I suggest looking up Hauser's Law. Government revenue is about 19.5% no matter what the top tax bracket is.
So how about those economies of scale? Samsung can make big screen TVs because there's a big market for consumers to purchase them. In fact, if Obama's tax plan works, more people will be able to buy big screen TVs. This means more revenue for Samsung. It could very well increase revenue so much that it offsets the potential tax increases, resulting in a net profit after taxes were raised.
Bonus - enlarging the market allows economies of scale to drive the cost down further, making things cheaper for everyone rich or poor.
Keynes said that economic policy should focus on the bottom of the ladder, because those individuals are most likely to spend their money in the economy, which will directly benefit the wealthy who own the means of production.
How long have we had the supply-siders running things? What happened to our once mighty middle class, now threatened with extinction? Face it - you cut taxes for the rich and they just hogged all their money, or they blew it on multi-million dollar yachts (who the hell does that help?) and $4000 hookers.
Your argument is quite valid against excess income tax rate, but it fails spectacularly when taken to the limit. If "the rich" want to go somewhere else...where do they go? Who gets a better return on investment besides America? If they take their ball and go home like whiney bitches, there will be other investors who will seize the opportunity to make a new fortune. That's the beauty of the market - voids will be filled. There will still be plenty of money to be made in America, and someone will make it, and it won't be your greedy ass.
Republicans move toward a non-progressive tax in much the same way you allege Senator Obama wants to move toward socialism.
The past is not irrelevant. In case you didn't notice, we're at war right now. Have you seen the national debt lately?
Last I checked, our economic situation was fantastic after World War II. We had prosperity for decades under "high taxes". High taxes on the rich provided a huge middle class with disposable income. The massive size of new markets for goods allowed economies of scale to drive the cost of everything down tremendously.
Obama wants all Americans to share in the wealth that they create, as opposed to allowing a privileged few to concentrate America's wealth into their own families. No more will the CEO pilfer the employee's pensions to pay himself hundreds of times more than the average worker's salary, only to get a multi-million dollar golden parachute for ruining the company.
Perhaps it's time for Americans to realize that capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive, and a hybrid system is the best approach.
define:strawman - opponent's position is restated so that it is easier to attack, then the restated position is attributed to the opponent
The only point I re-stated was my own - that Republicans are labeling the tax plan as socialism on virtue of being progressive.
Now, let's take your straw man, regarding the figures that you pulled out of your ass and which you basically attributed to me. Had you actually watched the video, you would notice that McCain was defending the progressive income tax before the Bush tax cuts.
Obama's tax plan lets the Bush tax cuts for the upper class expire. Again, if Obama's tax plan is socialist, we've been living in a socialist country for a while now. Clinton had some of the lowest tax rates in history.
Did you know that under Eisenhower, the top tax bracket paid a 91% income tax?
Clear through the Cold War, while we were fighting socialists, our income tax rate for the highest bracket was around 70% or so.
And here you are, screeching about how a 39.6% tax rate is socialist.
That is kind of the point. The Republicans have convinced people that Obama's tax plan, which is progressive, is somehow socialist. Which means that we've been a socialist country for some time now...
I was under the impression that Alaska would sell the land to oil companies who can develop it. Why, then, would Palin tax the oil companies extra after having already sold the land to them?
Did you bother to read what I wrote? Lazy people who are not contributing are in fact not going to get money back. Furthermore, right now, "welfare" (properly known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is time-limited and contingent on effort to seek employment.
Regarding Obama's tax plan, you have to be gainfully employed if you wish to get any tax credit. I suggest page 2, where it says "the 'Making Work Pay' credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples"
Let me tell you about economies of scale. You can afford to buy a big screen TV, surround sound stereo, and multi-core computer, only because there is a vast American middle class with significant disposable income who create a market for millions of these devices. The huge cost of designing these things is amortized across the volume of product produced.
Then companies...like, say, GM or Chrysler, end up selling fewer products and have to cut jobs and production, which further reduces the size of the middle class, creating a vicious cycle.
