No, you aren't thrown in jail for being poor. But you can certainly be thrown in jail for the side-effects of being poor, e.g. the inability to pay a bill or fine. And people on public assistance don't get money. They get vouchers to buy certain necessity items. They can't buy liquor, for example. So I don't think they're buying heroin with it either.
Jailed for not paying a bill or fine: only if that is a Government bill or fine. A private institution cannot have you jailed for not paying your bill. Stop paying your rent, or mortgage, or Visa bill and you won't end up in jail. Don't pay your taxes and away you go!
So why is it bad to "denigrate" the poor? Seems the less we've pushed the habitually poor (those who get welfare - beyond unemployment and EITC and the like that is given to the temporarily unemployed and working poor) the more we have. Maybe a little social stigma is needed to get people moving in the upwards direction. Of course, that also means there have to be jobs available - and pushing for above-market minimum wages doesn't help...
The poor have to do drug tests to get their tax benefits.
The rich do not have to do drug tests to get their tax benefits.
How is that treating people equally?
Your supposition is flawed; the poor HAVE no tax benefits because they do not PAY any taxes. In fact, we give the poor tax refunds that were never paid for in the first place.
If taxes are, as you basically argue, a use tax/service fee - then let's structure it as such. The US Federal Government is spending about $4 trillion this year for the 320 million of us present. So let's go ahead and send every man, woman, and child a bill for $12,500. That's their fee for the service provided.
Manyonthe left want to use taxes not to pay for the goods and services received, but to redistribute wealth to "make it equal". THAT is the fundamental difference between Conservatism and Liberalism in the US: Conservatives want to see equality of opportunity - everyone starts the race at the same line. Liberalism seeks equality of results - we all cross the finish line at the same time. And for the liberal politicians, they see the tax code as a way to enforce their belief. All the while exempting themselves from such levels (for example, President Obama pays about 20% in taxes even though the typical 1%er like he is pays much more. Heck, he pays a lower rate than the top 5% even though he's towards the very top end of that group).
I wonder of the good Congresswoman realizes that means she'd be drug tested, too... The average Congresscritter is worth over $1 million, with an income that puts them solidly in the top 5% of earners in the US; and most are in the top 1%.
It's a defrayed cost that can be addressed when the country has enough money. If the choice is deal with an issue in the future, or stay 3rd world and economically repressed - most will choose the former. And in the LONG run (like 100-150 years) the environment is better off - environmental quality tends to rise with GDP per capita.
Hydro is not considered renewable by everyone: "hydropower doesn’t count toward utilities’ renewable energy mandates in most states". Insane, but that's how many States and Governments see it.
Because coal is a cheap and dirty way to get power. At one time the US was mainly powered by coal - that's changed. At one time, China was mainly powered by coal - that's changing. Cheap electricity (which you get from coal) allows your economy as a whole to grow and improve, allowing for cleaner power installations in the future. It's a stepping stone.
The best way to lower use of coal is to grow and improve economies to where the higher installation and operation costs of non-coal based power can be tolerated.
Why do that when you can just get the OS vendors to give you backdoors and control? That way you can access everyone, not just the few that have this extra hardware feature...
Superdelegates are strictly a DNC thing, and they account for 20% of all votes. Unelected, unpledged. Essentially a populist candidate has to achieve at least 60% of all pledged (voted for) delegates to overcome a candidate supported by the Party. Basically - a supermajority needed to win against the wishes of the powers-that-be in the Democrat Party.
Yes, the GOP has them as well - but they are limited to about 6% total, and must vote according to the popular vote of their entire State. So even if they do not like the person who carried their State, they have to vote for them at the convention. Pretty different from the Democrat variety who can vote however they choose (and however they've been paid, most likely).
Sanders has to buy off a lot of superdelegates. If he does that - he wins. The voters haven't spoken - they're split between Hillary and Bernie. It's the privileged few (the 1%) of the Democrat party leadership who will effectively anoint either Hillary or Bernie. Not the voters.
