True that. Taxing a corporation results in those taxes (if paid) being classified as expenses. Added to costs. Added to prices. Paid by you and me. Not taxing a corporation may not reduce prices, but we the people see less disposable income due to increased taxes, we reduce spending (mostly), competition for that shrinking source of revenue among corporations results in price competition, and prices may fall.
If we're not actually collecting corporate taxes, as seems to be the case all too often, then we are going to be going for tax revenue somewhere, and the middle class is always the best bet. More of us, less able to avoid the levy, and way, way more potential revenue than the 1%, despite the crazed hype of the entrenched bureaucracy and their enslaved supporters.
Actually taxing a multinational corporation is both easier and harder than expected. Harder because they can in fact play offshore games and drive you crazy. Easier because all you have to do exercise the political will is remove the loopholes and collect.
Wait, I got something backwards there. Did you see it?
Not describing the experiment correctly will not bother their corporate sponsors, who will either employ them directly or get the full description upon payment. Never doing it at all? No problem if they get more grants to build upon the nonexistent foundation they fabricated - unless they change direction with every grant and never evolve their previous work, which is nice work if you can get it.
If 'Peer Reviewed' doesn't include replicating results (which would delay publication and we can't have THAT!), then it is reduced to 'nice penmanship'.
Which, of course, we know is true. Peer review is just self-ratification. No one else could possibly understand, much less reproduce, serious and groundbreaking work, so just step back and watch the show. Pay at the door.
No, I have not studied philosophy with any serious effort, but if the scientific method cannot be used to prove itself, then perhaps it is lacking?
And I don't reject the 'scientific method'. I think it is self-evident and self-revealing.
The real question of these papers is not can the results be shown to be reproducible, but did the papers sufficiently disclose the methods? And if not, why not? there is, naturally, the possibility that the results were not even reproducible by the authors, and so they either falsified data/results or failed to disclose their success rate, but that's to be expected. Complaints about yields or consistency are par for the course, I suspect, in many branches of science, and predictable, which explains why so many revolutionary ideas are not yet in widespread use.
That which cannot be patented or copyrighted remains secret by necessity. Lest someone else profit from your work, which cannot be permitted.
It's all about money. All of it. All the time. For everyone. Accept this, and you will do more than survive, perhaps. Ignore this, and you will suffer. Reject this, and you will fail, either in your philosophy or in your efforts. You don't have to like it nor do you have to perpetuate it, but it is what it is.
It's a matter of means. we don't know if Champagne cozied up to his Congrespeople for favorable legislation, or to avoid prosecution, like so many corporatists.
In the 70s, McDonalds standardized on 17-19% fat in their burger meats. The store I worked at tested it regularly and reported the results. A little black machine you plugged in, filled a cup with thawed meat, turned on, and when the light went out, you removed a vial and noted the level of fat/etc. in the vial. FIll out the report and include it with the weekly paperwork.
And this was a fanchisee, not a McOpCo store. We came within $5000 of a million in sales that year, failing only, we suspect, because a McOpCo (company-owned, not franchised) store opened after Christmas in the same city, the second one in the area. Darn.
At that time, there were not many million dollar stores.
This happened in the late 80s, a radiation thereapy device had some unfortunate software problems and causes 6 accidents, some fatal. the FDA investigated then.
NO reason they can't investigate now. Software is software. Grow some expertise.
Redefine in law that manufacturing includes providing the specifications, instructions, and details for a manufacturing device - be it a CNC machine or a 3d printer.
Now the poor blighter with a printer can't use the file, since that would be, legally, the product, and prohibited from distribution.
Fear not, the Legislature will find a way to outloaw all this if they can. And they are persistent.
Lance Armstrong was initially judged by the USADA to have used PED based not on testing results, but on the testimony of former teammates, some of whom failed their own tests, and may have had an ax to grind. First, because they feel they may have been singled out because of their assocation with Armstrong,second because they may have been pressured by Armstrong or the relationship to use PED, third because they may actually have witnessed Armstrong either taking PEDs or encouraging it, and fourth ALL of the above. The end result is that no one in cycling at the international level will be able to withstand the mere accusations. Non-analytical positives will become the norm. Every champion will be suspect, unless 100% testing is done, and then, as in Armstrong's case, new tests will be conducted on previosuly collected samples, in effect finding athletes guilty in arrears for using PEDs not yet known. Eventually coffee and Gatorade will be banned. And this will stain cycling to the point that fans like myself will turn away.