Did you miss the part where Palin taxed the profits of the oil companies? They were taxed because they were making a killer profit (hence "windfall profits tax"), but you seem to be confused because it's shared with everyone instead of just the poor. Socialism does not necessarily mean Robin Hood.
How about this. If you find oil underneath your house, who is getting the money for that oil?
In Texas, ONLY YOU get the money for that oil.
In Alaska, EVERYONE gets the money for that oil.
Specifically for your analogy, the guy who found the gold under his house would get all the money, normally. If the town forced him to split the revenue among every man, woman, and child in the town, that would in fact be socialism. If he had only one child, and another family had two, they get more of his gold.
Thank you for the context. I have bolded my own parts that I feel define the theme of the paragraph.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
He is saying that because poor people spend more of their money on things that are necessary, they should generally face a lower tax burden than the wealthy, who spend significant amounts of money on pointless things (in excess of $4000 for a session with Spitzer's hooker?).
By the way, I didn't mention income tax. I was discussing progressive taxes in general. Any progressive tax (income, property, or otherwise) should not be labeled socialist on virtue of being progressive. Adam Smith first finds progressive taxes to be reasonable in general and then progressive property taxes in specific.
Obama's tax cuts are aimed at people who actually work, so lazy people who are sitting around and not contributing aren't going to get anything back.
Now, let's talk about Alaska. They don't pay income tax up there. In fact, every single man, woman, and child (even infants) get paid by the government to live there. Alaskans all receive an "equitable share of the state's non-renewable resources." That certainly doesn't happen in Texas!
Now, let's talk about Palin.
Palin said: "Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"
Palin passed a windfall profits tax, literally taking profits away from oil companies, and redistributed it amongst every man, woman, and child in America, to the tune of an extra $1200 on top of what Alaskans got that year from the Permanent Fund Dividend.
Well said. If only the people who use "Marxist!" as an attack had actually...you know...read more than a few sentences written by Karl Marx.
Nah. They just want something to focus their hateful energy on. It doesn't matter how good or bad the target is; it only matters that many other people hate it too.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
This is otherwise referred to as a progressive tax. It's not actually that bad of an idea. Compare to regressive tax.
It is such a good idea that, in fact, John McCain himself advocated for a progressive tax system, back in 2000.
Digital phosphor scopes are the way to go, man. My company bought one that cost more than my car, and it was used!
I totally agree with you, though. We need more people who aren't afraid to scope and solder. I enjoy looking on eBay for "broken" electronics on the cheap and trying to fix them. It's like a huge discount on a stereo receiver or a DVD player or a laptop...
I'm not worried about Obama's experience. He surrounds himself with smart guys, not cronies. The experience of the smart guys he surrounds himself are my concern. Powell, Volcker, and the countless other advisers.
Up front, I'm not looking to attack you. I want a serious discussion. I hope you do, too.
I know O'Reilly said Obama's a socialist because of his tax cuts. He calls it "wealth redistributionism". This is a stretch for a few reasons.
The first is that none of the tax money taken from "the rich" actually goes directly to "the poor". The poor are simply taxed less. The only money they will get is money that they earn. People who pay no taxes will not get extra money back.
Second, the tax rate of the highest bracket during World War 1 was about 70%. During the Great Depression it was about 60%. During World War II it was about 80 to 94%. After the war it was about 90%.
Why the high taxes? Wars cost money. A lot of money. But during this war, our taxes were cut, to 35% (and some people use Capital Gains to lower their tax rate even further).
The current Republican administration used emergency supplemental spending bills to fund the Iraq war off-the-budget by taking out debt from other countries. Dick Cheney's words - "Deficits don't matter." I call this irresponsible deficit spending "tax your children and spend".
Third, some tax money does things for the public good. Education, transportation, infrastructure, police, fire department, etc. I happen to like not having to pay tolls to drive on the road. So from this we can surmise that some socialist concepts (i.e. public roads, public education) are good things.
