at the demographics of America's prison population?
Hint: It is about race and socioeconomics.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Sometime two wrongs do make a right, especially if one of the people wrong is now motivated to fix the problem. You don't care about injustice for a poor black kid falsely accused of a gang murder, because you assume that such an accusation will never be directed at you. But a false accusation of child porn could actually happen to YOU, so you care. So now you are motivated to vote for the guy that wants to fix the justice system, rather than the guy that wants to build more prisons.
Address each problem separately.
No. That is exactly what we should NOT do. We should fix compelled self-incrimination for everyone, not just for those that know about encryption and can afford fancy lawyers.
Reasonable doubt (of not being guilty) => you walk.
Sure. But in practice, "reasonable doubt" means that you are 90% sure that they did it. We can, and do, tolerate a false conviction rate of more than 10%. So if you believe that 9 out of 10 people that claim they forgot their password are lying, then you should be okay with throwing all 10 in jail. If you do NOT think that is okay, then you should be calling for broad reform of our criminal justice system, rather than just defending this guy.
How about we work on improving justice for all without regard to socioeconomic status or race.
Sure. But if we fix it only for the rich white guys, then they no longer have any motivation to fix the system for others, and it is they that are empowered to do so. We should indeed fix it for everyone. But we need to start at the bottom.
what if a defendant really doesn't remember the password? Throw him in jail forever?
Sure. Why not? The criteria is "reasonable doubt" not "certainty". In practice, the standard for "reasonable doubt" is not very high. When DNA evidence first became valid in court, the Innocence Project reviewed thousands of old cases, and determined that about 10% of them could not possibly have committed the crimes for which they were convicted. One case overturned was the Central Park Five, which EVERYONE, including our president, was absolutely certain were guilty. There are many, many other cases with no DNA evidence, but there is no reason to believe the false conviction rate is any lower for those.
So if 90% certainly is good enough to lock up some poor black kids for life, why isn't it good enough for a rich white guy with a Macbook Pro?
I'm sure he'll get around to all of that when he gets back from his taxpayer funded golf trips.
It is funny that the people that complain about Donald playing golf are the same people that complain when he stays at his desk and gets stuff done.
Personally, I think the more time he spends playing golf the better.
There was a famous meeting while Eisenhower was president to discuss sending American troops into Vietnam following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. He cut the meeting short and left because he had a golf game, and the troops never went in. If LBJ was more dedicated to his game, the Vietnam War might have been avoided a second time.
And if their profits are lower they pay their workers less.
No necessarily. If there is a competitive market for labor, they would lose workers if they pay less. A company may pass on tax costs to customers (as higher prices), to workers (as lower wages), to shareholders (as lower dividends or share price) or even to suppliers (by demanding lower costs).
If the government prefers one of these over another, such as lower dividends rather than lower wages, then it makes more sense to just tax dividends directly at the individual level.
So if a company orders hardware for internal use, they don't pay VAT on it.
Yes they do. They only avoid the tax if they resell the goods, and even then they pay tax on the mark-up (the "value added" which is the VA in VAT).
He could probably repeal them a little quicker if he played a little less golf or spend less time getting into twitter feuds with celebrities.
"Working hard" is negatively correlated with presidential success. Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover were famously hard working, yet both failed to achieve many of their objectives, and were not re-elected. Lazy presidents set general directions, and delegate details to others, so more gets done and they can avoid blame if things go wrong.
Can we trust Comey?
Effective government should not depend on trust of specific individuals. Designing laws and institutions is like designing a network protocol: You build in self-corrections for lack of integrity.
NO, it should be based on how much money they take in from the consumers
That is a "sales tax" (GST in NZ), which Apple already collects on their sales in NZ.
When TFA says Apple pays "$0 in taxes" they mean Apple pays "$0 in taxes after you subtract all the taxes (GST, payroll, excise tax, etc) that they DO pay."
Do its employees, or those involved otherwise in selling iPhones, magically teleport to work, or use roads?
Should companies pay lower taxes if their employees walk to work, or telecommute?
Probably around 3x what they charged you for every ride.
Last year Uber had revenue of $5.5B and spent $8.5B, for a $3B loss. So there is no way they are subsidizing rides by 200% as you claim. Much of the losses were a result of their rivalry with Didi Chuxing, which is now resolved, and their harebrained project to develop their own SDCs, rather than just licensing the tech from Google or Tesla. They are likely subsidizing rides (to gain market share) by no more than 20-30% over market rates.
Companies rely on government investment in infrastructure like roads, power, shipping, airports, rail, military, police and fire services as well as a 1000 other more services without which they could not exist in those countries.
How much "road use" does Apple need to haul iPhones from the airport to the retail outlet?
What about a company that sells, say, ebooks, and uses no government infrastructure? Should they pay no taxes?
If you are going to justify corporate taxes based on "infrastructure use" then it should be in proportion to how much they use that infrastructure.
Apple's customers pay. Apple paid no tax.
That is a meaningless difference. If I pay $500 for an iPhone, and Apple gets $450 and the government gets $50, it doesn't really matter if I hand the money to them before or after the government gets their cut. The result is exactly the same either way.
That's their job. Change your laws.
Indeed. How many individuals "do the right thing" and pay extra taxes beyond what they are legally required to pay?
It is not Apple's fault that NZ has dumb tax laws.
Those fatties are NOT Republicans.
Uh ... yes they are.
The ten states with the highest obesity rates, and who they voted for in 2016:
Louisiana - Trump
Alabama - Trump
Mississippi - Trump
West Virginia - Trump
Kentucky - Trump
Arkansas - Trump
Kansas - Trump
Oklahoma - Trump
Tennessee - Trump
Missouri - Trump
And here are the states with the lowest rates of obesity:
Colorado - Hillary
DC - Hillary
Hawaii - Hillary
Montana - Trump
California - Hillary
Massachusetts - Hillary
Utah - Trump
New York - Hillary
Vermont - Hillary
Connecticut - Hillary
The closed-captioning does speech-to-text, not lip reading.
Sure, but if it did both, the error rate would go way down.
Presumably because company policy (they, after all, are paying for the seat) requires him to take cheapest seat available
Wouldn't it make more sense to change that internal policy rather than force a new regulation on an entire industry, and imposing additional costs on millions of people?
They'd have people stampeding to get tickets.
Actually, they would not. When people fly their top three concerns are:
1. The cost
2. The airfare
3. The ticket price
The reason seats have shrunk is because it allows the airlines to cut costs and reduce prices. That is what most passengers care about. Current seat sizes are fine for most people. For those that want more room, and are willing to pay for it, there is already "economy plus".
Nah. This is just a Democrat posturing for some free publicity
It is odd that a Democrat is proposing this, since most fat people are Republicans. But he is from Tennessee, which is a Republican state and has plenty of fatties.
So why should short people subsidize you? If you need extra room, then pay for it yourself. Many airlines already offer "economy plus", so you already have that option. Why should that option be forced on everyone?
Making every seat fit someone that is 6'6" will mean fewer people will fit on the plane, wasting fuel, and jacking up the ticket prices for everyone.
It's not like they are too poor or stupid to use toilets.
Too poor? No.
Too stupid? Yes.
Even when toilets are available, many Indians prefer to shit on the ground.
It is a filthy habit, spreads disease, and is one of the main reasons for India's sky high infant mortality rate.
The Indian government has spent billions of rupees to install public toilets in villages, but many of them are used.
Changing the plumbing is easier than changing the culture.