Chess will go this route. No Master of any rank will be allowed to exceed their 'reasonable' ability. Analysis will be conducted, perhaps electronic surviellance will be used to both check for transmissions and as forensics to be subjected to detailed analysis, suspects will be accused, strip-searched, imaged, run through the metal detectors, scrutinized, and judged guilty based on non-analytical positives. Chess will devolve into the meanest of states, blood sport not for the winners, but for the losers. I expect past upsets to be scrutinized for problems and winners discredited, even posthumously.
A pox on all of it. I'm watching the America's Cup. Less cheating, more suspense, and people could drown.
Yeah, wing off, you watch the ground rise to meet you and you die.
Not sure which waiting period is worse. At least with a missing wing, you hope Sully is in the right seat and can figure out how to land on one wing. Fire is very hard to escape from on a plan, if it manages to find any occupied compartments. I suppose you could try climing, popping the oxygen masks, starve the fire, and hope the emergency oxygen system doesn;t catch fire. And other problems.
Given my druthers, I guess snakes may actually be the second-least problematic next to crying babies. Or being between an air marshal and a grandmother^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorist.
I took a day out of my project to orient an advance team to the Novell servers I kept up. They finished up for lunch and informed us they would be replacing the Novell system entirely. No.need.to.continue.
I know these were still up in 2010, and had been moved to New hardware. Submariners do not tolerate failure well, even onshore.
Something you have. Something you know. Something you are.
Any two of the three often works. A chip and my thumbprint, Chip and my PIN, lots of ways to do that. We use an encryption plugin for Outlook here that relies on my login credentials. My laptop has an NFC reader. And a fingerprint scanner. Lots of ways.
EDI has, however, has been doing this for a few decades I think. We buy crap every day with no more than a card and a fey keypresses. This is not impossible. Not even technically challenging. It's just adoption, and cost.
When the IRS does it, everyone else will fall into place. Juet let them do their own thing, not letting the gummint 'handle' it all.
1. Something to replace the paper notebooks I use to keep extemporaneous notes in. It needs to be relatively free-form, as quick to input as a scribble with a pen, and need not be indexed, merely stored. It does need to allow me to flip through pages quickly, showing me the whole page in a flash and letting me swipe through. Indexing and conversions are Phase Two.
2. Something to let me view multiple pages of a document simultaneously, alongside one another. Easily repositioned.
Before we go further, what I want will require multiple monitors and a tablet. The monitors will not kill trees, but their overall eco cost will be at least as much as paper, I suspect.
Also, that notebook replacdement will probably be a tablet. It needs to be secure, within the corporate environment, and also afford full security when detached om the network. In fact, it needs to be autonomous. My current solution, paper notebooks, are a physical security issue. Since this new gizmo will have to be with me, biometrics are the security solution, and needs to give me access as fast as flipping a page. Ok, 2 seconds.
Also, I work for a financial institution. Security is a little higher than important, but not as high as military.
What I want is Surface as a desktop, along with a traditional monitor-based workspace. Just make my desk a big Surface device, add in the 'Minority Report' UI, and I can ditch paper for good, though I doubt I kill more than 3,000 pages a year. Assuming I can write on my new Surface surface, drop things, and spill coffee on the edges, all is good.
Maybe 2015. Maybe no. Sharp or Samsung or whoever is making the flecible displays are close to somethign that would work cleverly, but I am constrained by patent applications from going further. Suffice to say there are a LOT LOT LOT more patents to be filed.
Slashdot Mirror
You should have kept reading.
True that. Taxing a corporation results in those taxes (if paid) being classified as expenses. Added to costs. Added to prices. Paid by you and me. Not taxing a corporation may not reduce prices, but we the people see less disposable income due to increased taxes, we reduce spending (mostly), competition for that shrinking source of revenue among corporations results in price competition, and prices may fall.
If we're not actually collecting corporate taxes, as seems to be the case all too often, then we are going to be going for tax revenue somewhere, and the middle class is always the best bet. More of us, less able to avoid the levy, and way, way more potential revenue than the 1%, despite the crazed hype of the entrenched bureaucracy and their enslaved supporters.
