Shut up, Toby.
His name is Kunte Kinte.
I hold out hope that the two of them are getting air time not because they could win, but because they are more interesting than Clinton v. Bush. Plenty of time for that boring crap later.
Vendors cannot be held responsible for stupid (or non-existent) engineering and policy.
Without knowing the GS/contractor divide at OPM, it's hard to say who is ultimately to blame. If OPM gave carte blanche to the contractor, the latter is generally the one at fault. If the government micro managed the contract and ignored suggestions, the blame is back with them.
Jim Webb doesn't strike me as particularly interested in the office.
That Goldwater girl was never liberal enough to want it.
" this victimless crime "
Lets be honest. This is *NOT* a victimless crime. If someone releases countless copies of some song or movie then it devalues the original media just like copies of $100 bills devalue currency. Yes, there are many many examples of those wouldn't pay for a DVD or CD if they couldn't get it for free -- but it's not universal.
I know my purchasing habits have changed -- and so have my rental habits with the availability of media the way it is.
All in all, that makes me nervous. I grew up in Tacoma, then moved up to the Seattle area to find tech work, then once I was able to wfh a bit more, bought a house at the bottom of the market in Tacoma, but I'm worried about what will happen. Thus far Tacoma's kept a lot of it's gritty feel, which isn't for everyone but I've always liked, but more and more I'm seeing the signs of gentrification.
I pretty much agree with your analysis... The only thing I wanted to give you to think about was the source of revenue used to pay the Basic Income.
You suggest income taxes... and capital gains taxes, which similarly to income taxes are based on the flow of wealth transfers... mostly they are convenient because mostly people don't notice the money they aren't getting that didn't have already...
BUT such taxes aren't really ideal, because you can have a great income and not have much wealth... and you can have a lot of wealth and not much income (especially if you're creative)...
So... I think Wealth itself should be taxed...Take money from the top... a small percentage of the richests people's total net value... and redistribute that as a basic income.
The main advantage of this is that it rewards those that use their wealth to provide value to those who demand their products and services... It recognises that wealth 'trickles up'... and corrects for that... it puts the tax burden on those who can most afford to pay it... so that everyone can benefit from the productivity gains inherent in free market capitalism.
Dude.,. If you've studied economics then you know that by the Second Welfare Theorem, it is possible to redistribute endowments to achieve alternative pareto optimal distributions... Ie... a tiny few super-elite ultra wealthy with millions or billions in poverty subservient to them is only one possible free market allocation.
You don't have to give up capitalism, free market, or assume the end of scarcity or any other such nonsense... just standard economics... though implementing this is difficult precisely because it goes against the interests of the wealthy.
Money is SIMPLY a tool to indicate the balance between demand and supply... and we don't need to finish with money either.
Wealth Tax and Basic Income should be implemented to redistribute the efficiency gains that have been achieved over the last few decades, but that have only been benefited the wealthiest members of society, and not all of us.
I think you'd agree that a Wealth Tax and Basic Income are about as close as practical implementation of Lump Sum Transfers required by the Second Welfare Theorem... That it maintains the value of money, free market and capitalism in general... and redistributes the benefits of productivity increases to all, not just a handful...
Maybe it never tried.
That and also more importantly: because nature's idea of "better" is almost never the same as our idea of "better." I think it's wonderful that the performance example that they used, happened to be binding to cancer cells. If cancer doesn't illustrate the vast gulf between us and it, I don't know what does!
The example I used was salt.
"There really is nothing to show that salt is bad for you."
Increased salt intake is generally believed to be bad for you in the scientific community.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
There is one area of consensus: Both sides agree that eating too much salt, especially for people with high blood pressure, can be dangerous.
The critical disagreement concerns how to define “too much.”
Very low level of salt consumption is bad -- and so is very high. And the amounts in many canned foods are very high for single entrees (example already provided).
The battles don't need to be longer than 3 minutes. I think there was a single match so far that went to a split decision and could have benefited from an extra minute.
ABC excluded less interesting preliminary fights. Now that a viewing audience has built up all the matches get shown.
I say "generally canned foods contain a lot of salt". This is true.
You say that the canned tomatoes you use do not, which I will accept as true.
If I say most people lose the the lottery, is it really a counter argument to say "No! I won once!"?
What about the other extreme? Go to the market and pick up a can of spaghetti (yes, spaghetti, not sauce). You'll find most have a sodium content of something like 1000 mg per serving (with 2 or so servings per can). That's pert near close a full days worth of salt -- over a full day if someone eats the whole can. Or close to half on a few of the more loose recommendations -- in a single entree.
Yes, processing doesn't mean bad. A lot of salt does and I was trying to find some meaning up the thread. And this is only a single example.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
