info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95
481 views
Skip to first unread message
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 27, 2015, 10:04:58 AM7/27/15
to
On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Osmium wrote:
>> "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>> You are the one who is advocating taxing those bonds when you
>>> write that all unearned income should be taxed at the same rates
>>> as earned income.
>>
>> I have never personally been involved in a bond sale, even though I
>> have a bunch in IRAs So far they have been tax free to me and
>> someone else does the paperwork for me. But that post sounds like
>> bond interest gets a favorable rate. If so, why? What is the
>> reasoning behind that? I understand the reasoning, behind dividend
>> tax rates. Note that understanding does not mean agreement with the
>> status quo.
>
> Municipal bond interest is tax-free in the state which issued them.
... and, obviously, in states that don't levy income taxes at all.
Plus, muni bonds are tax-exempt at the federal level as well, where
income tax rates are much higher anyway.
> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or short
> term gains and sometimes a a capital gains distribution.
Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they are not
different things.
> The philosophy is to attract money for local infrastructure. The
> interest rates for munis are lower than those for corporations or
> muni bonds which are taxed. The bond issurers pay out a lower rate
> and are able to fund things such as schools, hospitals, sewers, etc.
The lack of taxation means that issuers can pay lower interest rates
(which saves the taxpayers money) and investors still earn a similar
rate of return, after adjusting for relative risk.
Increasing the tax rate on non-muni bonds would mean that muni bond
interest rates could go down even more.
> Munis disappeared a few years ago because of some program Obama had
> which allowed taxable bonds to be issued with a lower rate than
> munis.
Blatantly incorrect on all counts.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
> Osmium wrote:
>> "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>> You are the one who is advocating taxing those bonds when you
>>> write that all unearned income should be taxed at the same rates
>>> as earned income.
>>
>> I have never personally been involved in a bond sale, even though I
>> have a bunch in IRAs So far they have been tax free to me and
>> someone else does the paperwork for me. But that post sounds like
>> bond interest gets a favorable rate. If so, why? What is the
>> reasoning behind that? I understand the reasoning, behind dividend
>> tax rates. Note that understanding does not mean agreement with the
>> status quo.
>
> Municipal bond interest is tax-free in the state which issued them.
... and, obviously, in states that don't levy income taxes at all.
Plus, muni bonds are tax-exempt at the federal level as well, where
income tax rates are much higher anyway.
> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or short
> term gains and sometimes a a capital gains distribution.
Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they are not
different things.
> The philosophy is to attract money for local infrastructure. The
> interest rates for munis are lower than those for corporations or
> muni bonds which are taxed. The bond issurers pay out a lower rate
> and are able to fund things such as schools, hospitals, sewers, etc.
The lack of taxation means that issuers can pay lower interest rates
(which saves the taxpayers money) and investors still earn a similar
rate of return, after adjusting for relative risk.
Increasing the tax rate on non-muni bonds would mean that muni bond
interest rates could go down even more.
> Munis disappeared a few years ago because of some program Obama had
> which allowed taxable bonds to be issued with a lower rate than
> munis.
Blatantly incorrect on all counts.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Peter Flass
Jul 27, 2015, 10:09:53 AM7/27/15
to
<lawr...@cluon.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> [much deletia about CPU time]
>> God yes. PPOE used to stack a month's worth of data on a 3590 cartridge
>> (60GB), down from several 3480's/month. It took forever when we had to
>> extract data to produce a special report.
>
> What was the overall nature of the report, who wanted to see it, and
> does it have any measurable EFFECT in how the company operates? Are any
> decisions made because this class of programs used 'more CPU seconds
> than they should have?'??
Sometimes the data was used to provide justification for an upgrade. What
really ballooned up the size was adding all the CICS transaction data. I
think out CICS guy used that for something, but I don't know what .
--
Pete
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> [much deletia about CPU time]
>> God yes. PPOE used to stack a month's worth of data on a 3590 cartridge
>> (60GB), down from several 3480's/month. It took forever when we had to
>> extract data to produce a special report.
>
> What was the overall nature of the report, who wanted to see it, and
> does it have any measurable EFFECT in how the company operates? Are any
> decisions made because this class of programs used 'more CPU seconds
> than they should have?'??
Sometimes the data was used to provide justification for an upgrade. What
really ballooned up the size was adding all the CICS transaction data. I
think out CICS guy used that for something, but I don't know what .
--
Pete
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 27, 2015, 10:52:11 AM7/27/15
to
On 25-Jul-15 10:21, Dan Espen wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>> On 24-Jul-15 15:41, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> On the other hand, AA does work, if you're willing to follow the
>>> program.
>>
>> AA/NA's own literature admits to a failure rate of 97%, the same
>> as quitting cold turkey. So no, it doesn't work. At all.
>>
>> Not that the govt subjecting people to religious indoctrination
>> would be acceptable even if it _did_ work, but that question is
>> moot.
>
> Pete's statement is a tautology.
> AA works in cases where it works.
> That's the only way to interpret "if you're willing to follow the
> program".
Plenty of people are "willing to follow the program" yet keep using.
OTOH, some people quit without following the program.
This is what any sane person would expect since it has long been known
that prayer has absolutely no effect on the real world. Whether you
call it mass or a rain dance or an AA/MA meeting makes no difference.
> Known a couple of people on AA.
> One died an alcoholic. He attended the meetings.
According to AA/NA dogma, once an addict, always an addict, even if one
doesn't use anymore.
> The other was sentenced to AA by the courts.
> He would ask his friends to sign names to his attendance slips.
> Still walking around.
That's not uncommon. It's almost impossible to prove a signature is
legit because, by design, AA/NA do not track members or attendance.
> Alcoholism is tough, I don't think anything less then 100% supervised
> living has much a chance of working.
We can't even keep drugs and alcohol out of our prisons.
There are science-based programs with 25-33% success rates, i.e. roughly
ten times as successful as religion. That's not surprising; science is
more effective at _everything_ than religion.
The remainder, most people chalk up to the person not _wanting_ to quit,
and there's nothing that can be done in that case.
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>> On 24-Jul-15 15:41, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> On the other hand, AA does work, if you're willing to follow the
>>> program.
>>
>> AA/NA's own literature admits to a failure rate of 97%, the same
>> as quitting cold turkey. So no, it doesn't work. At all.
>>
>> Not that the govt subjecting people to religious indoctrination
>> would be acceptable even if it _did_ work, but that question is
>> moot.
>
> Pete's statement is a tautology.
> AA works in cases where it works.
> That's the only way to interpret "if you're willing to follow the
> program".
Plenty of people are "willing to follow the program" yet keep using.
OTOH, some people quit without following the program.
This is what any sane person would expect since it has long been known
that prayer has absolutely no effect on the real world. Whether you
call it mass or a rain dance or an AA/MA meeting makes no difference.
> Known a couple of people on AA.
> One died an alcoholic. He attended the meetings.
According to AA/NA dogma, once an addict, always an addict, even if one
doesn't use anymore.
> The other was sentenced to AA by the courts.
> He would ask his friends to sign names to his attendance slips.
> Still walking around.
That's not uncommon. It's almost impossible to prove a signature is
legit because, by design, AA/NA do not track members or attendance.
> Alcoholism is tough, I don't think anything less then 100% supervised
> living has much a chance of working.
We can't even keep drugs and alcohol out of our prisons.
There are science-based programs with 25-33% success rates, i.e. roughly
ten times as successful as religion. That's not surprising; science is
more effective at _everything_ than religion.
The remainder, most people chalk up to the person not _wanting_ to quit,
and there's nothing that can be done in that case.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 27, 2015, 10:57:40 AM7/27/15
to
On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 4:43:01 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
> On the other hand, AA does work, if you're
> willing to follow the program.
The problem is that for many addicts, they're unwilling to follow the program or just give it lip service.
> On the other hand, AA does work, if you're
> willing to follow the program.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 27, 2015, 11:03:01 AM7/27/15
to
On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> There's other stuff, too, but that's the most obvious. As a result,
> federal courts have ruled that AA/NA qualifies as a religion, so
> compelling attendance is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
I don't know that much about A/A, but from what I've heard, religion is not at all a big part part of it. Much bigger components are coming to terms with one's addiction, recognizing the damage it causes, and a support system to stay sober.
Elsewhere an extremely low success rate was quoted for A/A. I find that questionable. I suspect a fair amount of people do break down and resume drinking, but I also suspect A/A participation increases the time length of sober living, which is a good thing.
What else is there? Especially for those who really don't want to quit?
> There's other stuff, too, but that's the most obvious. As a result,
> federal courts have ruled that AA/NA qualifies as a religion, so
> compelling attendance is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
I don't know that much about A/A, but from what I've heard, religion is not at all a big part part of it. Much bigger components are coming to terms with one's addiction, recognizing the damage it causes, and a support system to stay sober.
Elsewhere an extremely low success rate was quoted for A/A. I find that questionable. I suspect a fair amount of people do break down and resume drinking, but I also suspect A/A participation increases the time length of sober living, which is a good thing.
What else is there? Especially for those who really don't want to quit?
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 27, 2015, 11:11:25 AM7/27/15
to
On 22-Jul-15 12:28, Tim Streater wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Note that it is quite common for prosecutors with a weak case to
>> offer a plea bargain for a lesser charge _and_ for the minimum
>> sentence for that charge. For instance, I know someone who was
>> charged with several felonies totaling 65 years, and the deal he
>> accepted was for a single felony at 3 years; he had already spent
>> 2 years in jail awaiting trial, so he was released on parole as
>> soon as he signed the paperwork. That wasn't the judge's fault.
>> (He had an alibi and was unquestionably innocent, which shows just
>> how corrupt the system is.)
>
> That's because judges and DAs are elected where you are.
The above example was in a state with appointed judges, but they're
nearly as bad because they still need a record of being "tough on crime"
if they want to be re-appointed to a _higher_ bench.
AFAIK, DAs are elected in all states. Federal prosecutors aren't, but
they're just as bad as the elected ones on this.
> Both of these want *convictions* they can wave at the electorate,
> so the deal is to threaten people that if they insist on going to
> trial they might get 65 years in the slammer. Or they can walk out
> the door *today* due to time served, but the judge and the DA get
> their conviction.
Exactly.
> Two years awaiting trial, eh? Whatever happened to "justice delayed
> is justice denied"?
Courts exempted themselves from the "speedy trial" requirement, which
existed to prevent _exactly_ this sort of injustice.
> No justice, y'see, but plenty of law.
That's why I call it the (in)justice system.
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Note that it is quite common for prosecutors with a weak case to
>> offer a plea bargain for a lesser charge _and_ for the minimum
>> sentence for that charge. For instance, I know someone who was
>> charged with several felonies totaling 65 years, and the deal he
>> accepted was for a single felony at 3 years; he had already spent
>> 2 years in jail awaiting trial, so he was released on parole as
>> soon as he signed the paperwork. That wasn't the judge's fault.
