Most likely, the truth is that it's just too expensive for them to prosecute little things like that, particularly when there were no actual damages that your credit card company was trying to recoup (which would be necessary anyway for a civil suit).
It means that solar radiation hitting the earth's magnetic field acts like waves hitting the walls of your bathtub when you turn the faucet on. You get waves, not a ridge of water at the wall.
In short, these bowshocks will shrivel your sack if you stay in to observe them too long.
Check the f-ing link before calling bullshit. "About normal" -- what does that mean? Within a couple percent? Sure, but if he's going to say 33%, then it calculates out to the numbers I posted.
FYI, the numbers I posted included SSWH, M/CWH, and FICA. Really, if you're going to dispute wat I wrote, why didn't you bother checking the link I posted to support my numbers?
Son, I've got the rad, the gnarly, and the tubular to myself every day of the week, yet my gas mileage still sucks.
Seriously, though, OP has a point -- but it's easily possible to factor in wind resistance while maintaining constant test conditions across models. If you want to include wind resistance (since aerodynamics affect gas mileage, why not use an exhaust sniffer + rollers in a wind tunnel?
Temperature also affects tire pressure. Until you've driven quite a bit on a cold day, your tires are probably underinflated, thus decreasing your fuel efficiency.
(They could have fixed this by broadcasting BBC programmes scrambled and requiring a viewing card; the transition to digital television would have been the perfect opportunity to introduce this. I am currently awaiting a response from my MP as to why this was not done.)
I hope you have several good books and a grain of salt handy, since I'm sure you're in for quite a wait before you get some silly justification. Why would your MP answer with the truth, which is, "That would reduce revenues to the point that BBC programming would have to be cut drastically"?
Why are you spending $1200/mo on rent when you only take home $2400/mo? That's spending above your means. You should only be spending 1/3 of your total family take-home on rent, max -- preferably 25%. I've been there -- I know it sucks to realize that you have to live in a crappy aprtment for a while. It was tough for me to acknowledge that I was not middle-class, and couldn't afford a middle-class lifestyle (or a middle-class apartment). Is your girlfriend chipping in some? If so, are you including that into your calculations?
Girlfriend and 2 kids.
Legal dependents? If not, that's why too much is being taken out -- if you're supporting those kids and don't claim them, then you're getting the shaft. It's not your employer's mistake, it's yours.
As for your math, since your GF works, I'm wondering why you're deducting all the bills out of your salary to calculate what you have left over, when she's contributing something.
At $42k a month, you shouldn't expect to live in a nice apartment in Manhattan. You should expect to share a 2- or 3- bedroom apartment in one of the boroughs or in NJ just across the Hudson -- if you're lucky, in an apartment in Manhattan lower east side or upper east side.
You shouldn't be spending more than 1/3 of your take-home on housing, so at most you should be paying $800/mo on rent if your takehome is $2400/mo.
A night of entertainment, assuming dinner and drinks with friends is going to run about $100 (if you don't have a date along).
Eat dinner at home, meet up with friends for drinks. Have friends over for dinner instead of going out.
The key is to spend responsibly, not way above your means, which is what you suggest.
It passed review by the Committee of Redundancy Committee, whereupon is was put to a vote before the House of Representatives. The passing vote means that it will now be put to a vote before the House of Representatives.
Then your place of employment is withholding too much. Zero allowances (the minimum) at 42k a year means that they should be taking a total of about 800/mo or 9600/yr -- including FICA etc. At 42k your effective statutory deductions should be around 23% federal, state depends on what state you're in, none of which should be at 7% which is what your figures suggest.
Or are other deductions also being taken out? Like for medical, 401k, etc?
At any rate, if you can't make $2500+ take-home per month work for you, then you are spending way more than you need to (unless you have a family, in which case there is *no* way they're taking out that much unless your workplace has made a HUGE mistake, so I'm assuming you're single). I work in Manhattan, and when I was single I was making about that. Even in a nice apartment, which cost me $1200/mo, I had cash to spare. It was plenty to cover my rent, food, entertainment, 401k, IRA, and still save cash.
