Re:My attempt to define a wealth number
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Money that comes in and goes out is not wealth. Wealth is money set aside which can be cashed in later, like savings, house, even cars and such... just because someone earns and spends more than the pverty line does not mean they have wealth.
A huge difference which anyone can appreciate
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
No theoretical difference, but look at the difference in the tax rate: 35% for income, 1-5% for property (varies by jurisdiction). US values, of course, since this is a Zberg tax, but I suspect it's about the same most places around the world.
well regulated then as is now, means something measured against the standards of the era. If you want a well regulated militia these days then the armaments should be standardised to allow easier servicing and pooling of ammunition, to be a credible tactical force. What is patently ridiculous is that the only practical US made light infantry arms, such as the M4 carbine and M16 rifle are banned as "assault weapons"
There's several mistakes right there. M4 and M16 are NOT classified as assault weapons. All legal definitions of the made-up category of assault weapons that I have ever heard of are all for semi-automatic; M4 and M16 are select-fire, ie full auto machine guns, which are banned because they are manufactured after a certain date (1968 or 1986, I forget which). Otherwise, machine guns are available at exorbitant prices due to the arbitrary scarcity, albeit with a $200 NFA tax and extra background check. The civilian version, the AR-15, is semi-auto and available in most states, even in California, where some versions are arbitrarily classified as assault weapons by name or by cosmetic feature.
Well regulated meant well drilled, smoothly functioning, and has nothing to do with common calibers. It just means they practice regularly.
It doesn't take much investigation to find modern squads using several calibers at once, just as in yee olden days.
When the 14th was written, both proponents and opponents agreed on its purpose, which was to apply the first 8 amendments to all citizens and prevents states from denying them. The explicit intent of Slaughterhouse was to overturn that. Congress did nothing about it because no one wanted to defend blacks any more; the Civil War was too distant a memory by then, and Reconstruction had worn out Northern enthusiasm for reining in Southern abuse of the Constitution.
You must be joking. The only time laws are enforced against the fat cats is when the fatter cats throw a baby to the wolves. If a fat cat breaks an inconvenient law, the transgression is ignored unless it's a handy sop to the peasants. If a peasant needs to be punished and there is no convenient law, charges are made up or the law creatively re-interpreted.
Anyone who reads even a little on the history of law will come to the same conclusion. Try Slaughterhouse or Dred Scott for particularly egregious examples in the fairly recent US.
Your.sig isn't much better. Anyone who thinks capitalism has ever existed probably also thinks Marxism / communism ever existed. All we have ever had is fat cats running the world. They have rough spots once in a while when the peasants surprise them (see SOPA and PIPA for the most recent example), but they get over it.
So you are saying these cracks are... printed on the part? Gosh! Maybe you have a picture of a brain tattooed on your forehead.
Wire hangars or whatever, if their response to stress is cracking, they are not designed properly and they are not up to the job. I doubt a cracked part shapes the wing as well as an uncracked part. If it does, why not just manufacture them cracked and get it over with?
If they are merely wire hangars, why are they taking stress? Surely those wires shouldn't be flopping around, or they wouldn't have bothered with wire hangars.
Whether they shouldn't be taking stress but are, or should be taking stress and aren't handling it, it needs looking into.
I use Noscript. Why should I trust some unknown web site to have good intentions and good skills? Further, almost all javascript I have seen is only used to track me or play with the ads.
Amazing web page. A security page that requires javascript to display. If you look at the source, the entire readable content a dozen short paragraphs at the end, each written on one line, and being mere verbaige around the real content, which is a video hosted elsewhere.
Somehow I don't think I'll be taking any of this site's suggestions very seriously.
Or maybe he did like so many people used to do, and still can, get a part time (or even full time) job while still going to school, and not binge drinking his way thru remedial English.
