It would be better to owe $2K each year than to expect refunds.
As part of a reasonably complete tax plan, yes. But the people who depend on refunds at the end of the year don't have the knowledge or ability to plan for a large (or even small) tax debt, and so won't have the $2000 available to pay those taxes. For the vast, vast number of people, overpaying their taxes is the only thing keeping them from ruin.
Distributions using OpenSSL 0.9.8 are not vulnerable
This is why I haven't upgraded my Linux servers in 23 years.
The best thing about April 2 is that all those fucking stupid joke stories start to scroll off of the site.
The worst thing about April 2 is that those fucking stupid joke stories haven't yet fully scrolled off of the site.
I would REALLY love for Slashdot to have a new option: hide April 1 joke stories.
He's entitled to his opinion and he's entitled to spend the money he has earned as he sees fit.
And everyone else is entitled to their opinion that he's a hateful asshole. What you're saying is, "he's entitled to his opinion, but no one else is entitled to a contrary opinion."
Our corrupt government allows corporations to poison our food in order to poison the bugs that eat it.
The bugs evolve to resist the poison, making the poison pointless.
Our government allows corporations to continue poisoning our food because the corporations have become dependent on the income the poisoning provides.
We are still being poisoned, and will continue to be poisoned.
Yet genetically altering our food is somehow still considered a good thing by the clueless. Sadly, the clueless are the ones making the decisions and supporting those making the decisions.
Oh that not so bright kid that can run and catch really good? he is a superstar!
You've really only touched upon the disfunction in American society. I could write a Ph.d thesis on how the United States is breeding itself into obsolecense. We are a country that is more obsessed with brawny men in tight pants moving a ball from one end of a large field to another than we are with keeping our country educated and competitive.
When I was getting my degree, our school would close off parking for academic purposes so the football spectators could park. Nevermind that we had group assignments to complete; there be a bunch of young boys moving their balls across the field!
Our society is slitting its own throat.
Billionaires tend to be far more critical of what their money finances than government granting authorities.
True, but the outcome is not usually what you are implying. Billionaires tend to put their money where there is the most to gain for themselves, while governments have a stronger motivation to fund important fundamental discoveries that do not provide an immediate return on investment.
Consider all of the scandals involving made up data.
Both privately and publicly funded entities do this. At least publicly funded entities can be cross-checked. Privately funded entities are under no pressure to disclose all their sources, and will be even less so as private funding of science becomes more socially acceptable.
A billionaire who discovers shenanigans certainly won't fund that researcher again, a government agency probably will.
To a billionaire, "shenanigans" means that the "researcher" didn't arrive at the results the billionaire paid for. So yes, the billionaire will not fund that researcher again.
...it's pretty obvious that private donors are more likely to scrutinize than public sector donors.
Yes, but only to make sure that the private donors' political biases take precedence over the truth.
Billionaires have the luxury of blowing their money however they see fit.
And they will only "blow" their money on endeavors that make them more money. How do you think they became billionaires to begin with?
This is how science got funded during its first centuries as a discipline when many of the giants of science did their work.
Lots and lots and lots of good science had to fight and uphill battle against the political desires of private patrons back then, which held back scientific progress rather than promoted it.
No, private funding of the sciences was, is, and will be a disaster.