Actually taxing a multinational corporation is both easier and harder than expected. Harder because they can in fact play offshore games and drive you crazy. Easier because all you have to do exercise the political will is remove the loopholes and collect.
Wait, I got something backwards there. Did you see it?
There you go again, EXPLAINING Romney's 48% remark.
Stop that. Being honest isn't fair.
I would gladly settle for collecting the revenue in the same fiscal year + 1 quarter.
Fat chance.
Sadly, you are quite possibly correct.
So much for the scientific method. Even the experts suck at it.
Lines that intersect are not, by definition, parallel. Lines either intersect or they do not. Lines that do not intersect are parallel.
We define non-intersecting lines as parallel. We don't prove they are parallel, we describe them as such.
It has been a long time since I've employed geometry. How that relates to proving the Scientific Method is beyond me.
Not describing the experiment correctly will not bother their corporate sponsors, who will either employ them directly or get the full description upon payment. Never doing it at all? No problem if they get more grants to build upon the nonexistent foundation they fabricated - unless they change direction with every grant and never evolve their previous work, which is nice work if you can get it.
If 'Peer Reviewed' doesn't include replicating results (which would delay publication and we can't have THAT!), then it is reduced to 'nice penmanship'.
Which, of course, we know is true. Peer review is just self-ratification. No one else could possibly understand, much less reproduce, serious and groundbreaking work, so just step back and watch the show. Pay at the door.
No, I have not studied philosophy with any serious effort, but if the scientific method cannot be used to prove itself, then perhaps it is lacking?
And I don't reject the 'scientific method'. I think it is self-evident and self-revealing.
The real question of these papers is not can the results be shown to be reproducible, but did the papers sufficiently disclose the methods? And if not, why not? there is, naturally, the possibility that the results were not even reproducible by the authors, and so they either falsified data/results or failed to disclose their success rate, but that's to be expected. Complaints about yields or consistency are par for the course, I suspect, in many branches of science, and predictable, which explains why so many revolutionary ideas are not yet in widespread use.
That which cannot be patented or copyrighted remains secret by necessity. Lest someone else profit from your work, which cannot be permitted.
It's all about money. All of it. All the time. For everyone. Accept this, and you will do more than survive, perhaps. Ignore this, and you will suffer. Reject this, and you will fail, either in your philosophy or in your efforts. You don't have to like it nor do you have to perpetuate it, but it is what it is.
They'll tax the heat.
Taxman
Winning.
It's a matter of means. we don't know if Champagne cozied up to his Congrespeople for favorable legislation, or to avoid prosecution, like so many corporatists.
In the 70s, McDonalds standardized on 17-19% fat in their burger meats. The store I worked at tested it regularly and reported the results. A little black machine you plugged in, filled a cup with thawed meat, turned on, and when the light went out, you removed a vial and noted the level of fat/etc. in the vial. FIll out the report and include it with the weekly paperwork.
And this was a fanchisee, not a McOpCo store. We came within $5000 of a million in sales that year, failing only, we suspect, because a McOpCo (company-owned, not franchised) store opened after Christmas in the same city, the second one in the area. Darn.
At that time, there were not many million dollar stores.
Remember the Therac-25? No, probably not.
This happened in the late 80s, a radiation thereapy device had some unfortunate software problems and causes 6 accidents, some fatal. the FDA investigated then.
NO reason they can't investigate now. Software is software. Grow some expertise.
Yup. Not my choice.
Are you suggesting it is not already legal to do so?
Redefine in law that manufacturing includes providing the specifications, instructions, and details for a manufacturing device - be it a CNC machine or a 3d printer.
Now the poor blighter with a printer can't use the file, since that would be, legally, the product, and prohibited from distribution.
Fear not, the Legislature will find a way to outloaw all this if they can. And they are persistent.
Not off-topic. Dead on.
