Perhaps "money" is more than just the coins, paper, or bits that represent some units, and actually only has value when it is in a predictable and stable system. Who knew!
I don't want to tax the rich, I want to tax the rich corporations. The share paid by corporations has dropped from about 30% in 1940, to about 12% today, see source. Individual taxes have stayed, overall at about the same level, and the gap in corporate taxes has been made up in payroll taxes, which largely come out of someone's (potential) salary.
So while taxing Bill Gates a bit more only helps a little, the real crime here is that many of the richest Americans hide their money in corporations, tax shelters, and move it through tax-exempt organizations in ways that over time have deprived the Treasury of revenue.
But TubeSteak is also right. This problem was created over 20-30 years, it may take 20-30 years to run the deficit to zero should we chose to, I would argue some deficit is good.
Here's a fun fact the right doesn't often talk about. I've spoken to a number of actual illegals over the years about how much they fear being captured. Several of them appear to have what are "above board" jobs, having gotten identification numbers on a temporary work via and then continued to use them, or on various other methods. They overstayed, and are now illegal.
The general response was interesting. INS doesn't have enough resources to do anything unless you're a felon. Even getting arrested for a misdemeanor is unlikely to get INS involved unless your in a few border areas. They really didn't fear INS at all. However, each said they very carefully paid their taxes to the IRS each year, often omitting some questionable deductions to which they might be entitled. Why? The IRS will audit them. And while the IRS is forbidden by law to share information with other federal agencies so a return won't get you arrested, if the IRS choses to arrest you then you're in the federal system, automatically handed over to INS, and deported in short order.
The result is in fact many illegals pay taxes, but are not entitled to receive many of the benefits that other tax payers could receive. They are in fact the opposite of takers, but are rather over contributors.
I wish I had a citation, but I don't.
The issue here is that Google got to keep their jets at AMES at all, not that they got fuel subsidies. NASA sold them fuel the only way NASA knew how, and probably in full compliance with regulations. The issue is not with the fuel sales, but with Google being able to keep their jets their at all.
Anyone familiar with the area knows that AMES is much more convenient for a private plane of the size the Google Execs own than pretty much any other option. SFO, OAK, and SJC are all busy, and have various red-tape on them. Airports like SQL are too small for the google jets. Normally no non-NASA flights can be at AMES. There are no Apple Jets, no Cisco Jets, no Facebook Jets at this airport. Google attempted to get around this by offering free instrumentation on their jets to NASA.
This is the first step in calling bullshit. This should have never happened. A few instruments does not make it a NASA project. Google should have never been there in the first place. Someone gave them preferential treatment using the instruments as an excuse.
In the vast majority of cases (in fact I would suggest > 90% of all rail miles) the railroad owns a 50 foot wide strip of land. This is due to the history of how railroads procured land when the routes were selected. You would own the property on both sides, and the railroad pays property tax on that 50 foot wide strip in the middle.
There are some cases where the railroad does not own the land, but has an easement for the use of the land. Railroads hated that arrangement for a number of reasons, but could in fact be the arrangement where you own property. In that case it's like any other easement (for a pipeline, electric line, or even a driveway to a landlocked property) they have a right of use for the purpose of running a railroad, but do not own any property and would not pay property tax as a result.
It's actually worse than that, and only begins to look at the problem.
Railroads own their own right of way, which means property, which means they pay property tax! They are also required by mandate to upgrade to any new safety standards the government dictates.
Neither apply to roads. The government owns the land the roads are built on, and exempts itself from tax. If a road safety standard is updated, existing roads are grandfathered in until they next time they are rebuilt.
Add in the fact that state and local government subsidize roads out of general tax revenue coffers, and use tax-free government bonds to finance them and railroads are at a significant financial disadvantage in the US. That's why they can only compete on large volume, bulk commodities. Want millions of tons of coal for a power plant? Well, even though they have to eat all those costs it's more efficient. Want to stock a Walmart? The cost of the spur to it would never be made back.
