Income tax is much more appropriate in these scenarios because you only are taxed on the money you gains.
What I don't get is how they can call your working wages income as it is a value-for-value trade. Look at this way: you negotiate a salary with your employer in exchange for your skills. If your employer paid you more than your skills were worth they would lose money and go out of business. So, in effect, that are paying you less than your time is worth. This means that for every hour you are paid, you are losing money/value, not making it. I'd love to have someone argue this in court and get rid of the stupid individual income tax.
It's hard to imagine that the finger got so far as to be "in the vagina"
It's not that hard to imagine. It depends on the type of pants and panties (or lack thereof) and how loose/tight they are. I have done quite a bit of pleasuring (consensually of course) through clothing like this, so I know what I'm talking about.
More accurately, they will usually pick the complete asshole that wants little or nothing to do with her over anyone who would actually treat her right (physical appearance completely aside). One theory, is they like a challenge. Another is genetically, an asshole offers a better chance of offspring survival. Personally, I consider them less evolved than myself and would rather wait for someone who is a master of their instincts and primal urges rather than the other way around.
Lol, get a better profile:). I've found most of my successful conversations were when the woman contacted me. It doesn't happen often but when it does, it usually works out.
the only other way to not use hindsight to show something is obvious is to show that all of the components existed in the prior art at the time of invention:
That sentence right there proves that all software solutions are obvious. Why? Because the components of every piece of software, the basic building blocks of every algorithm, already exist as prior art. Unless they built their own CPU with a new instruction (or instruction set) to go with the software then it is all prior art. It's nothing but combining a bunch of already known and existing components to achieve a different result. The CPU has a set number of instructions, all known and well documented. Software is nothing but putting those already existing pieces together.
they can't just say, "eh, I think this invention is obvious." Rather, they have to explicitly list the prior art references that can be combined to teach each and every element of the invention.
It was my understanding that the patent claims are obvious if anyone with average skill in the field could of come up with them if presented with the same/similar problem. There are some problems, especially in software, where there are only a few possible solutions and they are obvious to any programmer if given the task to solve the problem. In software what usually isn't obvious, are the problems themselves. Problems, as far as I'm aware, are not patentable.
For instance, I am a problem-solver, it is my natural gift. Given a set circumstances and a given desire, I can usually come up with a few solutions. What I'm not good at, is figuring out the problems that need to be solved to begin with. When it comes to (selling) software you must anticipate the need and then create a solution for it. However, once the need has been discovered, the solutions become obvious to any programmer.
Note: These are generalizations of most patented commercial software. I am aware that there are many software problems whose solutions are not obvious (AI, pattern-recognition, etc. come to mind) but those patents aren't generally considered bad (if they even exist) and thus are not part of the topic at hand.
Or, they don't have double standards, but in order to succeed at business they have to do things that they know actually harm business and innovation, because that is how the system is set up and they can't change it. Which seems to be what happened in this case.
It's a bit like the two-party system in the US. Neither party may be very (any?) good, but since one of them is going to be elected, might as well vote for whomever you think is better than his opponent.
Both of these things that you describe are Self-fulfilling Prophecies. They are only true because people accept and believe the premise that they are true before choosing to act. Once people begin believing that premise that they are not true, they will cease to be true.
Which is an absurd statement. I'm not sure if this reflects failings of the Ratings Agencies or of people in general but it is obvious that the track we are on (borrowing $0.40 of every $1.00 we spend) is unsustainable and is only going to get worse unless spending is controlled and reduced. Raising taxes doesn't necessary raise revenues as the unintended side-effect of the tax increase could be a reduction in spending in the taxed areas or in general. While, reducing spending is a guarantee. To think that we'd still have a AAA rating when it is obvious and undeniable that in the foreseeable future we would be unable to pay even the interest on the loans, is ridiculous. The down-grade, as a result of the government attempting to control spending/borrowing is very telling of the Bank's/Rating Agency's motives. It is apparent that they are predatory lenders, wanting us to borrow more than we can afford until they own us and the USA falls to an economic war most didn't even realize was being waged. Make no mistake about it, we should be focused now more than ever to never borrow another cent and to pay back all that we owe. Our goal should be a Country built on wealth not a Country built on debt.
