How could anyone possibly enforce these restrictions besides spying on him 24/7
IANAL.
Obviously they're not going to do that. What happens in cases like this is if they get wind that he's been violating the terms of his probation (which are what these restrictions are), then his probation is revoked and he gets to serve his original sentence. Probation is a fairly complex issue - but the courts can pretty much put whatever restrictions they want on it. You can accept the restrictions, or accept the sentence.
If his probation officer suspect he's violated probation, typically, he'd be taken into custody and at a "show cause" hearing, he'd have to offer evidence that he's not guilty of violating probation. This is one case where there is a presumption of guilt - and the probationer must convince the court not to revoke his probation and reinstate the original sentence (typically, jail or prison).
Considering that the patent (filed 2/7/1990) predates CSS, Javascript, onmouse* events, and HTML itself, I'd have to say none of those would qualify as prior art.
Not defending the validity of the patent itself, I'm just sayin'...
The problem is, it's a matter of state-level taxation, and on a state level (in Washington), the taxation is regressive. In the past three years, I've made between $20,000 and $24,000/year, and I've never qualified for any state-level subsidies or breaks. So, as a working person in that bracket, in Washington, I pay a good five times as much of my personal income in taxes than my wealthier co-citizens.
I seriously doubt that you pay 5 times as much (expressed as a percentage of your income). Do you own a home? No? Then you don't pay property tax. No income tax, so that leaves sales tax - and you're only paying that on the part of your income that isn't spent on taxable items. Exclude rent, utilities, food, medicine, etc, and take ~10% (Seattle's sales tax rate) of what's left. It's a lot smaller than 10% of your income, and a hell of a lot less than the 17+% that the report you linked claimed. That report doesn't pass the giggle test for me - I know what quintile I'm in, and I know what I paid in state and local taxes, and it's not even close to what the report claims (I pay a lot more than what they claim the average is). Deductively, I can come to the opposite conclusion for you (i.e. that you don't pay nearly as much as they claim).
I'm not arguing for or against the proposed income tax. I wouldn't be paying it - even if I made enough income, I already pay income tax to Oregon (I live in Washington but work in Oregon), so it'd end up being a wash. My objection to the proposed tax is that once it's been voted in by the people, the legislature is free to fuck with it and expand it to cover more people (potentially, even those like you who make very little). See the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the history of income taxation at a federal level. The next time the state finds itself in a budgetary "crisis", they'll be free to expand an income tax as much as they like - and they won't have to put it to a vote of the people (unlike now).
I'm not a big fan of creating taxes that only affect a small number of people, even when I'm not part of the group that isn't paying it. If the state of Washington wants an income tax, then package it as part of a comprehensive tax reform package that also reins in some of the discretionary spending and reduces sales and property tax rates - and in addition, have everyone share in the pain of paying the income tax. Make it a graduated rate, and have a generous exemption - but if you're going to ask a majority of the voters to approve a tax, then a majority of the people ought to take part in paying it. Otherwise, it's just a matter of soaking someone else. See tobacco and alcohol taxes, for example - and if you're looking for a stunning example of a regressive tax, look no further.
However, for a state to lean most heavily on it's poorest citizens for funding is just ridiculous
In terms of absolute dollars, the amount of money that the state receives from "it's poorest citizens" is a tiny fraction of the whole. In terms of percentage of income, that's debatable (see above).
First of all, I was under the impression that we were talking about sales tax, not taxation in general.
Second, the analysis in the linked document ignores taxation at the federal level and does not take into account the EIC (earned income credit) and CTC (child tax credit). When federal tax rates, the EIC and CTC are factored in, those in the lowest two quintiles have negative effective tax rates. (I'm too busy to give a proper cite for this, but it's from the most recent congressional report on taxation if you care to look it up).
The paper you cite is misleading.
