What happens when the authority's theories and models do not match reality, and yet they stand by their theories and models? Does that discredit the authorities, the models, and theories, or do we simply ignore reality and those who ask about the disparity?
When models and theories clash with data, it is the data that wins - every time.
No they wouldn't; they only have to show that Costco distributed foods that it should have known were dangerous (at least, that's what the plaintiff's case would be). Costco's providing of food or lack thereof would be immaterial - it would be "Costco/BigEvilCorporation fed us poison!" and that is that.
Except in this day and age, a jury trial is still a massive gamble for Costco because you may just end up with most jurors out to "stick to the big corporation" because "they can afford it" if someone gets sick. Nothing about the actual law, but what 12 people think is right - and when it comes to corporations, most people think it's right for them to always pay because "they can afford it".
That rock in WA State wasn't stable, and hasn't been for quite a LONG time (at least 100+ years). It's not a good example of stable rock getting wet - it's an example of thick soil and lots of trees (roots breaking up rock) on steep bedrock in very wet conditions - continual slides. Saw it happen an awful lot when hiking in the back country off of Stevens Pass (I was born and raised in Seattle).
Mobile cameras like my Contour have a 170 degree field of view - and as a motorcyclist you keep your head on a constant pivot to continually scan what is around you. If there's anything in the front ~220 degrees of me, the camera will pick it up with just my regular, safe left/right scan motion of my head.
As far as the roads and risks go, please talk to your local law enforcement about the rights and responsibilities of cars and motorcycles. You'll find we have to obey the same laws as you, and we have every right to our position in a lane. Yes, there are idiots that pass on the shoulder (illegal), but the VAST majority do not - just like there are idiots that decide to merge into another lane without signalling or head-checking (the former is illegal; the latter is common sense).
As it is, this one in four figure is useless, and all it does is add to the fire for people who just like to bitch about other people using cell phones (I know people who bitch about other people using cell phones while walking or even sitting, which poses no harm to anybody.)
I know this is anecdotal, but I'd say 80% of the close-calls I've had whilst riding my motorcycle were caused by folks talking on their phone, completely oblivious to me in the lane next to them. The nice thing about a bike is I can move out of the way quickly and safely, and I also sit as high or higher than 90% of drivers on the road - and can see in to their car really easy to see them texting or talking and look up startled as I honk and swerve... I've even turned in video footage (I have a helmet cam) to drivers who were especially egregious - hard to deny you were texting/talking when there is a good chunk of video proving it.
Distracted driving - of which phones are a major contributor because it is interactive (usually 2 way communication, as compared to the one way of a broadcast radio/satellite/CD source) - is a serious danger. If something is SO IMPORTANT that you have to talk on the phone NOW - then pull over. Thirty seconds won't kill you - but it might kill someone else.
But if you believe random parts of the bible are just metaphorical, then why take any of it seriously?
Much of Sun Tzu's masterpiece is metaphorical, but is great philosophy when it comes to conflict - either in actual war or business. Likewise most of the I Ching is metaphorical - and is quite salient to daily life. Metaphors are great ways to communicate, and there is a lot of valuable underlying philosophical concepts contained in all 3 of those works (the bible, Sun Tzu's Art Of War, and the I Ching). Throwing away writings as nonsense (not to be taken seriously) because parts of it are metaphorical would really leave a person missing out on a lot of well-developed and carefully considered philosophy.
Since the argument has now shifted from temperature to the neutralization of the oceans (moving from base to neutral), I can assume you agree the temperature models as used within the IPCC reports are bunk and should be ignored?
Most models, including the ones cited by TFA, predict 1-2 C average global temp increase by the end of the century. Troll again, perhaps? The point being argued here, if you need comprehension help, is what the effect of that increase will be.
Yes, troll again - because whilst most models predict the rise, the models are completely wrong when compared with real data. So the decision becomes do we trust models which are NOT matching reality, or do we go with real, hard data (empirical science) and toss the models and build anew?
And from an anecdotal point of view having been in emergency management for 15 years, I can say from personal experience that storms are getting more frequent and more powerful.
Interesting, must just be your neck of the woods, since hurricane/cyclone frequency and energy is decreasing on a global scale. Sure, we're spotting more hurricanes/cyclones, but fewer are making landfall and are weaker as well. Perhaps our ability to spot hurricanes out at sea, and classify them correctly is what is getting better, not the actual number occurring.
Likewise with tornadoes, which have remained more-or-less constant. Damage caused by F1 to F5 tornadoes is actually dropping; it's the little guys, the F0s, that are increasing damage. Is that because there are more tornadoes? No, there are not more tornadoes. I suggest it is because there is more lightweight construction in/near tornado zones and so damage is happening where in the past it would not - nothing to damage.