Finally, government can in fact do something to make people's lives better. The reason it has such a problem right now is rampant cronyism. If government were composed of experts picked based on merits, they would create a system which provides incentives for people to do the right thing. Those incentives should be a hand up, not a hand out.
My gmail account name is identical to my slashdot name if you want to continue this discussion.
First, I applaud your usage of convolve in prose. I've never seen it used outside of signal processing.
Second, I think you're way too eager to throw the researcher in jail. He is performing research and it's entirely possible that it could be useful. The only way you could dismiss it, personally, is to actually review it. Until then, it's a Schrodinger's Cat.
Even then, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to throw researchers into jail for doing research.
It's possible to move the Queen into a position where it can be taken immediately, but at risk of exposing the King to a checkmate. Sometimes, suicide is a good thing.
You're not too far off, actually. Senior Democrats knew about the NSA surveillance program and did nothing. As a matter of fact, Jay Rockefeller made a hand-written note to Dick Cheney expressing "concern" over the program.
I think people would like to believe that Democrats are Progressive and would stand up against this sort of thing, hence "caving in", whereas Republicans are all for increased government surveillance to fight those terr'rists, hence "creating the mess".
For what it's worth, I think it's not Democrats vs. Republicans or liberals vs. conservatives, but corporations vs. people.
the creation of the mess lies in the hands of Republicans. However, the SANCTIONING of said mess lies fully in the hands of the Congress, who created and approved this bill.
Article summary said -
Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in, or both
Hmm...my fuzzy equals circuit is trying to tell me that caving in is somehow equivalent to sanctioning...
And the article summary was shorter, to boot. Imagine that - a short summary. I think I should patent this!
You would be nowhere and have nothing if patents had been allowed in the first thirty years of electronic computing.
EXACTLY! Imagine if Dijkstra had patented his algorithm.
True scientists are interested in the evolution of human knowledge. Greedy capitalist pig-dogs are interested in lining their pockets. I, for one, am glad that people like Dijkstra were more interested in the benefit of humanity.
The Death Star Contractor argument backs up what I was saying. They know their product will create a franchise that will be merchandised - it's not as if they're totally innocent, and I never claimed they were.
However, they are not the ones putting out Wall-E merchandise. That's my point. It's not their decision and it's not their call, even if they know it's inevitable, so to say they want you to buy all this crap (LWATCDR's allegation) is disingenuous. It'd be like saying the Death Star Contractors are the ones shooting the laser that blows up planets. They might have helped, but they are not directly liable for how it is used.
And I think in this case, I think they realized that their story would be greater than the money their employer gets from selling shit. Perhaps even the creation of the Wall-E franchise would help maintain focus on keeping the world green. Ironically, the products create brand recognition that keeps the strength of the story alive beyond watching it on the screen.
I found it deep and meaningful, but that might be in part because I saw reflections of the loving relationship I am currently engaged in. Without such a relationship, I might not have liked certain parts of the movie as much.
Further, I never said they didn't know the movie would be marketed. Of course these people know that their employer will create a franchise out of their creation. What are they to do, then? Simply not create their pride and joy out of spite?
That's foolish, as any message they had would never get out in such a case. No, they submissively accept that their employer is going to market their creation, and that their ability to create hinges on their employer giving them the required tools.
I dare you to show me any of the artists or story writers who go around telling people to buy Pixar merch.
"I said chemical warfare was outlawed by Geneva, and you said no it wasn't."
And it wasn't
Here you are again displaying the traits of someone who is trying to lawyer their way out of a pinch. Go ahead and continue to get picky over naturally implicit details like "the people who signed the treaty" etc. However, minus some rather minor caveats, you can't argue that the spirit of the Geneva protocol was to prevent the use of things like mustard gas during war. You can sum that up by saying "Geneva banned chemical weapons" or "Geneva made chemical warfare illegal".
But that's not your follow on contention which was SPECIFICALLY ""[sic]You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong." and ids [sic] irrefutably a lie. I never SAID that or IN ANY WAY claimed it, you are a lair [sic].
Wow, three typos in one sentence. You must have been furious.