To cite an example - while I live in Washington, I have a friend who lives in Oregon. I help her do her taxes - and she happens to be in the bottom quintile (making less than 20K per year). The paper you cite claims that her quintile pays 8.7% of income in taxes. Her combined state and federal tax burden was less than $-4000. She had nothing withheld, and received a substantial (to her) check both from Oregon and the feds. Oregon has no sales tax. That's only one data point, but I believe that it's fairly representative of the working poor - a single working parent with no income outside of her job, who takes the standard deduction and qualifies for the EIC and CTC.
I live in Seattle, which has a sales tax of about 10%. Assuming that the lower class spends more or less all of what it makes, that sets up a good 10% tax on total income
This isn't true by virtue of the fact that the poor spend the vast majority of their income on things which aren't subject to sales tax - rent, utilities, groceries, etc.
Steve Jobs...he's more like Emperor Ming from Flash Gordon. He has immense power, but rather than use it for the betterment of his people (his customers), he makes arbitrary decisions for his own amusement.
What's the point of being dictator-for-life if not this?
The nature of poker is that it's impossible to create a system that can always win, at least practically. Ultimately it relies on gut feelings, or just whims. This makes me wonder what really goes through the mind of a poker player who's pondering the next move.
Of course it's impossible to create a system that will always win. That would be stupid - the bad players have to be able to win occasionally, or else they won't come back.
I can't tell you want goes through anyone else's mind, but I can tell you some of the things I consider when I'm deciding what my next action will be.
What is my opponent likely to have? (Skill: Logic, memory, and observation of prior action)
How does my hand stand up against the weighted range of hands he is likely to have? (Skill: mathematics)
If I deduce that I'm likely behind in the hand, how likely is my opponent to fold if I bet or raise? (Skill: observation and memory)
If I'm behind, am I getting good odds to call? (Skill: mathematics)
If I deduce that I'm likely ahead in the hand, how likely is my opponent to call if I bet or raise? (Skill: observation and memory)
If I'm ahead, how much to I need to bet to protect my hand from draws? (Skill: mathematics)
Is my opponent exhibiting any behavior or physiological signs? (Skill: observation and understanding what the various tells are likely to mean)
Those are just a few of the factors that I consider. Only a few of them have anything to do with what I'm holding. All of them are intended to lead me to lose the minimum when I lose a hand, and win the maximum when I win.
It doesn't always work out in a particular hand, of course - but if I make better decisions than my opponent, over the long run, I'll win, and he'll lose. Poker is a game of imperfect information, and therefore cannot guarantee results in a particular hand. It is nonetheless a skill game.
Most of the time they are not playing a game of skill, but a game of deception, that's why they say things like "You don't play the cards, you play the players".
Deception is skill. Understanding psychology is skill. You're operating under a common misconception. Poker is not a card game. Poker is a psychological game that happens to be played with cards.
If Walmart declines to stock music for whatever reason, it does not prevent another retailer from carrying it.
In much the same way, one publisher declining to publish a particular work (for any reason), does not prevent the author from seeking other publishers, or from self-publishing.
Add in things like child care expenses paid for out of a flex spending account, capital gains, MSA/HSA, etc and it gets a lot more complicated. It gets even more complicated when you get to the income limits where your deductions and/or credits start phasing out.
BTW, a great many of us DO spend a lot of money on student loans, mortgage interest, charity, and medical bills. I suppose if you're a student or live in a rental, give nothing to charity, don't have a mortgage, and are in perfect health you wouldn't.
Then there's state income taxes. I live in a state where there is no income tax, and work in a state where there is. My spouse works in our home state. That adds another layer of complexity, although that's a situation that isn't going to apply to very many people.
Due in large part to a simple error on one of my W-2's, I had to spend nearly half a day researching IRS regulations to determine how to report some untaxable income and avoid a lube-free ass-pounding audit.
Of course not. It's a well-understood psycological condition in response to severe stress. I once was trying to save a 9 year old's life and failed. I sure know what PTSD is, and there wasn't a thing I could do to snap out of it.
