government that allows them to be rich by taxing them more and then lets them out of it by creating a myriad of loopholes only they can afford to take advantage of
Fixed that for ya. No, no need to thank me, it's ok.
Internet trolls are narcissistic, psychopathic and sadistic
I was looking in the mirror this morning -- for quite some time -- and although there were people behind me I wanted to hurt, close self-examination revealed no particular difference in feelings re simply hurting them, or hurting them badly. With that in mind:
Don't click on any links that offer to download the new Justin Bieber tune. They lead to websites that will send the new Justin Bieber tune right into your computer. There's no fixing things after that. Don't claim you weren't warned.
Y'know, from some POV's, the volcano and the asteroid strikes are just part of the main system, and we are the pollution. A nasty little surface infection. Kind of like the dinosaurs. That last one seems to have been successfully cauterized, though. Just saying.;)
Bollocks. Nuclear is artificially expensive due to a combination of idiocy, hysteria and perhaps some guidance from the petroleum and coal industries.
We'll eventually get past that, and then the whole "energy scarcity" thing will evaporate like the artificial, etherial crap it actually is.
Solar and storage may give us some surprises too. Heck of a lot of free energy available to be taken, if we can take it.
What amazes me is even after directly witnessing the tech advances in agriculture, electronics, computing, medicine etc. over the last century, that anyone with half a clue doesn't presume that power generation will see the same sort of revolution, inasmuch as where we stand on this issue is only limited by politics and greed, not by technology.
The introduction of general purpose robots -- not AI, just worker automatons -- will create a paradigm shift where past modes of estimation will fail, just as no one in 1910 could have decently predicted the changes in miniaturization and functionality the advances in electronics brought about.
Those robots are coming. Japan has low end versions of some of them now. We're *very* close.
No... you're missing the point. The postulate is that no one has to do the shit jobs, or even the good ones. You can if you want to; other than that, go scuba dive or something.
Now, whether the postulate will come to pass, that's something else, and you can certainly argue it, but within the bounds of the proposal, shit jobs don't exist.
...probably got here the same way the Indians did: From asia, land bridge or very short boat trip, carried as seeds or seedlings. The ocean wasn't in the way, or much in the way, at that point.
Remember, there are no "native americans." Africans. Every single one of us.
I read it all. Quite carefully. I have just a few comments:
I do honestly admire your energy, but I expect you will founder hard on the rocks of "we don't care what the constitution says", regardless of if it's the original, or somehow, in spite of all the obvious and not-so-obvious impediments, your version.
What you describe is a theory of the process that has led us to this point. I'm simply pointing out that we are at this point, and the clear consequences of being there, which include massive resistance to change and a complete disconnect from the citizen's authority.
Also, sorry to have to be the one to point it out, but the congress is largely composed of crazies, kooks, and conspiracy theorists. One only has to read the legislation they produce to truly internalize that viewpoint. Should you get far enough along to actually pose a threat of implementing your ideas, I expect they will get rid of you in short order. But I wish you well anyway.
You're missing the point. Yes, some things are unclear. However, if the government cannot follow the clear portions of the constitution, if they persist in engaging in sophist and outright contradictory behavior with regard to those clear sections, then I submit to you that it is hopeless to expect them to behave simply on the instance of providing them with a new constitution. Hence, my assertion that the problem isn't the document. It's the government.
Wait. There are sections of the current constitution that are perfectly clear; the restriction on the government is explicit, and there are absolutely no outs offered. In spite of this, we have ex post facto laws, restrictions on speech, government establishment of Christianity, restrictions on keeping and carrying arms, across the board violations of search and seizure constraints, inversion of the commerce clause, torture, incarceration without recourse to or contact with anything other than the jailers... All this with a constitution that provides a simple mechanism for change when the people can be convinced such change is needed.
Clearly the problem isn't the constitution, or at least, it's not the fundamental problem. The real problem is our corrupt government.
Sure I can. I just can't think of any that are as appropriate or called for.
A quick look says he has a net worth of 67 billion dollars (and that's after we already taxed him, presumably, at about 35%.
A 95% tax on the remainder (which is harsher than what I actually was thinking, but easier to figure out) would leave him holding 3.35 billion dollars. I'm just going to go ahead and say that is, in fact, enough money for anyone. Keeping in mind that an actual 95% tax rate estimation would have to include what he's already been taxed, whatever that might be, and would leave him with considerably more.