But this will never happen if you don't have a good attitude, which incluides not ripping on stupid management decisions. If you disagree, keep your mouth shut, unless it's an ethics or compliance violation.
This is bad advice - or should be. Management is supposed to hire people who know more then them and rely on those people to give them the right advice when they need it even if it is not what they want to hear. If your development team thinks your idea is a bad one, you should ask them why and listen to them. If you get a BS response that sounds like they are just being lazy, then force the issue. Otherwise, they are trying to do you a favor and you should listen and get them to help you come up with a better idea.
If you're a manager and think you know more than your team, then you hired the wrong team or have no idea what a manager's job is.
The Democrats tax directly and above the board.
The Republicans tax stealthily in a way
Actually, the way I've been seeing it, the Democrats tax you both ways. I didn't hear a single Democrat say that the Country should no longer borrow money from the Fed. In fact, if the Tea Party (I hesitate to say Republicans), hadn't demanded some budget reform before passing increasing the debt ceiling, I bet the Democrats would have just increased it without a second though to additional taxes or spending cuts.
Yes, but you signed a contract with your ISP. That contract, probably, has an elastic clause (whether this conscionable or enforceable, aside) which means that contract can change to say whatever they want it to say and you automatically agree to the new terms. Ergo, you have authorized them to do whatever they want, for now, and forever (as the terms of the contract, usually, are deemed to survive even after your business relationship with the ISP is terminated).
Except, how can the Country run for 4 years with out a President? Voting "NO" for President would just mean a person under the existing one would be promoted to the role of President (either officially or de-facto). This would mean that a vote "NO" for President would instead be a Vote for the Underling for President who isn't even running.
An employer doing a Google search on an applicant's name
As far as I'm concerned, this should be illegal. There are plenty of pieces of information that can be obtained via Google which are not supposed to be considered when evaluating an applicant due to equal opportunity laws. These, I believe, are illegal to put on an application or ask during an interview. So it should also be illegal to try and find that information out on your own.
After a job has been offered to the applicant, now this information can be obtained along with drug testing (I don't agree but it is the law, apparently) any necessary background checks. But these things shouldn't be allowed to be performed until after the job offer has been extended with these as conditions of acceptance.
the idea of a variable length encoding would have been over-engineering the problem that they were facing.
You say this like it is a bad thing. Over-engineering, as you put it, would of been probably been the best thing they could of done if they went this route because, as you pointed out, 255-byte strings are rather short. It doesn't take much forward-thinking to anticipate the problem and correct it. I would call that engineering, not over-engineering.
But saving "half" doesn't really help you when calculating cost - at some point you still have to convert it to dollars.
I agree at some point it must be converted into dollars but I think my way is a little simpler and I'll expand on it as I left the dollar conversion out as I figured it would be obvious.
If you know your current cost for gas in your current vehicle (and you should), expressed in dollars per unit of time (week, month, year), then cutting that it in half is easy. If you have two cars, you do the same calculation for both and see which gets you the better deal.
Example: I spend $50/week on my commuter car which gets 25MPG (Camry) and $100/week on my 15MPG SUV (Explorer). If my options were to trade either the Camry for a 50MPG Prius, or the Explorer in for the 25MPG Exporer, I'd calculate the following: $50/Wk for the Camry would turn in $25/week for the Prius; a savings of $25/week (or half). The $100/week for the Explorer would turn into $60/week; a savings of $40/week (the better deal).
I don't disagree with what you're saying but I think your way of calculating it would be harder (and less obvious) for most normal people. Figuring out how much money in gas is spent for each vehicle should be easier for a person to calculate/judge than how many miles they drive on each vehicle.
but after numerous re-reads of the constitution, I can't actually find that right anywhere in there.
This is just a nit-pick but obviously you glossed over the 10th amendment - "powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.". Meaning that just because an individual right is not enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean you don't have it - in fact it usually means that you do.