>> (He had an alibi and was unquestionably innocent, which shows just
>> how corrupt the system is.)
>
> That's because judges and DAs are elected where you are.
The above example was in a state with appointed judges, but they're
nearly as bad because they still need a record of being "tough on crime"
if they want to be re-appointed to a _higher_ bench.
AFAIK, DAs are elected in all states. Federal prosecutors aren't, but
they're just as bad as the elected ones on this.
> Both of these want *convictions* they can wave at the electorate,
> so the deal is to threaten people that if they insist on going to
> trial they might get 65 years in the slammer. Or they can walk out
> the door *today* due to time served, but the judge and the DA get
> their conviction.
Exactly.
> Two years awaiting trial, eh? Whatever happened to "justice delayed
> is justice denied"?
Courts exempted themselves from the "speedy trial" requirement, which
existed to prevent _exactly_ this sort of injustice.
> No justice, y'see, but plenty of law.
That's why I call it the (in)justice system.
Message has been deleted
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Jul 27, 2015, 11:43:31 AM7/27/15
to
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Sometimes the data was used to provide justification for an upgrade. What
> really ballooned up the size was adding all the CICS transaction data. I
> think out CICS guy used that for something, but I don't know what .
MVS measured waittime to infer total cpu time (elapsed minus
> Sometimes the data was used to provide justification for an upgrade. What
> really ballooned up the size was adding all the CICS transaction data. I
> think out CICS guy used that for something, but I don't know what .
waittime). application cpu use was somewhat approximate ... and then
there was "capture ratio" ... aka accounted for cpu divided by total cpu
(which was elapsed minus wait). unaccounted for time could range from
20% to 80%. VTAM (terminal i/o) could really drive down "capture ratio"
I've talked before about internal installations looking at deploying
loads of 4341s out into departmental areas ... primarily because large
datacenters were exploding at the seams and difficulty in adding more
computing capacity ... but in part because they could (4341
significantly improved computing price/performance ... and significantly
reduced the space and environmental footprint). One of the issues was
moving MVS-based applications to 4341 (MVS required significant human
resources for its care and feeding, couldn't have several dedicated
staff in every department) ... the simpler applications could be
directly moved to vm/cms ... the more complex ones required enhancements
to the MVS simulation in CMS. The other benefit was that the significant
MVS&VTAM processing overhead was eliminated (uncaptured CPU) ... further
improving the processing efficiency. old email mentioning 4341
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#4341
past posts mentioning capture ratio
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005m.html#16 CPU time and system load
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#19 Ranking of non-IBM mainframe builders?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#82 IBM to the PCM market
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#23 SMF Under VM
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008.html#42 Inaccurate CPU% reported by RMF and TMON
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008d.html#72 Price of CPU seconds
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#66 LPARs: More or Less?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#33 SHAREWARE at Its Finest
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#76 LPARs: More or Less?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#39 CPU time variance
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#70 How many cost a cpu second?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#71 Help with elementary CPU speed question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#8 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#14 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#78 CPU time
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#80 CPU time
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#82 CPU time
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#85 CPU time
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Osmium
Jul 27, 2015, 12:01:35 PM7/27/15
to
"Tim Streater" wrote:
> In article <mp5hjv$ocr$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk
> starting to show an unhealthy interest in outcomes.
>
> promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
>
> which I would take also to include threats of what punishment might be
> upon conviction.
The rules are different in Texas than they are in the UK.
> In article <mp5hjv$ocr$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk
> <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>>On 22-Jul-15 12:28, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> Note that it is quite common for prosecutors with a weak case to
>>>> offer a plea bargain for a lesser charge _and_ for the minimum
>>>> sentence for that charge. For instance, I know someone who was
>>>> charged with several felonies totaling 65 years, and the deal he
>>>> accepted was for a single felony at 3 years; he had already spent
>>>> 2 years in jail awaiting trial, so he was released on parole as
>>>> soon as he signed the paperwork. That wasn't the judge's fault.
>>>> (He had an alibi and was unquestionably innocent, which shows just
>>>> how corrupt the system is.)
>>>
>>> That's because judges and DAs are elected where you are.
>>
>>The above example was in a state with appointed judges, but they're
>>nearly as bad because they still need a record of being "tough on crime"
>>if they want to be re-appointed to a _higher_ bench.
>>
>>AFAIK, DAs are elected in all states. Federal prosecutors aren't, but
>>they're just as bad as the elected ones on this.
>
> None of our judges or prosecutors are elected, but these days they are
>
>>On 22-Jul-15 12:28, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> Note that it is quite common for prosecutors with a weak case to
>>>> offer a plea bargain for a lesser charge _and_ for the minimum
>>>> sentence for that charge. For instance, I know someone who was
>>>> charged with several felonies totaling 65 years, and the deal he
>>>> accepted was for a single felony at 3 years; he had already spent
>>>> 2 years in jail awaiting trial, so he was released on parole as
>>>> soon as he signed the paperwork. That wasn't the judge's fault.
>>>> (He had an alibi and was unquestionably innocent, which shows just
>>>> how corrupt the system is.)
>>>
>>> That's because judges and DAs are elected where you are.
>>
>>The above example was in a state with appointed judges, but they're
>>nearly as bad because they still need a record of being "tough on crime"
>>if they want to be re-appointed to a _higher_ bench.
>>
>>AFAIK, DAs are elected in all states. Federal prosecutors aren't, but
>>they're just as bad as the elected ones on this.
>
> starting to show an unhealthy interest in outcomes.
>
>>> Both of these want *convictions* they can wave at the electorate,
>>> so the deal is to threaten people that if they insist on going to
>>> trial they might get 65 years in the slammer. Or they can walk out
>>> the door *today* due to time served, but the judge and the DA get
>>> their conviction.
>>
>>Exactly.
>
> The Bill of Rights 1689 says this:
>>> Both of these want *convictions* they can wave at the electorate,
>>> so the deal is to threaten people that if they insist on going to
>>> trial they might get 65 years in the slammer. Or they can walk out
>>> the door *today* due to time served, but the judge and the DA get
>>> their conviction.
>>
>>Exactly.
>
>
> promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
>
> which I would take also to include threats of what punishment might be
> upon conviction.
>
>>> Two years awaiting trial, eh? Whatever happened to "justice delayed
>>> is justice denied"?
>>
>>Courts exempted themselves from the "speedy trial" requirement, which
>>existed to prevent _exactly_ this sort of injustice.
>
> Perhaps they haven't read Magna Carta.
>>> Two years awaiting trial, eh? Whatever happened to "justice delayed
>>> is justice denied"?
>>
>>Courts exempted themselves from the "speedy trial" requirement, which
>>existed to prevent _exactly_ this sort of injustice.
>
The rules are different in Texas than they are in the UK.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 27, 2015, 2:18:42 PM7/27/15
to
On 24-Jul-15 12:21, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 11:29:52 AM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Also, I don't see alcoholics turning to moonshine; yes, they'll
>> often buy the cheapest booze they can, but still from legal
>> dealers.
>
> Not counting minors who seek alcohol, who will resort to disturbing
> behavior to get it. Should alcohol be legalized for kids to
> eliminate such behavior
"Disturbing behavior" means, at most, getting an older friend (or a bum,
if no friends are available) to go buy your booze for you. I don't
think there's anything we can do to stop that, which is one of the
reasons I support lowering the drinking age to 18.
If we had a culture where most parents taught their kids how to drink
responsibly, we could get rid of the age entirely, but that's one of the
casualties of our puritan heritage.
> (like teen girls being very 'nice' to adult men who will get them
> a bottle.)
Young women are often "very nice to adult men" in return for getting all
sorts of things that would be legal for them to buy for themselves;
that's an entirely different issue, and not one specific to booze.
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 11:29:52 AM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Also, I don't see alcoholics turning to moonshine; yes, they'll
>> often buy the cheapest booze they can, but still from legal
>> dealers.
>
> Not counting minors who seek alcohol, who will resort to disturbing
> behavior to get it. Should alcohol be legalized for kids to
> eliminate such behavior
"Disturbing behavior" means, at most, getting an older friend (or a bum,
if no friends are available) to go buy your booze for you. I don't
think there's anything we can do to stop that, which is one of the
reasons I support lowering the drinking age to 18.
If we had a culture where most parents taught their kids how to drink
responsibly, we could get rid of the age entirely, but that's one of the
casualties of our puritan heritage.
> (like teen girls being very 'nice' to adult men who will get them
> a bottle.)
Young women are often "very nice to adult men" in return for getting all
sorts of things that would be legal for them to buy for themselves;
that's an entirely different issue, and not one specific to booze.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 27, 2015, 2:36:38 PM7/27/15
to
On 27-Jul-15 10:03, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> There's other stuff, too, but that's the most obvious. As a
>> result, federal courts have ruled that AA/NA qualifies as a
>> religion, so compelling attendance is a violation of the Free
>> Exercise Clause.
>
> I don't know that much about A/A, but from what I've heard, religion
> is not at all a big part part of it.
If not, then you're only hearing from people who are already religious
> On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> There's other stuff, too, but that's the most obvious. As a
>> result, federal courts have ruled that AA/NA qualifies as a
>> religion, so compelling attendance is a violation of the Free
>> Exercise Clause.
>
> I don't know that much about A/A, but from what I've heard, religion
> is not at all a big part part of it.
and thus don't object to how it pervades everything AA/NA says/does.
> Much bigger components are coming to terms with one's addiction,
that one. If you're there involuntarily, odds are you'll _never_ do it,
much less any of the later steps.
> recognizing the damage it causes,
> and a support system to stay sober.
People who really want to quit will quit--and they will do so just as
successfully without the "help" of religion. People who don't want to
quit won't quit--and religious indoctrination won't help.
> Elsewhere an extremely low success rate was quoted for A/A. I find
> that questionable.
Their justification for still existing is that they do help the other 3%
of people stay sober, but the cold turkey success rate is also 3%, so it
does not appear that AA/NA does _anything_ for its members, aside from
take their money. That is also what one would expect from a religion.
> I suspect a fair amount of people do break down and resume drinking,
> but I also suspect A/A participation increases the time length of
> sober living, which is a good thing.
people who stay sober for exactly six months.
> What else is there?
There are dozens of alternatives, all but one of which are significantly
more successful in repeated studies.
The single most successful program is a therapist, meeting twice a week
at first and then declining as needed. Addiction is almost entirely a
case of self-medicating for depression or similar issues, so when you
deal with the root cause, the symptom goes away.
> Especially for those who really don't want to quit?
executing them--as many Muslim countries do.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 27, 2015, 2:45:03 PM7/27/15
to
courts, that eviscerated the Speedy Trial Clause.
