Someone please remind me why BuzzFeed is being treated like a legitimate news agency? Their click-bait posts were sometimes funny, but their news is almost always biased and poorly done. This headline and story is a great example. I assume when they launched their "news" agency they just borrowed content writers from their existing pool of people and called them journalists. "Trump-style"? Really? It's about Uber and they take shot after shot at Trump. Then have the nerve to basically call Fox News all liars. The article writer, Ben Smith, is the "editor-in-chief" and to have this incoherent drivel coming from the guy at the top says all that needs to be said about BuzzFeed "News".
During and immediately after September 11, 2001. But is it really so easy to say such things that are antithetical to the free world? I get that it's hard to have to follow rules, but remember that when you're the one with black hood pulled over your head even though you know you didn't do anything wrong, it's you who asked for this Theresa May.
i see a bunch of people have replied but of the couple dozen or so that I read none seem to have pointed out the obvious. There is mounting SCRUTINY, not mounting evidence. It is a fact that the investigation has been ramped up, regardless of whether they find anything or not.
NY Times reported that was what happened at a board meeting. Doesn't make it true. Reportedly is far more accurate. Or according to a source. In fact, he could have actually said "can go fuck themselves" and the source providing the quote chose to sanitize it. Regardless, journalistic integrity nor capability isn't what I expect from Gizmodo or Slashdot, I just hate how abused the word "literally" has been for literally most of my adult life.
And then "well at least that's what we think he said." Oops. Your bombastic use of a word immediately discredits you. However, since it does appear that the article is saying that he actually said that, perhaps the term "reportedly" could have been used instead of literally.
It really is pretty exciting how close to atomic our transistors are becoming. We could conceivably create transistors that are smaller than some atoms. Regardless of what unit of measurement is used, it's really hard to understand the concept of how small that is.
not that you'll get this reply as an AC, but your post is exactly what I mean. If someone disagrees, what they say is garbage. Climate scientists are human. They are both fallible and subject to their own bias. From the swinging pendulum of historical claims of global cooling to global warming, the "best evidence based information we have" is exactly what I said. It is up for debate. But the blowhards on both sides don't debate. They make flashy statements which I have to believe are specifically designed just to rile people up. Statements like If it's said by the right, it's garbage.
Why not make an agreement that doesn't include funneling money? Because it isn't about climate. It's about money.
My statement was neither about pro or anti, it applies to all climate science that you hear about in the media. That includes those who say climate change isn't an issue. The blowhards on both sides make it impossible to have anything approaching a civil debate about a topic (what actions to take and why) which is absolutely and in every way up for debate.
Eventually they may be right though. And if they're right this time we're all doomed. Do you want us all to be doomed? Why do you hate us so much? And there's the counterargument in a nutshell...which I was trotting out for comedic effect only.
Cumulative doesn't matter. It matters where you are trending. This is being reported solely to try to bully the US into staying in a questionable agreement.
It is utter bullshit that we have to do this for it to work. United States turned the corner on its own. Yeah maybe some countries are behind us, but so? While pollution is generally accepted to be a "bad thing" there is NOT conclusive evidence that siphoning off money from US and other developed nations to SUPPOSEDLY combat pollution in developing nations is necessary to stop some cataclysmic climate change.
US taxes transactions because that is the most legitimate method of taxing things because that tax can be directly used to support that activity. Such as with Gas tax being used for road maintenance. Property taxes also follow this, though the way they are used tend to be more separated from the person who pays them. People who don't have kids often are annoyed when property tax increases are proposed as part of funding a school bond. These taxes recur because the services recur. Income tax is worse in some ways. Yes, part of it pays for general governmental services, but it starts to get even further separated from the person paying the tax. Did you incur government services by earning income? Maybe, maybe not. Income tax is a pretty vile Inheritance tax, however, is the worst of all. Somehow because I leave my estate to my children or whoever, the government gets to dip into it again? Despite all the transaction tax, property tax, and income tax that was already paid? The goal should not be how to tax sitting assets. Eventually those assets will be gone. Probably a lot sooner than they'll be taxed because who is going to keep money sitting in a US taxable place when they can invest in tax free shelters elsewhere?