Again, I'd suggest that you re-examine your spending habits. Don't live a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget -- you don't need to go out to eat all the time, nor do you need a new car, nor do you need most of the crap that we're pressured to buy via advertising. For me, it was the realization that I wasn't a rock star and shouldn't party/spend like one, that led me to better spending habits.
IMHO, the research dollars would be better spent on developing a process to grow "natural" blood.
This could have the added benefit of using the research dollars simultaneously to fund orphanages.
Seriously, though. Blood is a pretty complex fluid, we've got RBCs, WBCs, platelets, trace hormones.
How would one grow RBCs? They have no nucleus, and thus can't be cultured, and you need so many that it would be a waste of stem cells to culture from there.
WBCs? Maybe from stem cells, if we can figure out how to differentiate them properly.
Platelets? Probably the easiest, since you could use your RBC failures as starting points.
However, we all know how to make a hormone, which is by not paying her.
Interesting coincidence that it's posted on the same day as someone from Microsoft belittling the Wii for its lesser graphics and simplicity. Doesn't make it less fun!
Funny, though, that this game is the one that finally made me jealous (game-wise) of my friends with C64s... and it was because it had great gameplay AND good graphics. Until then, I was quite happy with the PET2001, since there plenty of text and ASCII games that kept me content (never mind writing my own games in BASIC, which was perhaps *more* fun). I wanted the arcade experience on my computer, and the limited (non-existant) graphics on the PET kept me from having it.
So it goes both ways with Ghostbusters for gameplay vs graphics, rom my perspective.
Never mind the loss of marine food supplies, since warmer water is less oxygenated and supports far less life. Major, major implications for world food supply and deaths from starvation.
The historical legacy that "natural" suggests simply isn't present. To take the Johnson story to the ridiculous, if somebody with "natural" rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness steps into a lion cage with a hungry lion, they'll very quickly discover that the very natural lion very quickly disregards those rights and eats him.
Well, that type of example of the violability of rights is oft cited, and it doesn't quite apply. Rights are not inviolable; they are inalienable, which is very different. Removing from someone the freedom to exercise a right doesn't remove the right, which is where I think we're having a basic semantics problem. The right is fundamental, and exists whether or not it is exercised, permitted, or prohibited. One cannot remove a right from a person any more than one can remove the quality of being a goat from a goat. It's intrinsic. (Does that make any sense?)
The freedom to exercise a right can be denied, which is true of the examples you point out, and continues to be the state of things in much of the world today. However, it is my contention that those rights still exist -- it is the rights that are inseparable from humanity, and the freedom to exercise them that can be denied or granted by the state.
My last pay check 33% want to taxes. So I work almost two days a week to pay taxes. Now if that was much lower I could save more and in down times wouldn't be as big of an issue
Or you could just spend less. If you're having 33% deducted, then your salary is more than enough to live on while still saving and/or investing significant amounts of cash. Even in the states with the highest state tax burden 33% total tax withholding means, according to federal and state withholding guidelines, that your salary is over $120,000 -- and that's if you've no dependents, in which case that's more than plenty to live on and save.
If you have a family, say 2 kids, and you're the sole provider, then 33% total deduction for taxes would mean that you're making over $200,000.
So really, I don't think that bitching about having 33% withheld for taxes (and FICA, etc) is a valid argument for not saving for hardship.
One can think whatever one wants, but that doesn't make it true
Some of this has to do with navel-gazing, I suppose -- but some would say that the revolutionary change in the philosophy of society (in the 18th-19th centuries) represents a complete shift that invalidates prior philosophies...
But for thousands of years before that, those concepts of the rights of human beings were not reality, and for most of that time they weren't even thoughts.
Exactly -- but at what point can we consider what is to invalidate what was? As Hegel wrote, "The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom..." Progess here implies that new understanding supercedes old understanding, and that this is what we take from history. Can the Pandora's Box of natural personal rights be closed? If not, then surely in this case, we can't view modern society through the lessons learned in ancient society.
Every constitutional right (for example) can and will be broached by the government. And has already.