In a nutshell, SCOTUS ruled that as long as bail was offered (even if
you can't afford it) or your attorney has filed _any_ motion (even a
routine one like discovery, without your knowledge or consent), it's
your own fault that you're still locked up, not the govt's.
JHY
Jul 27, 2015, 3:24:45 PM7/27/15
to
"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:mp5gfs$jkk$1...@dont-email.me...
> The remainder, most people chalk up to the person not _wanting_ to quit,
> and there's nothing that can be done in that case.
JHY
Jul 27, 2015, 3:26:45 PM7/27/15
to
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:c1c95f37-85e3-4039...@googlegroups.com...
JHY
Jul 27, 2015, 3:34:34 PM7/27/15
to
news:mp5tko$lo7$1...@dont-email.me...
Fuck all Muslim countries do anything of the sort.
lawr...@cluon.com
Jul 27, 2015, 3:40:30 PM7/27/15
to
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>> Elsewhere an extremely low success rate was quoted for A/A. I find
>> that questionable.
>
> AA/NA itself admits a 97% failure rate.
>
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/the-irrationality-of-alcoholics-anonymous/386255/
>> Elsewhere an extremely low success rate was quoted for A/A. I find
>> that questionable.
>
> AA/NA itself admits a 97% failure rate.
>
(shortens to http://theatln.tc/1LnENKw
Pull quote:
Based on these data, he put AA’s actual success rate somewhere between
5 and 8 percent. That is just a rough estimate, but it’s the most
precise one I’ve been able to find.
So - not as pessimistic as the 97% failure, but still only barely better
than vudu.
Message has been deleted
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Jul 27, 2015, 4:56:13 PM7/27/15
to
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015f.html#68 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95
60s, science center did extensive work on cp40 and then cp67 to gather
accurate statistics and use them for resource management and scheduling
(and accounting)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
however, cp67 delivered to univ. jan1968 took enormous amount of
processing to support the accurate statistics, resource management and
scheduling. Even after the Lincoln Labs redo shipped later spring
of 1968 ... 35users could still take 10% of processing (overhead
increased non-linear with number of users).
Then as undergraudate in the 60s, I then redid the whole thing, making
the overhead linear proportional to user activity (independent of number
of users) and drastically reducing to less than 1% of user activity ...
while making the resource management and scheduling much more effective.
This was shipped to customers and came to be referred to as "wheeler
scheduler" or "fair share scheduler" (because default resource
management policy was fair share).
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare
In the early 70s, the science center used the extensive statistics
gathering for modeling (both analytical and event driven) as
configuration and workload profiling (which evolved into capacity
planning).
A variation on one of the (science center, APL-based) analytical models
was made available on the world-wide sales & marketing online HONE
systems as the Performance Predictor; SEs could enter customer
configuration and workload profiles and ask "what-if" questions about
what happens when configuration and/or workload changes are made.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hone
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 27, 2015, 5:46:59 PM7/27/15
to
On 27-Jul-15 15:54, Tim Streater wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 27-Jul-15 11:01, Osmium wrote:
>>> "Tim Streater" wrote:
>>>> Perhaps [US courts] haven't read Magna Carta.
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 27-Jul-15 11:01, Osmium wrote:
>>> "Tim Streater" wrote:
>>>
>>> The rules are different in Texas than they are in the UK.
>>
>> The example given wasn't from Texas, and it's SCOTUS itself, not
>> state courts, that eviscerated the Speedy Trial Clause.
>>
>> In a nutshell, SCOTUS ruled that as long as bail was offered (even
>> if you can't afford it) or your attorney has filed _any_ motion
>> (even a routine one like discovery, without your knowledge or
>> consent), it's your own fault that you're still locked up, not the
>> govt's.
>
> Also from the Bill of Rights 1689:
>>> The rules are different in Texas than they are in the UK.
>>
>> The example given wasn't from Texas, and it's SCOTUS itself, not
>> state courts, that eviscerated the Speedy Trial Clause.
>>
>> In a nutshell, SCOTUS ruled that as long as bail was offered (even
>> if you can't afford it) or your attorney has filed _any_ motion
>> (even a routine one like discovery, without your knowledge or
>> consent), it's your own fault that you're still locked up, not the
>> govt's.
>
>
> excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines
> imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted;
>
> Perhaps SCOTUS hasn't read that either.
They surely have, at least in the sense that nearly identical text
became our 8th Amendment:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
So, there's no need to go back any further unless they find our case law
to be lacking--or want to use British case law to reverse ours.
jmfbahciv
Jul 28, 2015, 8:12:16 AM7/28/15
to
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Osmium wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>>> You are the one who is advocating taxing those bonds when you
>>>> write that all unearned income should be taxed at the same rates
>>>> as earned income.
>>>
>>> I have never personally been involved in a bond sale, even though I
>>> have a bunch in IRAs So far they have been tax free to me and
>>> someone else does the paperwork for me. But that post sounds like
>>> bond interest gets a favorable rate. If so, why? What is the
>>> reasoning behind that? I understand the reasoning, behind dividend
>>> tax rates. Note that understanding does not mean agreement with the
>>> status quo.
>>
>> Municipal bond interest is tax-free in the state which issued them.
>
> ... and, obviously, in states that don't levy income taxes at all.
>
> Plus, muni bonds are tax-exempt at the federal level as well, where
> income tax rates are much higher anyway.
>
>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or short
>> term gains and sometimes a a capital gains distribution.
>
> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they are not
> different things.
They are taxed differently.
> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Osmium wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>>> You are the one who is advocating taxing those bonds when you
>>>> write that all unearned income should be taxed at the same rates
>>>> as earned income.
>>>
>>> I have never personally been involved in a bond sale, even though I
>>> have a bunch in IRAs So far they have been tax free to me and
>>> someone else does the paperwork for me. But that post sounds like
>>> bond interest gets a favorable rate. If so, why? What is the
>>> reasoning behind that? I understand the reasoning, behind dividend
>>> tax rates. Note that understanding does not mean agreement with the
>>> status quo.
>>
>> Municipal bond interest is tax-free in the state which issued them.
>
> ... and, obviously, in states that don't levy income taxes at all.
>
> Plus, muni bonds are tax-exempt at the federal level as well, where
> income tax rates are much higher anyway.
>
>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or short
>> term gains and sometimes a a capital gains distribution.
>
> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they are not
> different things.
>
>> The philosophy is to attract money for local infrastructure. The
>> interest rates for munis are lower than those for corporations or
>> muni bonds which are taxed. The bond issurers pay out a lower rate
>> and are able to fund things such as schools, hospitals, sewers, etc.
>
> The lack of taxation means that issuers can pay lower interest rates
> (which saves the taxpayers money) and investors still earn a similar
> rate of return, after adjusting for relative risk.
>
> Increasing the tax rate on non-muni bonds would mean that muni bond
> interest rates could go down even more.
>
>> Munis disappeared a few years ago because of some program Obama had
>> which allowed taxable bonds to be issued with a lower rate than
>> munis.
>
> Blatantly incorrect on all counts.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Jul 28, 2015, 8:12:16 AM7/28/15
to
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>
>>
>>We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
>>became meaningless. Do OSes collect any accounting data now?
>
> Yes, of course they do.
Do people use the data for accounting or for system performance history?
In the computing biz, auld aspects of the biz show up as new. I've been
wondering if the accounting aspect is going to be a "new" thing.
/BAH
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>
>>
>>We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
>>became meaningless. Do OSes collect any accounting data now?
>
> Yes, of course they do.
Do people use the data for accounting or for system performance history?
In the computing biz, auld aspects of the biz show up as new. I've been
wondering if the accounting aspect is going to be a "new" thing.
/BAH
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Jul 28, 2015, 9:00:04 AM7/28/15
to
On 28 Jul 2015 12:11:10 GMT
is usually done by setting limits on VMs or at application level.
> In the computing biz, auld aspects of the biz show up as new. I've been
> wondering if the accounting aspect is going to be a "new" thing.
Possibly in some circles - in others it's always been there.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
> >
> >>
> >>We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
> >>became meaningless. Do OSes collect any accounting data now?
> >
> > Yes, of course they do.
>
> Do people use the data for accounting or for system performance history?
Mostly for system performance, accounting (when it happens at all)
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
> >
> >>
> >>We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
> >>became meaningless. Do OSes collect any accounting data now?
> >
> > Yes, of course they do.
>
> Do people use the data for accounting or for system performance history?
is usually done by setting limits on VMs or at application level.
> In the computing biz, auld aspects of the biz show up as new. I've been
> wondering if the accounting aspect is going to be a "new" thing.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 28, 2015, 10:25:40 AM7/28/15
to
On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or short
>>> term gains and sometimes a a capital gains distribution.
>>
>> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they are
>> not different things.
>
> They are taxed differently.
I know that. However, your wording implies that long- and short-term
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or short
>>> term gains and sometimes a a capital gains distribution.
>>
>> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they are
>> not different things.
>
> They are taxed differently.
capital gains are somehow difference from capital gains. They aren't.
>>> Munis disappeared a few years ago because of some program Obama
>>> had which allowed taxable bonds to be issued with a lower rate
>>> than munis.
>>
>> Blatantly incorrect on all counts.
>
> Perhaps in your state, not mine.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 28, 2015, 11:44:28 AM7/28/15
to
On 27-Jul-15 10:26, Tim Streater wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 22-Jul-15 12:28, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> Note that it is quite common for prosecutors with a weak case
>>>> to offer a plea bargain for a lesser charge _and_ for the
>>>> minimum sentence for that charge. ...
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 22-Jul-15 12:28, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> Note that it is quite common for prosecutors with a weak case
>>>> to offer a plea bargain for a lesser charge _and_ for the
>>>
>>> That's because judges and DAs are elected where you are.
>>
>> The above example was in a state with appointed judges, but
>> they're nearly as bad because they still need a record of being
>> "tough on crime" if they want to be re-appointed to a _higher_
>> bench.
>>
>> AFAIK, DAs are elected in all states. Federal prosecutors aren't,
>> but they're just as bad as the elected ones on this.
>
>>> That's because judges and DAs are elected where you are.
>>
>> The above example was in a state with appointed judges, but
>> they're nearly as bad because they still need a record of being
>> "tough on crime" if they want to be re-appointed to a _higher_
>> bench.
>>
>> AFAIK, DAs are elected in all states. Federal prosecutors aren't,
>> but they're just as bad as the elected ones on this.
>
> None of our judges or prosecutors are elected, but these days they
> are starting to show an unhealthy interest in outcomes.
Well, in an adversarial system, I'd expect prosecutors to desire a
> are starting to show an unhealthy interest in outcomes.
conviction.
