You actually drank the republican koolaid and have strictly no idea what socialism is, you confuse it with some disney land vision of the URSS. in practice the idea of socialism is that: nobody should die or suffer because of some life accident, nor should they be dependent on charity so the cost of "insurance" should be shared by all in some supportable way.
Anyone who marks everyone they disagree with as a republican reminds me of that famous map of how New Yorkers see the world: everything very near is important, everything else is vague.
And if the only discrimination you have is republican or you, I doubt you are even aware of the wide range of usage, from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the relatively mild versions in western Europe.
But I will supply a hint: engage in more conversations with people you disagree with, not just friends who think like you. It will sharpen your knowledge.
What Faux News failed to tell you is that socialism isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Regimentism is.
Please define that word you just made up.
Ya know, the neat thing about life in general and language in this case is the very thing you pretend to not understand.
Anyone can make up words by following very loose arrangements that arise not from some standards body, but from ordinary people doing ordinary things. Grammarians don't set the rules, altho they may wish they could; at best, they attempt to describe what past practice has been, practice which has been developed by people just being people and using language according to their own whims.
Anyone who pretends they don't understand what regimentism means is implying that because it doesn't fit his worldview, because it is not listed in some "standard" dictionary, that it can't exist. Isn't that its very definition?
Those who would work more can work less, and use the time gained to think about how they could do better, smarter,
Oooh, how gracious of you, to allow them to do something they don't want to do, and to not allow them to do something they want to do. You've just proved my point on paternalism. Do you even comprehend how insulting that attitude is, that you know better than everybody else how they should behave, what they should want?
And those who would work less still need to put a full day of work, and have trouble getting ahead in comparision to the people who use their "free" time to manage their personal progress.
Again you display an amazing lack of comprehension of basic human nature. Some people are simply lazy, or want less and so see no need to work the full 8 hours to get the little they do want. Yet you imply that they still have to work a full day, when part time would suit them fine, or that they want to get ahead, when maybe they are quite happy not proving the Peter Principle. Are you at all aware in even the slightest manner of all the different people around you, all their different wants and needs and attitudes? No, that would be reality, and that would make you uncomfortable. So you dream up fantasies instead where you know better than everybody else how they should live.
Surprise! People are *different*.
In a "un social" situation everybody is pushed to burnout, with the result that both the lazy and the ambitious are mostly busy reading dilbert cartoons and dreaming of being somewhere else..
So completely backwards. In a regimented society, as required by socialism, people are forced to work out of their comfort zone to gain rewards they do not want, all by the dictate of their betters. I cannot think of a more assembly line culture than that imposed by socialists, the very antithesis of freedom, all for our own good, of course. Some people are more equal than others.
This is actually the strongest argument for completely socialized medicine
No, it's just another example of how monopolistic coercive one-size-fits-all governments fuck things up. People are quite capable of running their own lives; we manage to get home insurance, car insurance, and life insurance all on our own. But statists are scared to death of the idea that mere ordinary people don't need a nanny state holding their hands, and make up stories about the evils of free people to salve their consciences and scare the peasants.
What Faux News failed to tell you is that socialism isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Regimentism is. Socialism can't work without forcing everybody to the same set of rigid rules. Those who want to work more and/or better are forced to work inefficiently and go elsewhere; those who want to work less are coddled. The ordinary worker sees the lazy getting the same benefits and sees no reason to work hard. The only winners are those who can't work better, but statists have such high opinions of themselves and low opinions of everyone else that they can't differentiate the lazy from the inept, thus confirming their opinion that people need hand holding because they are so stupid.
Gorsh! I hadn't thought of that! I was thinking more of financial regs, each set longer and more convoluted than the previous, like a hydra headed monster. Each set applies ten pages of new rules to cover every single loophole, of which there were ten per page in the old regs, and no doubt in the new regs too, so the next set will be thousands of pages and open up tens of thousands of loopholes.
Now if we could just sic you on the regulators....
The obvious corollary is that researchers aren't smart enough to know their own limitations....
I always figure what research like this really means is "People don't think the way we want them to, and we are plenty smart, therefore people are dumb and need us to lead them around by their noses."