Your ignorance of basic reality and labor history is appalling. The US doesn't have a true free market, but it's not a slave market either. IT workers are paid more than average precisely because there is a semi-free market. The semi-free market in fact applies to everybody to some extent. if it didn't, and if your claim were even close to true, everyone would be homeless and starving, no one would be buying any products, and no one would be making any.
You really ought to go read some real history of the western world concerning labor and capitalism. You really are ignorant of that which you rant about.
Hiding assets as you suggest would elevate this from a civil matter and bankruptcy into a criminal matter and prison. Courts don't like being taken for fools like that, and there are so many people eager to pound Righthaven that they won't escape that easily.
This is only significant if you are the dumbest programmer ever, since that would then prove that anyone can learn two dimensional arrays. Congratulations!
One of my bosses discovered he could weed out most "software engineer" candidates by giving them a simple recursive programming task. It was amazing the number of candidates who could write your standard simple recipe-style program, but were baffled at the idea of recursiveness, or even nested data, pointers to pointers and arrays of arrays and simple combinations.
So yes, programming has divisions like all other activities: people who can build a bird house but not a people house, or can change spark plugs but not an engine.
I see you think that most students get useful degrees which make them more productive and useful citizens, and therefore it's the country's duty to send all poor people to school, regardless of ability or desire. Crap students end up in crap jobs regardless of diploma, subsidized or not. Rich kids end up in jobs sponsored by their families regardless of diploma, which can usually be bought regardless of ability.
You need to stop calling yourself an independent if your only political thoughts are "Republicans suck". Democrats suck just as hard. If you think Obama is better than the Republicans, you are no independent.
A college diploma for the sake of a diploma is a useless piece of paper and does nothing to make the country a better place. It's like subsidizing anything else -- those who need it and want it would find a way without the subsidy and value it all the more. Those who couldn't be bothered without the subsidy will dilute the value of it by partying and taking the easiest classes. Getting a broad education is a fine ideal, but it's wasted on most students.
No, companies couldn't get away with demanding four year bullshit degrees unless there was a glut of them. You can bet your bottom dollar that if few applicants had useless four year degrees, companies wouldn't require them.
The root of the problem is the pipe dream that everyone should have a college education, no matter how worthless the diploma is. Most of the stuff taught for those worthless degrees could have been taught before college, but students don't give a crap out English lit in high school, why would they care any more in college? The idea that people should get a broad education is fine in principle, but in practice means four years of partying while taking the easiest and dumbest classes possible.
You can lead a student to a college with sucker loans, but you can't force them to learn. All you do is give them a worthless piece of paper which employers use to separate the janitors from the receptionists.
What counter argument do you have? Do you even know what the arguments are, or is that just a typical knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion that the government spends too much?
It's not just the for-profit colleges. The standard state-run public universities play the game too, steering suckers into useless degrees like English, political science, etc, because they are cheaper for the university than the hard degrees which have labs. How many students have found the hard way that the only thing an English degree qualifies you for is McDonalds? Good luck paying back your student loan from that!
Oh these are definitely subsidies, because the terms are so generous on the front end that no bank would offer the student loans without the government guarantee. And the legislature could not have passed the student loan program without the nasty business on the payback end that student loans cannot be cleared by bankruptcy.
They are a real nasty subsidy. They look so appealing to students who don't reckon on payback's a bitch. The schools love them because they can pad the costs and get suckers to attend, and the payback is guaranteed by the government so it doesn't matter if students get crappy degrees and can't pay back the banks -- heck, the crappier the degree, the cheaper for the university. I bet universities intentionally steer students to crappy degrees just to avoid the lab costs associated with hard degrees, at least subconsciously.
I don't think you know what "fantasy" means. I also think you don't realize that batteries are not a fuel like oil is; batteries have to be charged from something, and it sure wasn't solar power in 1899.
Slashdot Mirror
Money that comes in and goes out is not wealth. Wealth is money set aside which can be cashed in later, like savings, house, even cars and such ... just because someone earns and spends more than the pverty line does not mean they have wealth.