"...Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis said she'd rather see companies pay more in taxes..."
Wouldn't they have to pay taxes first?
The companies (Microsoft, Google, and Apple in particular, since they are included in the story) pay billions in taxes every year (a quick check of their annual reports show tens of billions in Federal income taxes alone). The teacher's union, on the other hand, is tax exempt...
HI there, born and raised in Seattle, lived there for the first 36 of the 46 years of my life (Ballard, Lynnwood, Edmonds). I guess the fact that WA State has been dominated over the last 30+ years by the Democrats, and that Seattle is arguably the most liberal (by voter trends towards parties) big city in the US, and that the last "GOP" Governor was Langlie back in the 50s (Evans and Spellman were more Democrat than GOP, based on their voting records), you're condemnation is about rich LIBERAL people, not conservatives. Washington in General, Puget sound more specifically, and Seattle in particular are HIGHLY Democrat and liberal - and that is usually where racism comes from. See Jesse Jackson (Democrat).
Wait, are you saying we're all inundated by radiation from nuclear fusion? How can we stop this atrocity! We must protect ourselves from the radiation of that nuclear fusion - think of the children!
Apple won't do that - they'd rather you buy an iPhone than use an iPad or iPod to act as a phone. They are in the business of selling hardware, their software and services exist to sell new hardware - not expand the capability of old units.
However, there IS a way to do what you ask - Skype. I use it (along with Google Voice), my Skype number ($5/month) is my main business number. It will ring me at my computer and my cell phone, wherever I am connected to the Internet. For example, I'm in China right now, but I do have a China Mobile account with data - and I get calls from the US on my Skype number whilst out and about in town. I also have voice mail, for the relatively few times I am not connected (or when I am not available). Yes, it costs $5/month to have that phone number, but I have unlimited incoming call minutes - and it's always live, around the world.
Re:Google Voice still being actively developed
on
Goodbye, Google Voice
·
· Score: 1
Still actively developed would be "We've got this 3+ year old thing, it's really popular and maybe the rest of the planet might care if they could use it".
As a Canadian, I'm often pissed-off by all the services not available in Canada. Maybe Google are not aware there's more than one country in North America.
Well, yeah, it can be pretty common for US companies to overlook Mexico sometimes...
Imagine you have a website called "AllahIsFalse.com". Now, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and many other Muslim countries may very well block that domain; however, with a wonderful UN-controlled Internet, some international bureaucrats sitting in New York can now decide that your website is actually a hate-site, and thus turn you off around the entire world. Since, after all, some people in some other countries - who have bureaucrats sitting in New York - don't like what you have, and we want to all get along...
Additionally, you never answered the original question. Basic logic would suggest that if you tax the rich until there are no more rich, the end result should be a society with neither rich nor poor. You suggest that the poor would remain poor. I asked where the money went. You had no answer.
I had an answer. You take all the money, and they end up poor - and the poor are no better off, either. By eliminating the super wealthy, do we eliminate the poverty line? Is that your assertion? If not - then eliminating the super-wealthy, and spreading their money around (not nearly enough of it to raise everyone out of poverty), all we've done is increase the number of poor.
Benjamin Franklin said it best: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became rich."
That doesn't make the poor appreciably any better off
I think the poor would disagree with you there. That $283 is more than they make in a year.
Typical western ignorance.
Yes, your ignorance is showing, but this is slashdot and talking out your rear is welcomed. So how much of a change would $283 be? Have you spent time in Ghana, or Haiti, or Uruguay, or Laos? I have - and whilst $283 would definitely help out - it would not significantly change anyone's lifestyle. It's going to take more than that - meaning it's better to focus on growing economies, not just handing out dollars (like ignorant Western people want to do).
There is reason many native Africans call for a halt to charity - and to refocus our efforts on assisting building economies. The whole "give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" argument. But then, if you weren't doing that, how can you refocus your class envy?
The wealthiest individuals do not pay income tax because they don't have income. Their "income" is actually long term capital gains with the highest rate paid at 20%. They don't pay SSI, Medicare or Medicaide and even if they did they are capped at $125,000 in income. Because of this Mitt Romney had to pay extra taxes for his effective rate (the actual taxation rate) to be 15%.
Again, please see the actual data. The top 1% average a 24% income tax rate. And IF it was just the 15% you claim, then it's still in the top 6%. Meaning more than 94% of all US taxpayers pay.
How is paying a much higher rate than 94 out of 100 in any way NOT progressive?
Slashdot Mirror
What happens when the authority's theories and models do not match reality, and yet they stand by their theories and models? Does that discredit the authorities, the models, and theories, or do we simply ignore reality and those who ask about the disparity?
