I think most people think of 'millionaire' as having over a million in potentially liquid assets at any given time. So neither 'cumulative pay' nor '401k' would count.
It is only revisionism if one claims unilateral victory and wants to shut down the other side. Even at the time there was debate and disagreement about the scope and specifics of the various Bill of Rights amendments. One of the big reasons they were not included in the constitution is there was so much debate over the topics among the delegates that they feared it would derail the drafting.
"The Founders" meant a lot of things, and their intent varied from person to person, and they disagreed with each other a lot.
Which is a scary thought since the lesson of the Nevada event is that if you have good PR and enough armed people, officials who do not want bloodshed will back down and allow you to continue. Since this is only a tool that can be utilized by the wealthy and well connected, even if it was just, it does not actually help average citizens but does mean that it is less likely the state will actually protect them from other citizens.
I guess Waco and such did accomplish their goals. They wanted blood to make a point, other groups used it for anti-government propeganda, and now officals are wary about standing up to these groups. I suspect we will see a rise in sovereign citizens and others who hope that if they are more willing to kill then officals then they will not have to follow laws they do not like.
The line between butchering and fixing is pretty blurry. While people like to say that it 'clearly' states the scope of protection, given that people have been arguing about it for over a century indicates that it is not all that clear. Changing the wording to make it explicit would help, but that would mean deciding which interoperation is correct once and for all, meaning whichever direction it went the other camp would consider it butchering.
While that would indeed have a psychological impact, the actual body count would likely be zero. It is not to say such things can not be dangerous, but for them to be deadly you generally need a LOT of the material and a poorly ventilated/enclosed space. In a school, opening up the window would be enough to nullify any attack a student could manage.
It was recorded in the classroom. Which actually does not help since schools are such strange constitutional ground and thus public expectations may or may not apply based on the whim of the judge.
We can only hope. While explosives can sometimes be effective, things like chlorine gas and tainted water supplies are very hard to pull off in any significant way. They tend to have a significant psychological place in our fears, but as actual implements of harm they have a very poor cost/benefit ratio in the general case.
Yeah, that is the thing that drives me crazy about all the talk about bullying in schools. Schools (and police) pretty much never acknowledge the role they play in strengthening the bullies' hands or even actively participating.
The worst bullying cases I have known involved teachers joining in, reenforcing the idea that the victim deserves it or is simply being shown their proper social place. And sadly the whole myth that bullies are some broken losers really makes things more difficult since most of them simply have a higher social standing in the school and are acting as their peers feel is appropriate.
I do not think C++ would have helped here, all it would have done was made things a bit more obscured. It should also be noted that you can build custom allocators in C++ too (I worked on a couple projects that used them) so that part of the problem would be there too.
C++ makes a lot of things easier, but under the hood it is still essentially C with an expanded library and fancy pre-processor (I know modern compliers do not actually preprocess C++ into C and then compile), thu all the same problems are still there and mostly are mitigated by using libraries that wrap things up in a safer way.
I would wager that even if some sites do have it as a back end, they are too rare for this type of experiment or the back ends are not sufficiently exposed for it to matter. That being said, yeah, if I had to start from scratch in all regards and write a secure service as the primary priority, Ada would probably make make it to my short list of languages.
'productive' is highly subjective. A minority of our economy is actually tied to necessities and infrastructure, most of it is tied up in things that have value but are otherwise frivolous. Which gets into the high level concepts of what objectives and metrics we want to optimize for.
Ok, so then let us move that tax onto sales instead. Oh wait, the person still ends up paying 22% higher costs on items then they would be tax free except now the tax burden is skewed towards the transfer of material goods rather then services. Since the middle and upper class spend a significant amount of their income on intangibles this puts an even higher burden on the lower class yet again, only this time the tax code can not build in exceptions for people at the lower rungs thus it falls on them even more.
Pure sales based systems have been done before, they were extremely regressive and abandoned.
If you want to talk overall economic health, taxation does not really impact it since all those tax dollars just go strait back into the economy anyway.
As for 'every corner', this is actually rather important. When you focus all your tax burden on some particular metric it tends to skew who pays and who does not further and further. By spreading it around it starts to better represent actual movement of money in the economy rather then specific types of transactions.
Depending on the type of research, much of it comes in 6-9 month spans... working with the military is even worse since they can promise funds, sign a contract, and then take the money back.
Not an ideal solution, but it has served me pretty well. My taxes have been varying levels of complexity over the years and I liked having the same UI for handling a variety of needs. Free would be nice of course, but I consider the cost of the package (compared to the amount of money involved) worth it for the convenience.