This constitutional republic was founded and celebrates life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee of success either for people who are born here or who immigrate to this country. Your rights end where mine begin. And what I own is my rights. You have no right to it. John Q Public has no right to it. I have no right to what you own. I have no right to what John Q. Public owns. Yet you continue to discuss people's property as if it is available capital that anyone other than that owner has a right to it. Whether you are a citizen of the United States or not, you calling me an ignorant American because I firmly believe the opportunities afforded each citizen do not include the opportunity to take other people's stuff is the ultimate ignorance of the nature of the freedom we enjoy here. I worked hard to get where I am. I have goals and I reach them by continuing to work hard. Some goals I may never realize, but I'm never going to stop trying. But one thing I will never do is forcibly take from someone else's hard work to get there. So yes, unamerican and unconstitutional are both very appropriate here because the founders of this fine country saw that fundamental right of all people to life (don't murder each other), liberty (we're all free to live our lives), and pursuit of happiness (go after your dream) was what it takes to have a truly free country.
Our company has been around for three decades with essentially the same policy. While they do encourage people to make use of time off, this benefit is a selling point used by recruiters and the leadership in the company. They are proud of it. They track people's hours to watch for signs of burn out, and they have a leadership structure that keeps people open about their work/life related stress levels. But no one is required to take vacation. If you are taking more than 4 weeks off at once you do have to request special approval as that affects monthly forecast at least regionally, but beyond that I know of more than one person who has enough saved up to take over half the year off. And as I was coming from a company that did the usual "use it or lose it" annually thing, I was skeptical about how that would work. They do have to keep a certain portion of their operating profit available to cover the "liability" but I'll say that since I joined I have taken more of my accrued vacation than I ever did when it would expire. And I take it more regularly here and there. I work for a really great company, I am in no way disillusioned that what I have is common. I consider myself extremely fortunate.
I consider myself extremely lucky to work for a company that lets vacation to continue to accrue no matter how much gets accrued. None gets lost to the annual purge like many companies. Still have to plan ahead to actually use it in significant amounts, but it's an option to keep it till you would even have a whole year of vacation built up. And bonus if I really want to I can "sell" it back to the company and get cash instead.
Maybe I'm seeing things or maybe it's just an artistic rendering, but I see bezel all the way around, not just the big chunk on the bottom. But hey, Lonzo...I mean Andy, you created a phone...something I have never done... so good for you!
So let's say that all of that 80% of the "capital" is inherited money. Guess what. The federal tax will hit that once and then it's "gone". Or are you going to suggest they pilfer dollars that have already been taxed? Because that would be a big load of horse shit. Yeah it is essential because it's NOT A SUSTAINABLE MODEL. Short of finding new, UNAMERICAN and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ways take more of that money, it is a failure before it even starts.
How is the US system catastrophically failing? And Sweden and Switzerland researching something means exactly nothing. The trickle down doesn't have to work 100%, it just means leave people's money alone and let them do with it what they want. What fails with a high rate is literally any government program meant to "help" the free market along.
You're already talking less than 1% of people. The 1% that commonly gets berated for being in the 1% are comprised of mostly people who work. If you look at just those who don't work and didn't work for their money that's something way less than 1%. I have no reference to look up to get that actual number, but logically it would be a small fraction of the 1%. And just because they inherited it doesn't make that fair game for UBI or whatever scheme the government has to tax it away. And those who do work for their 1% status often took risks to get there. A baseball player who now makes multiple millions of dollars could also have failed at the minor league level or never even made it that far. There are limited number of rosters spots and to make it you have to work your ass off to be better than other people. Not everyone can be a multi-million dollar a year baseball player. The same applies to every job and life in general. The jobs out there are all options for each person, but they have to go after the one they want. Don't like it where you ended up? Choose to work for something different. Something more. If you don't achieve it, well at least you tried and didn't aspire to legally compel others to make it happen for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone please remind me why BuzzFeed is being treated like a legitimate news agency? Their click-bait posts were sometimes funny, but their news is almost always biased and poorly done. This headline and story is a great example. I assume when they launched their "news" agency they just borrowed content writers from their existing pool of people and called them journalists. "Trump-style"? Really? It's about Uber and they take shot after shot at Trump. Then have the nerve to basically call Fox News all liars. The article writer, Ben Smith, is the "editor-in-chief" and to have this incoherent drivel coming from the guy at the top says all that needs to be said about BuzzFeed "News".
