That's a canard designed to appeal to the people who think they are smart but are in fact ignorant of how corporate taxes work in practice. Much of the time it is loopholes, not actual expenses, that result in corps "not paying their share" - double-taxation is practically a myth under the current system.
Here's a short discussion of the myth with a table of companies that had negative or near-zero taxes but still reported significant profits and paid significant dividends in the same year.
you freakshows should just learn to accept who and what you are,
Yeah, and all of you people born with other birth defects should just accept it and stop grossing us out by trying to live a normal life in public.
instead of helping to normalize a hatred of everything hetero-male in society.
Wah, wah, wah. Poor little man can't handle a little loss of unwarranted male privilege. Grow some balls you pussy. Whiners like you do 100x more to "normalize hatred of everything hetero-male" than anyone else, male, female or trans.
More ways to keep regular people fearful and compliant. Yippee!
Anybody else see the reports about the underwear bomber that came out last week? The guy bought a ticket a to Detroit because he couldn't afford the ticket to Chicago. That's the best al qaeda's got - somebody who can't even come up with an extra $100. Meanwhile, we've spent over a trillion dollars on anti-terrorism bullshit since 9-11, and that doesn't even include the opportunity costs of things like the millions of man-hours wasted taking our shoes off at the airport.
I suppose we can expect mandatory Amber Alerts on facebook and twitter too - gotta keep those housewives terrified of strangers - nevermind the fact that practically all child molestations and abductions are committed by family and people trusted by the family (like priests, etc).
Police records are created the moment a person is charged with a crime.
You don't even need to be charged to get a record. Just arrested.
It should also be no surprise that the records are spotty - they seem to be real good at keeping track of anything incriminating like an arrest or charges, but only do a half-assed job of keeping track of anything exculpatory like charges being dropped or being released with no charges filed.
Well what if searching for this his name on Google results in the top 10 hits being titled along the lines of "This dude is a con man and a fraud!!"? Is Google responsible for *that* algorithm?
If it is, then former senator and impossible presidential candidate Rick Santorum is going to be first in line for that lawsuit.
The civil rights act of 1964 was passed primarily due to Republican support, over strenuous objections of Democrats.
That's a misleading half truth - ain't no "primarily" about it. In the house, 152 Democrats and 138 Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the Senate 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted to end the filibuster against the bill. Furthermore, votes were mostly correlated with region, not party with southern members of both parties voting against the bill and northern members of both parties voting for the bill.
However, the act was a turning point for both parties with many of those who did vote against it migrating to the Republican party and essentially chasing out the liberal faction. Afterwards Nixon adopted the "Southern Strategy" of race-baiting that has lasted in some form or another ever since.
Essentially any significant republican support for civil rights ended with that vote - most of the people who supported the act ended up being chased out of the republican party and bolstering the democratic party instead. That sequence of events does paint a pretty picture for republican party support of civil rights.
That analogy is so broken I don't even know where to start fixing it. So suffice to say, do your research before posting random bullshit you obviously know nothing about.
Who would have guessed it? Benedict XVI is posting as an AC on slashdot!
For that person with only a casual interest, they're very revealing snapshots.
The problem is there is so much BS flung around in the debates with such little depth that any naive viewer is at least as likely to come away misinformed about any particular candidate as they are to actually get something meaningful out of it. Without context, the debates are just gussied up "he said / she said" contests.
If you want to have your constituency's views heard in the legislature, you need a master debater representing you.
Not really. By and large that stuff's just for the cameras - unless you literally want them heard. If you want them effected, you need a wheeler-dealer type.
At best all you get to learn is how good a debater each candidate is. The only reason to watch a debate is the same reason people really watch NASCAR races - for the occasional flameout like Jan Brewer in the Arizona debate but even that wasn't a fatal crash as she went on to win the election anyhow...
Perhaps you and your data are already worth more than "50+ bucks/year."
Not with adblock installed and me only using their generic services - google sells eyeballs but they aren't selling mine. At best I'm worth a few bucks to them as part of trend analysis.
I think Google makes a good search engine and good products, and I am happy to "pay" my eyeballs and habits for that.