But if I'd killed myself because of it, there'd be something wrong with me. The deepest instinct we have is self-preservation. To consciously go against that is, by definition, irrational. The struggle for life is so built-in, one can't build a rational argument for it.
The situation you describe here and the situation under discussion are like night and day.
In your example of PTSD, there was no perpetrator. No mens rea, no actus reus. There is no one to be held accountable, as far as I can tell from your brief story.
PTSD is horrible. My condolences go out to you for what you experienced, and I'm glad that you survived it.
The fact remains that this girl did NOT survive, and that she was pushed to it by people with intent to inflict harm and/or emotional distress. That in and of itself is a crime.
They deserve to be held accountable for their actions.
Slashdot Mirror
"Physicists have designed a robotic hand that ... can ... serve drinks"
The future of robotics is bright indeed.
How could anyone possibly enforce these restrictions besides spying on him 24/7
IANAL.
Obviously they're not going to do that. What happens in cases like this is if they get wind that he's been violating the terms of his probation (which are what these restrictions are), then his probation is revoked and he gets to serve his original sentence. Probation is a fairly complex issue - but the courts can pretty much put whatever restrictions they want on it. You can accept the restrictions, or accept the sentence.
If his probation officer suspect he's violated probation, typically, he'd be taken into custody and at a "show cause" hearing, he'd have to offer evidence that he's not guilty of violating probation. This is one case where there is a presumption of guilt - and the probationer must convince the court not to revoke his probation and reinstate the original sentence (typically, jail or prison).
Considering that the patent (filed 2/7/1990) predates CSS, Javascript, onmouse* events, and HTML itself, I'd have to say none of those would qualify as prior art.
Not defending the validity of the patent itself, I'm just sayin'...
The problem is, it's a matter of state-level taxation, and on a state level (in Washington), the taxation is regressive. In the past three years, I've made between $20,000 and $24,000/year, and I've never qualified for any state-level subsidies or breaks. So, as a working person in that bracket, in Washington, I pay a good five times as much of my personal income in taxes than my wealthier co-citizens.
I seriously doubt that you pay 5 times as much (expressed as a percentage of your income). Do you own a home? No? Then you don't pay property tax. No income tax, so that leaves sales tax - and you're only paying that on the part of your income that isn't spent on taxable items. Exclude rent, utilities, food, medicine, etc, and take ~10% (Seattle's sales tax rate) of what's left. It's a lot smaller than 10% of your income, and a hell of a lot less than the 17+% that the report you linked claimed. That report doesn't pass the giggle test for me - I know what quintile I'm in, and I know what I paid in state and local taxes, and it's not even close to what the report claims (I pay a lot more than what they claim the average is). Deductively, I can come to the opposite conclusion for you (i.e. that you don't pay nearly as much as they claim).
I'm not arguing for or against the proposed income tax. I wouldn't be paying it - even if I made enough income, I already pay income tax to Oregon (I live in Washington but work in Oregon), so it'd end up being a wash. My objection to the proposed tax is that once it's been voted in by the people, the legislature is free to fuck with it and expand it to cover more people (potentially, even those like you who make very little). See the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the history of income taxation at a federal level. The next time the state finds itself in a budgetary "crisis", they'll be free to expand an income tax as much as they like - and they won't have to put it to a vote of the people (unlike now).
I'm not a big fan of creating taxes that only affect a small number of people, even when I'm not part of the group that isn't paying it. If the state of Washington wants an income tax, then package it as part of a comprehensive tax reform package that also reins in some of the discretionary spending and reduces sales and property tax rates - and in addition, have everyone share in the pain of paying the income tax. Make it a graduated rate, and have a generous exemption - but if you're going to ask a majority of the voters to approve a tax, then a majority of the people ought to take part in paying it. Otherwise, it's just a matter of soaking someone else. See tobacco and alcohol taxes, for example - and if you're looking for a stunning example of a regressive tax, look no further.
