Does anyone know of an extension similar to flashblock but for HTML5 on Chrome?
Does anyone know of an extension similar to flashblock but for HTML5 on Chrome?
I've heard those things and they often sound like a pissed off weedeater.
You have no idea what you're talking about. A passing car is louder than a small, well-tuned quad with quality balanced rotors at ground level. 30' in the air? Barely audible. There are noisier ones. I work with a 25-pound octo that sounds completely horrifying, and I know when and where to operate it. But thanks for speaking out of ignorance - it helps to put all of this stuff in perspective.
The elements which make up most of the "rock" on our rocky planet are oxygen, silicon, calcium, iron, potassium, aluminum, and sodium. Of these, oxygen, silicon, and iron are a regular product of stellar fusion, and can be distributed from a single supernova.
OTOH, with Verizon announcing it's ending FiOS rollouts, they need a good swift competitive kick in the rear to get them to provide what the market wants, rather than milking their existing infrastructure for as much money as they can. The only reason they're able to do things like stop fiber rollout is because they have a government-granted monopoly in the areas they serve. A competitor - be it Google or anyone else - is exactly what's needed to break up that monopoly and give the people what the want.
It seems like trained economists are just as likely to fuck up an economy as would be trained monkeys -- because at the end of the day you have shockingly little control over things, and probably less of an understanding that you claim. Let's not start pretending that economists actually know anything about the economy. They know what their ideologically driven view of economics tells them to they know.
It's not really the economists' fault. Theirs is a profession based on predicting human behavior, which is unpredictable at best. A trained economist can make some basic, fundamental predictions which will correctly improve economic efficiency, especially in a developing economy. But once you get to a well-developed economy, most of the efficiency gains have already been made. And economic direction depends more on random variances in individual people's decisions.
Normally you can get around this problem by using a huge sampling size to average out the variances. But economics has the added twist that everyone knows what everyone else is doing. And if housing prices start going up, people think "wow, other people must know something I don't know, and I'd better start investing in housing" even though they have no idea why it's going up. That herd mentality messes up even averaging out the variances, and can turn even the perfect economist's predictions wrong.
The best engineering analogy I can come up with is a dynamically unstable (chaotic) system. You can predict the long-term (decades) and overall trends. But the day-to-day and year-to-year motions are highly irregular. But nobody cares about the long-term trends, and take economists to task for incorrectly predicting year-to-year movements.
There must be agencies seeding these projects, commercial and open source, with toxic contributors injected there to deliberately contaminate the code with such bugs. The further fact that one never sees responsible persons identified, removed and blacklisted suggests that contamination is top down.
Or, you are yourself a toxic seed planted by The Man in order to foment FUD and make good people not want to be part of these projects. Or something like that. Give it a rest with the absurd conspiracy crap.
If it's archival material (stuff that doesn't change), this is still a strong argument for using WORM (write once, read many) media - optical discs like DVD and Blu-ray. I'd been hoping someone would make a HDD enclosure with a write-protect switch like on SD cards. But the only one I've found was a specialty item apparently designed for police forensic work, not user friendliness. The write-protect "switch" is a jumper - I've mounted it inside another enclosure I had, but I have to open up the enclosure to switch the jumper. Which is probably fine if you're only using it on evidence hard drives which you never want to write to. But for home use where I'm toggling between writing new backups and occasionally restoring old backups, it's rather inconvenient.
the Navy *does* have some recently-deployed point defense laser technology designed to shoot down incoming cruise missiles
The problem is that the incoming drone could easily be flying below tree-top height. Like, 20 feet off the ground. Laser counter measures would be shooting at a target that would have large office buildings and other structures directly behind it.
The catch is, the surface area of your lens needs to be aligned within a fraction of a wavelength of light for interferometry to work. It's been done on smaller optical telescopes and bigger radio telescopes (radio waves are much longer than light waves, so proper alignment is a lot easier). Getting the edges of a half mile diameter ring to remain within less than one wavelength of light from your sensor is going to be very difficult. There are methods to correct for differing distances. But I'd imagine rotating such a large annular scope would induce a lot of micro-vibrations (bigger than a wavelength) which may thwart such methods.
Taxing wealth is practically difficult.
It's worse than that. Taxing wealth is inherently unfair because it's double taxation. Wealth is an amount (e.g. $100,000). Income is a rate (e.g.($50,000/yr). Income taxes are also a rate (e.g. 10% of your $50,000/yr is $5000/yr). You cannot mix rates and amounts. In particular, wealth is what's left over after it's already been taxed.
Take two people making $50,000/yr. Each pays $5000 in taxes. Each pays $20,000/yr on essentials like housing and food. One person buys all the latest toys, parties every night, and in general fritters away her remaining $25,000. At the end of 10 years, she's earned $500,000, paid $50,000 in taxes, has spent $250,000 on fun, and has zero accumulated wealth.
The other person eschews the toys and parties and saves the $25,000. At the end of 10 years, she's earned $500,000, paid $50,000 in taxes, and has $250,000 in accumulated wealth. But then you come by with a wealth tax and say she has to pay an extra 10%. So now she's paid $75,000 in taxes even though she earned exactly as much money as the other person who paid $50,000 in taxes. She's only allowed to spend $225,000 on herself because she had the temerity to save her money instead of blowing it on fun.
A wealth tax is taxing money that has already been taxed, and the fact that it's taxing an amount instead of a rate makes it impossible to synchronize with other income taxes - i.e. examples like the one I just gave are inevitable. It's inherently unfair. If you want to tax richer people more, just crank up the income tax rate on higher income brackets.
In USA money earned by blood, sweat, tears and brains (wages, earned income) is taxed at much higher rate than money earned by money (capital gains, carried interest, qualified dividends, etc). This is the root cause of the inequality.
That's not quite true. Look at the individual income tax stats for 2012. Scroll over to column T. That's the actual tax paid as percent of gross income. It neatly sums up the effect of graduated tax brackets, tax credits, and deductions.
4.1% - $15,000 under $20,000
5.2% - $20,000 under $25,000
6.1% - $25,000 under $30,000
6.8% - $30,000 under $40,000
7.4% - $40,000 under $50,000
8.6% - $50,000 under $75,000
9.5% - $75,000 under $100,000
12.7% - $100,000 under $200,000
19.6% - $200,000 under $500,000
24.0% - $500,000 under $1,000,000
24.6% - $1,000,000 under $1,500,000
24.6% - $1,500,000 under $2,000,000
24.3% - $2,000,000 under $5,000,000
23.4% - $5,000,000 under $10,000,000
19.8% - $10,000,000 or more
As you can see, you have to be making about $200,000 or more before the actual average income tax rate exceeds the 15% capital gains tax. That is, on average, people making less than $200,000 pay a smaller percentage of their blood and sweat income as taxes than the 15% capital gains tax. (If you make less than $200,000 and pay more than 15%, you are a statistical anomaly.) The effect you ascribe to the capital gains tax doesn't kick in until about $1.5 million in income, when the actual tax rate begins decreasing. Someone making $10 million or more on average pays roughly the same tax (as a percentage) as someone making $200,000-$500,000.
So what needs to happen is the capital gains tax rate (1) needs to increase if your income is about $1 million or higher, and (2) needs to decrease if your income is less than $200,000. Right now, the 15% capital gains tax rate is so high that it discourages middle- and lower-income people from investing, which is the most direct way to partake in the country's economic growth. And the fruits of the country's economic growth will instead continue to fall mainly in the lap of the wealthy.