No, it only has that effect on very stupid people. Tax rates only apply to the portion of taxable income within the corresponding tax bracket. For example, of we tax 10% of taxable income in the bracket from $0 to $100, and 20% in the bracket from $100.01 up, a person making $100 (and thus paying $10 in tax) would be wise to try to make more; if he managed to make $200 in taxable income, he would only pay $30 in tax: $10 for the first hundred and $20 for the second hundred. This means that instead of having only $90 left, he has $170 -- if he ever cared about money, the higher tax would not have discouraged him. You seem to think that the higher rate would apply to all income, rather than only the income in the higher bracket, but if we refer back to the top of the paragraph, I guess we know where that leaves you.
Let's see, your base your premise and conclusion with an ad hominem attack....and you think I should really leave some credibility to you there in the middle? The point that you completely missed is that no one agrees what it means to be "rich" and sooner or later the bar will get lowered enough so that everyone will get punished. We're not talking about your trivial examples however, we are talking about going back to flawed ideas of the pre-Reagan rates of %70, and if we go back a bit further to %90.
Should we give tax breaks to people who create jobs (especially 6 figure salaries), tax revenue and wealth?
No, because it usually doesn't cause them to do proportionately more of what we want out of them. We need industrious people, not rich layabouts. Industrious people who get rich have a bad habit of becoming (or engendering) layabouts. Keep them from getting rich, and we get a better result.
What you want out of them is a resource to be exploited in the form of institutionalized thievery so that you and your ilk can be layabouts, or funding of programs that are in direct opposition to their freedoms. If someone can retire at age 25 and not be a wage slave until 65, don't they deserve to reap the fruits of their labors without being your shakeable money tree?
You are just going to create a pursuer/evader problem with this brain-dead "tax the rich" panacea.
What makes someone rich? Pick a number. During the last US election cycle the number of what constitutes rich varied in values (the ones that came to mind were 40k, 250k, 1mil and 5mil). Anyone who is near or at the limit of being thrown into a higher tax bracket because of an idea like yours is going to do the most natural response: Keep themselves just shy of that limit. The reason "tax the rich" doesn't work is because it creates incentives for people becoming underachievers.
What matters to most people is that there are jobs available and they don't suck. Should we give tax breaks to people who create jobs (especially 6 figure salaries), tax revenue and wealth? I think so.
1) They pay annual business taxes. 2) They pay their employees who have taxes taken out of their salaries. 3) The employees pay taxes on the products they buy.
If your state wants taxes, and you are a lawful taxpayer, you declare it on your annual return. Why should a private company shoulder the work for the state to act as their tax collector aside to their roll as a tax contributor?
How much do you want to punish them? How badly do you want to bring them down to your level?
I feel strongly that your philosophy and those who agree with you wrongly demonizes the rich (maybe out of spite, or jealousy) and attempts to mete out vigilante justice through taxation.
UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has declared the same: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No man shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily." "[The Death] penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court" – ICCPR Articles 6.1 and 6.2.[1
2. "So what?" you say. We've got this important principle called "Rule of Law". If you cannot comprehend this simple fact then you have huge huge problems. The way it was handled was *not* right, let alone legal.
> I don't care if it was an ordered assasination, or he went down fighting. It just makes no difference.
There are right and wrong ways to do things -- within the bounds of the morals that we should be holding ourselves to. He could have been easily captured because he was unarmed but since the president didn't want to deal with "legal hassles", we have now affirmed our stance on extra-judicial killings. Executing an unarmed mass-murderer by an extra-judicial killing however gratifying it may feel is not the American way.
IANAL but the Military Commissions Act of 2006 would loosely put him as an 'alien unlawful enemy combatant' One point I am trying to make is that we should be working within our existing laws
While you may sleep well at night knowing he is dead, I am awake at night worrying about how our government is going to behave next.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” -- Thomas Jefferson
There are a growing number of people now going off-grid, reusing shipping containers as apartments and homes, and making mini homes that by all definitions are really either closets, sheds, pods, or coffins. There are a number of prisons and former insane asylums that have been converted into hotels and apartments -- so repurposing of existing structures isn't going to waste.
The reasons are varied (cost, green/pro-environment), but at the end of the day how can you convince the average person that it is a worthwhile endeavor to glorify prison-like living, living in a sardine can, etc?
Apple's tools and APIs are as crude as the 1987 GUI code they were based on. The platform is a PITA the work on, but most people do it because the money is good. It takes days to do some of the same things by hand that a modern GUI builder for Flash or Java could whip up in a few mins.