But it was a good question. Since we're on it, I'll generalize: If I earn more, my tax rate should rise proportional to what I earn. It shouldn't be enough to prevent me from becoming filthy rich; but it surely should be enough to see that the country's infrastructure, medical care, and social safety nets are fully funded. Taxing the average schlub making just enough to support their family is destructive to the nation and to the society it supports. Tax the rich; See to it that the poor are fed and housed. Don't make people who aren't poor, and aren't rich, poor. Don't make the rich un-rich. Pretty simple idea.
Heck, the editors don't even read the summaries, or at least, they don't visibly edit them.
Moderators vote based on agreement.
Welcome to slashdot.
Slashdot's headlong rush into the digg-ification of the site will end just as Digg's did; with the loss of most of the community that made the site worth keeping up with, and worth maintaining for the owners. Digg is still trying to find a model that will remediate the utter destruction cause by the dropping of the user commenting capability (and pro tip, they're not going to find one.)
No one wants to fight with a bad UI. The beta demonstrates a *really* bad UI. The consequences are obvious. Our protests are of no matter.
So is driving the speed limit. Time has great value, and the arbitrary declarations of legislators do nothing to erase this signature characteristic.
A less cynical explanation
It's not cynicism. We know why the police issue the vast majority of speeding tickets: To provide income, and to provide an excuse for search and seizure, leading to even more income and property gains. They're generally not saving, protecting, or serving anyone but themselves; And further, in states where unlimited speeds were tried, such as Montana, accident rates went down. In any undertaking, people do better when they aren't bored, are paying the most attention, and are fully engaged in said undertaking.
I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law
Lemme just fix that for you:
I mean, the ultimate goals for the police are enjoy an exercise of arbitrary power, to earn ticket income, and to provide an excuse for illegal search and seizure, which in turn serves as a mechanism to provide yet more income, and property.
(carefully checks constitution) Here's the relevant restiction on the government:
Congress shall make no law...[religion exercise, establishment clipped] abridging the freedom of speech
That's it. All of it. No exceptions. So, no, free speech doesn't have any exemptions. What you are advocating is that we tolerate government acting outside the bounds of its constitutional limits, in violation of the oaths of legislators and judges.
There's the nation's highest law, and then there's a bunch of sophist trash imposed on us by very bad people. Best to remain cognizant of which is which.
Slashdot Mirror
Fixed that for ya. No, no need to thank me, it's ok.
All Slashdot moderation is of the form Agree / Disagree. All of it. With that UID, you should know that by now.
Browse at -1; it's the only way to completely bypass the broken moderation system.
I was looking in the mirror this morning -- for quite some time -- and although there were people behind me I wanted to hurt, close self-examination revealed no particular difference in feelings re simply hurting them, or hurting them badly. With that in mind:
Don't click on any links that offer to download the new Justin Bieber tune. They lead to websites that will send the new Justin Bieber tune right into your computer. There's no fixing things after that. Don't claim you weren't warned.
Y'know, from some POV's, the volcano and the asteroid strikes are just part of the main system, and we are the pollution. A nasty little surface infection. Kind of like the dinosaurs. That last one seems to have been successfully cauterized, though. Just saying. ;)
Bollocks. Nuclear is artificially expensive due to a combination of idiocy, hysteria and perhaps some guidance from the petroleum and coal industries.
We'll eventually get past that, and then the whole "energy scarcity" thing will evaporate like the artificial, etherial crap it actually is.
Solar and storage may give us some surprises too. Heck of a lot of free energy available to be taken, if we can take it.
What amazes me is even after directly witnessing the tech advances in agriculture, electronics, computing, medicine etc. over the last century, that anyone with half a clue doesn't presume that power generation will see the same sort of revolution, inasmuch as where we stand on this issue is only limited by politics and greed, not by technology.
This
The introduction of general purpose robots -- not AI, just worker automatons -- will create a paradigm shift where past modes of estimation will fail, just as no one in 1910 could have decently predicted the changes in miniaturization and functionality the advances in electronics brought about.
Those robots are coming. Japan has low end versions of some of them now. We're *very* close.
No... you're missing the point. The postulate is that no one has to do the shit jobs, or even the good ones. You can if you want to; other than that, go scuba dive or something.
Now, whether the postulate will come to pass, that's something else, and you can certainly argue it, but within the bounds of the proposal, shit jobs don't exist.
You probably wouldn't know a narcissist if you were looking at one in the mirror.
Sandal, you heretic.
...probably got here the same way the Indians did: From asia, land bridge or very short boat trip, carried as seeds or seedlings. The ocean wasn't in the way, or much in the way, at that point.
Remember, there are no "native americans." Africans. Every single one of us.
The singular of "data" is not "anecdote."