The truth is that whenever new regulations are created, people find a way around them, and the regulators have to come up with new regulations to patch those loopholes. This very fact is proof that people are too damned smart for the regulators, and that the regulators' only use in life is trying to keep the smart people from doing anything useful.
Just what I was thinking. There's extra effort required to turn the video into separate frames, and each frame has to be decoded on its own, but as soon as you've got the same result from 2-3 frames, there's your answer. Heck, try the first and last and one or two in the middle, see if they agree. I'd think it would give you a more certain result for the extra effort.
It's extra pain for the end user too, with extra bandwidth required to transmit it. With cell phones having data caps, that's not helpful.
No, you only need them closed before hand if there's a chance of imminent catastrophe. Warships generally steam with frequently used hatches and doors open. At general quarters, all are closed. There are intermediate stages where some are closed when steaming in war zones but without imminent battle expected.
My carrier could set battle stations in 4-5 minutes. A cruise ship could probably set them in ten minutes (wild assed guess) because they don't have as many doors and hatches, don't have as many crew to set them, and don't practice it all the time. That's fine for all except battle conditions where you want them set before battle.
I am no expert on early twentieth century passenger liner design, but I am sure they had their reason to design her the way they did.
It was cost. Ships just a few years before were mostly either one big space (especially sailing ships) or just a very few compartments. Adding more compartments not only requires more material and construction time, it adds weight which reduces carrying capacity, and it makes travel between compartments slower and more complicated. Sometimes there is no direct path and you have to go up over and down, or sideways.
All that costs money. Besides, as crummy as it was, it was better then most designs beforehand, so they thought it good enough and figured any further expense would be entirely wasted. They were thinking of one or two big holes, not hundreds of small holes from popped rivets and burst seams.
Is it your claim that Android businesses should not strike back with their own patent claims after St Jobs went on the warpath?
Are you saying they should sit back and wait while hordes of angry ethical customers desert Apple and flock to Android and save their bacon?
Not only is that bonkers, your ethical consumers are independent of self-defense. I myself steer clear of St Jobs products because I think his single minded control freakery produces inflexible inferior products. But that's nothing to do with your silly business plan, if that is what you are trying to say. Ethical buying has nothing to do with self-defense. I abhor murder, but if a friend shoots a burglar, I will say "Good on ya, mate" and pat him in the back for exercising the natural right of self-defense.
Your non-violence attitude is fine when all you care about is not starting a war yourself. Doesn't do squat when someone else starts beating up on you.
That's what's going on here. This particular spate of patent fights was triggered when St Jobs decided to go all holy war on Android and Google and won injunctions against phones which had rounded corners among other stupid patents. Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and other Android makers got caught in the cross fire and shot back. Don't get me wrong, Apple fan-boys: everyone plays the same game, it's just this particular mini-war which was started by St Jobs.
The fault is with governments that make money from issuing as many patents as possible and lawyers who make money from fighting as many patent battles as possible. It's quite evident that "obvious to anyone skilled in the arts" and "for a limited time" mean nothing. Patents would have a purpose if they were actually limited to innovative clever not-so-obvious features and there were only, say, one thousandth the number we have now.
But it's also obvious that governments and lawyers have an interest in not limiting patents to the truly innovative, and we'd be better off with no patents whatsoever. Innovative companies would always have a lead in clever designs, and early adopters would be glad to pay a premium for that and quality. Copycat companies would always be playing catchup and have to charge less for mass production.
The world would be a better place if all those patent lawyers and government bureaucrats had to find useful productive work instead of being parasites who gum up the works.
Us evil lefties are just suspicious of big firms like Monsanto and BP. Just because something makes a lot of money doesn't mean it's right.
Yep, and regardless of the science. Just because someone makes money off something doesn't make the science wrong. Thanks for providing another data point.
Both parties are against science which collides with their preset world view. Leftists hate genetically modified food and fracking and the science which declares them safe, rightists despise global warming (whether or not anthropogenic) and evolution.
Money taxed and spent is not taxed again; only the profit is, or the purchase price. If the corporation has $100 in profit, they send me $65. I buy $65 of booze. The bar doesn't pay tax on that $65, only on what profit they realize.
