What I was trying to say was that sometimes people label something as a conspiracy theory too quickly or easily. You aren't being paranoid if it's true...
I see one person whining (well, probably more), about the 'whiners', and many others looking for the truth, or an explanation as to what really happened. Not what should have happened or could have, but what really did. This kind of thinking that any question into the legitamacy of anything is instantly bogus is absolutely ridiculous. We are supposed to question the legitamacy of our democracy, and once we fail to do so the system itself crumbles to the whim of tyrants. Although I wish I were, I'm not making this up, just look around.
again, I'd love to see where I said the only tax cut was for people earning more than a million dollars. And I'd love for you to ask those families how much that thousand dollars is going to put their kids to college or seriously improve their life. Meanwhile, the millionaire is paying significantly less dollars in taxes. Are you following?
Please read post for source. Basically, my best response is to simply ask you to read my post.
Or perhaps I just wasn't being as narrow-minded as yourself.
From Citizens for Tax Justice; but what would they know about taxes, right?
* From 2001 through 2005, the best-off one percent will receive "only" 19.8 percent of the Bush tax cuts.
* From 2006 through 2009, the share of the tax cuts going to the very rich jumps to 41 percent of the total.
* By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill--including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates--are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.
Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.
And the million dollar reference was for small businesses, sorry I wasn't more clear--but then again I can't help people from jumping to their own idiotic conclusions...
-It's easy to prove someone wrong when you don't understand what they are saying.-
I'd recommend reading my post and finding the part where I say "The ONLY tax cut" or anything like that...it's hard to do, try it.
I wanted to say, Mod Parent Up...but then I read that he said middle class had their taxes reduced...have you seen any of the Tax Cuts that went into effect?!? Earning 1 Million Dollars does not make you one of the every-day American middle-class...you can sink that into an interest bearing savings account (even at todays rates) and make a decent living for putting your clothes on and feeding yourself every day... what do you think is the middle class, the people eating crap out of the garbage?!? seriously...you have some problems...
are you a retard?!? Bush cut the taxes on people earning ONE MILLION dollars a year, plus. Does that makes sense to you. If you earn ONE MILLION DOLLARS a year, net or gross, you are not a middle-class citizen. I will sleep better tonight or tomorrow if you just say your IQ is less than 80, otherwise...WTF is wrong with you!
So you're saying Bush acted on the intelligence information he received? If so, you have some explaining to do to all of the people who died due to Bush's lack of intelligence. And I can back up my allegations, not just tell you that they're true repeatedly and smirk.
ever hear of second hand smoke...or do they just have to accept that as a consequence of standing on public property when someone else chooses to smoke? I'm not anti-smoking, but I'm not pro you-can't-stand-here-or-there either
I tried the first one and it didn't work, then the second one and it worked...but then it wouldn't refresh. Its crazy! I just don't know how they do it! *severe sarcasm*
Last time I checked if you got HIV, you die. If computers are infected by a new exploit, etc... then the programmers and OS authors can patch or improve the system (in theory anyway). Much like a flu vaccine that isn't lethal, but does in fact make you stronger and more resistant to future attacks. This isn't a new idea.
A state of communism has never been achieved by any nation, the way that Marx orginally laid it out to be. The path to communism and socialism was to begin in an advanced capitalist economy with a free market. As far as I know, soviet russia never had an advanced economy utilizing a free market, so you can't say Marx was wrong, since noone ever tried it. This doesn't necessarily mean he's right, but interesting to think about anyway.
Corruption is almost by definition inefficient, so corruption tends to get weeded out.
Sounds like you've been living in one of those hobbit-holes from a while ago. Unless you really think putting 3 pit-bulls in the same cage wouldn't make them use any means necessary to be the last one out.
Also, I wouldn't necessarily say corruption is inefficient...but it is certainly counter-productive in a free market and obviously immoral by definition.
What you are saying is true, and I realize my original post was not as in-depth as it should have been. The way I understand it is a smell is the interpretation of a certain chemical that comes in contact with your odor receptors in the nasal cavity. Change or improve this chemical slightly and it will be interpreted differently, hence becoming a new smell--with a new patent. I understand if you improve a fizzbin, there's still a fizzbin underneath; but a smell triggering compound is based on elements that cannot be patented, and I'm not sure how fine the line is when changing a substance (adding an OH group where there was sulfur or the like--new chemical structure, but the large chunk of the molecule would be the same), since the resultant chemical induces a different smell I would have to assume that it would be a new chemical compound and require its own patent. If I were to patent Fexofenadine hydrochloride, or dimethyl benzeneacetic acid hydrochloride, and you found a way to take the HCl group off and add something else, it would be a different drug and may react completely differently (or have a different smell). In that example, I do not believe you would need my permission, as I would be holding a patent for a chemical (or the process by which I make the chemical) with a HCl group that subsequently 'cures' allergies.
Slashdot Mirror
What I was trying to say was that sometimes people label something as a conspiracy theory too quickly or easily. You aren't being paranoid if it's true...