A judge's primary job should be seeing that justice is done. However,
they're too cozy with the prosecutors, assuming that they wouldn't
pursue a case if the person weren't obviously guilty. It doesn't help
that 90-95% of the defendants they see plead guilty, so it's easy to
assume that they actually are guilty, and that the other 5-10% are
guilty as well.
> The Bill of Rights 1689 says this:
>
> promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
>
> which I would take also to include threats of what punishment might
> be upon conviction.
matter of law, not a promise.
However, that _does_ seem to prohibit plea bargains. Our courts claim
that doesn't apply by saying the plea bargain is only a recommendation
by the prosecutor and the judge can impose a different sentence, and if
greater than the plea bargain, the defendant can back out of it. I
disagree with that logic, but it would take another constitutional
amendment to override SCOTUS.
>>> Two years awaiting trial, eh? Whatever happened to "justice
>>> delayed is justice denied"?
>>
>> Courts exempted themselves from the "speedy trial" requirement,
>> which existed to prevent _exactly_ this sort of injustice.
>
Perhaps they just don't care.
Message has been deleted
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 28, 2015, 12:54:53 PM7/28/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-4, Tim Streater wrote:
> Plea bargains are a scam, IMO. They're just a way that means that it's
> possible to threaten a large sentence upon conviction, and a light
> sentence by pleading guilty. The latter case must imply that the
> original charge is withdrawn and replaced by another, less serious,
> one. All of which is abuse of process.
>
> It's the same with traffic laws in the US. Designed to assist the
> legalised banditry perpetrated by traffic cops.
Interestingly, in my state there are no plea bargains in traffic court. If the cop says you were going 45 in a 25 zone, that's what you'll be convicted of. But in a neighboring state, it's common to offer a plea deal: the defendant can plead guilty to a different charge, one that carries a _higher_ fine, BUT, does not impose 'points'. Most people go for this as it saves a huge fortune in insurance costs.
> Plea bargains are a scam, IMO. They're just a way that means that it's
> possible to threaten a large sentence upon conviction, and a light
> sentence by pleading guilty. The latter case must imply that the
> original charge is withdrawn and replaced by another, less serious,
> one. All of which is abuse of process.
>
> It's the same with traffic laws in the US. Designed to assist the
> legalised banditry perpetrated by traffic cops.
Interestingly, in my state there are no plea bargains in traffic court. If the cop says you were going 45 in a 25 zone, that's what you'll be convicted of. But in a neighboring state, it's common to offer a plea deal: the defendant can plead guilty to a different charge, one that carries a _higher_ fine, BUT, does not impose 'points'. Most people go for this as it saves a huge fortune in insurance costs.
Quadibloc
Jul 28, 2015, 4:12:21 PM7/28/15
to
On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 12:36:38 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 27-Jul-15 10:03, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >> There's other stuff, too, but that's the most obvious. As a
> >> result, federal courts have ruled that AA/NA qualifies as a
> >> religion, so compelling attendance is a violation of the Free
> >> Exercise Clause.
> >
> > I don't know that much about A/A, but from what I've heard, religion
> > is not at all a big part part of it.
>
> If not, then you're only hearing from people who are already religious
> and thus don't object to how it pervades everything AA/NA says/does.
They claim that the "higher power" could be something other than God...
> On 27-Jul-15 10:03, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >> There's other stuff, too, but that's the most obvious. As a
> >> result, federal courts have ruled that AA/NA qualifies as a
> >> religion, so compelling attendance is a violation of the Free
> >> Exercise Clause.
> >
> > I don't know that much about A/A, but from what I've heard, religion
> > is not at all a big part part of it.
>
> If not, then you're only hearing from people who are already religious
> and thus don't object to how it pervades everything AA/NA says/does.
But this reminds me that before AA was founded, another group, explicitly
non-religious, the Washingtonians, was founded to help people escape alcoholism
- and they were hounded out of existence by churches protesting the very idea.
John Savard
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 28, 2015, 5:21:07 PM7/28/15
to
many points.
This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't afford
to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine, so they end
up losing their insurance and their license, but they can't afford not
to drive because they'll lose what little income they have (even if only
welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually they get caught and locked
up (i.e. more non-violent offenders taking up space we need for violent
ones), which means losing their income, their home, their car, their
kids, etc. and now we're back to the welfare trap discussion.
Message has been deleted
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 28, 2015, 5:37:56 PM7/28/15
to
On 28-Jul-15 15:12, Quadibloc wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 27-Jul-15 10:03, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> There's other stuff, too, but that's the most obvious. As a
>>>> result, federal courts have ruled that AA/NA qualifies as a
>>>> religion, so compelling attendance is a violation of the Free
>>>> Exercise Clause.
>>>
>>> I don't know that much about A/A, but from what I've heard,
>>> religion is not at all a big part part of it.
>>
>> If not, then you're only hearing from people who are already
>> religious and thus don't object to how it pervades everything
>> AA/NA says/does.
>
> They claim that the "higher power" could be something other than
> God...
Yes, the canonical example (in AA's own literature) is that your "higher
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 27-Jul-15 10:03, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> There's other stuff, too, but that's the most obvious. As a
>>>> result, federal courts have ruled that AA/NA qualifies as a
>>>> religion, so compelling attendance is a violation of the Free
>>>> Exercise Clause.
>>>
>>> I don't know that much about A/A, but from what I've heard,
>>> religion is not at all a big part part of it.
>>
>> If not, then you're only hearing from people who are already
>> religious and thus don't object to how it pervades everything
>> AA/NA says/does.
>
> They claim that the "higher power" could be something other than
> God...
power" can be a light bulb. But who calls a light bulb "God" or thinks
that it can magically cure you of the sin of alcoholism?
Federal courts examined that claim in detail numerous times and, in all
cases, ruled that it was completely bogus. They acknowledge that AA/NA
is not specifically Christian, so "God" could refer to any deity, but it
_does_ require a deity (and praying thereto) and thus is religious.
> But this reminds me that before AA was founded, another group,
> explicitly non-religious, the Washingtonians, was founded to help
> people escape alcoholism - and they were hounded out of existence by
> churches protesting the very idea.
them out because they didn't want to be associated with alcoholism, but
that group eventually disappeared anyway.
Churches, mosques, temples, etc. wholeheartedly support AA and all
demonize the very idea of secular alternatives, which is yet another
sign of its religious nature.
Andrew Swallow
Jul 28, 2015, 7:07:48 PM7/28/15
to
On 28/07/2015 22:37, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
{snip}
> Yes, the canonical example (in AA's own literature) is that your "higher
> power" can be a light bulb. But who calls a light bulb "God" or thinks
> that it can magically cure you of the sin of alcoholism?
>
The Zoroastrians do. Light is a representation of fire (that does not
burn the house they are playing in down).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism>
So this is a reference to a rival religion.
{snip}
> Yes, the canonical example (in AA's own literature) is that your "higher
> power" can be a light bulb. But who calls a light bulb "God" or thinks
> that it can magically cure you of the sin of alcoholism?
>
burn the house they are playing in down).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism>
So this is a reference to a rival religion.
lawr...@cluon.com
Jul 28, 2015, 8:23:31 PM7/28/15
to
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 28-Jul-15 11:54, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-4, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> It's the same with traffic laws in the US. Designed to assist the
>>> legalised banditry perpetrated by traffic cops.
>>
>> Interestingly, in my state there are no plea bargains in traffic
>> court. If the cop says you were going 45 in a 25 zone, that's what
>> you'll be convicted of. But in a neighboring state, it's common to
>> offer a plea deal: the defendant can plead guilty to a different
>> charge, one that carries a _higher_ fine, BUT, does not impose
>> 'points'. Most people go for this as it saves a huge fortune in
>> insurance costs.
An attorney friend of mine tells the following story:
> On 28-Jul-15 11:54, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-4, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> It's the same with traffic laws in the US. Designed to assist the
>>> legalised banditry perpetrated by traffic cops.
>>
>> Interestingly, in my state there are no plea bargains in traffic
>> court. If the cop says you were going 45 in a 25 zone, that's what
>> you'll be convicted of. But in a neighboring state, it's common to
>> offer a plea deal: the defendant can plead guilty to a different
>> charge, one that carries a _higher_ fine, BUT, does not impose
>> 'points'. Most people go for this as it saves a huge fortune in
>> insurance costs.
Corpus Legis Context: US/California
A certain Traffic Commisioner[1] had a deal with a certain attorney. If
you hired the attorney, he would advise you to fail to appear for your
arranged date. Then, he would calendar (knowing how to get it on the
calendar for the judge that was in on the scam) an appearance, where
you'd plead to the Failure to Appear, but not the underlying
infraction. Pay the fine, pay the attorney, zero points.
The plug got pulled because someone doing statistics for one of those
"liberal dogooder progressive" causes discovered that this one
comissioner had more FTA pleas than all the others combined.
They could never prove any financial collusion between the two parties,
but they were both told "We're watching you under a microscope, so cut
that shit out"
My friend (who was *AN* attorney, but not *THE* attorney in the story)
swears you can find the substantiating details in court records for San
Mateo County.
--NK1G
1: the not-quite judges who oversee most Infraction cases in Traffic
Court. You have the right to demand that your case be heard by a real
judge, but that means coming back some other day, weeks or months into
the future.
Quadibloc
Jul 28, 2015, 8:34:52 PM7/28/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-6, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 28/07/2015 22:37, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> {snip}
>
> > Yes, the canonical example (in AA's own literature) is that your "higher
> > power" can be a light bulb. But who calls a light bulb "God" or thinks
> > that it can magically cure you of the sin of alcoholism?
> The Zoroastrians do. Light is a representation of fire (that does not
> burn the house they are playing in down).
I'm aware that Mazda is a brand of light bulbs in the United Kingdom, but this
> On 28/07/2015 22:37, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> {snip}
>
> > Yes, the canonical example (in AA's own literature) is that your "higher
> > power" can be a light bulb. But who calls a light bulb "God" or thinks
> > that it can magically cure you of the sin of alcoholism?
> The Zoroastrians do. Light is a representation of fire (that does not
> burn the house they are playing in down).
is taking it a bit too far...
John Savard
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 28, 2015, 9:30:07 PM7/28/15
to
On 28-Jul-15 11:22, Tim Streater wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 27-Jul-15 10:26, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> The Bill of Rights 1689 says this:
>>>
>>> promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
>>>
>>> which I would take also to include threats of what punishment
>>> might be upon conviction.
>>
>> What they're charged with and the possible resulting sentence is a
>> matter of law, not a promise.
>>
>> However, that _does_ seem to prohibit plea bargains. ...
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 27-Jul-15 10:26, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> The Bill of Rights 1689 says this:
>>>
>>> promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
>>>
>>> which I would take also to include threats of what punishment
>>> might be upon conviction.
>>
>> What they're charged with and the possible resulting sentence is a
>> matter of law, not a promise.