However, for a state to lean most heavily on it's poorest citizens for funding is just ridiculous
In terms of absolute dollars, the amount of money that the state receives from "it's poorest citizens" is a tiny fraction of the whole. In terms of percentage of income, that's debatable (see above).
First of all, I was under the impression that we were talking about sales tax, not taxation in general.
Second, the analysis in the linked document ignores taxation at the federal level and does not take into account the EIC (earned income credit) and CTC (child tax credit). When federal tax rates, the EIC and CTC are factored in, those in the lowest two quintiles have negative effective tax rates. (I'm too busy to give a proper cite for this, but it's from the most recent congressional report on taxation if you care to look it up).
The paper you cite is misleading.
To cite an example - while I live in Washington, I have a friend who lives in Oregon. I help her do her taxes - and she happens to be in the bottom quintile (making less than 20K per year). The paper you cite claims that her quintile pays 8.7% of income in taxes. Her combined state and federal tax burden was less than $-4000. She had nothing withheld, and received a substantial (to her) check both from Oregon and the feds. Oregon has no sales tax. That's only one data point, but I believe that it's fairly representative of the working poor - a single working parent with no income outside of her job, who takes the standard deduction and qualifies for the EIC and CTC.
I live in Seattle, which has a sales tax of about 10%. Assuming that the lower class spends more or less all of what it makes, that sets up a good 10% tax on total income
This isn't true by virtue of the fact that the poor spend the vast majority of their income on things which aren't subject to sales tax - rent, utilities, groceries, etc.
Steve Jobs...he's more like Emperor Ming from Flash Gordon. He has immense power, but rather than use it for the betterment of his people (his customers), he makes arbitrary decisions for his own amusement.
What's the point of being dictator-for-life if not this?
I mean, seriously.
Everything I wrote is a documented FACT.
A - What is the U.S. gross domestic product?
B - How much revenue does the U.S. arms industry produce?
C - What percentage of A is B?
Compare C against large U.S. industries and you'll discover that you are in fact quite wrong.
The nature of poker is that it's impossible to create a system that can always win, at least practically. Ultimately it relies on gut feelings, or just whims. This makes me wonder what really goes through the mind of a poker player who's pondering the next move.
Of course it's impossible to create a system that will always win. That would be stupid - the bad players have to be able to win occasionally, or else they won't come back.
I can't tell you want goes through anyone else's mind, but I can tell you some of the things I consider when I'm deciding what my next action will be.
What is my opponent likely to have? (Skill: Logic, memory, and observation of prior action)
How does my hand stand up against the weighted range of hands he is likely to have? (Skill: mathematics)
If I deduce that I'm likely behind in the hand, how likely is my opponent to fold if I bet or raise? (Skill: observation and memory)
If I'm behind, am I getting good odds to call? (Skill: mathematics)
If I deduce that I'm likely ahead in the hand, how likely is my opponent to call if I bet or raise? (Skill: observation and memory)
If I'm ahead, how much to I need to bet to protect my hand from draws? (Skill: mathematics)
Is my opponent exhibiting any behavior or physiological signs? (Skill: observation and understanding what the various tells are likely to mean)
Those are just a few of the factors that I consider. Only a few of them have anything to do with what I'm holding. All of them are intended to lead me to lose the minimum when I lose a hand, and win the maximum when I win.
It doesn't always work out in a particular hand, of course - but if I make better decisions than my opponent, over the long run, I'll win, and he'll lose. Poker is a game of imperfect information, and therefore cannot guarantee results in a particular hand. It is nonetheless a skill game.
Most of the time they are not playing a game of skill, but a game of deception, that's why they say things like "You don't play the cards, you play the players".
Deception is skill. Understanding psychology is skill. You're operating under a common misconception. Poker is not a card game. Poker is a psychological game that happens to be played with cards.
Quoting the "Daily Star"? Seriously?
A skilled player doesn't need "good cards" to win.
