Sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation in the United States. If sales tax is 30%, that means the poorest of the poor are paying an effective tax rate of 30%, because they need to spend every penny they make in order to survive. Meanwhile, if you look at someone who makes $30 million a year, spends $2 million on taxable goods, and invests or saves the other $28 million, they end up paying an effective 2% tax rate.
It's obviously not "fair" to tax each person the same dollar amount. Why do people think it's "fair" to tax each person the same percentage? I'd call it most fair to impose the same financial burden on each person through taxes, which means that we're able to take a much, much larger percentage of a very rich person's income before they're seriously inconvenienced by it.
I doubt that it ties as well as you could do manually. I would be shocked if the self-tying was for anything other than the novelty value, or if these shoes saw a wide commercial release, instead of just being some publicity stunt.
I'm not so sure about that. They're buying a political insider; who's to say that they don't intend to apply his knowledge offensively? Who knows better than a DHS employee about how to bypass the regular legal system by abusing poorly-designed laws intended to be used against intenational terrorists? If Sony wants to get LulzSec declared a terrorist cell, they've bought the right man.
Second where does someones rights end? Why do the protesters rights to free speech matter more than peoples rights to use public transit? The protesters set out to shut down the stations. They have every right to protest outside the stations but once they interfere with people using the station they are violating others rights.
The police would be well within their rights to arrest people found to be breaking a law. However, they're not allowed to prevent people from assembling or exercising their free-speech rights, even if they suspect that these will lead to crimes being committed in the future.
You're absolutely correct: now people will remember the protest. They might be pissed off, but they'll know there was a protest, and there's a good chance they'll find out what the protest was about. It's a hell of a lot more effective than handing out pamphlets, or putting a card in BART's suggestion box.
Not true. The typical record label deal is essentially a loan: artists are given a lump sum of money up front, and then are under contract to produce and sell music. The record labels then take a cut of the sales, paying off the orginal forwarded money over time. From TFA:
Independent copyright experts, however, find that argument unconvincing. Not only have recording artists traditionally paid for the making of their records themselves, with advances from the record companies that are then charged against royalties, they are also exempted from both the obligations and benefits an employee typically expects.
“This is a situation where you have to use your own common sense,” said June M. Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at the Columbia University School of Law. “Where do they work? Do you pay Social Security for them? Do you withdraw taxes from a paycheck? Under those kinds of definitions it seems pretty clear that your standard kind of recording artist from the ’70s or ’80s is not an employee but an independent contractor.”
"Former Student" is defined as a student who currently attends the school where the teacher is employed and is under 18 years of age, for the purposes of this bill. You're in the clear.
I'm in agreement here; waiting until we have perfect information before making decisions just means that you'll never make any decisions. You take the information available, and weigh all of the options available now with their costs and benefits. I'm of the opinion that the cost of doing nothing and being wrong far outweighs the cost of acting and being wrong. Worst case in one case is deepening the recession, where worst case in the other is unreversable catastrophic climate change.
Both Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day are pretty active users of Google+. I know that these people aren't going to draw in your everyday user, but I'm sure entertained by Wesley Crusher posting videos of cats on the internet.
But the police need to recognize that you've got a G+ account, and figure out how to bullshit their way through the bureaucracy. I mean, maybe Google would do it, but they're not going to automate the process. All you've got to do is tell your lawyer, "My username is 'countertrolling', and my password is 'trustno1'. Get those files for me and put them somewhere safe."
And at this point we've devolved into an elaborate fuck-the-man revenge fantasy, with no actual bearing on reality. =(
Yeah, I realize that the feature isn't for everyone. It's tempered by the fact that I had to enable this functionality specifically, in addition to installing the Google+ app, and the fact that the uploads default to "private to me" when they're uploaded - I have to mark each one with whatever circles I want to share it with. Absolutely, there are risks and concerns, but, in my case, and for the time being, they're outweighed by the benefits.
The feature I love most about Google+ is that, as soon as I take a picture or a video on my Android phone, it is immediately uploaded to my Google+ account, without any further action on my part. Suddenly, having control of the device isn't enough to guarantee that you have control of the data.
These guys getting tracked down was pretty much inevitable; much as the releases are going to be. There is no way that they managed to nab everyone, and there's no way that one guy has the only copy of all of the information sitting physically in his house.
I really don't think so. Love 'em, hate 'em, whatever, but no one was kidding themselves into thinking that the feds wouldn't be tracking Anonymous/LulzSec down.
Certainly, but again, it's not going to be terribly difficult to find people who are unfamiliar with this evidence. In the grand scheme of things, no one knows or cares who LulzSec is, and no one reads their pastebins.
So by that reasoning it's ok for someone to go around beating people up because you suspect them of being corrupt but it's not ok to beat someone up because of their color, or gender, or color of the hair or because you were paid to?
Absolutely! Vigilante justice, while illegal and inappropriate where there is a legitimate justice system, is unequivocally morally superior to racially-motivated hate crimes. Do you really even have to ask this question?
Too bad. Bill Clinton is literally going to force you at gunpoint to paint your roof white. When he said you should paint your roof white, he actually meant must.
Slashdot Mirror
Sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation in the United States. If sales tax is 30%, that means the poorest of the poor are paying an effective tax rate of 30%, because they need to spend every penny they make in order to survive. Meanwhile, if you look at someone who makes $30 million a year, spends $2 million on taxable goods, and invests or saves the other $28 million, they end up paying an effective 2% tax rate.