By the reasonable person principle, users expect Apple devices to run Flash and Java. This same logic is why people expect when they order a burger for it to come with pickles, onions,and ketchup as a DEFAULT.
Apple breaks the rule of least astonishment. Apple users are astonished (I may also add offended, insulted and their feelings are hurt because they are so emo) when their Apple device doesn't part oceans for them and do everything in the whole wide world. Since Flash isn't as hard as parting oceans, it should be in there and Just Work (tm).
The Jews would do what they did in the Pale Settlement: bribe the local officials for equal treatment as the gentlies, and as soon as they possibly could; find their way to another country.
Illegal immigrants do not have constitutional rights. Legal immigrants do. Drivers licenses are the property of the state and must be surrendered on demand -- this also may be true of the green cards and visas.
At their homes, telecommuting, and in a room devoid of small children and/or managers, with their phones off so they can stay focused and get their work done.
You are aware that the FCC, the grantor of that amateur radio license is another government organization, right?
Coincidentally, you are supposed to also have a license to use GMRS bands for walkie-talkies, but that has given rise to "bubble-pack pirates" who buy them and don't lawfully register. I would suspect if said situation occurs, more people would be more like "bubble-pack pirates" in their use of packet radio for internet communications.
That same logic keeps battered women staying with their husbands/boyfriends because they feel that they can't and shouldn't do any better. It seems far worse a moral sin to have people suggest he give anything to charity. Telling other people how to live their lives is the biggest wrong one can do. He is in a no-win situation, but if he didn't want the attention/fame he could have published his proof anonymously -- but he may have had a different goal by not doing that, or perhaps he didn't even consider that as an option.
If the problem is as important as Clay Mathematics Institute purports it to be, by merely giving the proof to them has he not committed an act of charity to mankind?
I'm not underestimating the complexity. I'm calling them out for trivializing the existence of V&V and then implying there is basically nothing they could have done about it.
Spacecraft have a higher rate of failure (space shuttle 1 in 65, or J2 rocket based engines 1 in 300) , they are also not as prone to collisions with other similarly designed vehicles.
>The problem is that there is ALWAYS a variable you don't account for, and that means the possibility of failure.
This is precisely why you need complete code coverage, and need to test all possible code paths. I am not saying that it is easy, and it may be quite expensive, but when lives are on the line, thats the price to pay as a cost for being in business. TCO and SDLC are expensive.
Both Toyota and NHTSB are on the hook for being responsible parties that should have caught this and are shirking their responsibility by implying that it is intractable.
From Wikipedia: Verification and Validation (V&V) is the process of checking that a software system meets specifications and that it fulfils its intended purpose.
Since they already said the software is "rigorously tested" does this mean Toyota doesn't have specifications, or that their software doesn't fulfill its intended purpose?
Their software sounds like its written as a monolithic device driver (NVidia unified device model) comes to mind. Perhaps they should be looking for best practices in TDD, as well as dropping support for older models as time passes on.
IANAL, but everyone has to be on their toes these days.
Phoenix Online Studios appears to be a hobbyist collective, and as such is not afforded legal protections of a corporation (Inc., LLC, S-Corp etc) -- an entity protected by the law to pursue profit-making ventures. It's not surprising that they caved to the cease-and-desist because the individuals in the collective could be named and pursued vigorously in a lawsuit.
If they were a for-profit company and entered into an agreement with Vivendi and Activision failed to honor it, they could be sued for breach of contract. Yes, yes, there was a fan license granted by Vivendi whose terms remain unpublished. Chances are there is a severability clause that they signed to and forgot about. Oops.
People who give freely into free and open source projects have to really understand that they are giving away their labors as charity -- but more importantly they have little recourse and motivation to dig their heels in without having the protections of a corporation trying to make a profit.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it only has that effect on very stupid people. Tax rates only apply to the portion of taxable income within the corresponding tax bracket. For example, of we tax 10% of taxable income in the bracket from $0 to $100, and 20% in the bracket from $100.01 up, a person making $100 (and thus paying $10 in tax) would be wise to try to make more; if he managed to make $200 in taxable income, he would only pay $30 in tax: $10 for the first hundred and $20 for the second hundred. This means that instead of having only $90 left, he has $170 -- if he ever cared about money, the higher tax would not have discouraged him. You seem to think that the higher rate would apply to all income, rather than only the income in the higher bracket, but if we refer back to the top of the paragraph, I guess we know where that leaves you.
