I would think people know that already. Isn't the general rule to pay 90% of your taxes and owe 10% which could be sitting in a saving account earning interest?
Some people take the safe approach out of fear.
On a side note, the burden of income taxes affects us all. If the government is by the people, for the people, and of the people, then why don't we just have them change it to something less regressive? A few ideas...
1. A national sales tax, but not on the essentials. Might as well make used items exempt too thus allowing the poor to avoid paying it.
2. An income tax exempting the first $100k of adjusted gross income. Tax everything at a flat rate over that. Adjusted by reason of not wanting to tax disability payments, malpractice payouts, insurance settlements, etc.
3. A gross wealth income tax. Large exemption bracket to exempt a lot of people. Own more than $5 million in property total and you hit the first bracket that has a rate greater than 0%. Bill Gates would be at the highest bracket obviously and would probably pay like 50% of his INCOME, whatever that may be.
I use Radio Shack batteries in my Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer. Although they need charged like once a week, it's better than replacing it with new batteries every 4 weeks.
I kind of wish I could try IE7 on my computer, but it's incompatible. I'm told it won't work with WinXP Pro SP1. I cannot use SP2. I tried twice before, and it created "unholy" problems as I would like to say.
So you're saying the blogger is incorrect about the compatability standards? If that's true, then there is no issue. However, if it is true that IE7 forces different standards, then I retain what I said about boycotting IE7.
Think of it this way. Take Microsoft for example. I think they only have timezone patches for some of the Windows versions.
Maybe a few years pass with the new DST rules, then the government pulls a 180 and decides to go back to the old DST. What if Microsoft decides not to support some of the versions they allowed to be patched before? They may cover WinXP right now, but who says they will 3-5 years from now?
This goes for other operating systems. Will any business care to bother to provide patches to redo it to the old version if we go back to the old version years from now?
I'm more concerning of a switch back to the old DST (the one we had in 2006) if they decide it's the energy saving isn't good enough. How difficult would it be to unpatch out systems?
I'm saying if Wikipedia starts putting advertisements on their site, it won't be much different from the rest of the encyclopedic sites on the Internet. Wikipedia is unique, and I hope they don't sell out.
You do realize that if there are advertisements on Wikipedia, it will be no different than those sites that are copying Wikipedia? By this I mean all those sites that ripped info from Wikipedia, you can see it in a Google search.
Asking for money isn't the same as selling advertising space.
There is probably a third option that we don't realize yet.
Sorry for the typo. I wish slashdot had a way to edit within the first 3 minutes if there are no other comments as of yet. "hey, I'll bulb" = "hey, I'll buy"
It all depends on what the bulbs sell for, and whether they will fit in every place that a normal bulb goes. Yes, that's correct, sometimes they don't fit.
If they sell those compact energy saving light bulbs for 99 cents, hey, I'll bulb (although not from them). If they sell if for $5+, it's not worth it, especially since you throw them away before they're dead (yes, dimming is a huge problem over the lifetime). Some stores do have sales on them, but it really matters as to what brand. Shop smart, and do the math.
If you give someone permission to do something that infringes on the copyright, it's illegal? Isn't that like saying that those who sell guns are liable for the crimes the buyers commit?
By the way, the copyright situation in this article probably falls in a grey area. I don't know enough details about it to make a decision over whether the judge was right or wrong.
Here's a though: How much trouble can a hotel get in if they allow a group of individuals to illegally gamble in one of the rooms they are renting to them?
I should clarify that at one point my beverage of choice was Gatorade if I'm not mistaken, but at $4-5 per gallon (128 ounces) versus $3-5 per half case (144 ounces of pop).
I haven't tried alcoholic beverages. As to whether any food I consumed ever had alcohol used in it, I have no idea.
I figure it's best for me to not try it. The disadventages outweight any potential benefits (isn't a glass of red wine a day suppose to be healthy or something?). I don't have to worry about the high cost of it. The same goes for smoking tobacco, which I haven't tried. Namely, my health is more important in this respect and I wouldn't want to drain any of my money into these kinds of things.
The only recreational drug I use is caffeine, and that would be when I drink cans of Coca~Cola Classic. Still, it's not addicting because it's an easy switch over to anything else, except everything else is expensive compared to pop, except bottled water.
Slashdot Mirror
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It is a progressive tax, not a regressive tax. I don't know why you're trying to claim otherwise.
I would think people know that already. Isn't the general rule to pay 90% of your taxes and owe 10% which could be sitting in a saving account earning interest?
Some people take the safe approach out of fear.
On a side note, the burden of income taxes affects us all. If the government is by the people, for the people, and of the people, then why don't we just have them change it to something less regressive? A few ideas...