If you put pre-tax money into an IRA, it does have a flag which says "untaxed". When you withdraw it later, then you pay income tax on it.
If you put post-tax money into an account, it has a "taxed" flag, and you only pay income on the interest it earns. You do not pay money on the capital itself.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
If it were that easy, everyone would be winners and there would be no losers.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
I didn't know these billionaires had defaulted on their loans. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. Please provide details.
The other less snarky answer is Hogwash! Do you really think banks would continue lending to someone who had defaulted on billion dollar loans?
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Ya know, if someone can always pick appreciating investments and always have new collateral, more power to her. But sooner or later someone's going to want real collateral, and as the loans pile up and accumulate interest, the lenders are going to want more collateral, not just new collateral. That house of cards won't last very long.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
No, it's not the same. Corporation earns $1M, pays 35%, distributes $650K as income, which is now immediately taxed again.
The bar does not pay income tax on the gross receipts which they got from you, only on the net profit.
And it's all pointless anyway. Business taxes are all passed on to consumers who end up paying them in the form of increased prices. All it does is add to the inefficiency of it all, opening up a second pile of tax laws and full employment for tax lawyers and accountants.
Corporate taxes are passed thru to those who buy their products. The idea that you can raise corporate taxes and hurt fat cats is ludicrous -- the company just raises the prices of their products. ALL taxes come down to individual people, and to pretend otherwise by creating the fiction of corporate taxes is delusional, whether for revenge or jealousy.
Re:My attempt to define a wealth number
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Well, that's true enough. But where did that wealth come from? If it was income, it's already been taxed; should someone who lives frugally and saves be taxed again for not spending? If it was the rise in value of a house or land, it's not income and not useable until it's sold, or borrowed against, in which case it's income.
One thing I don't understand is why borrowing against the equity in property is not counted as income, but that's another kettle of fish.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Where did the money come from that he used to pay back the loan? Unless he got that from another loan, it was.... income!
Clever, ain't it?
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Dividends are paid from corporate post-tax income, ie, already taxed. How many more times do you want to tax it?
Slashdot Mirror
You actually drank the republican koolaid and have strictly no idea what socialism is, you confuse it with some disney land vision of the URSS.
in practice the idea of socialism is that: nobody should die or suffer because of some life accident, nor should they be dependent on charity so the cost of "insurance" should be shared by all in some supportable way.
Anyone who marks everyone they disagree with as a republican reminds me of that famous map of how New Yorkers see the world: everything very near is important, everything else is vague.
And if the only discrimination you have is republican or you, I doubt you are even aware of the wide range of usage, from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the relatively mild versions in western Europe.
But I will supply a hint: engage in more conversations with people you disagree with, not just friends who think like you. It will sharpen your knowledge.
What Faux News failed to tell you is that socialism isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Regimentism is.
Please define that word you just made up.
Ya know, the neat thing about life in general and language in this case is the very thing you pretend to not understand.
Anyone can make up words by following very loose arrangements that arise not from some standards body, but from ordinary people doing ordinary things. Grammarians don't set the rules, altho they may wish they could; at best, they attempt to describe what past practice has been, practice which has been developed by people just being people and using language according to their own whims.
Anyone who pretends they don't understand what regimentism means is implying that because it doesn't fit his worldview, because it is not listed in some "standard" dictionary, that it can't exist. Isn't that its very definition?
Ta ta. Enjoy your narrow minded regimented life.
Those who would work more can work less, and use the time gained to think about how they could do better, smarter,
Oooh, how gracious of you, to allow them to do something they don't want to do, and to not allow them to do something they want to do. You've just proved my point on paternalism. Do you even comprehend how insulting that attitude is, that you know better than everybody else how they should behave, what they should want?
And those who would work less still need to put a full day of work, and have trouble getting ahead in comparision to the people who use their "free" time to manage their personal progress.
Again you display an amazing lack of comprehension of basic human nature. Some people are simply lazy, or want less and so see no need to work the full 8 hours to get the little they do want. Yet you imply that they still have to work a full day, when part time would suit them fine, or that they want to get ahead, when maybe they are quite happy not proving the Peter Principle. Are you at all aware in even the slightest manner of all the different people around you, all their different wants and needs and attitudes? No, that would be reality, and that would make you uncomfortable. So you dream up fantasies instead where you know better than everybody else how they should live.