Let's see, your base your premise and conclusion with an ad hominem attack....and you think I should really leave some credibility to you there in the middle? The point that you completely missed is that no one agrees what it means to be "rich" and sooner or later the bar will get lowered enough so that everyone will get punished. We're not talking about your trivial examples however, we are talking about going back to flawed ideas of the pre-Reagan rates of %70, and if we go back a bit further to %90.
Should we give tax breaks to people who create jobs (especially 6 figure salaries), tax revenue and wealth?
No, because it usually doesn't cause them to do proportionately more of what we want out of them. We need industrious people, not rich layabouts. Industrious people who get rich have a bad habit of becoming (or engendering) layabouts. Keep them from getting rich, and we get a better result.
What you want out of them is a resource to be exploited in the form of institutionalized thievery so that you and your ilk can be layabouts, or funding of programs that are in direct opposition to their freedoms. If someone can retire at age 25 and not be a wage slave until 65, don't they deserve to reap the fruits of their labors without being your shakeable money tree?
You are just going to create a pursuer/evader problem with this brain-dead "tax the rich" panacea.
What makes someone rich? Pick a number. During the last US election cycle the number of what constitutes rich varied in values (the ones that came to mind were 40k, 250k, 1mil and 5mil). Anyone who is near or at the limit of being thrown into a higher tax bracket because of an idea like yours is going to do the most natural response: Keep themselves just shy of that limit. The reason "tax the rich" doesn't work is because it creates incentives for people becoming underachievers.
Around 2005 Amazon was on a hiring blitz trying to hire people. They are also doing it again with another 1900 jobs.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014412815_amazon06.html
What matters to most people is that there are jobs available and they don't suck. Should we give tax breaks to people who create jobs (especially 6 figure salaries), tax revenue and wealth? I think so.
1) They pay annual business taxes.
2) They pay their employees who have taxes taken out of their salaries.
3) The employees pay taxes on the products they buy.
If your state wants taxes, and you are a lawful taxpayer, you declare it on your annual return. Why should a private company shoulder the work for the state to act as their tax collector aside to their roll as a tax contributor?
How much do you want to punish them? How badly do you want to bring them down to your level?
I feel strongly that your philosophy and those who agree with you wrongly demonizes the rich (maybe out of spite, or jealousy) and attempts to mete out vigilante justice through taxation.
"The Pirate Bay - The world's most resilient bittorrent site".
Resilient. Not so much, eh?
1. Take your pick
UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has declared the same:
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No man shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily."
"[The Death] penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court" – ICCPR Articles 6.1 and 6.2.[1
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/executions/index.htm
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rapporteur/srchr.htm
2. "So what?" you say. We've got this important principle called "Rule of Law". If you cannot comprehend this simple fact then you have huge huge problems. The way it was handled was *not* right, let alone legal.
> I don't care if it was an ordered assasination, or he went down fighting. It just makes no difference.
There are right and wrong ways to do things -- within the bounds of the morals that we should be holding ourselves to. He could have been easily captured because he was unarmed but since the president didn't want to deal with "legal hassles", we have now affirmed our stance on extra-judicial killings. Executing an unarmed mass-murderer by an extra-judicial killing however gratifying it may feel is not the American way.
IANAL but the Military Commissions Act of 2006 would loosely put him as an 'alien unlawful enemy combatant' One point I am trying to make is that we should be working within our existing laws
While you may sleep well at night knowing he is dead, I am awake at night worrying about how our government is going to behave next.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” -- Thomas Jefferson
There are a growing number of people now going off-grid, reusing shipping containers as apartments and homes, and making mini homes that by all definitions are really either closets, sheds, pods, or coffins. There are a number of prisons and former insane asylums that have been converted into hotels and apartments -- so repurposing of existing structures isn't going to waste.
The reasons are varied (cost, green/pro-environment), but at the end of the day how can you convince the average person that it is a worthwhile endeavor to glorify prison-like living, living in a sardine can, etc?
The 1990s called and Nintendo wants their Virtual Boy back.
Yep, and increases your chances getting ALS every time.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435850832715586.html
Have you not heard? These are just lies so that employers can keep wages down.
It's not as bad as everyone says.
Apple's tools and APIs are as crude as the 1987 GUI code they were based on. The platform is a PITA the work on, but most people do it because the money is good. It takes days to do some of the same things by hand that a modern GUI builder for Flash or Java could whip up in a few mins.
By the reasonable person principle, users expect Apple devices to run Flash and Java.
This same logic is why people expect when they order a burger for it to come with pickles, onions,and ketchup as a DEFAULT.
Apple breaks the rule of least astonishment. Apple users are astonished (I may also add offended, insulted and their feelings are hurt because they are so emo) when their Apple device doesn't part oceans for them and do everything in the whole wide world. Since Flash isn't as hard as parting oceans, it should be in there and Just Work (tm).