Yes, but the savings is still half of what you use now. Yes, half of a larger amount is larger than half of a smaller amount in absolute terms but you're still saving half the amount of gas you currently use (or double you distance traveled, depending on how you look at it).
Classic political ego: thinking they voted FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy.
It's not really ego - it is how things are supposed to be. There is no way for an individual citizen to vote against something (only Congress can do that), we can only vote for something. To the citizen, voting for a Senator, Congressman, President is not a binary choice; there are more than two options. That fact alone makes voting against someone impossible. Votes were created, intended and, for all intents-and-purposes, are an indication that someone is for the thing for which they voted. no other interpretation of the system makes sense.
On a side-note, people also forget that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. It is still individual consent to be led by evil. So when evil happens, they are still at fault. Voting for a Vampire is akin to inviting him into your house. You wouldn't do that, not even if the choice was between him and a werewolf. You'd find a third, better option, and pick that. I wish people voted in same way.
If by "power" you mean, power to reduce the size of the Federal Government, then you are right. Redefining a routine move? If you don't understand that raising our borrowing limit and borrowing more money being a "routine move" is a major problem that needs to be corrected, then I'm afraid you are mind controlled.
Really? When? In fact, the Democrats haven't even proposed a single bill to correct this situation in either house. They just sit there and vote "No" to all options being presented without presenting one of their own. They are, in effect, refusing to cut spending, period. They want to raise the debt ceiling and taxes and not make any real cuts in spending. True to form - Tax-and-Spend-Democrats bankrupting this country, one election at a time.
That is a pretty good analogy and description.....of the Democrats - whining about entitlements. The Republicans represent the New Aristocracy and protects their wealth. Nothing you said is an accurate description of the Tea Party though. Start doing your own thinking and stop sealing sound bites from everyone else and you won't present yourself as having no idea what you are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Income tax is much more appropriate in these scenarios because you only are taxed on the money you gains.
What I don't get is how they can call your working wages income as it is a value-for-value trade. Look at this way: you negotiate a salary with your employer in exchange for your skills. If your employer paid you more than your skills were worth they would lose money and go out of business. So, in effect, that are paying you less than your time is worth. This means that for every hour you are paid, you are losing money/value, not making it. I'd love to have someone argue this in court and get rid of the stupid individual income tax.
It's hard to imagine that the finger got so far as to be "in the vagina"
It's not that hard to imagine. It depends on the type of pants and panties (or lack thereof) and how loose/tight they are. I have done quite a bit of pleasuring (consensually of course) through clothing like this, so I know what I'm talking about.
More accurately, they will usually pick the complete asshole that wants little or nothing to do with her over anyone who would actually treat her right (physical appearance completely aside). One theory, is they like a challenge. Another is genetically, an asshole offers a better chance of offspring survival. Personally, I consider them less evolved than myself and would rather wait for someone who is a master of their instincts and primal urges rather than the other way around.
Lol, get a better profile :). I've found most of my successful conversations were when the woman contacted me. It doesn't happen often but when it does, it usually works out.
For bankers, it's the Double Death!!!
the only other way to not use hindsight to show something is obvious is to show that all of the components existed in the prior art at the time of invention:
That sentence right there proves that all software solutions are obvious. Why? Because the components of every piece of software, the basic building blocks of every algorithm, already exist as prior art. Unless they built their own CPU with a new instruction (or instruction set) to go with the software then it is all prior art. It's nothing but combining a bunch of already known and existing components to achieve a different result. The CPU has a set number of instructions, all known and well documented. Software is nothing but putting those already existing pieces together.
they can't just say, "eh, I think this invention is obvious." Rather, they have to explicitly list the prior art references that can be combined to teach each and every element of the invention.
It was my understanding that the patent claims are obvious if anyone with average skill in the field could of come up with them if presented with the same/similar problem. There are some problems, especially in software, where there are only a few possible solutions and they are obvious to any programmer if given the task to solve the problem. In software what usually isn't obvious, are the problems themselves. Problems, as far as I'm aware, are not patentable.