I wish they would offer a simple option to pay with money instead and gave a binding guarantee of absolutely no advertising, data mining, sharing or storage of log info beyond the barest minimum required for technical (troubleshooting, et al) reasons, like 7 days or so.
I'd gladly pay 50+ bucks/year for something like that with
Evil or not, it's pretty cool to see the US Government siding with consumer privacy against a major corporation. Is this a sign of an attitude change, or merely a sign that Google is (relatively) new and hasn't figured out who they need to bribe yet?
Or its just a cover for a secret agreement to feed everything they collect to a bunch of three letter agencies bypassing all judicial oversight.
A citation quality list would be a really good thing to have. Sometimes you run into a dittohead or similarly brainwashed person who is just at the right place in their life where a little demonstration of their idol's hypocrisy is enough to open their eyes. It worked for Paul Haggis - director and writer of movies like Crash and Million Dollar Baby. 35 years under their spell but he was finally ready to see the truth.
How the fuck did you come to that conclusion from the parent post? He didn't say anything politically identifying. You turned his personal antidote into a full fledged assumption about his political views. No wonder you have seem to have no moral dilemma with your work; maybe you do.
Exactly my reaction - frostypiss doth protest too much.
It is the length of the run. Without amplification 10m is the practical limit for 1920x1080@60Hz and its way easy to exceed that if you route the cables so they don't run across the floor.
My only guess would be a super-videophile, syncing his monitor to multiples of film (24fps) and video? (30fps?). Otherwise... I don't understand either.
I started doing it because I have really long video cable runs (computers in the basement in order to isolate sound) and at the default 60Hz I got sparklies. It was either gamble on more expensive cables, reduce resolution or reduce "refresh."
Back in the CRT days, refresh was much more important because of phosphor fade and even the default 72Hz wasn't fast enough for me then, I usually ran at least 85Hz. So once I started fiddling around with it, I decided to see how low I could go before there were bothersome artefacts. Turned out the slowest my monitors could go still looked just as good as 60Hz so I left the settings turned all the way down.
I'm curious where you would suggest a hobbyist like myself get tech news, if not from Anand. It sounds like you have some better sources.
Anand's ok for news, as are almost all of them. Just not analysis. The problem is that the people who are able to do good analysis frequently have more lucrative things to do than blog about it on a regular basis. I've found that if you want expertise you have to find the niches. RISKS Digest is great for analysis of tech news with respect to, well, risks. The comp.arch usenet newsgroup can get pretty in-depth about chip and system architecture.
The one-stop shop for general tech analysis probably doesn't exist. Ars Technica may have the best non-niche coverage, but I'm not a regular reader so can't say how consistent they are. For the most part, I've given up looking for such a generalist website.
Running DisplayPort at 2560 × 1600 × 30 bpp @ 60 Hz [wikipedia.org] will require significantly less bandwidth than your DVI monitor calculation.
Plus, there's little reason to run at 60Hz. Anything other than video games could get along just fine at 30Hz or probably even 24Hz. I run two monitors at 48Hz and 30Hz respectively because that's as low as they will go and there is absolutely no perceptual difference (and I am super-sensitive to lag and judder in video so I'm confident I would notice).
the whole thing reads like someone a little too star struck about being allowed inside the fence.
Welcome to "citizen journalism" - I have the same problem with all of those tech websites like Anand and Tom's Hardware, etc. The writers are all just hobbyists and the best they can do is amateur level analysis.
It's not just tech sites though, go to somewhere like jihadwatch or most any anti-global-warming website and you'll get all kinds of pontification by people with zero big picture understanding - utterly lacking the ability to evaluate a piece of information with respect to any serious amount of context. The worst are the ones who don't even know enough to know how narrow their knowledge really is.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed where he said, "But somehow I do not get to deduct any of this unless I am a corporation."
None of that stuff is deductible for regular people with regular jobs. Self-incorporate yeah, but not otherwise.
That's a canard designed to appeal to the people who think they are smart but are in fact ignorant of how corporate taxes work in practice.
Much of the time it is loopholes, not actual expenses, that result in corps "not paying their share" - double-taxation is practically a myth under the current system.
