Lurker > realnifty1

So in a vacuum this isn't a bad thing, I think it was last raised in the 90's and between a combination of inflation and car efficiency the tax is bringing in less real dollars now than it did when last raised.

However it is a severely regressive tax and will have a lot of downstream economic effects as shipping costs rise. For a large number of people this amounts to about $10 a week in just tax paid and then factor in higher cost goods..

Hit the brakes and put it in neutral.

The brakes will stop a car even with the throttle wide open.

BlingBling22947 posted...

I don't what numbers they toss on there, $116k (the average) doesn't feel like $148k in D.C.

You are reading it backwards, it is saying that the $116k in DC is the equivalent of $148k in San Fran dollars.

It's not a 100% though, it is at 97% which only slightly above the pre-release norm for a Marvel movie.

A million dollars worth of pennies is ~500,000 lbs, good luck with that.

Doom_Art posted...

The Admiral posted...

His supporters are enjoying tax breaks

What from the tax bill which 3 quarters of the country detests :P

To be fair 25% does about match up to his level of support.

McCabe has been on his way out for months, he was holding out for his pension that vests at the beginning of March, but Trump started attacking over that and he let pride get the better of him and is leaving earlier.

The memo is likely going to focus on Rosenstein as they have been working a concerted effort to get him out without Trump taking flak for it so they can put in someone that will dump the Mueller investigation without an official order from Trump.

Why not both?

StucklnMyPants posted...

He doesn't. Sessions is the one that can fire Mueller.

Actually he can't unless he un-recused himself and that would probably be as big a legal thing as if Trump just ignored that he has no authority here and tried to fire him anyway.

The job falls to Rod Rosenstein, but Trump does have the authority to fire and replace him. So technically Trump could fire and replace the Deputy Attorney General until he finds one willing to fire Mueller.

Asherlee10 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Wait, sex trafficking? WTF?

Pretty sure any massage place that gives you handy is completely consensual.

It's more common than you'd think. The city I just moved away from had 4 massage parlors shut down because of sex trafficking. They had the girls like prisoners. Authorities were tipped off because most of the workers never actually left the building.

I bet that is not true. Usually when raids happen they are reported on suspected human trafficking charges, but almost nothing ever comes of it. Store front MP's almost never deal in human trafficking, it is way too big of a risk for a place that anyone can just walk up and into. AAMP's on the other hand, yeah just don't do those.

And it is not unusual for the girls to stay at the places if they are part of a turnover system. The girl goes from store to store staying a few weeks at a time before going back to there home/family for a weeks and then cycling through again.

Of course the top 500 stock valuation is loosely tied to GDP, because the GDP is sales and sales are how you value companies(not exactly, but it works as a rough measure generally).

It's not my fault you posed a question that empirically has the answer you don't want. If you give 100 million people a dollar each you are going to add very close to that directly and immediately to the GDP. Giving it to a company is unlikely to even see a return of half that and even then it would be over 5 to 10 years where inflation would have devalued it as well.

Mal_Fet posted...

realnifty1 posted...

If you want to grow the economy you need to distribute it. They then use capitalism to invest that money into worthwhile companies through purchasing. Giving to a company is anti-capitalistic as you are trying to play favorites instead allowing the market to decide.

Investing in a company is not anti-capitalist. It's not charity.

By your strictures it is, I can't spend it on myself, so I am gifting this money not buying shares to make a return.

If you want to grow the economy you need to distribute it. They then use capitalism to invest that money into worthwhile companies through purchasing. Giving to a company is anti-capitalistic as you are trying to play favorites instead allowing the market to decide.

Also the economy is measured by GDP, which is final sales, so investing in a company is unlikely to have any measurable effect on the economy short term and is more nebulous long term. So putting the money directly into the GDP via final sales is the most efficient way to affect the economy.

'We're going to be friends' is their best song.

Tropicalwood posted...

realnifty1 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

realnifty1 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

creativerealms posted...

It is quite possible that ISPs won't try to package the internet for more money. Maybe this fear is for nothing. I can't see the future only the past. When have companies ever had the best interests of consumers in mind? Never.

It's more likely that the ISPs will tell netflix to start paying for their outrageous bandwidth use so they aren't pushing shit on to the consumers and can profit off having more just subscribed to them.

Do you understand the internet? Netflix already has to pay for their bandwidth. NN means that when I go hey ISP fetch me some content from Netflix they have to treat that request the same as anyone else making any other request for any type of thing.

Netflix chews up an insane amount of the bandwidth in NA, about 30-40% during peak hours actually. Don't try and tell me Netflix doesn't gain something from ISPs not being able to tell them to pay up for their fast lanes.

So let me explain the problem to you in an oversimplified manner. An ISP sells 100 packages to customers telling them that their internet connection allows a rate of 10 requests per second. That would mean that if everyone was using their internet fully they would be making 1000 requests per second of the ISP. However the ISP can only actually handle 500 requests per second, they sold this way because before things like streaming video average requests were below 1 per second. Now NetFlix has created a service needing to transmit content at 8 requests per second. This service has proved popular and now more and more ISP customers are increasing their requests per second averages.

So the ISP's are unable to deliver on the contract they have formed with their customers because customers have started to use more of what was promised to them. This is NetFlix's fault how?

You're just being ridiculous, an ISP cannot make money off packages because they simply won't be there after a month or two and they'd make a hell of a lot more money keeping track of what people do on the internet and selling said data to advertisers.