Oh the projections are real, or real enough, but the conclusions you are reaching are not supported by them.
Long term it will probably stabilize out to 1:1, and that will also likely be fine. Thing is, retirees on SS are not a drain on society, they are economic lubricant. They have a similar effect on the economy as the banking and investment system, or at minimal the entertainment industry.
If we want to go down the 'but other people are working!' route, also keep in mind that the vast majority of 'work' being done in the economy is not actually contributing to society outside its utility in keeping money flowing.
In other words, the ratio of retirees to non retirees is not all that important since on average retirees have about the same impact on the economy as the non-retirees. They are not bodies in a casket needing to be carried, they are an integral part of the system.
Beyond that, working in research is pretty risky if you have a family. University labs are not allowed to have "war chests" much of the time, the professors get a grant, hire people, do the research, fire everyone when it is over. They play budgeting tricks to try to get grants to overlap enough that there is some continuity but if something is just a month off you can loose your entire lab and the collected experience of your people... which overall makes research slower, more expensive, lower quality, and holding on to good people more difficult.
There is one huge mathematical flaw with this argument, people are still having children at a higher rate then replacement. Not that it is the only flaw, your understanding of history, economics, or even the current world is pretty warped.
Hate to break it to you, but you are stupid and intolerant, which is why people have been saying that to you. Not that you are going to listen.
Well, they are good for a laugh sometimes at least.
That they are looking for 'cool offices' in silicone valley tells me they are probably not going to spend any money they get all that wisely... which might be why they do not have enough.
Thing is her distrust goes well beyond a reasonable suspicion. Yeah, the industry makes mistakes and has issues, but she goes to the other extreme and distrusts everything to the point of irrationality.
She only changed to the 'safe' argument when her original ones were discredited, so it is less about wanting actual changes and more about moving the goal posts to ensure she is always on the anti-side. No amount of safety will be enough for her or her supporters, as long as there is one person out there with one side effect she will claim they are dangerous since statistics matter less then a heart wrenching personal story.
Slashdot Mirror
I think most people think of 'millionaire' as having over a million in potentially liquid assets at any given time. So neither 'cumulative pay' nor '401k' would count.
It is only revisionism if one claims unilateral victory and wants to shut down the other side. Even at the time there was debate and disagreement about the scope and specifics of the various Bill of Rights amendments. One of the big reasons they were not included in the constitution is there was so much debate over the topics among the delegates that they feared it would derail the drafting.
"The Founders" meant a lot of things, and their intent varied from person to person, and they disagreed with each other a lot.
Which is a scary thought since the lesson of the Nevada event is that if you have good PR and enough armed people, officials who do not want bloodshed will back down and allow you to continue. Since this is only a tool that can be utilized by the wealthy and well connected, even if it was just, it does not actually help average citizens but does mean that it is less likely the state will actually protect them from other citizens.
I guess Waco and such did accomplish their goals. They wanted blood to make a point, other groups used it for anti-government propeganda, and now officals are wary about standing up to these groups. I suspect we will see a rise in sovereign citizens and others who hope that if they are more willing to kill then officals then they will not have to follow laws they do not like.
The line between butchering and fixing is pretty blurry. While people like to say that it 'clearly' states the scope of protection, given that people have been arguing about it for over a century indicates that it is not all that clear. Changing the wording to make it explicit would help, but that would mean deciding which interoperation is correct once and for all, meaning whichever direction it went the other camp would consider it butchering.
While that would indeed have a psychological impact, the actual body count would likely be zero. It is not to say such things can not be dangerous, but for them to be deadly you generally need a LOT of the material and a poorly ventilated/enclosed space. In a school, opening up the window would be enough to nullify any attack a student could manage.
It was recorded in the classroom. Which actually does not help since schools are such strange constitutional ground and thus public expectations may or may not apply based on the whim of the judge.
Let us not forget the 3rd common thing authorities bring up, "well, you are acting XYZ so it is your own fault".
When a school is involved, minor's rights are generally suspended.
We can only hope. While explosives can sometimes be effective, things like chlorine gas and tainted water supplies are very hard to pull off in any significant way. They tend to have a significant psychological place in our fears, but as actual implements of harm they have a very poor cost/benefit ratio in the general case.
Yeah, that is the thing that drives me crazy about all the talk about bullying in schools. Schools (and police) pretty much never acknowledge the role they play in strengthening the bullies' hands or even actively participating.