No theoretical difference, but look at the difference in the tax rate: 35% for income, 1-5% for property (varies by jurisdiction). US values, of course, since this is a Zberg tax, but I suspect it's about the same most places around the world.
Please keep the politics out of it.
Yes, please do.
well regulated then as is now, means something measured against the standards of the era. If you want a well regulated militia these days then the armaments should be standardised to allow easier servicing and pooling of ammunition, to be a credible tactical force. What is patently ridiculous is that the only practical US made light infantry arms, such as the M4 carbine and M16 rifle are banned as "assault weapons"
There's several mistakes right there. M4 and M16 are NOT classified as assault weapons. All legal definitions of the made-up category of assault weapons that I have ever heard of are all for semi-automatic; M4 and M16 are select-fire, ie full auto machine guns, which are banned because they are manufactured after a certain date (1968 or 1986, I forget which). Otherwise, machine guns are available at exorbitant prices due to the arbitrary scarcity, albeit with a $200 NFA tax and extra background check. The civilian version, the AR-15, is semi-auto and available in most states, even in California, where some versions are arbitrarily classified as assault weapons by name or by cosmetic feature.
Well regulated meant well drilled, smoothly functioning, and has nothing to do with common calibers. It just means they practice regularly.
It doesn't take much investigation to find modern squads using several calibers at once, just as in yee olden days.
You ought to read the record on the 14th amendment before pontificating on it.
Then read up on the history of law and realize that it isn't modern courts only who interpret the law according to their personal whim.
You also need to look up the 1787 definition of "well regulated" and "militia".
When the 14th was written, both proponents and opponents agreed on its purpose, which was to apply the first 8 amendments to all citizens and prevents states from denying them. The explicit intent of Slaughterhouse was to overturn that. Congress did nothing about it because no one wanted to defend blacks any more; the Civil War was too distant a memory by then, and Reconstruction had worn out Northern enthusiasm for reining in Southern abuse of the Constitution.
Do you remember when laws used to be enforced?
You must be joking. The only time laws are enforced against the fat cats is when the fatter cats throw a baby to the wolves. If a fat cat breaks an inconvenient law, the transgression is ignored unless it's a handy sop to the peasants. If a peasant needs to be punished and there is no convenient law, charges are made up or the law creatively re-interpreted.
Anyone who reads even a little on the history of law will come to the same conclusion. Try Slaughterhouse or Dred Scott for particularly egregious examples in the fairly recent US.
Your .sig isn't much better. Anyone who thinks capitalism has ever existed probably also thinks Marxism / communism ever existed. All we have ever had is fat cats running the world. They have rough spots once in a while when the peasants surprise them (see SOPA and PIPA for the most recent example), but they get over it.
So you are saying these cracks are ... printed on the part? Gosh! Maybe you have a picture of a brain tattooed on your forehead.
Wire hangars or whatever, if their response to stress is cracking, they are not designed properly and they are not up to the job. I doubt a cracked part shapes the wing as well as an uncracked part. If it does, why not just manufacture them cracked and get it over with?
If they are merely wire hangars, why are they taking stress? Surely those wires shouldn't be flopping around, or they wouldn't have bothered with wire hangars.
Whether they shouldn't be taking stress but are, or should be taking stress and aren't handling it, it needs looking into.
What does that have to do with the price of eggs in Mongolia?
I use Noscript. Why should I trust some unknown web site to have good intentions and good skills? Further, almost all javascript I have seen is only used to track me or play with the ads.
No thank you. My screen, my rules.
Amazing web page. A security page that requires javascript to display. If you look at the source, the entire readable content a dozen short paragraphs at the end, each written on one line, and being mere verbaige around the real content, which is a video hosted elsewhere.
Somehow I don't think I'll be taking any of this site's suggestions very seriously.
Or maybe he did like so many people used to do, and still can, get a part time (or even full time) job while still going to school, and not binge drinking his way thru remedial English.
