Doesn't look like anything to me. This shows the tax rates: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php. They climbed up for WW1 & WW2, and now are falling back to historical levels.
which again, shows nothing sinister. Where one man made $2 to anothers $1, now that man is making $200 to the others $100.
Also can anyone substantiate the claim that the super rich lend the government money? As far as I knew only the Federal Reserve lent money to the government.
On a more serious note, this would be a complete non-issue, except that education is state controlled. So now it's politics.
Where it private people could choose what's best for their child without choosing what's best for everyone elses.
Sometimes software stinks because it IS bad. Perhaps the software he is using grew from simple to complex and nobody did any housework, thus the smell. Maybe it does need some work.
Also, once you have a permanent address you can trade. Civilization does well in places with trade routes (like coasts, big slow rivers, or well defended roads)
Forth is number 1 on my list of greatest languages -- and I've been coding Lisp full time for years. If you want to have your mind blown, take a look at what Moore has done recently with Color Forth. It's tricky to piece together the story from bits on the internet, but the resulting language is enlightened in a way no other languages can claim.
My criteria is when someone mentions a right, can I meaningfully append the question 'At whose expense'? If I can, it's bogus.
These are rights: Right to liberty, to own property, to your life, to the pursuit of happiness, to freedom of speech.
These are not: Right to a job, to a 'fair' wage, to an education, to internet access, to clean water, to a pig every month.
Real rights prevent someone from doing awful things to you, basically "No one will harm you, or interfere with you doing this" (where this might be living, owning property, speaking, etc). The bogus rights are basically promises of free stuff.
I'll bet the version off pirate bay works fine. I know this is kind of snarky, but if they want to successfully combat piracy they need to make the pay-and-play experience better than the pirate one. DRM only affects those who play the unmodified game.
Having courts retroactively redefine contracts based on their fairness weakens contract law greatly. Besides being very subjective, things that start fair often seem unfair in time. For example Microsoft's deal with IBM, or Mosaic's deal with Microsoft. It's better if the rules stay the same, the ball will be played where it lands.
That's what I thought too. I stumbled across this yesterday, while searching for a market for my script.
The deal sounds great, I'm too busy to market my script properly, but I can just upload it to them, get feedback, exposure, possibly win some money, and maybe make $200,000 if they buy it.
Worst case scenario is I leave in 18 months with just my script again -- but I figure that's the expected case for self promotion anyway.
I agree. The only thing standing in the way is state licensing. The AMA lobbied for medical practitioner licensing in the earlier 1900s on the grounds that they would set high standards for future doctors. The end result was different:
"The licensing boards in each state soon began refusing licenses to health professionals who had not been trained at one of the 'approved' medical schools. Only half of the existing medical schools were approved, so most of the others had to close their doors by 1920. By 1932, almost half the medical school applicants had to be turned away. Those who apprenticed, went to unapproved schools, or developed their own therapies were stopped- at gunpoint, if necessary- from healing. As a result, the number of medical doctors per 100,000 people dropped from 157 in 1900 to 125 by 1929. Specialists, such as midwives, were usually forbidden to practice unless they had a full-fledged medical degree."
True, but that value isn't for sale, it's manifest as easements owned by your neighbors. (the true price is buying the land and the easements that conflict with your agenda).
For example, if you fish the wetland, or set up a water front hotel, or drink the water then you have an easement right to clean water. It cuts both ways though; if a polluter moves to unoccupied land and pollutes 10 barrels a day, then he has an easement right to continue polluting at this rate.
Today most of the environment is federally owned as crown or public land. 89% of Canada and at least 20% of the US are in this state (some western states are between 25% and 75% public land).
As government property the land is not salable and its true worth is unknown. Currently, businesses approach government and lease access rights for grazing, timber, oil, etc.
This leads to environmentally unsound decisions because most businesses only understand the land as is relevant to their work. And politicians make the deals because it adds jobs, builds the economy, and improves their re-election chances.
If the land was sold, the market would bring a wider range of buyers: developers, businesses, speculators, and environmentalists. Land important to wildlife would be prized by conservationists and their respective charities. They could buy and protect that land, and only permit sustainable development. Farmers could no longer lease cheap graze land from the government, they would have to buy it (and treat it sustainably) or lease it from private owners. Oil producers would have an incentive to work cleanly: if they work clean, the land will resell at a higher price when they finish.
Land is an asset of various values. Setting price tags stops it from being undervalued.