>>
>
> Plea bargains are a scam, IMO. They're just a way that means that
> it's possible to threaten a large sentence upon conviction, and a
> light sentence by pleading guilty. The latter case must imply that
> the original charge is withdrawn and replaced by another, less
> serious, one.
Not necessarily. Most charges have a range of possible sentences, e.g.
> Plea bargains are a scam, IMO. They're just a way that means that
> it's possible to threaten a large sentence upon conviction, and a
> light sentence by pleading guilty. The latter case must imply that
> the original charge is withdrawn and replaced by another, less
> serious, one.
30 to 180 days. They can threaten you with 180 days in jail and then
offer a plea bargain of 30 days, which at 3:1 credit for good behavior
on the 10+ days you've already been locked up awaiting trial, means you
walk immediately, aka "time served".
If you got bailed out, the plea bargain would be for the same 30 days,
probated for six months, i.e. you don't spend a minute in jail as long
as you follow a few simple rules. You have to pay hundreds of dollars
in fines, court fees and probation fees, but they assume that's within
your means if you got bailed out in the first place.
> All of which is abuse of process.
It is an absolute perversion of justice that someone who pleads guilty
and is convicted walks free while someone who pleads innocent and
(eventually) is acquitted can spend years in jail. Plea bargains are a
major part of what makes this perversion possible, and AFAIK you don't
see such things in countries where they're not allowed.
> It's the same with traffic laws in the US. Designed to assist the
> legalised banditry perpetrated by traffic cops.
just a govt-licensed organized crime syndicate.
jmfbahciv
Jul 29, 2015, 7:59:13 AM7/29/15
to
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or short
>>>> term gains and sometimes a a capital gains distribution.
>>>
>>> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they are
>>> not different things.
>>
>> They are taxed differently.
>
> I know that. However, your wording implies that long- and short-term
> capital gains are somehow difference from capital gains. They aren't.
You could also read the wording to imply that they are treated differently
> On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or short
>>>> term gains and sometimes a a capital gains distribution.
>>>
>>> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they are
>>> not different things.
>>
>> They are taxed differently.
>
> I know that. However, your wording implies that long- and short-term
> capital gains are somehow difference from capital gains. They aren't.
for income tax...which is what I was talking about.
>
>>>> Munis disappeared a few years ago because of some program Obama
>>>> had which allowed taxable bonds to be issued with a lower rate
>>>> than munis.
>>>
>>> Blatantly incorrect on all counts.
>>
>> Perhaps in your state, not mine.
>
> Federal laws are uniform.
time period were taxable. So I got corporate bonds whose interest rate
was 3 times the taxable munis.
/BAH
Scott Lurndal
Jul 29, 2015, 9:35:59 AM7/29/15
to
original claim was not restricted to "your state". Is it any
wonder that you were called out on it?
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 29, 2015, 9:45:59 AM7/29/15
to
On 29-Jul-15 06:59, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or
>>>>> short term gains and sometimes a a capital gains
>>>>> distribution.
>>>>
>>>> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they
>>>> are not different things.
>>>
>>> They are taxed differently.
>>
>> I know that. However, your wording implies that long- and
>> short-term capital gains are somehow difference from capital gains.
>> They aren't.
>
> You could also read the wording to imply that they are treated
> differently for income tax...which is what I was talking about.
Long- and short-term capital gains are the two types of capital gains.
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or
>>>>> short term gains and sometimes a a capital gains
>>>>> distribution.
>>>>
>>>> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they
>>>> are not different things.
>>>
>>> They are taxed differently.
>>
>> I know that. However, your wording implies that long- and
>> short-term capital gains are somehow difference from capital gains.
>> They aren't.
>
> You could also read the wording to imply that they are treated
> differently for income tax...which is what I was talking about.
Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a different
tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
>>>>> Munis disappeared a few years ago because of some program
>>>>> Obama had which allowed taxable bonds to be issued with a
>>>>> lower rate than munis.
>>>>
>>>> Blatantly incorrect on all counts.
>>>
>>> Perhaps in your state, not mine.
>>
>> Federal laws are uniform.
>
> WTF does that have to do with this? New issues in this state, during
> that time period were taxable. So I got corporate bonds whose
> interest rate was 3 times the taxable munis.
If your state screwed up their own taxation of muni bonds, then that is
their fault, not Obama's.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 29, 2015, 10:14:42 AM7/29/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 5:21:07 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't afford
> to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine, so they end
> up losing their insurance and their license, but they can't afford not
> to drive because they'll lose what little income they have (even if only
> welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually they get caught and locked
> up (i.e. more non-violent offenders taking up space we need for violent
> ones), which means losing their income, their home, their car, their
> kids, etc. and now we're back to the welfare trap discussion.
In Philadelphia, it is extremely rare for even a repeat bad driver (suspended license, no insurance, many unpaid tickets) to get locked up.
> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't afford
> to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine, so they end
> up losing their insurance and their license, but they can't afford not
> to drive because they'll lose what little income they have (even if only
> welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually they get caught and locked
> up (i.e. more non-violent offenders taking up space we need for violent
> ones), which means losing their income, their home, their car, their
> kids, etc. and now we're back to the welfare trap discussion.
As a result, Philadelphia's auto insurance rates are among the highest in the nation, and Philadelphia spends the most on accident repair and health claims from auto accidents. (Some of that may be rampant fraud, exploiting the situation). The further one can get away from Phila, the lower their car insurance rates will be.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 29, 2015, 10:24:41 AM7/29/15
to
On 28-Jul-15 16:35, Tim Streater wrote:
> ... A little old lady piped up and asked if it was true that there
> are quotas.
>
> His reply was along these lines. Yes, but you'd never get anyone to
> admit it. When the City runs short of cash, the Mayor rings up his
> chum the Chief of Police (elected on the same ticket). Next shift
> change, the traffic cops are sent out and told that each must get
> (say) three movers and four non-movers. So that's (say) three for
> speeding and four for things like wheels not turned into the kerb on
> a hill. The fines go to the city and hey presto.
A few years ago, cops in Ft Worth wanted a raise, which the city claimed
that it couldn't afford. In response, the cops stopped writing traffic
tickets, which cost the city $1.5 million _per day_ in revenue. Not
surprisingly, after less than a week of this, the city "found" the funds
to give the cops a raise, and they resumed writing tickets.
> Hence my comment above about legalised banditry. It's all assisted
> of course by the chronically poor signage in the US - poorly sited
> traffic signs and frequent changes of speed limits, assisted by the
> unnecessary number of Stop signs.
Indeed. I recall reading about a case in NYC where the motorist won his
case because there were 42 traffic control devices at one intersection,
all of which required doing or not doing something--and some of which
were mutually contradictory. The court found that it was unreasonable
to expect _anyone_ to be able to comply with that mess.
Many cities across the country have been caught deliberately screwing up
their traffic light timings to increase the number of violations caught
by cameras--which causes more accidents, opposite of the alleged goal of
installing said cameras in the first place. (Note: even if you don't
mess with the timings, cameras still don't _reduce_ accidents.)
> ... A little old lady piped up and asked if it was true that there
> are quotas.
>
> His reply was along these lines. Yes, but you'd never get anyone to
> admit it. When the City runs short of cash, the Mayor rings up his
> chum the Chief of Police (elected on the same ticket). Next shift
> change, the traffic cops are sent out and told that each must get
> (say) three movers and four non-movers. So that's (say) three for
> speeding and four for things like wheels not turned into the kerb on
> a hill. The fines go to the city and hey presto.
A few years ago, cops in Ft Worth wanted a raise, which the city claimed
that it couldn't afford. In response, the cops stopped writing traffic
tickets, which cost the city $1.5 million _per day_ in revenue. Not
surprisingly, after less than a week of this, the city "found" the funds
to give the cops a raise, and they resumed writing tickets.
> Hence my comment above about legalised banditry. It's all assisted
> of course by the chronically poor signage in the US - poorly sited
> traffic signs and frequent changes of speed limits, assisted by the
> unnecessary number of Stop signs.
Indeed. I recall reading about a case in NYC where the motorist won his
case because there were 42 traffic control devices at one intersection,
all of which required doing or not doing something--and some of which
were mutually contradictory. The court found that it was unreasonable
to expect _anyone_ to be able to comply with that mess.
Many cities across the country have been caught deliberately screwing up
their traffic light timings to increase the number of violations caught
by cameras--which causes more accidents, opposite of the alleged goal of
installing said cameras in the first place. (Note: even if you don't
mess with the timings, cameras still don't _reduce_ accidents.)
Dan Espen
Jul 29, 2015, 10:28:36 AM7/29/15
to
hard head and bounces right off at the exact same speed as the impact.
A perfect reflector.
--
Dan Espen
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 29, 2015, 1:38:53 PM7/29/15
to
On 29-Jul-15 09:14, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 5:21:07 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't
>> afford to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine,
>> so they end up losing their insurance and their license, but they
>> can't afford not to drive because they'll lose what little income
>> they have (even if only welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually
>> they get caught and locked up (i.e. more non-violent offenders
>> taking up space we need for violent ones), which means losing their
>> income, their home, their car, their kids, etc. and now we're back
>> to the welfare trap discussion.
>
> In Philadelphia, it is extremely rare for even a repeat bad driver
> (suspended license, no insurance, many unpaid tickets) to get locked
> up.
Well, if there is no penalty, what is the motivation for people to get
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 5:21:07 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't
>> afford to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine,
>> so they end up losing their insurance and their license, but they
>> can't afford not to drive because they'll lose what little income
>> they have (even if only welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually
>> they get caught and locked up (i.e. more non-violent offenders
>> taking up space we need for violent ones), which means losing their
>> income, their home, their car, their kids, etc. and now we're back
>> to the welfare trap discussion.
>
> In Philadelphia, it is extremely rare for even a repeat bad driver
> (suspended license, no insurance, many unpaid tickets) to get locked
> up.
their license reinstated, get insurance or pay tickets?
Here, for any ticket, including driving without insurance, if you don't
show up for traffic court (or pay the fine by mail or online by the
court date), the judge automatically issues a bench warrant, and once
picked up, the only way out is to either pay the fine or wait (months or
even years) for a trial, at which you'll inevitably be sentenced to time
served. If you do show up for trial and lose, you have 30 days to pay
the fine plus court costs. If you don't, a bench warrant is issued;
once picked up, you get credit for $100/day and then automatically released.
Driving without a license or with a suspended license is more serious;
you get arrested immediately, not a ticket. Punishment is up to six
months for the first offense and up to twelve months for repeats, plus a
hefty fine. You may be eligible for probation, but since one of the
conditions is not driving, you'll almost certainly screw up and serve
the entire sentence in jail. When you get out, you won't have any money
to get your license reinstated even if the suspension is over, but you
probably lost your car anyway.