Okay, let's walk through this very slowly one step at a time, and hopefully you will finally see through your own rage long enough to notice how full of shit you are.
1) I said chemical warfare is illegal since Geneva.
2) You replied (with English that rivals that of an inner-city bully) nuh uh!!!
3) I said duh, look at the name. Prohibition of poisonous gases. What part of prohibition don't you understand?
4) You say but it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage!!!
So, I said chemical warfare is illegal, and you said I'm wrong because you can store or manufacture such weapons (which has absolutely nothing to do with my point). In order for your statement to have any merit, I would have had to say "you can't make or store chemical weapons"...but I never said that, which is why this is a straw man. You pretend I said something that I didn't say, and proceed to respond to it as if that was my argument, because you can't defeat my actual argument.
And look at you responding because you're wrong, know it, and can't avoid doing so.
And here, you try to convince yourself that I'm under your control, again, when really it's the other way around.
By the way, I remain amused that you consistently avoid addressing my generalized argument. I'll repeat it again, just to taunt you.
My argument is that if you are aware of intended purpose of the tool you're selling at the time of sale, then you share accountability for that use. Further, if you sell a tool to someone so that they may do something that you would like to see done, you are even more accountable than in the example above.
He didn't have Eve's arm when he was trapped inside those blue force fields with the other bots. He saw the arm get "ripped off" and then her head "cut off" (by the polisher thing) and freaked out.
Do you know how many employees work for Pixar? Do you know how many animators there are? Do you honestly think those animators are the ones who sign off on creating merchandise? Or that Mr. MacLane said "Gee, I'm not rich enough, let's create a new movie about robots and get richer!"
Sure, they know anything they create will be merchandised. That statement implicitly acknowledges that it is beyond their control - i.e. they aren't the ones doing the merchandising.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest looking up Hauser's Law. Government revenue is about 19.5% no matter what the top tax bracket is.
So how about those economies of scale? Samsung can make big screen TVs because there's a big market for consumers to purchase them. In fact, if Obama's tax plan works, more people will be able to buy big screen TVs. This means more revenue for Samsung. It could very well increase revenue so much that it offsets the potential tax increases, resulting in a net profit after taxes were raised.
Bonus - enlarging the market allows economies of scale to drive the cost down further, making things cheaper for everyone rich or poor.
Keynes said that economic policy should focus on the bottom of the ladder, because those individuals are most likely to spend their money in the economy, which will directly benefit the wealthy who own the means of production.
How long have we had the supply-siders running things? What happened to our once mighty middle class, now threatened with extinction? Face it - you cut taxes for the rich and they just hogged all their money, or they blew it on multi-million dollar yachts (who the hell does that help?) and $4000 hookers.
Your argument is quite valid against excess income tax rate, but it fails spectacularly when taken to the limit. If "the rich" want to go somewhere else...where do they go? Who gets a better return on investment besides America? If they take their ball and go home like whiney bitches, there will be other investors who will seize the opportunity to make a new fortune. That's the beauty of the market - voids will be filled. There will still be plenty of money to be made in America, and someone will make it, and it won't be your greedy ass.
Republicans move toward a non-progressive tax in much the same way you allege Senator Obama wants to move toward socialism.
The past is not irrelevant. In case you didn't notice, we're at war right now. Have you seen the national debt lately?
Last I checked, our economic situation was fantastic after World War II. We had prosperity for decades under "high taxes". High taxes on the rich provided a huge middle class with disposable income. The massive size of new markets for goods allowed economies of scale to drive the cost of everything down tremendously.
Obama wants all Americans to share in the wealth that they create, as opposed to allowing a privileged few to concentrate America's wealth into their own families. No more will the CEO pilfer the employee's pensions to pay himself hundreds of times more than the average worker's salary, only to get a multi-million dollar golden parachute for ruining the company.
Perhaps it's time for Americans to realize that capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive, and a hybrid system is the best approach.
define:strawman - opponent's position is restated so that it is easier to attack, then the restated position is attributed to the opponent
The only point I re-stated was my own - that Republicans are labeling the tax plan as socialism on virtue of being progressive.