I'm very happy to see it's not that easy to say such things. Even if that wasn't the reason for such a loss of power, it had to be part of it.
During and immediately after September 11, 2001. But is it really so easy to say such things that are antithetical to the free world? I get that it's hard to have to follow rules, but remember that when you're the one with black hood pulled over your head even though you know you didn't do anything wrong, it's you who asked for this Theresa May.
faction
i see a bunch of people have replied but of the couple dozen or so that I read none seem to have pointed out the obvious. There is mounting SCRUTINY, not mounting evidence. It is a fact that the investigation has been ramped up, regardless of whether they find anything or not.
We shall see. If there are actual notable abuses, then perhaps net neutrality will gain some traction again.
More power to you for making a buck on this type of thing, but I am betting you get a lot of hate messages about this.
NY Times reported that was what happened at a board meeting. Doesn't make it true. Reportedly is far more accurate. Or according to a source. In fact, he could have actually said "can go fuck themselves" and the source providing the quote chose to sanitize it. Regardless, journalistic integrity nor capability isn't what I expect from Gizmodo or Slashdot, I just hate how abused the word "literally" has been for literally most of my adult life.
The gizmodo article quotes a NY Times article which means it reportedly was said at a board meeting.
And then "well at least that's what we think he said." Oops. Your bombastic use of a word immediately discredits you. However, since it does appear that the article is saying that he actually said that, perhaps the term "reportedly" could have been used instead of literally.
It really is pretty exciting how close to atomic our transistors are becoming. We could conceivably create transistors that are smaller than some atoms. Regardless of what unit of measurement is used, it's really hard to understand the concept of how small that is.
not that you'll get this reply as an AC, but your post is exactly what I mean. If someone disagrees, what they say is garbage. Climate scientists are human. They are both fallible and subject to their own bias. From the swinging pendulum of historical claims of global cooling to global warming, the "best evidence based information we have" is exactly what I said. It is up for debate. But the blowhards on both sides don't debate. They make flashy statements which I have to believe are specifically designed just to rile people up. Statements like If it's said by the right, it's garbage.
Why not make an agreement that doesn't include funneling money? Because it isn't about climate. It's about money.
My statement was neither about pro or anti, it applies to all climate science that you hear about in the media. That includes those who say climate change isn't an issue. The blowhards on both sides make it impossible to have anything approaching a civil debate about a topic (what actions to take and why) which is absolutely and in every way up for debate.
Eventually they may be right though. And if they're right this time we're all doomed. Do you want us all to be doomed? Why do you hate us so much? And there's the counterargument in a nutshell...which I was trotting out for comedic effect only.
That's climate science for you. Politics and grandstanding. Any hope of finding reality is lost in all that.
Cumulative doesn't matter. It matters where you are trending. This is being reported solely to try to bully the US into staying in a questionable agreement.
And yet still pays more than anyone else.
It is utter bullshit that we have to do this for it to work. United States turned the corner on its own. Yeah maybe some countries are behind us, but so? While pollution is generally accepted to be a "bad thing" there is NOT conclusive evidence that siphoning off money from US and other developed nations to SUPPOSEDLY combat pollution in developing nations is necessary to stop some cataclysmic climate change.
US taxes transactions because that is the most legitimate method of taxing things because that tax can be directly used to support that activity. Such as with Gas tax being used for road maintenance. Property taxes also follow this, though the way they are used tend to be more separated from the person who pays them. People who don't have kids often are annoyed when property tax increases are proposed as part of funding a school bond. These taxes recur because the services recur. Income tax is worse in some ways. Yes, part of it pays for general governmental services, but it starts to get even further separated from the person paying the tax. Did you incur government services by earning income? Maybe, maybe not. Income tax is a pretty vile Inheritance tax, however, is the worst of all. Somehow because I leave my estate to my children or whoever, the government gets to dip into it again? Despite all the transaction tax, property tax, and income tax that was already paid? The goal should not be how to tax sitting assets. Eventually those assets will be gone. Probably a lot sooner than they'll be taxed because who is going to keep money sitting in a US taxable place when they can invest in tax free shelters elsewhere?