The city impounds a car driven by anyone who is arrested and charges
$250 for towing plus $100/day for storage; if the registered owner
doesn't claim it in person (e.g. because he's in jail) within 14 days,
it is seized and auctioned off to pay the fees, and the city keeps any
profit. Note: this does not discharge any liens, which will instantly
become due in full due to lack of collateral. Of course, you can't
afford to pay this either, especially since you're in jail and lost your
job, house and family, plus the state is suing you for child support on
the kids they took away from you, and now we're back to the welfare trap
discussion again.
> As a result, Philadelphia's auto insurance rates are among the
> the lower their car insurance rates will be.
That's true of _every_ major city, and even of rural areas in the
Southwest where there are lots of uninsured illegal immigrants.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 29, 2015, 1:49:19 PM7/29/15
to
>> On 28-Jul-15 16:35, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Yes, but you'd never get anyone to admit [to quotas]. When the
>>> City runs short of cash, the Mayor rings up his chum the Chief of
>>> Police (elected on the same ticket). Next shift change, the
>>> traffic cops are sent out and told that each must get (say) three
>>> movers and four non-movers. So that's (say) three for speeding
>>> and four for things like wheels not turned into the kerb on a
>>> hill. The fines go to the city and hey presto.
>>
>> A few years ago, cops in Ft Worth wanted a raise, which the city
>> claimed that it couldn't afford. In response, the cops stopped
>> writing traffic tickets, which cost the city $1.5 million _per day_
>> in revenue. Not surprisingly, after less than a week of this, the
>> city "found" the funds to give the cops a raise, and they resumed
>> writing tickets.
>
> In our case fines from traffic convictions (except parking) go to
>>> Police (elected on the same ticket). Next shift change, the
>>> traffic cops are sent out and told that each must get (say) three
>>> movers and four non-movers. So that's (say) three for speeding
>>> and four for things like wheels not turned into the kerb on a
>>> hill. The fines go to the city and hey presto.
>>
>> A few years ago, cops in Ft Worth wanted a raise, which the city
>> claimed that it couldn't afford. In response, the cops stopped
>> writing traffic tickets, which cost the city $1.5 million _per day_
>> in revenue. Not surprisingly, after less than a week of this, the
>> city "found" the funds to give the cops a raise, and they resumed
>> writing tickets.
>
> central government. That way, local authorities (which in any case
> don't control the police and have no say in the day-to-day running
> of the police) have no incentive to behave in this way.
>
> Most of your US problems are *organisational*, rather than any lack
> of clever people. Same applies to politics, too.
One could easily envision the exact same scenarios happening at the
county or state level, so I don't see it as an organizational issue.
The issue is that certain politicians refuse to raise taxes to cover
their spending and, if they're prohibited from running a deficit, will
seek non-tax sources of revenue such as fines or civil forfeitures.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 29, 2015, 2:20:50 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 10:24:41 AM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Many cities across the country have been caught deliberately screwing up
> their traffic light timings to increase the number of violations caught
> by cameras--which causes more accidents, opposite of the alleged goal of
> installing said cameras in the first place. (Note: even if you don't
> mess with the timings, cameras still don't _reduce_ accidents.)
You don't need cameras to do that. I was outraged that one town had the yellow light set very short, and a cop in hiding to ticket motorists. (FWIW, I called the town to complain). Later it was set back to a proper time.
> Many cities across the country have been caught deliberately screwing up
> their traffic light timings to increase the number of violations caught
> by cameras--which causes more accidents, opposite of the alleged goal of
> installing said cameras in the first place. (Note: even if you don't
> mess with the timings, cameras still don't _reduce_ accidents.)
FWIW, in talking to various cops, some have told me that bad driving does indeed kill, and ticketing helps reduce bad drivers to some extent and thus save lives. On the other hand, some cops have told me it was make money.
Also, some cops in a small town told me they avoid citing people for DUI since processing and prosecution takes up a great deal of the officer's time and they get little revenue from the fine. (I was curious and checked their stats, they did have very few DUIs).
There is also the other side the argument that motorists can be very impatient and drive too damn fast and too carelessly. For example, there's a stretch of narrow road in a residential neighborhood that is zoned for 25 mph, but some people go over 40. The cops set speed trap at 40. Motorists say the road is zoned too slow. but people who actually live along the road say fast drivers make it dangerous to get out of their driveways, kids to walk along, etc. Cars sometimes do go flying off the road out of control. So, it does appear the motorists are wrong--they want to zoom along, regardless of the impact of people they pass along the way.
Quadibloc
Jul 29, 2015, 4:53:28 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 7:45:59 AM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a different
> tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
That's true, but allowing for slip-ups in expressing oneself precisely in
> Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a different
> tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
English, could it be possible that long-term capital gains could have a different
tax rate from short-term capital gains?
John Savard
Quadibloc
Jul 29, 2015, 4:57:38 PM7/29/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:21:07 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't afford
> to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine, so they end
> up losing their insurance and their license, but they can't afford not
> to drive because they'll lose what little income they have (even if only
> welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually they get caught and locked
> up (i.e. more non-violent offenders taking up space we need for violent
> ones), which means losing their income, their home, their car, their
> kids, etc. and now we're back to the welfare trap discussion.
If the traffic citation is valid, then the system is working *as it is supposed
> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't afford
> to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine, so they end
> up losing their insurance and their license, but they can't afford not
> to drive because they'll lose what little income they have (even if only
> welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually they get caught and locked
> up (i.e. more non-violent offenders taking up space we need for violent
> ones), which means losing their income, their home, their car, their
> kids, etc. and now we're back to the welfare trap discussion.
to* in the case of the poor, the only problem is that people who have money get
away with driving badly on multiple occasions without accuulating demerit
points and losing their licenses.
Although here in Alberta, Canada, what happens is that drivers who accumulate
too many demerit points simply have to take a driving course - then their
points are moved down so that they're one point away from a license suspension,
so that they can drive again. Demerits don't mean a permanent loss of the
ability to drive legally. I suspect it works this way in many other jurisdictions.
John Savard
Osmium
Jul 29, 2015, 5:55:34 PM7/29/15
to
"Tim Streater" wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>The issue is that certain politicians refuse to raise taxes to cover
>>their spending and, if they're prohibited from running a deficit, will
>>seek non-tax sources of revenue such as fines or civil forfeitures.
>
> And has no one thought about fighting against these effectively
> arbitrary procedures, which, I am sure, are prohibited somewhere in
> your constitution? This sort of thing was in part what the English
> Civil War was about.
WRT taxes, all states, AFAIK, require a balanced budget, but nothing on the
Federal level. States play games with "bonding" and rescheduling things,
like payments to school districts. In the finest tradition of corporations.
My state has wrung out just about every thing they could but they seem able
to eke out a bit more every year.
I think the Feds should require a balanced budget too, except in time of
*declared* war. The last war was declared in 1941, but we've killed a hell
of a lot of people and destroyed billions of dollars worth of buildings
since then. A balanced budget would of course be distorted, just as the
states do. But you can't get there if you don't even start.
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>The issue is that certain politicians refuse to raise taxes to cover
>>their spending and, if they're prohibited from running a deficit, will
>>seek non-tax sources of revenue such as fines or civil forfeitures.
>
> arbitrary procedures, which, I am sure, are prohibited somewhere in
> your constitution? This sort of thing was in part what the English
> Civil War was about.
WRT taxes, all states, AFAIK, require a balanced budget, but nothing on the
Federal level. States play games with "bonding" and rescheduling things,
like payments to school districts. In the finest tradition of corporations.
My state has wrung out just about every thing they could but they seem able
to eke out a bit more every year.
I think the Feds should require a balanced budget too, except in time of
*declared* war. The last war was declared in 1941, but we've killed a hell
of a lot of people and destroyed billions of dollars worth of buildings
since then. A balanced budget would of course be distorted, just as the
states do. But you can't get there if you don't even start.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 29, 2015, 7:36:57 PM7/29/15
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:30:07 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Not necessarily. Most charges have a range of possible sentences, e.g.
> 30 to 180 days. They can threaten you with 180 days in jail and then
> offer a plea bargain of 30 days, which at 3:1 credit for good behavior
> on the 10+ days you've already been locked up awaiting trial, means you
> walk immediately, aka "time served".
I think what is more common with plea bargains is that some charges are dropped altogether, and others are reduced in severity. Getting a felony converted to a misdemeanor is important.
> Not necessarily. Most charges have a range of possible sentences, e.g.
> 30 to 180 days. They can threaten you with 180 days in jail and then
> offer a plea bargain of 30 days, which at 3:1 credit for good behavior
> on the 10+ days you've already been locked up awaiting trial, means you
> walk immediately, aka "time served".
Plea bargains are done to eliminate the time and cost of a trial. But they are also done to get one defendant to testify against another to return for a reduced sentence.
There was a celebrated case where a young couple allegedly killed their baby. But the cops didn't have enough evidence to prove it court. They put pressure on both of them separately and eventually one cracked, fingering the other. I think they each got roughly five years in jail.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 29, 2015, 7:43:54 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:38:53 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Well, if there is no penalty, what is the motivation for people to get
> their license reinstated, get insurance or pay tickets?
There isn't. Which is why car insurance is extremely expensive in the city; I believe the highest in the country.
> Well, if there is no penalty, what is the motivation for people to get
> their license reinstated, get insurance or pay tickets?
> Here, for any ticket, including driving without insurance, if you don't
> show up for traffic court (or pay the fine by mail or online by the
> court date), the judge automatically issues a bench warrant, and once
> picked up, the only way out is to either pay the fine or wait (months or
> even years) for a trial, at which you'll inevitably be sentenced to time
> served. If you do show up for trial and lose, you have 30 days to pay
> the fine plus court costs. If you don't, a bench warrant is issued;
> once picked up, you get credit for $100/day and then automatically released.
By the way, in Penna, traffic cases are heard by a low-level court. People can and do appeal them to the regular court and often get the charges dropped.
> Driving without a license or with a suspended license is more serious;
> you get arrested immediately, not a ticket. Punishment is up to six
> months for the first offense and up to twelve months for repeats, plus a
A friend got smashed by an unlicensed driver with a bad record. She got to drive off. He had to eat his deductible to repair his car.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Jul 29, 2015, 7:53:33 PM7/29/15
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:49:19 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> The issue is that certain politicians refuse to raise taxes to cover
> their spending and, if they're prohibited from running a deficit, will
> seek non-tax sources of revenue such as fines or civil forfeitures.
In addition to non-tax revenues, they resort to accounting tricks, irresponsible borrowing, and selling off assets for a one-time cash infusion.
> The issue is that certain politicians refuse to raise taxes to cover
> their spending and, if they're prohibited from running a deficit, will
> seek non-tax sources of revenue such as fines or civil forfeitures.