Now, let's take your straw man, regarding the figures that you pulled out of your ass and which you basically attributed to me. Had you actually watched the video, you would notice that McCain was defending the progressive income tax before the Bush tax cuts.
Obama's tax plan lets the Bush tax cuts for the upper class expire. Again, if Obama's tax plan is socialist, we've been living in a socialist country for a while now. Clinton had some of the lowest tax rates in history.
Did you know that under Eisenhower, the top tax bracket paid a 91% income tax?
Clear through the Cold War, while we were fighting socialists, our income tax rate for the highest bracket was around 70% or so.
And here you are, screeching about how a 39.6% tax rate is socialist.
That is kind of the point. The Republicans have convinced people that Obama's tax plan, which is progressive, is somehow socialist. Which means that we've been a socialist country for some time now...
I was under the impression that Alaska would sell the land to oil companies who can develop it. Why, then, would Palin tax the oil companies extra after having already sold the land to them?
Did you bother to read what I wrote? Lazy people who are not contributing are in fact not going to get money back. Furthermore, right now, "welfare" (properly known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is time-limited and contingent on effort to seek employment.
Regarding Obama's tax plan, you have to be gainfully employed if you wish to get any tax credit. I suggest page 2, where it says "the 'Making Work Pay' credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples"
Let me tell you about economies of scale. You can afford to buy a big screen TV, surround sound stereo, and multi-core computer, only because there is a vast American middle class with significant disposable income who create a market for millions of these devices. The huge cost of designing these things is amortized across the volume of product produced.
Now, recently, the GDP fell 0.3% due to a 3.1% fall in consumer spending, which makes up 70% of GDP. If the disposable income continues to decrease, the middle class will vanish, economies of scale will shrink, and everything will suddenly cost a lot more, because there will be fewer items to amortize high initial costs.
Then companies...like, say, GM or Chrysler, end up selling fewer products and have to cut jobs and production, which further reduces the size of the middle class, creating a vicious cycle.
Did you miss the part where Palin taxed the profits of the oil companies? They were taxed because they were making a killer profit (hence "windfall profits tax"), but you seem to be confused because it's shared with everyone instead of just the poor. Socialism does not necessarily mean Robin Hood.
How about this. If you find oil underneath your house, who is getting the money for that oil?
In Texas, ONLY YOU get the money for that oil.
In Alaska, EVERYONE gets the money for that oil.
Specifically for your analogy, the guy who found the gold under his house would get all the money, normally. If the town forced him to split the revenue among every man, woman, and child in the town, that would in fact be socialism. If he had only one child, and another family had two, they get more of his gold.
Thank you for the context. I have bolded my own parts that I feel define the theme of the paragraph.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
He is saying that because poor people spend more of their money on things that are necessary, they should generally face a lower tax burden than the wealthy, who spend significant amounts of money on pointless things (in excess of $4000 for a session with Spitzer's hooker?).
By the way, I didn't mention income tax. I was discussing progressive taxes in general. Any progressive tax (income, property, or otherwise) should not be labeled socialist on virtue of being progressive. Adam Smith first finds progressive taxes to be reasonable in general and then progressive property taxes in specific.
See also sibling post.
Obama's tax cuts are aimed at people who actually work, so lazy people who are sitting around and not contributing aren't going to get anything back.
Now, let's talk about Alaska. They don't pay income tax up there. In fact, every single man, woman, and child (even infants) get paid by the government to live there. Alaskans all receive an "equitable share of the state's non-renewable resources." That certainly doesn't happen in Texas!
Now, let's talk about Palin.
Palin said: "Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"
Palin passed a windfall profits tax , literally taking profits away from oil companies, and redistributed it amongst every man, woman, and child in America, to the tune of an extra $1200 on top of what Alaskans got that year from the Permanent Fund Dividend.
Well said. If only the people who use "Marxist!" as an attack had actually...you know...read more than a few sentences written by Karl Marx.