Over a decent-sized sample of hands played, I guarantee that a skilled player will absolutely crush an unskilled one.
Ah, I see. We're reading two different stories, then. Here's what I've been discussing [...]
I'm fully aware of what we've been discussing.
Apple is not preventing Flore from publishing. When last I checked, Flore publishes his work on the web.
Apple isn't even preventing his work from being viewed on an iPhone/iPad/iPod - as all of those devices have fully functional web browsers.
Apple *is* preventing Flore from selling his app in their app store, which is a far cry from suppressing his work.
If Apple started blocking websites from being viewed on their devices, I'd have to concede that you have a point, but as they don't, I won't.
Nobody said it did. But, as I said in other replies, declining with an agenda is the very essence of censorship.
No, it isn't. Suppression is the essence of censorship.
Ain't nobody suppressing shit here.
I think you're wrong.
If Walmart declines to stock music for whatever reason, it does not prevent another retailer from carrying it.
In much the same way, one publisher declining to publish a particular work (for any reason), does not prevent the author from seeking other publishers, or from self-publishing.
A moderate amount of LSD can cause psychosis.
Well, duh.
Hallucinations are symptoms of psychosis. That's kind of the point of dropping acid.
E-cigs have far less second hand smoke
Considering that they have no smoke whatsoever, I'm not really surprised by this.
Cite?
Add in things like child care expenses paid for out of a flex spending account, capital gains, MSA/HSA, etc and it gets a lot more complicated. It gets even more complicated when you get to the income limits where your deductions and/or credits start phasing out.
BTW, a great many of us DO spend a lot of money on student loans, mortgage interest, charity, and medical bills. I suppose if you're a student or live in a rental, give nothing to charity, don't have a mortgage, and are in perfect health you wouldn't.
Then there's state income taxes. I live in a state where there is no income tax, and work in a state where there is. My spouse works in our home state. That adds another layer of complexity, although that's a situation that isn't going to apply to very many people.
Due in large part to a simple error on one of my W-2's, I had to spend nearly half a day researching IRS regulations to determine how to report some untaxable income and avoid a lube-free ass-pounding audit.
Does it really bother you that the average person who gets a refund had over $2000 too much deducted from their pay?
BTW, that number doesn't account for the many people (such as myself) who got no refund at all, and instead had to mail a check to the IRS.
Analogy epic fail.
The day that all of that crap is in the WHOIS database will be the day when you have a point.
The US has a [...] fairly culturally homogeneous single market.
Are you kidding me? My *neighborhood* isn't culturally homogenous. (Not that that's a bad thing).
"in our sole discretion" pretty much
gives them carte blanche to decide what's harmful to their network
Go google "Contract of Adhesion" (and the limitations thereof) and get back to us.
I wasn't referring to the last year or so, or even to the last 9 years.
The quality of political discourse may not be at an all-time low, but it's low nonetheless.
Of course not. It's a well-understood psycological condition in response to severe stress. I once was trying to save a 9 year old's life and failed. I sure know what PTSD is, and there wasn't a thing I could do to snap out of it.
But if I'd killed myself because of it, there'd be something wrong with me. The deepest instinct we have is self-preservation. To consciously go against that is, by definition, irrational. The struggle for life is so built-in, one can't build a rational argument for it.
The situation you describe here and the situation under discussion are like night and day.
In your example of PTSD, there was no perpetrator. No mens rea, no actus reus. There is no one to be held accountable, as far as I can tell from your brief story.
PTSD is horrible. My condolences go out to you for what you experienced, and I'm glad that you survived it.
The fact remains that this girl did NOT survive, and that she was pushed to it by people with intent to inflict harm and/or emotional distress. That in and of itself is a crime.
They deserve to be held accountable for their actions.
Right. Because you can take the statement of one woman, and extrapolate that to an entire political movement.
Or do you use isolated nutcases to discredit all political ideologies, left and right?