Surprise! People are *different*.
In a "un social" situation everybody is pushed to burnout, with the result that both the lazy and the ambitious are mostly busy reading dilbert cartoons and dreaming of being somewhere else..
So completely backwards. In a regimented society, as required by socialism, people are forced to work out of their comfort zone to gain rewards they do not want, all by the dictate of their betters. I cannot think of a more assembly line culture than that imposed by socialists, the very antithesis of freedom, all for our own good, of course. Some people are more equal than others.
This is actually the strongest argument for completely socialized medicine
No, it's just another example of how monopolistic coercive one-size-fits-all governments fuck things up. People are quite capable of running their own lives; we manage to get home insurance, car insurance, and life insurance all on our own. But statists are scared to death of the idea that mere ordinary people don't need a nanny state holding their hands, and make up stories about the evils of free people to salve their consciences and scare the peasants.
What Faux News failed to tell you is that socialism isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Regimentism is. Socialism can't work without forcing everybody to the same set of rigid rules. Those who want to work more and/or better are forced to work inefficiently and go elsewhere; those who want to work less are coddled. The ordinary worker sees the lazy getting the same benefits and sees no reason to work hard. The only winners are those who can't work better, but statists have such high opinions of themselves and low opinions of everyone else that they can't differentiate the lazy from the inept, thus confirming their opinion that people need hand holding because they are so stupid.
That's who Taco is replacing.
Gorsh! I hadn't thought of that! I was thinking more of financial regs, each set longer and more convoluted than the previous, like a hydra headed monster. Each set applies ten pages of new rules to cover every single loophole, of which there were ten per page in the old regs, and no doubt in the new regs too, so the next set will be thousands of pages and open up tens of thousands of loopholes.
Now if we could just sic you on the regulators ....
The obvious corollary is that researchers aren't smart enough to know their own limitations ....
I always figure what research like this really means is "People don't think the way we want them to, and we are plenty smart, therefore people are dumb and need us to lead them around by their noses."
The truth is that whenever new regulations are created, people find a way around them, and the regulators have to come up with new regulations to patch those loopholes. This very fact is proof that people are too damned smart for the regulators, and that the regulators' only use in life is trying to keep the smart people from doing anything useful.
Just what I was thinking. There's extra effort required to turn the video into separate frames, and each frame has to be decoded on its own, but as soon as you've got the same result from 2-3 frames, there's your answer. Heck, try the first and last and one or two in the middle, see if they agree. I'd think it would give you a more certain result for the extra effort.
It's extra pain for the end user too, with extra bandwidth required to transmit it. With cell phones having data caps, that's not helpful.
No, you only need them closed before hand if there's a chance of imminent catastrophe. Warships generally steam with frequently used hatches and doors open. At general quarters, all are closed. There are intermediate stages where some are closed when steaming in war zones but without imminent battle expected.
My carrier could set battle stations in 4-5 minutes. A cruise ship could probably set them in ten minutes (wild assed guess) because they don't have as many doors and hatches, don't have as many crew to set them, and don't practice it all the time. That's fine for all except battle conditions where you want them set before battle.
I am no expert on early twentieth century passenger liner design, but I am sure they had their reason to design her the way they did.
It was cost. Ships just a few years before were mostly either one big space (especially sailing ships) or just a very few compartments. Adding more compartments not only requires more material and construction time, it adds weight which reduces carrying capacity, and it makes travel between compartments slower and more complicated. Sometimes there is no direct path and you have to go up over and down, or sideways.
All that costs money. Besides, as crummy as it was, it was better then most designs beforehand, so they thought it good enough and figured any further expense would be entirely wasted. They were thinking of one or two big holes, not hundreds of small holes from popped rivets and burst seams.
Is it your claim that Android businesses should not strike back with their own patent claims after St Jobs went on the warpath?
Are you saying they should sit back and wait while hordes of angry ethical customers desert Apple and flock to Android and save their bacon?