Perhaps a minor blip up on the overall long-term slide in marketshare?
Seriously - do you have ANY data, any data at all, that points to iOS maintaining or growing marketshare? Any at all? If not - then I am right and you are wrong. End of discussion.
Macrumors has it dropping from 20.4% to 17.7% - not really miniscule (a 13% drop is quite a lot). And the market share is what we're discussing, not number of devices sold. Thanks for confirming my statements though - and again, not providing an ounce of data to the contrary.
Actually, she hasn't. Neither Hillary or Bernie have enough pledged delegates at this point to win the nomination. By design and rule, superdelegates are UNPLEDGED up to the point they cast their ballot. Bernie and his supporters are working on switching them, and apparently a few have actually switched. Neither candidate has this wrapped up - it's going to wait until the convention and the final tally of superdelegates is actually made.
Why would they do that? How else can they move to a "monthly subscription model" for your file system? You'll pay Apple some nominal $9.99 charge per month - can't do that if it's some easy-to-support file system. Gotta be proprietary so your files and data are nearly impossible to move over (the rest of the OS/dev languages will quickly follow with support for nanosecond file times - and will break if that granularity isn't there) and thus Apple achieves the ultimate lock-in. With monthly recurring revenue.
Do you have more current data? Other current articles are just for the current time, don't show the data history but do confirm that iOS is losing market share. Macrumors confirms the numbers as well. So - where's data that says otherwise?
As far as not showing what's claimed, do a fit to the data presented. You'll find that iOS is on a slow downward slope, and Android is on an upward slope. That's what the data says. Absent any counter data presented...
Slashdot Mirror
No, you aren't thrown in jail for being poor. But you can certainly be thrown in jail for the side-effects of being poor, e.g. the inability to pay a bill or fine. And people on public assistance don't get money. They get vouchers to buy certain necessity items. They can't buy liquor, for example. So I don't think they're buying heroin with it either.
Jailed for not paying a bill or fine: only if that is a Government bill or fine. A private institution cannot have you jailed for not paying your bill. Stop paying your rent, or mortgage, or Visa bill and you won't end up in jail. Don't pay your taxes and away you go!
And those vouchers are easy to sell for cash time and time again.
So why is it bad to "denigrate" the poor? Seems the less we've pushed the habitually poor (those who get welfare - beyond unemployment and EITC and the like that is given to the temporarily unemployed and working poor) the more we have. Maybe a little social stigma is needed to get people moving in the upwards direction. Of course, that also means there have to be jobs available - and pushing for above-market minimum wages doesn't help...
Assumption of guilt.
The poor have to do drug tests to get their tax benefits. The rich do not have to do drug tests to get their tax benefits.
How is that treating people equally?
Your supposition is flawed; the poor HAVE no tax benefits because they do not PAY any taxes. In fact, we give the poor tax refunds that were never paid for in the first place.
Failed supposition, failed conclusion.
If taxes are, as you basically argue, a use tax/service fee - then let's structure it as such. The US Federal Government is spending about $4 trillion this year for the 320 million of us present. So let's go ahead and send every man, woman, and child a bill for $12,500. That's their fee for the service provided.
Many on the left want to use taxes not to pay for the goods and services received, but to redistribute wealth to "make it equal". THAT is the fundamental difference between Conservatism and Liberalism in the US: Conservatives want to see equality of opportunity - everyone starts the race at the same line. Liberalism seeks equality of results - we all cross the finish line at the same time. And for the liberal politicians, they see the tax code as a way to enforce their belief. All the while exempting themselves from such levels (for example, President Obama pays about 20% in taxes even though the typical 1%er like he is pays much more. Heck, he pays a lower rate than the top 5% even though he's towards the very top end of that group).
I wonder of the good Congresswoman realizes that means she'd be drug tested, too... The average Congresscritter is worth over $1 million, with an income that puts them solidly in the top 5% of earners in the US; and most are in the top 1%.
LOL - 'tis true! On long enough time scales, EVERYTHING is recyclable!