Your ignorance of basic reality and labor history is appalling. The US doesn't have a true free market, but it's not a slave market either. IT workers are paid more than average precisely because there is a semi-free market. The semi-free market in fact applies to everybody to some extent. if it didn't, and if your claim were even close to true, everyone would be homeless and starving, no one would be buying any products, and no one would be making any.
You really ought to go read some real history of the western world concerning labor and capitalism. You really are ignorant of that which you rant about.
Hiding assets as you suggest would elevate this from a civil matter and bankruptcy into a criminal matter and prison. Courts don't like being taken for fools like that, and there are so many people eager to pound Righthaven that they won't escape that easily.
This is only significant if you are the dumbest programmer ever, since that would then prove that anyone can learn two dimensional arrays. Congratulations!
One of my bosses discovered he could weed out most "software engineer" candidates by giving them a simple recursive programming task. It was amazing the number of candidates who could write your standard simple recipe-style program, but were baffled at the idea of recursiveness, or even nested data, pointers to pointers and arrays of arrays and simple combinations.
So yes, programming has divisions like all other activities: people who can build a bird house but not a people house, or can change spark plugs but not an engine.
I see you think that most students get useful degrees which make them more productive and useful citizens, and therefore it's the country's duty to send all poor people to school, regardless of ability or desire. Crap students end up in crap jobs regardless of diploma, subsidized or not. Rich kids end up in jobs sponsored by their families regardless of diploma, which can usually be bought regardless of ability.
You need to stop calling yourself an independent if your only political thoughts are "Republicans suck". Democrats suck just as hard. If you think Obama is better than the Republicans, you are no independent.
A college diploma for the sake of a diploma is a useless piece of paper and does nothing to make the country a better place. It's like subsidizing anything else -- those who need it and want it would find a way without the subsidy and value it all the more. Those who couldn't be bothered without the subsidy will dilute the value of it by partying and taking the easiest classes. Getting a broad education is a fine ideal, but it's wasted on most students.
No, companies couldn't get away with demanding four year bullshit degrees unless there was a glut of them. You can bet your bottom dollar that if few applicants had useless four year degrees, companies wouldn't require them.
The root of the problem is the pipe dream that everyone should have a college education, no matter how worthless the diploma is. Most of the stuff taught for those worthless degrees could have been taught before college, but students don't give a crap out English lit in high school, why would they care any more in college? The idea that people should get a broad education is fine in principle, but in practice means four years of partying while taking the easiest and dumbest classes possible.
You can lead a student to a college with sucker loans, but you can't force them to learn. All you do is give them a worthless piece of paper which employers use to separate the janitors from the receptionists.
What counter argument do you have? Do you even know what the arguments are, or is that just a typical knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion that the government spends too much?
It's not just the for-profit colleges. The standard state-run public universities play the game too, steering suckers into useless degrees like English, political science, etc, because they are cheaper for the university than the hard degrees which have labs. How many students have found the hard way that the only thing an English degree qualifies you for is McDonalds? Good luck paying back your student loan from that!
Oh these are definitely subsidies, because the terms are so generous on the front end that no bank would offer the student loans without the government guarantee. And the legislature could not have passed the student loan program without the nasty business on the payback end that student loans cannot be cleared by bankruptcy.
They are a real nasty subsidy. They look so appealing to students who don't reckon on payback's a bitch. The schools love them because they can pad the costs and get suckers to attend, and the payback is guaranteed by the government so it doesn't matter if students get crappy degrees and can't pay back the banks -- heck, the crappier the degree, the cheaper for the university. I bet universities intentionally steer students to crappy degrees just to avoid the lab costs associated with hard degrees, at least subconsciously.
Born in Los Angeles.
Thanks to the fantasy of "cheap oil"
I don't think you know what "fantasy" means. I also think you don't realize that batteries are not a fuel like oil is; batteries have to be charged from something, and it sure wasn't solar power in 1899.