Lance Armstrong was initially judged by the USADA to have used PED based not on testing results, but on the testimony of former teammates, some of whom failed their own tests, and may have had an ax to grind. First, because they feel they may have been singled out because of their assocation with Armstrong,second because they may have been pressured by Armstrong or the relationship to use PED, third because they may actually have witnessed Armstrong either taking PEDs or encouraging it, and fourth ALL of the above. The end result is that no one in cycling at the international level will be able to withstand the mere accusations. Non-analytical positives will become the norm. Every champion will be suspect, unless 100% testing is done, and then, as in Armstrong's case, new tests will be conducted on previosuly collected samples, in effect finding athletes guilty in arrears for using PEDs not yet known. Eventually coffee and Gatorade will be banned. And this will stain cycling to the point that fans like myself will turn away.
Chess will go this route. No Master of any rank will be allowed to exceed their 'reasonable' ability. Analysis will be conducted, perhaps electronic surviellance will be used to both check for transmissions and as forensics to be subjected to detailed analysis, suspects will be accused, strip-searched, imaged, run through the metal detectors, scrutinized, and judged guilty based on non-analytical positives. Chess will devolve into the meanest of states, blood sport not for the winners, but for the losers. I expect past upsets to be scrutinized for problems and winners discredited, even posthumously.
A pox on all of it. I'm watching the America's Cup. Less cheating, more suspense, and people could drown.
Yeah, wing off, you watch the ground rise to meet you and you die.
Not sure which waiting period is worse. At least with a missing wing, you hope Sully is in the right seat and can figure out how to land on one wing. Fire is very hard to escape from on a plan, if it manages to find any occupied compartments. I suppose you could try climing, popping the oxygen masks, starve the fire, and hope the emergency oxygen system doesn;t catch fire. And other problems.
Given my druthers, I guess snakes may actually be the second-least problematic next to crying babies. Or being between an air marshal and a grandmother^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorist.
I took a day out of my project to orient an advance team to the Novell servers I kept up. They finished up for lunch and informed us they would be replacing the Novell system entirely. No.need.to.continue.
I know these were still up in 2010, and had been moved to New hardware. Submariners do not tolerate failure well, even onshore.
The servers will no located off site. at least SharePoint will be 'up'.
That's a rather unfortunate indictment. or is the NMCI actually working, 8 or so years later?
This is an application for NFC.
Security factors:
Something you have.
Something you know.
Something you are.
Any two of the three often works. A chip and my thumbprint, Chip and my PIN, lots of ways to do that. We use an encryption plugin for Outlook here that relies on my login credentials. My laptop has an NFC reader. And a fingerprint scanner. Lots of ways.
EDI has, however, has been doing this for a few decades I think. We buy crap every day with no more than a card and a fey keypresses. This is not impossible. Not even technically challenging. It's just adoption, and cost.
When the IRS does it, everyone else will fall into place. Juet let them do their own thing, not letting the gummint 'handle' it all.
1. Something to replace the paper notebooks I use to keep extemporaneous notes in. It needs to be relatively free-form, as quick to input as a scribble with a pen, and need not be indexed, merely stored. It does need to allow me to flip through pages quickly, showing me the whole page in a flash and letting me swipe through. Indexing and conversions are Phase Two.
2. Something to let me view multiple pages of a document simultaneously, alongside one another. Easily repositioned.
Before we go further, what I want will require multiple monitors and a tablet. The monitors will not kill trees, but their overall eco cost will be at least as much as paper, I suspect.
Also, that notebook replacdement will probably be a tablet. It needs to be secure, within the corporate environment, and also afford full security when detached om the network. In fact, it needs to be autonomous. My current solution, paper notebooks, are a physical security issue. Since this new gizmo will have to be with me, biometrics are the security solution, and needs to give me access as fast as flipping a page. Ok, 2 seconds.
Also, I work for a financial institution. Security is a little higher than important, but not as high as military.
What I want is Surface as a desktop, along with a traditional monitor-based workspace. Just make my desk a big Surface device, add in the 'Minority Report' UI, and I can ditch paper for good, though I doubt I kill more than 3,000 pages a year. Assuming I can write on my new Surface surface, drop things, and spill coffee on the edges, all is good.
Maybe 2015. Maybe no. Sharp or Samsung or whoever is making the flecible displays are close to somethign that would work cleverly, but I am constrained by patent applications from going further. Suffice to say there are a LOT LOT LOT more patents to be filed.
Thus example is not important. such organizations either perish, or these workers are replaced.
and if neither occurs, there is nothing to fix.