And though those rights have been trespassed upon, they exist; else it would be impossible for them to be broached.
QED.
Your argument is that rights are meaningless when you can't exercise them. Fine. But don't equate meaninglessness with nonexistence, since discussion of those rights is necessary to enforce the freedom for man to exercise them.
1. No, however, we're not talking about engineering, we're talking about religion, in which the common man participated, though he did not have access to the liturgy.
2. True. But within the structure of the church, positions of power were largely granted for reasons other than the spiritual. Bishoprics, for example, were bought, sold, granted as largesse to supporters, etc.
3.
I point out that they are not valid because as the parallels exists everywhere and because of that it stops being a useful metric
Well, I'd disagree a bit because wnot all religions share those parallels. Individualistic religions, for example, don't, nor do communistic religions like the Amish Protestants. However, wouldn't your point support my theory that Scientology doesn't differ that much from early Catholicism, since abuse of the common worshipper is intrinsic to any organization, and thus Scientology shouldn't be singled out?
"Your need to defend the Church says a lot." Not really, I am not (nor have ever been) Catholic. I do find it sad that you decided to make this personal though.
I didn't mean to make it personal; I should have expounded on that point. Needing to defend the Church isn't about whether or not you support the Church; rather it is about how you approach a comparison of the Churches of Catholicism and Scientology. It seems that your point of view is founded on my argument being "Catholicism is like Scientology". If one starts from the basis that the two are intrinsically different, then 'defending' Catholicism (admittedly bad terminology on my part) is a way of proceeding in the discussion. However, and I should have been clearer about this from the get-go, my point is that Scientology and early Catholicism are two sides of the same coin, and rather than 'defending' Catholicism, it might be more constructive to take the opposing point of view and see where that leads you.
Well, first of all, history bears out my definition of a right in relation to a freedom.
I'm curious, do you have an example? My readings of modern philosophy, while not recent, recall to me that the natural state of man is free, and that the right to such freedom is natural law as a corollary; this is different from having a collection of freedoms which are then granted as rights by the state. Even the Declaration of Independence bears this out:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...
Rights are intrinsic; governments are formed to protect these rights, not to establish them. Of course, this is only the Lockeian philosophy, but the modern philosophy of freedom is largely based upon Lockeian philosophy.
Rousseau also refers to the natural rights of man; however, his theory of social contract includes the concept that man will forego natural rights in exchange for protection of freedom as a whole. This is more in line with the Hobbesian view, which is that man surrenders rights for safety.
In all of these cases, natural rights exist regardless of freedom to exercise them, not vice versa. It is the natural rights of man which are modified to determine the freedoms of man.
I think Hegel is more in line with your view. He states that freedom IS will, and as such exists simply as part of humanity; however, he said that each concept of freedom/will is accompanied by the corresponding right. As such, rights are not established by the state, but instead fundamental to freedom. Imoplicitly, then, they are acknowledged by the state, which leaves us still debating which came first, the right or the freedom (that is, if we differentiate between them). Even if theoretically we derive right from free will, or instead freedom as an exercise of natural rights with external resistance, I think in essence we're left with each arising simultaneously without the action of the state.
All that said, I think you're correct about shortcomings in the vocabulary. I'm also not sure if when you refer to history, you're referring to philosophical history, or to the actions of historical states. If the latter, how does that fit into modern philosphy of freedom and rights? Does one say that feudal states simply didn't recognize the rights of man, or does one say that revolutionary governments granted those rights to man? Do we view them through the lens of contemporary philosophy (that the rights of man were nonexistant, in the Hobbesian view, only but granted at the will of the rights of the divine), or through the lens of modern philosophy?
So, the US Constitution protects certain freedoms you already had by turning them into rights. And, that semantics lesson concluded, we now return you to your regularly scheduled Slashdot discussion
Except, of course, that semantically your statement is incorrect. A right is not a freedom that has been protected by the state. Furthermore, freedom is a state of being, not an individual method of acting with freedom -- there is no such thing as "a freedom".
Freedom is the state of not having restrictions placed upon exercise of your rights.
