Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Engineers have no future. (Score 1) 140

by Gr8Apes (#48177373) Attached to: Cisco Exec: Turnover In Engineering No Problem

But you also need experts in defining what routines need to be coded and how they are supposed to interact to achieve big picture goals, and you need creative people to define what big picture goals should be and decide which are most worth pursuing. Those people are hard to develop and hard to replace.

They get even harder to develop and replace when no one wants to invest in the development of such people. They generally don't just pop in fresh from a 4 year program.

Comment: Re:Public safety is not the issue (Score 1) 280

by Gr8Apes (#48164447) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption

One can't consider that when discussing the rights of man. After we decide what our rights should be, then we can have whatever policing that fits within that.

I'm pretty sure we already considered what the rights of man are, as we only gave limited powers to the federal government via this document, the Constitution. Regulating encryption is not in the list, therefore it is reserved for the state or us.

Comment: Re:Awesome quote (Score 1) 232

by Gr8Apes (#48163439) Attached to: Worcester Mass. City Council Votes To Keep Comcast From Entering the Area
The problem is the last mile would only be run competitively in high density population centers outward, until it is no longer profitable to add more people. The incumbents would then moan and complain that they cannot continue to support those low density areas, even though there's this universal access fee thing everyone pays, and stop serving them.

Comment: Re:This looks like a nasty trick. (Score 1) 818

by Gr8Apes (#48163293) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right
Consumption tax and income tax have to go hand in hand. If you only do consumption, there's nothing keeping the rich from gaining incredible wealth. If you only do income, the burden becomes too heavy on the rich or winds up taxing everyone, much like today, except for tons of loopholes that allow individuals to pay little tax. A consumption tax, globally applied, evens the playing field somewhat. Income tax on the richest 20 (x) % can lower the effective consumption tax rate some, or offset it for the bottom y%.

Comment: Re:This looks like a nasty trick. (Score 1) 818

by Gr8Apes (#48163241) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right

A) The income tax restricted to the top 20% is merely to tax disparate income. There should still be a consumption tax IMHO.

B) Capital tax, as I understood it, is on current wealth. After skimming TFA again, it appears that is how capital is used in TFA. I'd imagine to encourage savings, etc, this again would be applied to the top 20% percent

FYI - 20% is an arbitrary number between the top 100% and 0%. Slide as necessary to balance the budget or achieve whatever is necessary. That, of course, can allow the current situation to continue, or achieve a lowered rate of income inequality and a more robust economy.

Comment: Re:This looks like a nasty trick. (Score 1) 818

by Gr8Apes (#48159773) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right

First, I'm not 100% sure what he means by a "progressive" consumption tax, perhaps the more you consume, the higher your tax rate? How would that work? Ideally, income tax would only hit the top 20% of income earners, plus a capital tax if your goal is to reduce wealth. However, note that a capital tax can most likely be gotten around precisely via such vehicles as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, because it's a philanthropic entity run by, whom again? And IIRC no tax was ever levied against that wealth nor its "transfer".

Well done, Bill!

What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.

Working...