Here's a short discussion of the myth with a table of companies that had negative or near-zero taxes but still reported significant profits and paid significant dividends in the same year.
you freakshows should just learn to accept who and what you are,
Yeah, and all of you people born with other birth defects should just accept it and stop grossing us out by trying to live a normal life in public.
instead of helping to normalize a hatred of everything hetero-male in society.
Wah, wah, wah. Poor little man can't handle a little loss of unwarranted male privilege. Grow some balls you pussy. Whiners like you do 100x more to "normalize hatred of everything hetero-male" than anyone else, male, female or trans.
More ways to keep regular people fearful and compliant. Yippee!
Anybody else see the reports about the underwear bomber that came out last week? The guy bought a ticket a to Detroit because he couldn't afford the ticket to Chicago. That's the best al qaeda's got - somebody who can't even come up with an extra $100. Meanwhile, we've spent over a trillion dollars on anti-terrorism bullshit since 9-11, and that doesn't even include the opportunity costs of things like the millions of man-hours wasted taking our shoes off at the airport.
I suppose we can expect mandatory Amber Alerts on facebook and twitter too - gotta keep those housewives terrified of strangers - nevermind the fact that practically all child molestations and abductions are committed by family and people trusted by the family (like priests, etc).
Police records are created the moment a person is charged with a crime.
You don't even need to be charged to get a record. Just arrested.
It should also be no surprise that the records are spotty - they seem to be real good at keeping track of anything incriminating like an arrest or charges, but only do a half-assed job of keeping track of anything exculpatory like charges being dropped or being released with no charges filed.
Well what if searching for this his name on Google results in the top 10 hits being titled along the lines of "This dude is a con man and a fraud!!"? Is Google responsible for *that* algorithm?
If it is, then former senator and impossible presidential candidate Rick Santorum is going to be first in line for that lawsuit.
I wonder how many of those 10,000 are really lost and how many are "lost."
I got this container of LCD televisions hea', great price, just for you. Where'd it come from? It fell of the back of a boat, that's all I'm sayin'.
The civil rights act of 1964 was passed primarily due to Republican support, over strenuous objections of Democrats.
That's a misleading half truth - ain't no "primarily" about it. In the house, 152 Democrats and 138 Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the Senate 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted to end the filibuster against the bill. Furthermore, votes were mostly correlated with region, not party with southern members of both parties voting against the bill and northern members of both parties voting for the bill.
However, the act was a turning point for both parties with many of those who did vote against it migrating to the Republican party and essentially chasing out the liberal faction. Afterwards Nixon adopted the "Southern Strategy" of race-baiting that has lasted in some form or another ever since.
Essentially any significant republican support for civil rights ended with that vote - most of the people who supported the act ended up being chased out of the republican party and bolstering the democratic party instead. That sequence of events does paint a pretty picture for republican party support of civil rights.
That analogy is so broken I don't even know where to start fixing it. So suffice to say, do your research before posting random bullshit you obviously know nothing about.
Who would have guessed it?
Benedict XVI is posting as an AC on slashdot!
For that person with only a casual interest, they're very revealing snapshots.
The problem is there is so much BS flung around in the debates with such little depth that any naive viewer is at least as likely to come away misinformed about any particular candidate as they are to actually get something meaningful out of it. Without context, the debates are just gussied up "he said / she said" contests.
If you want to have your constituency's views heard in the legislature, you need a master debater representing you.
Not really. By and large that stuff's just for the cameras - unless you literally want them heard. If you want them effected, you need a wheeler-dealer type.
Political debates are pretty useless anyway.
At best all you get to learn is how good a debater each candidate is. The only reason to watch a debate is the same reason people really watch NASCAR races - for the occasional flameout like Jan Brewer in the Arizona debate but even that wasn't a fatal crash as she went on to win the election anyhow...
Perhaps you and your data are already worth more than "50+ bucks/year."
Not with adblock installed and me only using their generic services - google sells eyeballs but they aren't selling mine. At best I'm worth a few bucks to them as part of trend analysis.
I think Google makes a good search engine and good products, and I am happy to "pay" my eyeballs and habits for that.