I see one person whining (well, probably more), about the 'whiners', and many others looking for the truth, or an explanation as to what really happened. Not what should have happened or could have, but what really did. This kind of thinking that any question into the legitamacy of anything is instantly bogus is absolutely ridiculous. We are supposed to question the legitamacy of our democracy, and once we fail to do so the system itself crumbles to the whim of tyrants. Although I wish I were, I'm not making this up, just look around.
By what measure? Percent per dollar, overall dollars? source?
here we go...percentages are a ratio, the percent of each dollar and the percent of overall dollars would be equal.
2% of one dollar = 2 cents.
2% of 100 dollars = 2 dollars.
2% of 1000 dollars = 20 dollars. and so on...
I hadn't realized you were having trouble with math as much as reading and comprehension. As for source, I think I already answered that, twice.
again, I'd love to see where I said the only tax cut was for people earning more than a million dollars. And I'd love for you to ask those families how much that thousand dollars is going to put their kids to college or seriously improve their life. Meanwhile, the millionaire is paying significantly less dollars in taxes. Are you following?
Please read post for source. Basically, my best response is to simply ask you to read my post.
Or perhaps I just wasn't being as narrow-minded as yourself.
From Citizens for Tax Justice; but what would they know about taxes, right?
* From 2001 through 2005, the best-off one percent will receive "only" 19.8 percent of the Bush tax cuts.
* From 2006 through 2009, the share of the tax cuts going to the very rich jumps to 41 percent of the total.
* By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill--including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates--are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.
Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.
And the million dollar reference was for small businesses, sorry I wasn't more clear--but then again I can't help people from jumping to their own idiotic conclusions...
-It's easy to prove someone wrong when you don't understand what they are saying.-
I'd recommend reading my post and finding the part where I say "The ONLY tax cut" or anything like that...it's hard to do, try it.
I wanted to say, Mod Parent Up...but then I read that he said middle class had their taxes reduced...have you seen any of the Tax Cuts that went into effect?!? Earning 1 Million Dollars does not make you one of the every-day American middle-class...you can sink that into an interest bearing savings account (even at todays rates) and make a decent living for putting your clothes on and feeding yourself every day ... what do you think is the middle class, the people eating crap out of the garbage?!? seriously...you have some problems...
are you a retard?!? Bush cut the taxes on people earning ONE MILLION dollars a year, plus. Does that makes sense to you. If you earn ONE MILLION DOLLARS a year, net or gross, you are not a middle-class citizen. I will sleep better tonight or tomorrow if you just say your IQ is less than 80, otherwise...WTF is wrong with you!
So you're saying Bush acted on the intelligence information he received? If so, you have some explaining to do to all of the people who died due to Bush's lack of intelligence. And I can back up my allegations, not just tell you that they're true repeatedly and smirk.
ever hear of second hand smoke...or do they just have to accept that as a consequence of standing on public property when someone else chooses to smoke? I'm not anti-smoking, but I'm not pro you-can't-stand-here-or-there either
I tried the first one and it didn't work, then the second one and it worked...but then it wouldn't refresh. Its crazy! I just don't know how they do it! *severe sarcasm*
Last time I checked if you got HIV, you die. If computers are infected by a new exploit, etc... then the programmers and OS authors can patch or improve the system (in theory anyway). Much like a flu vaccine that isn't lethal, but does in fact make you stronger and more resistant to future attacks. This isn't a new idea.
A state of communism has never been achieved by any nation, the way that Marx orginally laid it out to be. The path to communism and socialism was to begin in an advanced capitalist economy with a free market. As far as I know, soviet russia never had an advanced economy utilizing a free market, so you can't say Marx was wrong, since noone ever tried it. This doesn't necessarily mean he's right, but interesting to think about anyway.
Corruption is almost by definition inefficient, so corruption tends to get weeded out. Sounds like you've been living in one of those hobbit-holes from a while ago. Unless you really think putting 3 pit-bulls in the same cage wouldn't make them use any means necessary to be the last one out. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say corruption is inefficient...but it is certainly counter-productive in a free market and obviously immoral by definition.
What you are saying is true, and I realize my original post was not as in-depth as it should have been. The way I understand it is a smell is the interpretation of a certain chemical that comes in contact with your odor receptors in the nasal cavity. Change or improve this chemical slightly and it will be interpreted differently, hence becoming a new smell--with a new patent. I understand if you improve a fizzbin, there's still a fizzbin underneath; but a smell triggering compound is based on elements that cannot be patented, and I'm not sure how fine the line is when changing a substance (adding an OH group where there was sulfur or the like--new chemical structure, but the large chunk of the molecule would be the same), since the resultant chemical induces a different smell I would have to assume that it would be a new chemical compound and require its own patent. If I were to patent Fexofenadine hydrochloride, or dimethyl benzeneacetic acid hydrochloride, and you found a way to take the HCl group off and add something else, it would be a different drug and may react completely differently (or have a different smell). In that example, I do not believe you would need my permission, as I would be holding a patent for a chemical (or the process by which I make the chemical) with a HCl group that subsequently 'cures' allergies.
If you improve upon something that is already patented, you can apply for a new patent...its called patent law.