I read it all. Quite carefully. I have just a few comments:
I do honestly admire your energy, but I expect you will founder hard on the rocks of "we don't care what the constitution says", regardless of if it's the original, or somehow, in spite of all the obvious and not-so-obvious impediments, your version.
What you describe is a theory of the process that has led us to this point. I'm simply pointing out that we are at this point, and the clear consequences of being there, which include massive resistance to change and a complete disconnect from the citizen's authority.
Also, sorry to have to be the one to point it out, but the congress is largely composed of crazies, kooks, and conspiracy theorists. One only has to read the legislation they produce to truly internalize that viewpoint. Should you get far enough along to actually pose a threat of implementing your ideas, I expect they will get rid of you in short order. But I wish you well anyway.
You're missing the point. Yes, some things are unclear. However, if the government cannot follow the clear portions of the constitution, if they persist in engaging in sophist and outright contradictory behavior with regard to those clear sections, then I submit to you that it is hopeless to expect them to behave simply on the instance of providing them with a new constitution. Hence, my assertion that the problem isn't the document. It's the government.
Who is going to be the first to send them a copy of Windows?
Wait. There are sections of the current constitution that are perfectly clear; the restriction on the government is explicit, and there are absolutely no outs offered. In spite of this, we have ex post facto laws, restrictions on speech, government establishment of Christianity, restrictions on keeping and carrying arms, across the board violations of search and seizure constraints, inversion of the commerce clause, torture, incarceration without recourse to or contact with anything other than the jailers... All this with a constitution that provides a simple mechanism for change when the people can be convinced such change is needed.
Clearly the problem isn't the constitution, or at least, it's not the fundamental problem. The real problem is our corrupt government.
Exactly.
Fine. Make him sell them.
Sure I can. I just can't think of any that are as appropriate or called for.
A quick look says he has a net worth of 67 billion dollars (and that's after we already taxed him, presumably, at about 35%.
A 95% tax on the remainder (which is harsher than what I actually was thinking, but easier to figure out) would leave him holding 3.35 billion dollars. I'm just going to go ahead and say that is, in fact, enough money for anyone. Keeping in mind that an actual 95% tax rate estimation would have to include what he's already been taxed, whatever that might be, and would leave him with considerably more.
But it was a good question. Since we're on it, I'll generalize: If I earn more, my tax rate should rise proportional to what I earn. It shouldn't be enough to prevent me from becoming filthy rich; but it surely should be enough to see that the country's infrastructure, medical care, and social safety nets are fully funded. Taxing the average schlub making just enough to support their family is destructive to the nation and to the society it supports. Tax the rich; See to it that the poor are fed and housed. Don't make people who aren't poor, and aren't rich, poor. Don't make the rich un-rich. Pretty simple idea.
Sure. If that was the mission. But it isn't.
The editors don't read the comments.
Heck, the editors don't even read the summaries, or at least, they don't visibly edit them.
Moderators vote based on agreement.
Welcome to slashdot.
Slashdot's headlong rush into the digg-ification of the site will end just as Digg's did; with the loss of most of the community that made the site worth keeping up with, and worth maintaining for the owners. Digg is still trying to find a model that will remediate the utter destruction cause by the dropping of the user commenting capability (and pro tip, they're not going to find one.)
No one wants to fight with a bad UI. The beta demonstrates a *really* bad UI. The consequences are obvious. Our protests are of no matter.
Put him in the 95% tax bracket where he belongs, and let him speed all he wants?
So is driving the speed limit. Time has great value, and the arbitrary declarations of legislators do nothing to erase this signature characteristic.
It's not cynicism. We know why the police issue the vast majority of speeding tickets: To provide income, and to provide an excuse for search and seizure, leading to even more income and property gains. They're generally not saving, protecting, or serving anyone but themselves; And further, in states where unlimited speeds were tried, such as Montana, accident rates went down. In any undertaking, people do better when they aren't bored, are paying the most attention, and are fully engaged in said undertaking.
Lemme just fix that for you:
I mean, the ultimate goals for the police are enjoy an exercise of arbitrary power, to earn ticket income, and to provide an excuse for illegal search and seizure, which in turn serves as a mechanism to provide yet more income, and property.
There you go. Cheers. :)
(carefully checks constitution) Here's the relevant restiction on the government:
That's it. All of it. No exceptions. So, no, free speech doesn't have any exemptions. What you are advocating is that we tolerate government acting outside the bounds of its constitutional limits, in violation of the oaths of legislators and judges.
There's the nation's highest law, and then there's a bunch of sophist trash imposed on us by very bad people. Best to remain cognizant of which is which.