Yet again, do you even understand the internet? You're argument has nothing to do with anything. Net Neutrality is dying because ISP's oversold their networks and now that services exist where their customers want to make use of what they are contractually promised ISP's don't want to foot the bill for upgrading their network and instead are going to try and push that cost to everyone else instead meeting their contractual requirements.

Tropicalwood posted...

realnifty1 posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

creativerealms posted...

It is quite possible that ISPs won't try to package the internet for more money. Maybe this fear is for nothing. I can't see the future only the past. When have companies ever had the best interests of consumers in mind? Never.

It's more likely that the ISPs will tell netflix to start paying for their outrageous bandwidth use so they aren't pushing shit on to the consumers and can profit off having more just subscribed to them.

Do you understand the internet? Netflix already has to pay for their bandwidth. NN means that when I go hey ISP fetch me some content from Netflix they have to treat that request the same as anyone else making any other request for any type of thing.

Netflix chews up an insane amount of the bandwidth in NA, about 30-40% during peak hours actually. Don't try and tell me Netflix doesn't gain something from ISPs not being able to tell them to pay up for their fast lanes.

So let me explain the problem to you in an oversimplified manner. An ISP sells 100 packages to customers telling them that their internet connection allows a rate of 10 requests per second. That would mean that if everyone was using their internet fully they would be making 1000 requests per second of the ISP. However the ISP can only actually handle 500 requests per second, they sold this way because before things like streaming video average requests were below 1 per second. Now NetFlix has created a service needing to transmit content at 8 requests per second. This service has proved popular and now more and more ISP customers are increasing their requests per second averages.

So the ISP's are unable to deliver on the contract they have formed with their customers because customers have started to use more of what was promised to them. This is NetFlix's fault how?

Tropicalwood posted...

creativerealms posted...

It is quite possible that ISPs won't try to package the internet for more money. Maybe this fear is for nothing. I can't see the future only the past. When have companies ever had the best interests of consumers in mind? Never.

It's more likely that the ISPs will tell netflix to start paying for their outrageous bandwidth use so they aren't pushing shit on to the consumers and can profit off having more just subscribed to them.

Do you understand the internet? Netflix already has to pay for their bandwidth. NN means that when I go hey ISP fetch me some content from Netflix they have to treat that request the same as anyone else making any other request for any type of thing.

Vamp_Aubrey posted...

I had to pry the disc out with tweezers

Fuck Micro$oft

That's not how you are supposed to do that.

JoeyBowey posted...

Having an armed populace acts as a deterrent for mass shooters.

Clearly it does not.

144, but I'm pretty sure I'd score lower on a real administered one. A lot of it felt much too basic.

Unless you are a rich straight white male, you are losing.

19

How do people even score above 80? Are they middle schoolers or something?

To help TC out with the supposed(suggested, very few hit these, but they are good goals) goals are:
at 30 50% of one years salary
at 40 twice your annual salary
at 50 4 times your annual salary
at 60 6 times

and that is the goal for your total retirement savings, not just 401k, so once you settle down in your 30's you will want to start into other types of investments as well.

Were_Wyrm posted...

I think you guys mean Larry.

I'm pretty sure that's Barry

The Deadpool posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

The Deadpool posted...

I understand how people can be tricked into believing the second amendment is about personal use and not state militias, but I don't understand how grown adults get tricked into thinking "arms" means "guns"...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

James Madison also told ships cannons were fine.

You know that when a case is The People v. Whatever they don't mean each individual person, right?

We have records of the discussions that lead to the creation of the Bill of Rights. The States did not want a strong national government and did not want a national army. Once the revolution was over, they wanted to disband the army and protect themselves with militias. The second amendment was written to protect that right.

It wasn't until the NRA started dumping money into lawyers that people started reading it a different way. But I'm still amazed they managed to futz around the meaning of "Arms."

Pretty much this. The 2nd amendment was designed to allow for people to be able to maintain arms for fighting back against tyranny in a time when they didn't want standing armies and therefore necessitated the members of the militia to bring their own gun. Now I'm not sure how much you have kept up with the advancements in warfare but to refer to the 2nd amendment as antiquated is putting it really nicely.

Bagamak posted...

to be fair, people didn't know which teams would do this. now that they know, the next game may have less viewers. people might have tuned in, saw the kneel and turned it off, but their rating was still locking in. but next week it won't get their rating

That's stupid, if you turned the game on and they knelt then you would change the channel and the overall viewer average would be lower by all of the fans tuning out.

As long as the NFL does not cave they will not see any appreciable change because the people who would actually follow through don't watch in the first place and will for get by time the Super Bowl comes around because that is too much of a party to miss.

Cave in and you will end up like the video game or comic industry where they have both caved into the outrage of people that were not their consumers and now their actual consumers are leaving in droves.

Power, easily and if you can't think of ways to get incredible value out of it you must be boring.

Basically any combination of outdoor event attended by rich people equals $$$.

Go to Coachella with some spoiled hot chick and get paid a couple grand for the weekend? Yes, please.

So first off, you actually do want people to hook their panels up to the grid. Battery storage is super inefficient and selling back the energy you collect during the day when the grid is at peak use is better for you and the grid as a whole because then they are using less fossil fuel to meet over all demand.

That the power companies keep trying to leverage their way out of paying for the energy you are putting into the grid is disgusting.

Back feed is a real problem, but they solved it like using a chainsaw for a haircut. You just need a switch that is powered from the grid to open up feeding into the grid. So if there is no power in the grid then the switch isn't open. I'm sure they babbled on and on about safety, but there are few things safer than a switch that is closed when it has no power.