It's not "certain politicians" but _most_ of them. Unfortunately, the public is at fault too--the public wants lots and lots of government services, but doesn't want to pay for them.
The U.S. deficit scares me since it keeps climbing rapidly, and BOTH sides do nothing but rhetoric.
Rod Speed
Jul 30, 2015, 2:24:25 AM7/30/15
to
"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM00051BE...@aca41479.ipt.aol.com...
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>>We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
>>>became meaningless. Do OSes collect any accounting data now?
>>
>> Yes, of course they do.
> Do people use the data for accounting
Hardly ever anymore, because there isn't any point in doing that now.
> or for system performance history?
Not for that either most of the time.
> In the computing biz, auld aspects of the biz show up as new.
It hasn’t with this.
> I've been wondering if the accounting aspect is going to be a "new" thing.
Not a chance, there isn't any point in doing that now.
Rod Speed
Jul 30, 2015, 2:51:23 AM7/30/15
to
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:b4f79bdf-4029-4d65...@googlegroups.com...
of existence.
Bet they didn't fly for other reasons.
JHY
Jul 30, 2015, 3:19:34 AM7/30/15
to
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:9f84b115-0a35-4ead...@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 10:24:41 AM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> Many cities across the country have been caught deliberately screwing up
>> their traffic light timings to increase the number of violations caught
>> by cameras--which causes more accidents, opposite of the alleged goal of
>> installing said cameras in the first place. (Note: even if you don't
>> mess with the timings, cameras still don't _reduce_ accidents.)
>
> You don't need cameras to do that. I was outraged that one town had the
> yellow light set very short, and a cop in hiding to ticket motorists.
> (FWIW, I called the town to complain). Later it was set back to a proper
> time.
> FWIW, in talking to various cops, some have told me that bad driving does
> indeed
> kill, and ticketing helps reduce bad drivers to some extent and thus save
> lives.
They have no basis for stating that and its just them trying to justify what
>
>> Many cities across the country have been caught deliberately screwing up
>> their traffic light timings to increase the number of violations caught
>> by cameras--which causes more accidents, opposite of the alleged goal of
>> installing said cameras in the first place. (Note: even if you don't
>> mess with the timings, cameras still don't _reduce_ accidents.)
>
> You don't need cameras to do that. I was outraged that one town had the
> yellow light set very short, and a cop in hiding to ticket motorists.
> (FWIW, I called the town to complain). Later it was set back to a proper
> time.
> FWIW, in talking to various cops, some have told me that bad driving does
> indeed
> kill, and ticketing helps reduce bad drivers to some extent and thus save
> lives.
they do.
> On the other hand, some cops have told me it was make money.
than it costs to pay to cops to catch those who break the rules.
> Also, some cops in a small town told me they avoid citing people
> for DUI since processing and prosecution takes up a great deal of
> the officer's time and they get little revenue from the fine.
trying to catch people DUI at times when that is most likely.
> (I was curious and checked their stats, they did have very few DUIs).
> There is also the other side the argument that motorists can
> be very impatient and drive too damn fast and too carelessly.
> For example, there's a stretch of narrow road in a residential
> neighborhood that is zoned for 25 mph, but some people go
> over 40. The cops set speed trap at 40. Motorists say the road
> is zoned too slow. but people who actually live along the road
> say fast drivers make it dangerous to get out of their driveways,
> kids to walk along, etc.
> Cars sometimes do go flying off the road out of control.
> So, it does appear the motorists are wrong--
Rod Speed
Jul 30, 2015, 3:23:31 AM7/30/15
to
news:f377d57f-1f99-4adb...@googlegroups.com...
I don't know of any other jurisdiction that does it like that.
With ours, once you loose too many points you lose your license for a
specific period.
With ours, once you loose too many points you lose your license for a
specific period.
jmfbahciv
Jul 30, 2015, 7:51:17 AM7/30/15
to
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 29-Jul-15 06:59, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or
>>>>>> short term gains and sometimes a a capital gains
>>>>>> distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they
>>>>> are not different things.
>>>>
>>>> They are taxed differently.
>>>
>>> I know that. However, your wording implies that long- and
>>> short-term capital gains are somehow difference from capital gains.
>>> They aren't.
>>
>> You could also read the wording to imply that they are treated
>> differently for income tax...which is what I was talking about.
>
> Long- and short-term capital gains are the two types of capital gains.
>
> Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a different
> tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
I don't know what you are arguing about. You snipped the context.
> On 29-Jul-15 06:59, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or
>>>>>> short term gains and sometimes a a capital gains
>>>>>> distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they
>>>>> are not different things.
>>>>
>>>> They are taxed differently.
>>>
>>> I know that. However, your wording implies that long- and
>>> short-term capital gains are somehow difference from capital gains.
>>> They aren't.
>>
>> You could also read the wording to imply that they are treated
>> differently for income tax...which is what I was talking about.
>
> Long- and short-term capital gains are the two types of capital gains.
>
> Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a different
> tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
A tax-free muni fund can generate taxable items. Some are long-term;
some are short-term and others were capital gain distributions.
The first two require a Schedule D for income tax. The last one
is a line item on the 1040. Most of the time, one didn't know
there was going to be taxable items until the December statement
was sent.
>
>>>>>> Munis disappeared a few years ago because of some program
>>>>>> Obama had which allowed taxable bonds to be issued with a
>>>>>> lower rate than munis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Blatantly incorrect on all counts.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps in your state, not mine.
>>>
>>> Federal laws are uniform.
>>
>> WTF does that have to do with this? New issues in this state, during
>> that time period were taxable. So I got corporate bonds whose
>> interest rate was 3 times the taxable munis.
>
> Obama made no changes to how the federal govt taxes muni bonds.
interest rate (less than 2%) but were taxable. If I had to pay
tax on interest, buying a corporate bond at 6% or 7% was better.
>
> If your state screwed up their own taxation of muni bonds, then that is
> their fault, not Obama's.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Jul 30, 2015, 7:51:17 AM7/30/15
to
and never happened. I really feel sorry for you and your coterie.
You'll be bit badly some day with kind of thinking.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Jul 30, 2015, 7:51:18 AM7/30/15
to
it was a state thing after the first pushback. But it was that
stimulus package which susidized the issues so that the interest
rates could be lower.
However, if it was a state-specific thing, I'm now wondering
what the requirements were.
/BAH
greymausg
Jul 30, 2015, 8:00:16 AM7/30/15
to
of that property goes down considerably
Differences in tex between capital gains and income can have a devestating
results in a society. Consider, if I buy shares and make a profit on
selling them later, versus if I go into a bookies office and make a bet
that a companies shares will go up (or down), can attract a different
rate of tax. AFAIK, many internet-associated companies reward their
investors with share-price growth, rather than payments from profits.
As always, the film, "The Producers", comes to mind
--
greymaus
.
.
...
Osmium
Jul 30, 2015, 9:04:57 AM7/30/15
to
computers, right? Did either of you ever think about using the damn thing
to resolve that issue? For example, plugging <taxable municpal bonds> into
Google?
This is on the first page of results.
http://www.investinginbonds.com/learnmore.asp?catid=5&subcatid=24&id=241
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 30, 2015, 10:51:56 AM7/30/15
to
On 29-Jul-15 15:53, Quadibloc wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a
>> different tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
>
> That's true, but allowing for slip-ups in expressing oneself
> precisely in English, could it be possible that long-term capital
> gains could have a different tax rate from short-term capital gains?
Long-term capital gains are taxed as unearned income (low rate) whereas
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a
>> different tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
>
> That's true, but allowing for slip-ups in expressing oneself
> precisely in English, could it be possible that long-term capital
> gains could have a different tax rate from short-term capital gains?
short-term capital gains are taxed as earned income (high rate).
However, that has already been discussed to death in this very thread,
so there is no excuse for Barb not getting the terminology right if that
was indeed what she meant to say.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 30, 2015, 11:49:41 AM7/30/15
to
On 29-Jul-15 18:53, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The U.S. deficit scares me since it keeps climbing rapidly, and BOTH
> sides do nothing but rhetoric.
Let's see if that's actually true:
> The U.S. deficit scares me since it keeps climbing rapidly, and BOTH
> sides do nothing but rhetoric.
Year Pres Rev Spend Deficit (Surplus)
1981 Carter 599 678 79
1982 Reagan 618 746 128
1983 Reagan 601 808 208
1984 Reagan 666 852 185
1985 Reagan 734 946 212
1986 Reagan 769 990 221
1987 Reagan 854 1004 150
1988 Reagan 909 1064 155
1989 Reagan 991 1144 153
1990 Bush 1032 1253 221
1991 Bush 1055 1324 269
1992 Bush 1091 1382 290
1993 Bush 1154 1409 255
1994 Clinton 1259 1462 203
1995 Clinton 1352 1516 164
1996 Clinton 1453 1560 107
1997 Clinton 1579 1601 22
1998 Clinton 1722 1652 (69)
1999 Clinton 1827 1702 (126)
2000 Clinton 2025 1789 (236)
2001 Clinton 1991 1863 (128)
2002 Bush 1853 2011 158
2003 Bush 1782 2160 378
2004 Bush 1880 2293 413
2005 Bush 2154 2472 318
2006 Bush 2407 2655 248
2007 Bush 2568 2729 161
2008 Bush 2524 2983 459
2009 Bush 2105 3518 1413
2010 Obama 2163 3457 1294
2011 Obama 2303 3603 1300
2012 Obama 2450 3537 1087
2013 Obama 2775 3455 680
2014 Obama 3021 3506 485
Now, apply some basic math to get the change in each:
Pres Rev Spend Deficit
Reagan 392 466 74
Bush 163 266 102
Clinton 837 453 (383)
Bush 114 1655 1541
Obama 917 12 (928)
It's pretty clear that deficits increase under Republicans and decrease
under Democrats, at least in the modern era. If you think otherwise,
you've been watching too much Faux News.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 30, 2015, 12:15:46 PM7/30/15
to
On 29-Jul-15 15:57, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:21:07 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't
>> afford to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine,
>> so they end up losing their insurance and their license, but they
>> can't afford not to drive because they'll lose what little income
>> they have (even if only welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually
>> they get caught and locked up (i.e. more non-violent offenders
>> taking up space we need for violent ones), which means losing their
>> income, their home, their car, their kids, etc. and now we're back
>> to the welfare trap discussion.
>
> If the traffic citation is valid, then the system is working *as it
> is supposed to* in the case of the poor,
But is it justice that a person who has a job, a home, a car, a family,
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:21:07 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't
>> afford to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine,
>> so they end up losing their insurance and their license, but they
>> can't afford not to drive because they'll lose what little income
>> they have (even if only welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually
>> they get caught and locked up (i.e. more non-violent offenders
>> taking up space we need for violent ones), which means losing their
>> income, their home, their car, their kids, etc. and now we're back
>> to the welfare trap discussion.