1. A national sales tax, but not on the essentials. Might as well make used items exempt too thus allowing the poor to avoid paying it.
2. An income tax exempting the first $100k of adjusted gross income. Tax everything at a flat rate over that. Adjusted by reason of not wanting to tax disability payments, malpractice payouts, insurance settlements, etc.
3. A gross wealth income tax. Large exemption bracket to exempt a lot of people. Own more than $5 million in property total and you hit the first bracket that has a rate greater than 0%. Bill Gates would be at the highest bracket obviously and would probably pay like 50% of his INCOME, whatever that may be.
What about games that are not rated?
Violent video games do not create violent people. Instead, society ills create violent people, none of which are the video game's fault.
I highly doubt I will find one that fits my hand so perfectly though.
I use Radio Shack batteries in my Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer. Although they need charged like once a week, it's better than replacing it with new batteries every 4 weeks.
I kind of wish I could try IE7 on my computer, but it's incompatible. I'm told it won't work with WinXP Pro SP1. I cannot use SP2. I tried twice before, and it created "unholy" problems as I would like to say.
So you're saying the blogger is incorrect about the compatability standards? If that's true, then there is no issue. However, if it is true that IE7 forces different standards, then I retain what I said about boycotting IE7.
Why even bother supporting Microsoft's newer products?
No people in washing machines? So no one has seen that one episode of Family Guy where Peter rides in one?
Think of it this way. Take Microsoft for example. I think they only have timezone patches for some of the Windows versions.
Maybe a few years pass with the new DST rules, then the government pulls a 180 and decides to go back to the old DST. What if Microsoft decides not to support some of the versions they allowed to be patched before? They may cover WinXP right now, but who says they will 3-5 years from now?
This goes for other operating systems. Will any business care to bother to provide patches to redo it to the old version if we go back to the old version years from now?
I'm more concerning of a switch back to the old DST (the one we had in 2006) if they decide it's the energy saving isn't good enough. How difficult would it be to unpatch out systems?
I'm saying if Wikipedia starts putting advertisements on their site, it won't be much different from the rest of the encyclopedic sites on the Internet. Wikipedia is unique, and I hope they don't sell out.
You do realize that if there are advertisements on Wikipedia, it will be no different than those sites that are copying Wikipedia? By this I mean all those sites that ripped info from Wikipedia, you can see it in a Google search.
Asking for money isn't the same as selling advertising space.
There is probably a third option that we don't realize yet.
Sorry for the typo. I wish slashdot had a way to edit within the first 3 minutes if there are no other comments as of yet. "hey, I'll bulb" = "hey, I'll buy"
It all depends on what the bulbs sell for, and whether they will fit in every place that a normal bulb goes. Yes, that's correct, sometimes they don't fit.
If they sell those compact energy saving light bulbs for 99 cents, hey, I'll bulb (although not from them). If they sell if for $5+, it's not worth it, especially since you throw them away before they're dead (yes, dimming is a huge problem over the lifetime). Some stores do have sales on them, but it really matters as to what brand. Shop smart, and do the math.
It seems a lot of governments will try trimming the population through various methods to allow a better controlling of the "free" people.
By the way, has anyone considered that we may simply have limited free will?
I wonder. Why aren't they going to fix this for IE6?
...ponders if heavily flashing websites can cause seizures.
How long before the first class action suit in the U.S. over bad Web site design?
My reply: Didn't we already have the blind sue over something similar to this?
I think I'd prefer cats. At least they don't drink out of the toilet, and wouldn't be getting their toilet tongue all over the dishes.
If you give someone permission to do something that infringes on the copyright, it's illegal? Isn't that like saying that those who sell guns are liable for the crimes the buyers commit?
By the way, the copyright situation in this article probably falls in a grey area. I don't know enough details about it to make a decision over whether the judge was right or wrong.
Here's a though: How much trouble can a hotel get in if they allow a group of individuals to illegally gamble in one of the rooms they are renting to them?
I should clarify that at one point my beverage of choice was Gatorade if I'm not mistaken, but at $4-5 per gallon (128 ounces) versus $3-5 per half case (144 ounces of pop).
I haven't tried alcoholic beverages. As to whether any food I consumed ever had alcohol used in it, I have no idea.
I figure it's best for me to not try it. The disadventages outweight any potential benefits (isn't a glass of red wine a day suppose to be healthy or something?). I don't have to worry about the high cost of it. The same goes for smoking tobacco, which I haven't tried. Namely, my health is more important in this respect and I wouldn't want to drain any of my money into these kinds of things.
The only recreational drug I use is caffeine, and that would be when I drink cans of Coca~Cola Classic. Still, it's not addicting because it's an easy switch over to anything else, except everything else is expensive compared to pop, except bottled water.