Not only is that bonkers, your ethical consumers are independent of self-defense. I myself steer clear of St Jobs products because I think his single minded control freakery produces inflexible inferior products. But that's nothing to do with your silly business plan, if that is what you are trying to say. Ethical buying has nothing to do with self-defense. I abhor murder, but if a friend shoots a burglar, I will say "Good on ya, mate" and pat him in the back for exercising the natural right of self-defense.
That is the lesson which has been learned by most companies, and especially by patent lawyers.
Your non-violence attitude is fine when all you care about is not starting a war yourself. Doesn't do squat when someone else starts beating up on you.
That's what's going on here. This particular spate of patent fights was triggered when St Jobs decided to go all holy war on Android and Google and won injunctions against phones which had rounded corners among other stupid patents. Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and other Android makers got caught in the cross fire and shot back. Don't get me wrong, Apple fan-boys: everyone plays the same game, it's just this particular mini-war which was started by St Jobs.
The fault is with governments that make money from issuing as many patents as possible and lawyers who make money from fighting as many patent battles as possible. It's quite evident that "obvious to anyone skilled in the arts" and "for a limited time" mean nothing. Patents would have a purpose if they were actually limited to innovative clever not-so-obvious features and there were only, say, one thousandth the number we have now.
But it's also obvious that governments and lawyers have an interest in not limiting patents to the truly innovative, and we'd be better off with no patents whatsoever. Innovative companies would always have a lead in clever designs, and early adopters would be glad to pay a premium for that and quality. Copycat companies would always be playing catchup and have to charge less for mass production.
The world would be a better place if all those patent lawyers and government bureaucrats had to find useful productive work instead of being parasites who gum up the works.
Us evil lefties are just suspicious of big firms like Monsanto and BP. Just because something makes a lot of money doesn't mean it's right.
Yep, and regardless of the science. Just because someone makes money off something doesn't make the science wrong. Thanks for providing another data point.
Neither party is against science.
Both parties are against science which collides with their preset world view. Leftists hate genetically modified food and fracking and the science which declares them safe, rightists despise global warming (whether or not anthropogenic) and evolution.
Of course these are generalizations.
Money taxed and spent is not taxed again; only the profit is, or the purchase price. If the corporation has $100 in profit, they send me $65. I buy $65 of booze. The bar doesn't pay tax on that $65, only on what profit they realize.
If you put pre-tax money into an IRA, it does have a flag which says "untaxed". When you withdraw it later, then you pay income tax on it.
If you put post-tax money into an account, it has a "taxed" flag, and you only pay income on the interest it earns. You do not pay money on the capital itself.
If it were that easy, everyone would be winners and there would be no losers.
I didn't know these billionaires had defaulted on their loans. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. Please provide details.
The other less snarky answer is Hogwash! Do you really think banks would continue lending to someone who had defaulted on billion dollar loans?
Ya know, if someone can always pick appreciating investments and always have new collateral, more power to her. But sooner or later someone's going to want real collateral, and as the loans pile up and accumulate interest, the lenders are going to want more collateral, not just new collateral. That house of cards won't last very long.
No, it's not the same. Corporation earns $1M, pays 35%, distributes $650K as income, which is now immediately taxed again.
The bar does not pay income tax on the gross receipts which they got from you, only on the net profit.
And it's all pointless anyway. Business taxes are all passed on to consumers who end up paying them in the form of increased prices. All it does is add to the inefficiency of it all, opening up a second pile of tax laws and full employment for tax lawyers and accountants.
Corporate taxes are passed thru to those who buy their products. The idea that you can raise corporate taxes and hurt fat cats is ludicrous -- the company just raises the prices of their products. ALL taxes come down to individual people, and to pretend otherwise by creating the fiction of corporate taxes is delusional, whether for revenge or jealousy.
Well, that's true enough. But where did that wealth come from? If it was income, it's already been taxed; should someone who lives frugally and saves be taxed again for not spending? If it was the rise in value of a house or land, it's not income and not useable until it's sold, or borrowed against, in which case it's income.
One thing I don't understand is why borrowing against the equity in property is not counted as income, but that's another kettle of fish.
Where did the money come from that he used to pay back the loan? Unless he got that from another loan, it was .... income!
Clever, ain't it?
Dividends are paid from corporate post-tax income, ie, already taxed. How many more times do you want to tax it?