For instance, I am a problem-solver, it is my natural gift. Given a set circumstances and a given desire, I can usually come up with a few solutions. What I'm not good at, is figuring out the problems that need to be solved to begin with. When it comes to (selling) software you must anticipate the need and then create a solution for it. However, once the need has been discovered, the solutions become obvious to any programmer.
Note: These are generalizations of most patented commercial software. I am aware that there are many software problems whose solutions are not obvious (AI, pattern-recognition, etc. come to mind) but those patents aren't generally considered bad (if they even exist) and thus are not part of the topic at hand.
Or, they don't have double standards, but in order to succeed at business they have to do things that they know actually harm business and innovation, because that is how the system is set up and they can't change it. Which seems to be what happened in this case.
It's a bit like the two-party system in the US. Neither party may be very (any?) good, but since one of them is going to be elected, might as well vote for whomever you think is better than his opponent.
Both of these things that you describe are Self-fulfilling Prophecies. They are only true because people accept and believe the premise that they are true before choosing to act. Once people begin believing that premise that they are not true, they will cease to be true.
And we wouldn't have lost our AAA credit rating.
Which is an absurd statement. I'm not sure if this reflects failings of the Ratings Agencies or of people in general but it is obvious that the track we are on (borrowing $0.40 of every $1.00 we spend) is unsustainable and is only going to get worse unless spending is controlled and reduced. Raising taxes doesn't necessary raise revenues as the unintended side-effect of the tax increase could be a reduction in spending in the taxed areas or in general. While, reducing spending is a guarantee. To think that we'd still have a AAA rating when it is obvious and undeniable that in the foreseeable future we would be unable to pay even the interest on the loans, is ridiculous. The down-grade, as a result of the government attempting to control spending/borrowing is very telling of the Bank's/Rating Agency's motives. It is apparent that they are predatory lenders, wanting us to borrow more than we can afford until they own us and the USA falls to an economic war most didn't even realize was being waged. Make no mistake about it, we should be focused now more than ever to never borrow another cent and to pay back all that we owe. Our goal should be a Country built on wealth not a Country built on debt.
But this will never happen if you don't have a good attitude, which incluides not ripping on stupid management decisions. If you disagree, keep your mouth shut, unless it's an ethics or compliance violation.
This is bad advice - or should be. Management is supposed to hire people who know more then them and rely on those people to give them the right advice when they need it even if it is not what they want to hear. If your development team thinks your idea is a bad one, you should ask them why and listen to them. If you get a BS response that sounds like they are just being lazy, then force the issue. Otherwise, they are trying to do you a favor and you should listen and get them to help you come up with a better idea.
If you're a manager and think you know more than your team, then you hired the wrong team or have no idea what a manager's job is.
The Democrats tax directly and above the board. The Republicans tax stealthily in a way
Actually, the way I've been seeing it, the Democrats tax you both ways. I didn't hear a single Democrat say that the Country should no longer borrow money from the Fed. In fact, if the Tea Party (I hesitate to say Republicans), hadn't demanded some budget reform before passing increasing the debt ceiling, I bet the Democrats would have just increased it without a second though to additional taxes or spending cuts.
ANY UNAUTHORIZED
Yes, but you signed a contract with your ISP. That contract, probably, has an elastic clause (whether this conscionable or enforceable, aside) which means that contract can change to say whatever they want it to say and you automatically agree to the new terms. Ergo, you have authorized them to do whatever they want, for now, and forever (as the terms of the contract, usually, are deemed to survive even after your business relationship with the ISP is terminated).
Except, how can the Country run for 4 years with out a President? Voting "NO" for President would just mean a person under the existing one would be promoted to the role of President (either officially or de-facto). This would mean that a vote "NO" for President would instead be a Vote for the Underling for President who isn't even running.
An employer doing a Google search on an applicant's name
As far as I'm concerned, this should be illegal. There are plenty of pieces of information that can be obtained via Google which are not supposed to be considered when evaluating an applicant due to equal opportunity laws. These, I believe, are illegal to put on an application or ask during an interview. So it should also be illegal to try and find that information out on your own.