Nah. They just want something to focus their hateful energy on. It doesn't matter how good or bad the target is; it only matters that many other people hate it too.
You bitch slapped him with an invisible hand!
At the end of the 6th paragraph
This is otherwise referred to as a progressive tax. It's not actually that bad of an idea. Compare to regressive tax.
It is such a good idea that, in fact, John McCain himself advocated for a progressive tax system, back in 2000.
Digital phosphor scopes are the way to go, man. My company bought one that cost more than my car, and it was used!
I totally agree with you, though. We need more people who aren't afraid to scope and solder. I enjoy looking on eBay for "broken" electronics on the cheap and trying to fix them. It's like a huge discount on a stereo receiver or a DVD player or a laptop...
Obama's lack of experience
I'm not worried about Obama's experience. He surrounds himself with smart guys, not cronies. The experience of the smart guys he surrounds himself are my concern. Powell, Volcker, and the countless other advisers.
Obama is a socialist.
Up front, I'm not looking to attack you. I want a serious discussion. I hope you do, too.
I know O'Reilly said Obama's a socialist because of his tax cuts. He calls it "wealth redistributionism". This is a stretch for a few reasons.
The first is that none of the tax money taken from "the rich" actually goes directly to "the poor". The poor are simply taxed less. The only money they will get is money that they earn. People who pay no taxes will not get extra money back.
Second, the tax rate of the highest bracket during World War 1 was about 70%. During the Great Depression it was about 60%. During World War II it was about 80 to 94%. After the war it was about 90%.
Why the high taxes? Wars cost money. A lot of money. But during this war, our taxes were cut, to 35% (and some people use Capital Gains to lower their tax rate even further).
The current Republican administration used emergency supplemental spending bills to fund the Iraq war off-the-budget by taking out debt from other countries. Dick Cheney's words - "Deficits don't matter." I call this irresponsible deficit spending "tax your children and spend".
Third, some tax money does things for the public good. Education, transportation, infrastructure, police, fire department, etc. I happen to like not having to pay tolls to drive on the road. So from this we can surmise that some socialist concepts (i.e. public roads, public education) are good things.
Finally, government can in fact do something to make people's lives better. The reason it has such a problem right now is rampant cronyism. If government were composed of experts picked based on merits, they would create a system which provides incentives for people to do the right thing. Those incentives should be a hand up, not a hand out.
My gmail account name is identical to my slashdot name if you want to continue this discussion.
First, I applaud your usage of convolve in prose. I've never seen it used outside of signal processing.
Second, I think you're way too eager to throw the researcher in jail. He is performing research and it's entirely possible that it could be useful. The only way you could dismiss it, personally, is to actually review it. Until then, it's a Schrodinger's Cat.
Even then, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to throw researchers into jail for doing research.
It's possible to move the Queen into a position where it can be taken immediately, but at risk of exposing the King to a checkmate. Sometimes, suicide is a good thing.
You're not too far off, actually. Senior Democrats knew about the NSA surveillance program and did nothing. As a matter of fact, Jay Rockefeller made a hand-written note to Dick Cheney expressing "concern" over the program.
I think people would like to believe that Democrats are Progressive and would stand up against this sort of thing, hence "caving in", whereas Republicans are all for increased government surveillance to fight those terr'rists, hence "creating the mess".
For what it's worth, I think it's not Democrats vs. Republicans or liberals vs. conservatives, but corporations vs. people.
You said -
the creation of the mess lies in the hands of Republicans. However, the SANCTIONING of said mess lies fully in the hands of the Congress, who created and approved this bill.
Article summary said -
Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in, or both
Hmm...my fuzzy equals circuit is trying to tell me that caving in is somehow equivalent to sanctioning...
And the article summary was shorter, to boot. Imagine that - a short summary. I think I should patent this!
Water is a dipole. The oxygen is slightly more negative and the hydrogens are slightly more positive in charge, because the
When the electric field flows through the microwave, water molecules rotate to align themselves with the electric field.
Molecules that do not have dipole moments (like fat) will not rotate. This is why some food says on the package that it cannot be microwaved.