> In most of those countries, my appearance and dress target me as a foreigner, so it is very easy to pick me out.
And this is how most people pick out terrorists too. If they don't look light enough and wear a turban or a veil they are flagged as well.
The Jews would do what they did in the Pale Settlement: bribe the local officials for equal treatment as the gentlies, and as soon as they possibly could; find their way to another country.
The net result is the same.
Illegal immigrants do not have constitutional rights. Legal immigrants do.
Drivers licenses are the property of the state and must be surrendered on demand -- this also may be true of the green cards and visas.
AZ has the 10th Amendment on their side.
At their homes, telecommuting, and in a room devoid of small children and/or managers, with their phones off so they can stay focused and get their work done.
You are aware that the FCC, the grantor of that amateur radio license is another government organization, right?
Coincidentally, you are supposed to also have a license to use GMRS bands for walkie-talkies, but that has given rise to "bubble-pack pirates" who buy them and don't lawfully register. I would suspect if said situation occurs, more people would be more like "bubble-pack pirates" in their use of packet radio for internet communications.
I agree with the rest of your intent.
Right, but Dolfuss' ended in an assassination during a coup d'état, the July Putsch. Hardly the example we wish to set for our president to befall.
In spirit tho, you are correct about the granting of power. The more powers granted and laws enacted, the higher risk of insurrection.
They're not throwing up gang signs, they're using sign language, you insensitive clod.
A proud people they are, but they don't have special flags in their autos to show us how much better they think they are than us.
Oh, and on a more serious note, most people with disabilities do just want to blend in and be "normal" like everyone else.
That same logic keeps battered women staying with their husbands/boyfriends because they feel that they can't and shouldn't do any better.
It seems far worse a moral sin to have people suggest he give anything to charity. Telling other people how to live their lives is the biggest wrong one can do.
He is in a no-win situation, but if he didn't want the attention/fame he could have published his proof anonymously -- but he may have had a different goal by not doing that, or perhaps he didn't even consider that as an option.
If the problem is as important as Clay Mathematics Institute purports it to be, by merely giving the proof to them has he not committed an act of charity to mankind?
Now that you know what the real demon is, can we get our trans fats back?
You might be onto something. See if they can get a healthcare bill down to a single tweet.
How about quit allowing drug manufacturers to release drugs with no more than 2 side effects?
What ever happened to "Do no harm"?
The problem isn't fitting the contraindications into a tweet, its having too many contraindications.
I'm not underestimating the complexity. I'm calling them out for trivializing the existence of V&V and then implying there is basically nothing they could have done about it.
Spacecraft have a higher rate of failure (space shuttle 1 in 65, or J2 rocket based engines 1 in 300) , they are also not as prone to collisions with other similarly designed vehicles.
>The problem is that there is ALWAYS a variable you don't account for, and that means the possibility of failure.
This is precisely why you need complete code coverage, and need to test all possible code paths. I am not saying that it is easy, and it may be quite expensive, but when lives are on the line, thats the price to pay as a cost for being in business. TCO and SDLC are expensive.
Both Toyota and NHTSB are on the hook for being responsible parties that should have caught this and are shirking their responsibility by implying that it is intractable.
From Wikipedia:
Verification and Validation (V&V) is the process of checking that a software system meets specifications and that it fulfils its intended purpose.
Since they already said the software is "rigorously tested" does this mean Toyota doesn't have specifications, or that their software doesn't fulfill its intended purpose?
Their software sounds like its written as a monolithic device driver (NVidia unified device model) comes to mind. Perhaps they should be looking for best practices in TDD, as well as dropping support for older models as time passes on.
You don't know the difference between fact and opinion.
IANAL, but everyone has to be on their toes these days.
Phoenix Online Studios appears to be a hobbyist collective, and as such is not afforded legal protections of a corporation (Inc., LLC, S-Corp etc) -- an entity protected by the law to pursue profit-making ventures. It's not surprising that they caved to the cease-and-desist because the individuals in the collective could be named and pursued vigorously in a lawsuit.
If they were a for-profit company and entered into an agreement with Vivendi and Activision failed to honor it, they could be sued for breach of contract. Yes, yes, there was a fan license granted by Vivendi whose terms remain unpublished. Chances are there is a severability clause that they signed to and forgot about. Oops.
People who give freely into free and open source projects have to really understand that they are giving away their labors as charity -- but more importantly they have little recourse and motivation to dig their heels in without having the protections of a corporation trying to make a profit.