When models and theories clash with data, it is the data that wins - every time.
...on the monolith declaring "All your worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there."
"Oh, and also Enceladus on the next planet over. Thanks!"
No they wouldn't; they only have to show that Costco distributed foods that it should have known were dangerous (at least, that's what the plaintiff's case would be). Costco's providing of food or lack thereof would be immaterial - it would be "Costco/BigEvilCorporation fed us poison!" and that is that.
They don't. If a corporation makes profit, they pay taxes.
Except in this day and age, a jury trial is still a massive gamble for Costco because you may just end up with most jurors out to "stick to the big corporation" because "they can afford it" if someone gets sick. Nothing about the actual law, but what 12 people think is right - and when it comes to corporations, most people think it's right for them to always pay because "they can afford it".
That rock in WA State wasn't stable, and hasn't been for quite a LONG time (at least 100+ years). It's not a good example of stable rock getting wet - it's an example of thick soil and lots of trees (roots breaking up rock) on steep bedrock in very wet conditions - continual slides. Saw it happen an awful lot when hiking in the back country off of Stevens Pass (I was born and raised in Seattle).
Just look at the slides in Washington for an example of what happens when you get otherwise stable *dry* rock wet.
What, major slides every 5-10 years, so much that the place is known as Slide Hill?
Mobile cameras like my Contour have a 170 degree field of view - and as a motorcyclist you keep your head on a constant pivot to continually scan what is around you. If there's anything in the front ~220 degrees of me, the camera will pick it up with just my regular, safe left/right scan motion of my head.
As far as the roads and risks go, please talk to your local law enforcement about the rights and responsibilities of cars and motorcycles. You'll find we have to obey the same laws as you, and we have every right to our position in a lane. Yes, there are idiots that pass on the shoulder (illegal), but the VAST majority do not - just like there are idiots that decide to merge into another lane without signalling or head-checking (the former is illegal; the latter is common sense).
As it is, this one in four figure is useless, and all it does is add to the fire for people who just like to bitch about other people using cell phones (I know people who bitch about other people using cell phones while walking or even sitting, which poses no harm to anybody.)
I know this is anecdotal, but I'd say 80% of the close-calls I've had whilst riding my motorcycle were caused by folks talking on their phone, completely oblivious to me in the lane next to them. The nice thing about a bike is I can move out of the way quickly and safely, and I also sit as high or higher than 90% of drivers on the road - and can see in to their car really easy to see them texting or talking and look up startled as I honk and swerve... I've even turned in video footage (I have a helmet cam) to drivers who were especially egregious - hard to deny you were texting/talking when there is a good chunk of video proving it.
Distracted driving - of which phones are a major contributor because it is interactive (usually 2 way communication, as compared to the one way of a broadcast radio/satellite/CD source) - is a serious danger. If something is SO IMPORTANT that you have to talk on the phone NOW - then pull over. Thirty seconds won't kill you - but it might kill someone else.
But if you believe random parts of the bible are just metaphorical, then why take any of it seriously?
Much of Sun Tzu's masterpiece is metaphorical, but is great philosophy when it comes to conflict - either in actual war or business. Likewise most of the I Ching is metaphorical - and is quite salient to daily life. Metaphors are great ways to communicate, and there is a lot of valuable underlying philosophical concepts contained in all 3 of those works (the bible, Sun Tzu's Art Of War, and the I Ching). Throwing away writings as nonsense (not to be taken seriously) because parts of it are metaphorical would really leave a person missing out on a lot of well-developed and carefully considered philosophy.
Since the argument has now shifted from temperature to the neutralization of the oceans (moving from base to neutral), I can assume you agree the temperature models as used within the IPCC reports are bunk and should be ignored?
I grew up in Ballard, and remember the Ballard Driving School skit. And thinking "what, that's not a real school? That's how everyone drives!"
Most models, including the ones cited by TFA, predict 1-2 C average global temp increase by the end of the century. Troll again, perhaps? The point being argued here, if you need comprehension help, is what the effect of that increase will be.
Yes, troll again - because whilst most models predict the rise, the models are completely wrong when compared with real data. So the decision becomes do we trust models which are NOT matching reality, or do we go with real, hard data (empirical science) and toss the models and build anew?
And from an anecdotal point of view having been in emergency management for 15 years, I can say from personal experience that storms are getting more frequent and more powerful.
Interesting, must just be your neck of the woods, since hurricane/cyclone frequency and energy is decreasing on a global scale. Sure, we're spotting more hurricanes/cyclones, but fewer are making landfall and are weaker as well. Perhaps our ability to spot hurricanes out at sea, and classify them correctly is what is getting better, not the actual number occurring.