You would be nowhere and have nothing if patents had been allowed in the first thirty years of electronic computing.
EXACTLY! Imagine if Dijkstra had patented his algorithm.
True scientists are interested in the evolution of human knowledge. Greedy capitalist pig-dogs are interested in lining their pockets. I, for one, am glad that people like Dijkstra were more interested in the benefit of humanity.
The Death Star Contractor argument backs up what I was saying. They know their product will create a franchise that will be merchandised - it's not as if they're totally innocent, and I never claimed they were.
However, they are not the ones putting out Wall-E merchandise. That's my point. It's not their decision and it's not their call, even if they know it's inevitable, so to say they want you to buy all this crap (LWATCDR's allegation) is disingenuous. It'd be like saying the Death Star Contractors are the ones shooting the laser that blows up planets. They might have helped, but they are not directly liable for how it is used.
And I think in this case, I think they realized that their story would be greater than the money their employer gets from selling shit. Perhaps even the creation of the Wall-E franchise would help maintain focus on keeping the world green. Ironically, the products create brand recognition that keeps the strength of the story alive beyond watching it on the screen.
I found it deep and meaningful, but that might be in part because I saw reflections of the loving relationship I am currently engaged in. Without such a relationship, I might not have liked certain parts of the movie as much.
Further, I never said they didn't know the movie would be marketed. Of course these people know that their employer will create a franchise out of their creation. What are they to do, then? Simply not create their pride and joy out of spite?
That's foolish, as any message they had would never get out in such a case. No, they submissively accept that their employer is going to market their creation, and that their ability to create hinges on their employer giving them the required tools.
I dare you to show me any of the artists or story writers who go around telling people to buy Pixar merch.
"I said chemical warfare was outlawed by Geneva, and you said no it wasn't."
And it wasn't
Here you are again displaying the traits of someone who is trying to lawyer their way out of a pinch. Go ahead and continue to get picky over naturally implicit details like "the people who signed the treaty" etc. However, minus some rather minor caveats, you can't argue that the spirit of the Geneva protocol was to prevent the use of things like mustard gas during war. You can sum that up by saying "Geneva banned chemical weapons" or "Geneva made chemical warfare illegal".
But that's not your follow on contention which was SPECIFICALLY ""[sic]You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong." and ids [sic] irrefutably a lie. I never SAID that or IN ANY WAY claimed it, you are a lair [sic].
Wow, three typos in one sentence. You must have been furious.
Okay, let's walk through this very slowly one step at a time, and hopefully you will finally see through your own rage long enough to notice how full of shit you are.
1) I said chemical warfare is illegal since Geneva.
2) You replied (with English that rivals that of an inner-city bully) nuh uh!!!
3) I said duh, look at the name. Prohibition of poisonous gases. What part of prohibition don't you understand?
4) You say but it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage!!!
So, I said chemical warfare is illegal, and you said I'm wrong because you can store or manufacture such weapons (which has absolutely nothing to do with my point). In order for your statement to have any merit, I would have had to say "you can't make or store chemical weapons"...but I never said that, which is why this is a straw man. You pretend I said something that I didn't say, and proceed to respond to it as if that was my argument, because you can't defeat my actual argument.
And look at you responding because you're wrong, know it, and can't avoid doing so.
And here, you try to convince yourself that I'm under your control, again, when really it's the other way around.
By the way, I remain amused that you consistently avoid addressing my generalized argument. I'll repeat it again, just to taunt you.
He didn't have Eve's arm when he was trapped inside those blue force fields with the other bots. He saw the arm get "ripped off" and then her head "cut off" (by the polisher thing) and freaked out.
Do you know how many employees work for Pixar? Do you know how many animators there are? Do you honestly think those animators are the ones who sign off on creating merchandise? Or that Mr. MacLane said "Gee, I'm not rich enough, let's create a new movie about robots and get richer!"
Sure, they know anything they create will be merchandised. That statement implicitly acknowledges that it is beyond their control - i.e. they aren't the ones doing the merchandising.