I totally agree with you, which is why I believe the incident in question to be abuse of the law; the remark failed to meet the 'clear and present danger' qualification for suppression. However, I still think the law protecting against real threats is necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Most likely, the truth is that it's just too expensive for them to prosecute little things like that, particularly when there were no actual damages that your credit card company was trying to recoup (which would be necessary anyway for a civil suit).
No, you clank your glass for a new beer... that's the one-clank purchase method.
This patent is for one-click purchasing, which is an entirely new idea. Honest.
It means that solar radiation hitting the earth's magnetic field acts like waves hitting the walls of your bathtub when you turn the faucet on. You get waves, not a ridge of water at the wall.
In short, these bowshocks will shrivel your sack if you stay in to observe them too long.
Check the f-ing link before calling bullshit. "About normal" -- what does that mean? Within a couple percent? Sure, but if he's going to say 33%, then it calculates out to the numbers I posted.
FYI, the numbers I posted included SSWH, M/CWH, and FICA. Really, if you're going to dispute wat I wrote, why didn't you bother checking the link I posted to support my numbers?
I suggest you check the links I posted above; you'll find that the total deductions for someone making 72k in CA are far lower than 40%.
Seriously, though, OP has a point -- but it's easily possible to factor in wind resistance while maintaining constant test conditions across models. If you want to include wind resistance (since aerodynamics affect gas mileage, why not use an exhaust sniffer + rollers in a wind tunnel?
Temperature also affects tire pressure. Until you've driven quite a bit on a cold day, your tires are probably underinflated, thus decreasing your fuel efficiency.
Heh. I just went down to the five & dime, and colored chalk is three times the price it was yesterday.
Nice try, you Microsoft shill, but we're on to MS's recent cornering of the colored chalk market and your feeble attempts to profiteer.
F/OSC (Free/Open Source Chalk) is available, and doesn't infringe on any of your patents, despite your claims, so we'll get the last laugh.
Mwu-ha-ha-ha.
Legal dependents? If not, that's why too much is being taken out -- if you're supporting those kids and don't claim them, then you're getting the shaft. It's not your employer's mistake, it's yours.
As for your math, since your GF works, I'm wondering why you're deducting all the bills out of your salary to calculate what you have left over, when she's contributing something.
You shouldn't be spending more than 1/3 of your take-home on housing, so at most you should be paying $800/mo on rent if your takehome is $2400/mo.
Eat dinner at home, meet up with friends for drinks. Have friends over for dinner instead of going out.
The key is to spend responsibly, not way above your means, which is what you suggest.
It passed review by the Committee of Redundancy Committee, whereupon is was put to a vote before the House of Representatives. The passing vote means that it will now be put to a vote before the House of Representatives.
Then your place of employment is withholding too much. Zero allowances (the minimum) at 42k a year means that they should be taking a total of about 800/mo or 9600/yr -- including FICA etc. At 42k your effective statutory deductions should be around 23% federal, state depends on what state you're in, none of which should be at 7% which is what your figures suggest.
Or are other deductions also being taken out? Like for medical, 401k, etc?
At any rate, if you can't make $2500+ take-home per month work for you, then you are spending way more than you need to (unless you have a family, in which case there is *no* way they're taking out that much unless your workplace has made a HUGE mistake, so I'm assuming you're single). I work in Manhattan, and when I was single I was making about that. Even in a nice apartment, which cost me $1200/mo, I had cash to spare. It was plenty to cover my rent, food, entertainment, 401k, IRA, and still save cash.
Again, I'd suggest that you re-examine your spending habits. Don't live a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget -- you don't need to go out to eat all the time, nor do you need a new car, nor do you need most of the crap that we're pressured to buy via advertising. For me, it was the realization that I wasn't a rock star and shouldn't party/spend like one, that led me to better spending habits.
Seriously, though. Blood is a pretty complex fluid, we've got RBCs, WBCs, platelets, trace hormones.
How would one grow RBCs? They have no nucleus, and thus can't be cultured, and you need so many that it would be a waste of stem cells to culture from there.