It's obviously not "fair" to tax each person the same dollar amount. Why do people think it's "fair" to tax each person the same percentage? I'd call it most fair to impose the same financial burden on each person through taxes, which means that we're able to take a much, much larger percentage of a very rich person's income before they're seriously inconvenienced by it.
I doubt that it ties as well as you could do manually. I would be shocked if the self-tying was for anything other than the novelty value, or if these shoes saw a wide commercial release, instead of just being some publicity stunt.
I'm not so sure about that. They're buying a political insider; who's to say that they don't intend to apply his knowledge offensively? Who knows better than a DHS employee about how to bypass the regular legal system by abusing poorly-designed laws intended to be used against intenational terrorists? If Sony wants to get LulzSec declared a terrorist cell, they've bought the right man.
Second where does someones rights end? Why do the protesters rights to free speech matter more than peoples rights to use public transit? The protesters set out to shut down the stations. They have every right to protest outside the stations but once they interfere with people using the station they are violating others rights.
The police would be well within their rights to arrest people found to be breaking a law. However, they're not allowed to prevent people from assembling or exercising their free-speech rights, even if they suspect that these will lead to crimes being committed in the future.
They misspoke; it's actually Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So they're bound by federal law, not constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
You're absolutely correct: now people will remember the protest. They might be pissed off, but they'll know there was a protest, and there's a good chance they'll find out what the protest was about. It's a hell of a lot more effective than handing out pamphlets, or putting a card in BART's suggestion box.
Independent copyright experts, however, find that argument unconvincing. Not only have recording artists traditionally paid for the making of their records themselves, with advances from the record companies that are then charged against royalties, they are also exempted from both the obligations and benefits an employee typically expects.
“This is a situation where you have to use your own common sense,” said June M. Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at the Columbia University School of Law. “Where do they work? Do you pay Social Security for them? Do you withdraw taxes from a paycheck? Under those kinds of definitions it seems pretty clear that your standard kind of recording artist from the ’70s or ’80s is not an employee but an independent contractor.”
"Former Student" is defined as a student who currently attends the school where the teacher is employed and is under 18 years of age, for the purposes of this bill. You're in the clear.
I'm in agreement here; waiting until we have perfect information before making decisions just means that you'll never make any decisions. You take the information available, and weigh all of the options available now with their costs and benefits.
I'm of the opinion that the cost of doing nothing and being wrong far outweighs the cost of acting and being wrong. Worst case in one case is deepening the recession, where worst case in the other is unreversable catastrophic climate change.
Sony... making a reasonable point? NO! We hate sony! Game developers everywhere, make shitty 3D games just to spite Sony!
Both Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day are pretty active users of Google+. I know that these people aren't going to draw in your everyday user, but I'm sure entertained by Wesley Crusher posting videos of cats on the internet.
No, but I did find the "Stoer" a bit suspicious...
But the police need to recognize that you've got a G+ account, and figure out how to bullshit their way through the bureaucracy. I mean, maybe Google would do it, but they're not going to automate the process. All you've got to do is tell your lawyer, "My username is 'countertrolling', and my password is 'trustno1'. Get those files for me and put them somewhere safe."
And at this point we've devolved into an elaborate fuck-the-man revenge fantasy, with no actual bearing on reality. =(
Yeah, I realize that the feature isn't for everyone. It's tempered by the fact that I had to enable this functionality specifically, in addition to installing the Google+ app, and the fact that the uploads default to "private to me" when they're uploaded - I have to mark each one with whatever circles I want to share it with. Absolutely, there are risks and concerns, but, in my case, and for the time being, they're outweighed by the benefits.
The feature I love most about Google+ is that, as soon as I take a picture or a video on my Android phone, it is immediately uploaded to my Google+ account, without any further action on my part. Suddenly, having control of the device isn't enough to guarantee that you have control of the data.
I imagine if this guy was waving a gun around, instead of a video camera, he'd be dead right now.
These guys getting tracked down was pretty much inevitable; much as the releases are going to be. There is no way that they managed to nab everyone, and there's no way that one guy has the only copy of all of the information sitting physically in his house.
I really don't think so. Love 'em, hate 'em, whatever, but no one was kidding themselves into thinking that the feds wouldn't be tracking Anonymous/LulzSec down.
Welp, I guess I'm done with this copy of my music library. Guess I'd better recycle it...
Though we did attack the actual sun... that bitch was down all last night.
We've already determined that corporations have legal personhood; I want to see this corporation go to jail.
Certainly, but again, it's not going to be terribly difficult to find people who are unfamiliar with this evidence. In the grand scheme of things, no one knows or cares who LulzSec is, and no one reads their pastebins.
So by that reasoning it's ok for someone to go around beating people up because you suspect them of being corrupt but it's not ok to beat someone up because of their color, or gender, or color of the hair or because you were paid to?
Absolutely! Vigilante justice, while illegal and inappropriate where there is a legitimate justice system, is unequivocally morally superior to racially-motivated hate crimes. Do you really even have to ask this question?
You see, this is how a democracy works: You either agree with me, or don't vote.
Too bad. Bill Clinton is literally going to force you at gunpoint to paint your roof white. When he said you should paint your roof white, he actually meant must.