I wish they would offer a simple option to pay with money instead and gave a binding guarantee of absolutely no advertising, data mining, sharing or storage of log info beyond the barest minimum required for technical (troubleshooting, et al) reasons, like 7 days or so.
I'd gladly pay 50+ bucks/year for something like that with
Evil or not, it's pretty cool to see the US Government siding with consumer privacy against a major corporation. Is this a sign of an attitude change, or merely a sign that Google is (relatively) new and hasn't figured out who they need to bribe yet?
Or its just a cover for a secret agreement to feed everything they collect to a bunch of three letter agencies bypassing all judicial oversight.
(I've got a list if you really need examples).
A citation quality list would be a really good thing to have.
Sometimes you run into a dittohead or similarly brainwashed person who is just at the right place in their life where a little demonstration of their idol's hypocrisy is enough to open their eyes. It worked for Paul Haggis - director and writer of movies like Crash and Million Dollar Baby. 35 years under their spell but he was finally ready to see the truth.
How the fuck did you come to that conclusion from the parent post? He didn't say anything politically identifying. You turned his personal antidote into a full fledged assumption about his political views. No wonder you have seem to have no moral dilemma with your work; maybe you do.
Exactly my reaction - frostypiss doth protest too much.
It is the length of the run. Without amplification 10m is the practical limit for 1920x1080@60Hz and its way easy to exceed that if you route the cables so they don't run across the floor.
My only guess would be a super-videophile, syncing his monitor to multiples of film (24fps) and video? (30fps?). Otherwise... I don't understand either.
I started doing it because I have really long video cable runs (computers in the basement in order to isolate sound) and at the default 60Hz I got sparklies. It was either gamble on more expensive cables, reduce resolution or reduce "refresh."
Back in the CRT days, refresh was much more important because of phosphor fade and even the default 72Hz wasn't fast enough for me then, I usually ran at least 85Hz. So once I started fiddling around with it, I decided to see how low I could go before there were bothersome artefacts. Turned out the slowest my monitors could go still looked just as good as 60Hz so I left the settings turned all the way down.
I'm curious where you would suggest a hobbyist like myself get tech news, if not from Anand. It sounds like you have some better sources.
Anand's ok for news, as are almost all of them. Just not analysis. The problem is that the people who are able to do good analysis frequently have more lucrative things to do than blog about it on a regular basis. I've found that if you want expertise you have to find the niches. RISKS Digest is great for analysis of tech news with respect to, well, risks. The comp.arch usenet newsgroup can get pretty in-depth about chip and system architecture.
The one-stop shop for general tech analysis probably doesn't exist. Ars Technica may have the best non-niche coverage, but I'm not a regular reader so can't say how consistent they are. For the most part, I've given up looking for such a generalist website.
FWIW, I think Sparc chips have 10GbE controllers on-chip now too. No reason Intel/AMD couldn't do the same.
Running DisplayPort at 2560 × 1600 × 30 bpp @ 60 Hz [wikipedia.org] will require significantly less bandwidth than your DVI monitor calculation.
Plus, there's little reason to run at 60Hz. Anything other than video games could get along just fine at 30Hz or probably even 24Hz. I run two monitors at 48Hz and 30Hz respectively because that's as low as they will go and there is absolutely no perceptual difference (and I am super-sensitive to lag and judder in video so I'm confident I would notice).
the whole thing reads like someone a little too star struck about being allowed inside the fence.
Welcome to "citizen journalism" - I have the same problem with all of those tech websites like Anand and Tom's Hardware, etc. The writers are all just hobbyists and the best they can do is amateur level analysis.
It's not just tech sites though, go to somewhere like jihadwatch or most any anti-global-warming website and you'll get all kinds of pontification by people with zero big picture understanding - utterly lacking the ability to evaluate a piece of information with respect to any serious amount of context. The worst are the ones who don't even know enough to know how narrow their knowledge really is.
No, we live in a society that THINKS they have to pre-prepare texts and emails to warn students of this.
Ten to one the set of various emergency messages has been vetted by the school lawyers in an attempt to reduce liability.
I wonder what the odds are in fact of getting shot at school...
For all practical purposes, zero.
What, exactly, are they winning? Less viewers???
Duh! Winning!
If you were a warlock you'd know.