This constitutional republic was founded and celebrates life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee of success either for people who are born here or who immigrate to this country. Your rights end where mine begin. And what I own is my rights. You have no right to it. John Q Public has no right to it. I have no right to what you own. I have no right to what John Q. Public owns. Yet you continue to discuss people's property as if it is available capital that anyone other than that owner has a right to it. Whether you are a citizen of the United States or not, you calling me an ignorant American because I firmly believe the opportunities afforded each citizen do not include the opportunity to take other people's stuff is the ultimate ignorance of the nature of the freedom we enjoy here. I worked hard to get where I am. I have goals and I reach them by continuing to work hard. Some goals I may never realize, but I'm never going to stop trying. But one thing I will never do is forcibly take from someone else's hard work to get there. So yes, unamerican and unconstitutional are both very appropriate here because the founders of this fine country saw that fundamental right of all people to life (don't murder each other), liberty (we're all free to live our lives), and pursuit of happiness (go after your dream) was what it takes to have a truly free country.
Our company has been around for three decades with essentially the same policy. While they do encourage people to make use of time off, this benefit is a selling point used by recruiters and the leadership in the company. They are proud of it. They track people's hours to watch for signs of burn out, and they have a leadership structure that keeps people open about their work/life related stress levels. But no one is required to take vacation. If you are taking more than 4 weeks off at once you do have to request special approval as that affects monthly forecast at least regionally, but beyond that I know of more than one person who has enough saved up to take over half the year off. And as I was coming from a company that did the usual "use it or lose it" annually thing, I was skeptical about how that would work. They do have to keep a certain portion of their operating profit available to cover the "liability" but I'll say that since I joined I have taken more of my accrued vacation than I ever did when it would expire. And I take it more regularly here and there. I work for a really great company, I am in no way disillusioned that what I have is common. I consider myself extremely fortunate.
I consider myself extremely lucky to work for a company that lets vacation to continue to accrue no matter how much gets accrued. None gets lost to the annual purge like many companies. Still have to plan ahead to actually use it in significant amounts, but it's an option to keep it till you would even have a whole year of vacation built up. And bonus if I really want to I can "sell" it back to the company and get cash instead.
Maybe I'm seeing things or maybe it's just an artistic rendering, but I see bezel all the way around, not just the big chunk on the bottom. But hey, Lonzo...I mean Andy, you created a phone...something I have never done... so good for you!
So let's say that all of that 80% of the "capital" is inherited money. Guess what. The federal tax will hit that once and then it's "gone". Or are you going to suggest they pilfer dollars that have already been taxed? Because that would be a big load of horse shit. Yeah it is essential because it's NOT A SUSTAINABLE MODEL. Short of finding new, UNAMERICAN and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ways take more of that money, it is a failure before it even starts.
How is the US system catastrophically failing? And Sweden and Switzerland researching something means exactly nothing. The trickle down doesn't have to work 100%, it just means leave people's money alone and let them do with it what they want. What fails with a high rate is literally any government program meant to "help" the free market along.
You're already talking less than 1% of people. The 1% that commonly gets berated for being in the 1% are comprised of mostly people who work. If you look at just those who don't work and didn't work for their money that's something way less than 1%. I have no reference to look up to get that actual number, but logically it would be a small fraction of the 1%. And just because they inherited it doesn't make that fair game for UBI or whatever scheme the government has to tax it away. And those who do work for their 1% status often took risks to get there. A baseball player who now makes multiple millions of dollars could also have failed at the minor league level or never even made it that far. There are limited number of rosters spots and to make it you have to work your ass off to be better than other people. Not everyone can be a multi-million dollar a year baseball player. The same applies to every job and life in general. The jobs out there are all options for each person, but they have to go after the one they want. Don't like it where you ended up? Choose to work for something different. Something more. If you don't achieve it, well at least you tried and didn't aspire to legally compel others to make it happen for you.