Likewise with tornadoes, which have remained more-or-less constant. Damage caused by F1 to F5 tornadoes is actually dropping; it's the little guys, the F0s, that are increasing damage. Is that because there are more tornadoes? No, there are not more tornadoes. I suggest it is because there is more lightweight construction in/near tornado zones and so damage is happening where in the past it would not - nothing to damage.
Almost Live - a weekly half hour comedy skit show in Seattle in the 80s is what made Bill Nye.
" ...Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis said she'd rather see companies pay more in taxes ..."
Wouldn't they have to pay taxes first?
The companies (Microsoft, Google, and Apple in particular, since they are included in the story) pay billions in taxes every year (a quick check of their annual reports show tens of billions in Federal income taxes alone). The teacher's union, on the other hand, is tax exempt...
HI there, born and raised in Seattle, lived there for the first 36 of the 46 years of my life (Ballard, Lynnwood, Edmonds). I guess the fact that WA State has been dominated over the last 30+ years by the Democrats, and that Seattle is arguably the most liberal (by voter trends towards parties) big city in the US, and that the last "GOP" Governor was Langlie back in the 50s (Evans and Spellman were more Democrat than GOP, based on their voting records), you're condemnation is about rich LIBERAL people, not conservatives. Washington in General, Puget sound more specifically, and Seattle in particular are HIGHLY Democrat and liberal - and that is usually where racism comes from. See Jesse Jackson (Democrat).
Wait, are you saying we're all inundated by radiation from nuclear fusion? How can we stop this atrocity! We must protect ourselves from the radiation of that nuclear fusion - think of the children!
Apple won't do that - they'd rather you buy an iPhone than use an iPad or iPod to act as a phone. They are in the business of selling hardware, their software and services exist to sell new hardware - not expand the capability of old units.
However, there IS a way to do what you ask - Skype. I use it (along with Google Voice), my Skype number ($5/month) is my main business number. It will ring me at my computer and my cell phone, wherever I am connected to the Internet. For example, I'm in China right now, but I do have a China Mobile account with data - and I get calls from the US on my Skype number whilst out and about in town. I also have voice mail, for the relatively few times I am not connected (or when I am not available). Yes, it costs $5/month to have that phone number, but I have unlimited incoming call minutes - and it's always live, around the world.
As a Canadian, I'm often pissed-off by all the services not available in Canada. Maybe Google are not aware there's more than one country in North America.
Well, yeah, it can be pretty common for US companies to overlook Mexico sometimes...
Imagine you have a website called "AllahIsFalse.com". Now, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and many other Muslim countries may very well block that domain; however, with a wonderful UN-controlled Internet, some international bureaucrats sitting in New York can now decide that your website is actually a hate-site, and thus turn you off around the entire world. Since, after all, some people in some other countries - who have bureaucrats sitting in New York - don't like what you have, and we want to all get along...
Saudi Arabia is nothing. Think Russia and China.
Additionally, you never answered the original question. Basic logic would suggest that if you tax the rich until there are no more rich, the end result should be a society with neither rich nor poor. You suggest that the poor would remain poor. I asked where the money went. You had no answer.
I had an answer. You take all the money, and they end up poor - and the poor are no better off, either. By eliminating the super wealthy, do we eliminate the poverty line? Is that your assertion? If not - then eliminating the super-wealthy, and spreading their money around (not nearly enough of it to raise everyone out of poverty), all we've done is increase the number of poor.
Benjamin Franklin said it best: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became rich."
That doesn't make the poor appreciably any better off
I think the poor would disagree with you there. That $283 is more than they make in a year. Typical western ignorance.
Yes, your ignorance is showing, but this is slashdot and talking out your rear is welcomed. So how much of a change would $283 be? Have you spent time in Ghana, or Haiti, or Uruguay, or Laos? I have - and whilst $283 would definitely help out - it would not significantly change anyone's lifestyle. It's going to take more than that - meaning it's better to focus on growing economies, not just handing out dollars (like ignorant Western people want to do).
There is reason many native Africans call for a halt to charity - and to refocus our efforts on assisting building economies. The whole "give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" argument. But then, if you weren't doing that, how can you refocus your class envy?
The wealthiest individuals do not pay income tax because they don't have income. Their "income" is actually long term capital gains with the highest rate paid at 20%. They don't pay SSI, Medicare or Medicaide and even if they did they are capped at $125,000 in income. Because of this Mitt Romney had to pay extra taxes for his effective rate (the actual taxation rate) to be 15%.
Again, please see the actual data. The top 1% average a 24% income tax rate. And IF it was just the 15% you claim, then it's still in the top 6%. Meaning more than 94% of all US taxpayers pay.
How is paying a much higher rate than 94 out of 100 in any way NOT progressive?