It's a defrayed cost that can be addressed when the country has enough money. If the choice is deal with an issue in the future, or stay 3rd world and economically repressed - most will choose the former. And in the LONG run (like 100-150 years) the environment is better off - environmental quality tends to rise with GDP per capita.
Hydro is not considered renewable by everyone: "hydropower doesn’t count toward utilities’ renewable energy mandates in most states". Insane, but that's how many States and Governments see it.
Because coal is a cheap and dirty way to get power. At one time the US was mainly powered by coal - that's changed. At one time, China was mainly powered by coal - that's changing. Cheap electricity (which you get from coal) allows your economy as a whole to grow and improve, allowing for cleaner power installations in the future. It's a stepping stone.
The best way to lower use of coal is to grow and improve economies to where the higher installation and operation costs of non-coal based power can be tolerated.
Trump about 61%. Hillary about 55%. They're neck-in-neck in terms of unfavorables.
You just have to reverse the polarity of the deflector array. Duh, anyone knows that!
So all PCs use Intel processors? And all Intel processors made in the last 15 years have this feature?
Why do that when you can just get the OS vendors to give you backdoors and control? That way you can access everyone, not just the few that have this extra hardware feature...
Superdelegates are strictly a DNC thing, and they account for 20% of all votes. Unelected, unpledged. Essentially a populist candidate has to achieve at least 60% of all pledged (voted for) delegates to overcome a candidate supported by the Party. Basically - a supermajority needed to win against the wishes of the powers-that-be in the Democrat Party.
Yes, the GOP has them as well - but they are limited to about 6% total, and must vote according to the popular vote of their entire State. So even if they do not like the person who carried their State, they have to vote for them at the convention. Pretty different from the Democrat variety who can vote however they choose (and however they've been paid, most likely).
Sanders has to buy off a lot of superdelegates. If he does that - he wins. The voters haven't spoken - they're split between Hillary and Bernie. It's the privileged few (the 1%) of the Democrat party leadership who will effectively anoint either Hillary or Bernie. Not the voters.
Perhaps a minor blip up on the overall long-term slide in marketshare?
Seriously - do you have ANY data, any data at all, that points to iOS maintaining or growing marketshare? Any at all? If not - then I am right and you are wrong. End of discussion.
No, I said the file name was Hilarity, not HiIarity...
Macrumors has it dropping from 20.4% to 17.7% - not really miniscule (a 13% drop is quite a lot). And the market share is what we're discussing, not number of devices sold. Thanks for confirming my statements though - and again, not providing an ounce of data to the contrary.
I heard the DNC used the same impenetrable firewall on their server than SecState Hillary used. Locked bathroom door and everything!
Actually, she hasn't. Neither Hillary or Bernie have enough pledged delegates at this point to win the nomination. By design and rule, superdelegates are UNPLEDGED up to the point they cast their ballot. Bernie and his supporters are working on switching them, and apparently a few have actually switched. Neither candidate has this wrapped up - it's going to wait until the convention and the final tally of superdelegates is actually made.
Case sensitive file systems are great! Change those lower-case "L"s to upper case "i"s and watch the hilarity ensue!
For starters, number 1 we're really logical thinkers and B, we value consistency.
Why would they do that? How else can they move to a "monthly subscription model" for your file system? You'll pay Apple some nominal $9.99 charge per month - can't do that if it's some easy-to-support file system. Gotta be proprietary so your files and data are nearly impossible to move over (the rest of the OS/dev languages will quickly follow with support for nanosecond file times - and will break if that granularity isn't there) and thus Apple achieves the ultimate lock-in. With monthly recurring revenue.
Do you have more current data? Other current articles are just for the current time, don't show the data history but do confirm that iOS is losing market share. Macrumors confirms the numbers as well. So - where's data that says otherwise?
As far as not showing what's claimed, do a fit to the data presented. You'll find that iOS is on a slow downward slope, and Android is on an upward slope. That's what the data says. Absent any counter data presented...
Facts actually say you're wrong. Android is on the upward slope; iOS is slowly dropping.