WBCs? Maybe from stem cells, if we can figure out how to differentiate them properly.
Platelets? Probably the easiest, since you could use your RBC failures as starting points.
However, we all know how to make a hormone, which is by not paying her.
So it goes both ways with Ghostbusters for gameplay vs graphics, rom my perspective.
Never mind the loss of marine food supplies, since warmer water is less oxygenated and supports far less life. Major, major implications for world food supply and deaths from starvation.
The freedom to exercise a right can be denied, which is true of the examples you point out, and continues to be the state of things in much of the world today. However, it is my contention that those rights still exist -- it is the rights that are inseparable from humanity, and the freedom to exercise them that can be denied or granted by the state.
If you have a family, say 2 kids, and you're the sole provider, then 33% total deduction for taxes would mean that you're making over $200,000.
So really, I don't think that bitching about having 33% withheld for taxes (and FICA, etc) is a valid argument for not saving for hardship.
QED.
Your argument is that rights are meaningless when you can't exercise them. Fine. But don't equate meaninglessness with nonexistence, since discussion of those rights is necessary to enforce the freedom for man to exercise them.
2. True. But within the structure of the church, positions of power were largely granted for reasons other than the spiritual. Bishoprics, for example, were bought, sold, granted as largesse to supporters, etc.
3.Well, I'd disagree a bit because wnot all religions share those parallels. Individualistic religions, for example, don't, nor do communistic religions like the Amish Protestants. However, wouldn't your point support my theory that Scientology doesn't differ that much from early Catholicism, since abuse of the common worshipper is intrinsic to any organization, and thus Scientology shouldn't be singled out?
I didn't mean to make it personal; I should have expounded on that point. Needing to defend the Church isn't about whether or not you support the Church; rather it is about how you approach a comparison of the Churches of Catholicism and Scientology. It seems that your point of view is founded on my argument being "Catholicism is like Scientology". If one starts from the basis that the two are intrinsically different, then 'defending' Catholicism (admittedly bad terminology on my part) is a way of proceeding in the discussion. However, and I should have been clearer about this from the get-go, my point is that Scientology and early Catholicism are two sides of the same coin, and rather than 'defending' Catholicism, it might be more constructive to take the opposing point of view and see where that leads you.
Even the Declaration of Independence bears this out:Rights are intrinsic; governments are formed to protect these rights, not to establish them. Of course, this is only the Lockeian philosophy, but the modern philosophy of freedom is largely based upon Lockeian philosophy.
Rousseau also refers to the natural rights of man; however, his theory of social contract includes the concept that man will forego natural rights in exchange for protection of freedom as a whole. This is more in line with the Hobbesian view, which is that man surrenders rights for safety.
In all of these cases, natural rights exist regardless of freedom to exercise them, not vice versa. It is the natural rights of man which are modified to determine the freedoms of man.
I think Hegel is more in line with your view. He states that freedom IS will, and as such exists simply as part of humanity; however, he said that each concept of freedom/will is accompanied by the corresponding right. As such, rights are not established by the state, but instead fundamental to freedom. Imoplicitly, then, they are acknowledged by the state, which leaves us still debating which came first, the right or the freedom (that is, if we differentiate between them). Even if theoretically we derive right from free will, or instead freedom as an exercise of natural rights with external resistance, I think in essence we're left with each arising simultaneously without the action of the state.
All that said, I think you're correct about shortcomings in the vocabulary. I'm also not sure if when you refer to history, you're referring to philosophical history, or to the actions of historical states. If the latter, how does that fit into modern philosphy of freedom and rights? Does one say that feudal states simply didn't recognize the rights of man, or does one say that revolutionary governments granted those rights to man? Do we view them through the lens of contemporary philosophy (that the rights of man were nonexistant, in the Hobbesian view, only but granted at the will of the rights of the divine), or through the lens of modern philosophy?
Freedom is the state of not having restrictions placed upon exercise of your rights.
I totally agree with you, which is why I believe the incident in question to be abuse of the law; the remark failed to meet the 'clear and present danger' qualification for suppression. However, I still think the law protecting against real threats is necessary.