The worst bullying cases I have known involved teachers joining in, reenforcing the idea that the victim deserves it or is simply being shown their proper social place. And sadly the whole myth that bullies are some broken losers really makes things more difficult since most of them simply have a higher social standing in the school and are acting as their peers feel is appropriate.
I do not think C++ would have helped here, all it would have done was made things a bit more obscured. It should also be noted that you can build custom allocators in C++ too (I worked on a couple projects that used them) so that part of the problem would be there too.
C++ makes a lot of things easier, but under the hood it is still essentially C with an expanded library and fancy pre-processor (I know modern compliers do not actually preprocess C++ into C and then compile), thu all the same problems are still there and mostly are mitigated by using libraries that wrap things up in a safer way.
Neither is on the list, so I am not sure this is much of an attack.
I would wager that even if some sites do have it as a back end, they are too rare for this type of experiment or the back ends are not sufficiently exposed for it to matter. That being said, yeah, if I had to start from scratch in all regards and write a secure service as the primary priority, Ada would probably make make it to my short list of languages.
'productive' is highly subjective. A minority of our economy is actually tied to necessities and infrastructure, most of it is tied up in things that have value but are otherwise frivolous. Which gets into the high level concepts of what objectives and metrics we want to optimize for.
Ok, so then let us move that tax onto sales instead. Oh wait, the person still ends up paying 22% higher costs on items then they would be tax free except now the tax burden is skewed towards the transfer of material goods rather then services. Since the middle and upper class spend a significant amount of their income on intangibles this puts an even higher burden on the lower class yet again, only this time the tax code can not build in exceptions for people at the lower rungs thus it falls on them even more.
Pure sales based systems have been done before, they were extremely regressive and abandoned.
Quite true, there is no guarantee that the money will flow in useful ways.
If you want to talk overall economic health, taxation does not really impact it since all those tax dollars just go strait back into the economy anyway.
As for 'every corner', this is actually rather important. When you focus all your tax burden on some particular metric it tends to skew who pays and who does not further and further. By spreading it around it starts to better represent actual movement of money in the economy rather then specific types of transactions.
It is less about the amount and more about the bidding war. You can buy legislation cheap if there is not much spending in opposition.
Depending on the type of research, much of it comes in 6-9 month spans... working with the military is even worse since they can promise funds, sign a contract, and then take the money back.
Not an ideal solution, but it has served me pretty well. My taxes have been varying levels of complexity over the years and I liked having the same UI for handling a variety of needs. Free would be nice of course, but I consider the cost of the package (compared to the amount of money involved) worth it for the convenience.
Oh the projections are real, or real enough, but the conclusions you are reaching are not supported by them.
Long term it will probably stabilize out to 1:1, and that will also likely be fine. Thing is, retirees on SS are not a drain on society, they are economic lubricant. They have a similar effect on the economy as the banking and investment system, or at minimal the entertainment industry.
If we want to go down the 'but other people are working!' route, also keep in mind that the vast majority of 'work' being done in the economy is not actually contributing to society outside its utility in keeping money flowing.
In other words, the ratio of retirees to non retirees is not all that important since on average retirees have about the same impact on the economy as the non-retirees. They are not bodies in a casket needing to be carried, they are an integral part of the system.
Beyond that, working in research is pretty risky if you have a family. University labs are not allowed to have "war chests" much of the time, the professors get a grant, hire people, do the research, fire everyone when it is over. They play budgeting tricks to try to get grants to overlap enough that there is some continuity but if something is just a month off you can loose your entire lab and the collected experience of your people... which overall makes research slower, more expensive, lower quality, and holding on to good people more difficult.
There is one huge mathematical flaw with this argument, people are still having children at a higher rate then replacement. Not that it is the only flaw, your understanding of history, economics, or even the current world is pretty warped.
Hate to break it to you, but you are stupid and intolerant, which is why people have been saying that to you. Not that you are going to listen.
Well, they are good for a laugh sometimes at least.
That they are looking for 'cool offices' in silicone valley tells me they are probably not going to spend any money they get all that wisely... which might be why they do not have enough.
Thing is her distrust goes well beyond a reasonable suspicion. Yeah, the industry makes mistakes and has issues, but she goes to the other extreme and distrusts everything to the point of irrationality.
She only changed to the 'safe' argument when her original ones were discredited, so it is less about wanting actual changes and more about moving the goal posts to ensure she is always on the anti-side. No amount of safety will be enough for her or her supporters, as long as there is one person out there with one side effect she will claim they are dangerous since statistics matter less then a heart wrenching personal story.