After a job has been offered to the applicant, now this information can be obtained along with drug testing (I don't agree but it is the law, apparently) any necessary background checks. But these things shouldn't be allowed to be performed until after the job offer has been extended with these as conditions of acceptance.
the idea of a variable length encoding would have been over-engineering the problem that they were facing.
You say this like it is a bad thing. Over-engineering, as you put it, would of been probably been the best thing they could of done if they went this route because, as you pointed out, 255-byte strings are rather short. It doesn't take much forward-thinking to anticipate the problem and correct it. I would call that engineering, not over-engineering.
But saving "half" doesn't really help you when calculating cost - at some point you still have to convert it to dollars.
I agree at some point it must be converted into dollars but I think my way is a little simpler and I'll expand on it as I left the dollar conversion out as I figured it would be obvious.
If you know your current cost for gas in your current vehicle (and you should), expressed in dollars per unit of time (week, month, year), then cutting that it in half is easy. If you have two cars, you do the same calculation for both and see which gets you the better deal.
Example: I spend $50/week on my commuter car which gets 25MPG (Camry) and $100/week on my 15MPG SUV (Explorer). If my options were to trade either the Camry for a 50MPG Prius, or the Explorer in for the 25MPG Exporer, I'd calculate the following: $50/Wk for the Camry would turn in $25/week for the Prius; a savings of $25/week (or half). The $100/week for the Explorer would turn into $60/week; a savings of $40/week (the better deal).
I don't disagree with what you're saying but I think your way of calculating it would be harder (and less obvious) for most normal people. Figuring out how much money in gas is spent for each vehicle should be easier for a person to calculate/judge than how many miles they drive on each vehicle.
but after numerous re-reads of the constitution, I can't actually find that right anywhere in there.
This is just a nit-pick but obviously you glossed over the 10th amendment - "powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.". Meaning that just because an individual right is not enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean you don't have it - in fact it usually means that you do.
Yes, but the savings is still half of what you use now. Yes, half of a larger amount is larger than half of a smaller amount in absolute terms but you're still saving half the amount of gas you currently use (or double you distance traveled, depending on how you look at it).
If I remember correctly, they never did agree on a full budget and have been piece-mealing it ever since.
Classic political ego: thinking they voted FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy.
It's not really ego - it is how things are supposed to be. There is no way for an individual citizen to vote against something (only Congress can do that), we can only vote for something. To the citizen, voting for a Senator, Congressman, President is not a binary choice; there are more than two options. That fact alone makes voting against someone impossible. Votes were created, intended and, for all intents-and-purposes, are an indication that someone is for the thing for which they voted. no other interpretation of the system makes sense.
On a side-note, people also forget that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. It is still individual consent to be led by evil. So when evil happens, they are still at fault. Voting for a Vampire is akin to inviting him into your house. You wouldn't do that, not even if the choice was between him and a werewolf. You'd find a third, better option, and pick that. I wish people voted in same way.
That would be true if I didn't present an argument before sniping your user name. Now it just seems to be more of an excuse than a trap.
If by "power" you mean, power to reduce the size of the Federal Government, then you are right. Redefining a routine move? If you don't understand that raising our borrowing limit and borrowing more money being a "routine move" is a major problem that needs to be corrected, then I'm afraid you are mind controlled.
The Democrats have been willing to compromise;
Really? When? In fact, the Democrats haven't even proposed a single bill to correct this situation in either house. They just sit there and vote "No" to all options being presented without presenting one of their own. They are, in effect, refusing to cut spending, period. They want to raise the debt ceiling and taxes and not make any real cuts in spending. True to form - Tax-and-Spend-Democrats bankrupting this country, one election at a time.
That is a pretty good analogy and description.....of the Democrats - whining about entitlements. The Republicans represent the New Aristocracy and protects their wealth. Nothing you said is an accurate description of the Tea Party though. Start doing your own thinking and stop sealing sound bites from everyone else and you won't present yourself as having no idea what you are talking about.
The Tea Party are shills for Karl Rove, and the rest of the Neo-Cons who blew the budget surplus left over from the Clinton administration.
Citation needed.