You are correct about the behavior, but I think I can explain why Apple made the choices at work here.
It turns out iMessages are cryptographically secured with public key cryptography using a per device key. There is a recent Techcrunch Article that details what they have released, but it appears to be a highly secure implementation. Each device has a private key that never leaves the device. An iMessage is actually encrypted to multiple public keys so each device can read it. No one outside the device holder, not even Apple, has the ability to decrypt messages.
I think the argument Apple would make, and I would agree with is to fall back to SMS would be insecure. It's possible to conceive of ways an attacker could prevent an iMessage from being delivered (a Denial of Service attack, for instance). That could force a fallback to SMS, which is often not well secured and/or permanently archived by the carrier or governments. Worse, with your algorithm simply sending someone a text message from a spoofed source would clear the bit, and might result in an insecure communication.
As a result, I would argue if you value strong encryption and privacy, Apple's choices make perfect sense. Turn on strong crypto when you can, and don't automatically fall back to something without strong crypto.
If the issue is the CO2 canisters, or even other supplies like liquid oxygen, what about launching supplies? Could the Russians have launched faster, perhaps with a vehicle already on the pad? Could we have used a unmanned rocket that would normally launch a satellite or similar to launch a payload of supplies?
From my read of the timeline even buying just a week or two might have changed the "launch a backup shuttle" plan from amazingly risky to just somewhat risky. I'm not trying to suggest getting supplies there would have been trivial, but if the right sort of rocket was ready to go it might have been a way to buy time.
I think you're leaving out the competitive nature of humans. Today we compete for money, in the Star Trek world people compete for opportunity.
Picard did not become captain of the Enterprise by showing up one day and saying "I'd like to do that". There is only one position as Captain of the flagship of the fleet. He became that by being the best possible at what he does, and rising to the top of his peers.
Many people in society today already choose pursuits that do not maximize their monitory return because they enjoy what they are doing. Being an Olympic Athlete is not as profitable as the NFL. Being a Veterinary is not as profitable as being a Heart Surgeon. There is only one President of the United States, regardless of his income. Many of the past's prolific inventors were relatively poor, their inventions not capitalized on until well after their deaths.
I would agree the shows depict a sort of Utopia, but I suspect it's possible for Humans to get far closer to it than you may believe.
If we all stop using SlashDot classic in "protest", there will be no one to upset with the change, and they will move forward with the Beta site. Once the users are lost there's no incentive for them to keep it around.
If you want classic to stay around you need to boycott the beta, and use the crap out of classic.
I want to be very clear on this, the world is much grayer than this bill, or the terms at hand would indicate.
Science has almost ways been published behind paywalls. Prior to the internet it was published in journals, which at the most basic level someone had to subscribe to in order to get a copy. I'm sure the youngins on here don't remember Magazines, but they were a big deal for a long time. Even when not, often times you had to pay to copy, you can show up at the Government Printing Office and get a copy of all sorts of studies, government records, and the like: for a fee.
So there's a continuum of access, here are some interesting points along it:
- Source won't release the data to anyone.
- Source charges $1,000,000 a copy for the report.
- Source charges $500 for a copy of the report.
- Source charges $5 for a copy of the report.
- Source publishes the report in a magazine that can be purchased for $1.99.
- Source publishes the report online, for free.
Clearly the first one isn't open access, and clearly the last one is, but where is the line? There is some de-minimis burden that is acceptable for it to still be "publicly available science". By attempting to set a standard of "free and open" it's an attempt to push people to the last line item, where the costs are all borne by the researcher. Imagine someone doing good research on an important topic, only to spend the next years battling hackers and DDoS'ers online trying to take down the work, all on their own expense? Crazy. That's part of why publishing in journals, all of which cost money, is the accepted method.
To directly answer your question, I do believe that any science the EPA uses should be available to the general public, the difference is I am ok with it being via paywalls with de-minimis fees. If I have to go buy a copy of a journal to find out the science, I think that's ok.