>
> If the traffic citation is valid, then the system is working *as it
> is supposed to* in the case of the poor,
etc. will lose it all just because of a speeding ticket? Does the
punishment really fit the crime?
> the only problem is that people who have money get away with driving
> badly on multiple occasions without accuulating demerit points and
> losing their licenses.
person's job, home, car, family, etc. for a speeding ticket, shouldn't
we do the same to everyone? Don't you think the system would get fixed
if the rich couldn't buy their way out of crimes?
> Although here in Alberta, Canada, what happens is that drivers who
> accumulate too many demerit points simply have to take a driving
> course - then their points are moved down so that they're one point
> away from a license suspension, so that they can drive again.
25mph over the limit), but you can only do it once every 24 months. And
it costs a _lot_ more than just paying the fine, which the poor can't
afford in the first place.
You can argue that they shouldn't be speeding if they can't afford to
pay the ticket, but local govts deliberately set speed limits well below
the actual flow of traffic, so driving at that speed is _dangerous_.
Also, police enforcement is normally lax, giving drivers a false sense
of what is allowed, and then when the city/county is short of cash, the
cops start ticketing everyone for things they ignored the day before;
such arbitrary enforcement should not be permitted.
Plus, it is well known that cops discriminate when deciding _who_ to
ticket. For instance, a white girl driving a newer car will almost
always get a warning whereas a black man driving an older car will
almost always get a ticket--if not arrested and/or shot--for exactly the
same offense. Obviously, such discriminatory enforcement should not be
permitted either.
> Demerits don't mean a permanent loss of the ability to drive legally.
> I suspect it works this way in many other jurisdictions.
until some of the points expire and bring you back under the limit;
losing your license permanently is quite rare and AFAIK requires more
than just simple tickets.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 30, 2015, 1:08:07 PM7/30/15
to
On 29-Jul-15 18:36, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:30:07 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily. Most charges have a range of possible sentences,
>> e.g. 30 to 180 days. They can threaten you with 180 days in jail
>> and then offer a plea bargain of 30 days, which at 3:1 credit for
>> good behavior on the 10+ days you've already been locked up
>> awaiting trial, means you walk immediately, aka "time served".
>
> I think what is more common with plea bargains is that some charges
> are dropped altogether, and others are reduced in severity.
It depends on what the original charges are, of course, and how sweet a
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 9:30:07 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily. Most charges have a range of possible sentences,
>> e.g. 30 to 180 days. They can threaten you with 180 days in jail
>> and then offer a plea bargain of 30 days, which at 3:1 credit for
>> good behavior on the 10+ days you've already been locked up
>> awaiting trial, means you walk immediately, aka "time served".
>
> I think what is more common with plea bargains is that some charges
> are dropped altogether, and others are reduced in severity.
deal they have to offer to get you to accept.
Note that if you're out on bail, they have to offer a _much_ better deal
than if you're not, so the poor consistently get much worse deals than
the rich, even for the exact same offense and circumstances.
> Getting a felony converted to a misdemeanor is important.
> Plea bargains are done to eliminate the time and cost of a trial.
doesn't want to risk an acquittal at trial, whereas a plea bargain
guarantees a conviction.
> But they are also done to get one defendant to testify against
> another to return for a reduced sentence.
>
> There was a celebrated case where a young couple allegedly killed
> their baby. But the cops didn't have enough evidence to prove it
> court. They put pressure on both of them separately and eventually
> one cracked, fingering the other.
> I think they each got roughly five years in jail.
again, I know someone who got _probation_ for murder. After all, the
prisons because they're overcrowded with non-violent offenders...
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 30, 2015, 1:12:48 PM7/30/15
to
On 29-Jul-15 15:01, Tim Streater wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 29-Jul-15 09:46, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> A few years ago, cops in Ft Worth wanted a raise, which the
>>>> city claimed that it couldn't afford. In response, the cops
>>>> stopped writing traffic tickets, which cost the city $1.5
>>>> million _per day_ in revenue. Not surprisingly, after less
>>>> than a week of this, the city "found" the funds to give the
>>>> cops a raise, and they resumed writing tickets.
>>>
>>> In our case fines from traffic convictions (except parking) go
>>> to central government. That way, local authorities (which in any
>>> case don't control the police and have no say in the day-to-day
>>> running of the police) have no incentive to behave in this way.
>>>
>>> Most of your US problems are *organisational*, rather than any
>>> lack of clever people. Same applies to politics, too.
>>
>> One could easily envision the exact same scenarios happening at
>> the county or state level, so I don't see it as an organizational
>> issue.
>>
>> The issue is that certain politicians refuse to raise taxes to
>> cover their spending and, if they're prohibited from running a
>> deficit, will seek non-tax sources of revenue such as fines or
>> civil forfeitures.
>
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 29-Jul-15 09:46, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> A few years ago, cops in Ft Worth wanted a raise, which the
>>>> city claimed that it couldn't afford. In response, the cops
>>>> stopped writing traffic tickets, which cost the city $1.5
>>>> million _per day_ in revenue. Not surprisingly, after less
>>>> than a week of this, the city "found" the funds to give the
>>>> cops a raise, and they resumed writing tickets.
>>>
>>> In our case fines from traffic convictions (except parking) go
>>> to central government. That way, local authorities (which in any
>>> case don't control the police and have no say in the day-to-day
>>> running of the police) have no incentive to behave in this way.
>>>
>>> Most of your US problems are *organisational*, rather than any
>>> lack of clever people. Same applies to politics, too.
>>
>> One could easily envision the exact same scenarios happening at
>> the county or state level, so I don't see it as an organizational
>> issue.
>>
>> The issue is that certain politicians refuse to raise taxes to
>> cover their spending and, if they're prohibited from running a
>> deficit, will seek non-tax sources of revenue such as fines or
>> civil forfeitures.
>
> And has no one thought about fighting against these effectively
> arbitrary procedures, which, I am sure, are prohibited somewhere in
> your constitution? This sort of thing was in part what the English
> Civil War was about.
Unfortunately, when the courts are complicit in violating people's
> arbitrary procedures, which, I am sure, are prohibited somewhere in
> your constitution? This sort of thing was in part what the English
> Civil War was about.
rights, one can't turn to those same courts for redress--the usual means
of dealing with govt abuses.
The only other option is a constitutional amendment, but that would have
to come from the same politicians who created the problem in the first
place, so I don't see that happening either.
That leaves revolt, and not enough people care enough about it.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 30, 2015, 2:45:39 PM7/30/15
to
On 29-Jul-15 13:20, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Many cities across the country have been caught deliberately
>> screwing up their traffic light timings to increase the number of
>> violations caught by cameras--which causes more accidents, opposite
>> of the alleged goal of installing said cameras in the first place.
>> (Note: even if you don't mess with the timings, cameras still don't
>> _reduce_ accidents.)
>
> You don't need cameras to do that. I was outraged that one town had
> the yellow light set very short, and a cop in hiding to ticket
> motorists. (FWIW, I called the town to complain). Later it was set
> back to a proper time.
It's gotten serious attention lately due to the cameras, though, in
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Many cities across the country have been caught deliberately
>> screwing up their traffic light timings to increase the number of
>> violations caught by cameras--which causes more accidents, opposite
>> of the alleged goal of installing said cameras in the first place.
>> (Note: even if you don't mess with the timings, cameras still don't
>> _reduce_ accidents.)
>
> You don't need cameras to do that. I was outraged that one town had
> the yellow light set very short, and a cop in hiding to ticket
> motorists. (FWIW, I called the town to complain). Later it was set
> back to a proper time.
particular because one camera can generate hundreds of tickets per hour,
around the clock, whereas a cop can only write a few per hour for a few
hours per day.
The dirty secret is that the cameras are leased to cities at no cost in
return for a share of the fine revenue--and the cities have to commit to
a minimum amount of revenue per camera, giving them a strong incentive
to fiddle with the yellow timing where cameras are installed; in fact,
the vendor will even do it for them when they're wiring the cameras into
the light control box.
That entire scam got blown to smithereens here once lawyers realized
that state law requires yellow lights to be one second per 10 mph, and
all it takes is a quick video with a phone to prove it is _anything_
other than that--and the ticket is automatically dismissed. Cities
fixed the light timings, and accident rates, which spiked after the
cameras were installed, returned to normal. The vendor sued cities for
insufficient fine revenue and pulled then most of the cameras, moving
them to other states without such a law.
> There is also the other side the argument that motorists can be very
> impatient and drive too damn fast and too carelessly. For example,
> there's a stretch of narrow road in a residential neighborhood that
> is zoned for 25 mph, but some people go over 40. The cops set speed
> trap at 40. Motorists say the road is zoned too slow. but people
> who actually live along the road say fast drivers make it dangerous
> to get out of their driveways, kids to walk along, etc. Cars
> sometimes do go flying off the road out of control. So, it does
> appear the motorists are wrong--they want to zoom along, regardless
> of the impact of people they pass along the way.
driving too fast.
OTOH, courts here (amusingly) ruled that permanent speed limits below
30mph constitute "cruel and unusual punishment"; most have been raised,
and tickets for doing 30 in a (rare) remaining 20 are automatically
tossed, so cops don't bother. If a road isn't safe at a mere 30mph,
then fix the road, not the drivers.
Also, Texas cops' infamous tolerance for speeding varies depending on
weather, traffic, surroundings, etc. State law only prohibits _unsafe_
speeds, and posted speed limits are merely a _presumed_ safe speed. One
can beat a speeding ticket by showing that your driving was safe given
the totality of the circumstances, regardless of the sign. So, cops
usually focus enforcement on obviously unsafe driving--but since that is
subjective, it varies from cop to cop and from city to city, plus it
inevitably leads to discriminatory enforcement.
JHY
Jul 30, 2015, 4:06:04 PM7/30/15
to
"greymausg" <ma...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnmrjov...@dmaus.org...
> On 2015-07-29, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 7:45:59 AM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>> Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a different
>>> tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
>>
>> That's true, but allowing for slip-ups in expressing oneself precisely in
>> English, could it be possible that long-term capital gains could have a
>> different tax rate from short-term capital gains?
>>
>> John Savard
>
> In France, if you retain property for more than 5 years, the tax on sale
> of that property goes down considerably
>
>
> Differences in tex between capital gains and income can have a devestating
> results in a society.
I can't think of any examples of where
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 7:45:59 AM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>> Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a different
>>> tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
>>
>> That's true, but allowing for slip-ups in expressing oneself precisely in
>> English, could it be possible that long-term capital gains could have a
>> different tax rate from short-term capital gains?
>>
>> John Savard
>
> In France, if you retain property for more than 5 years, the tax on sale
> of that property goes down considerably
>
>
> Differences in tex between capital gains and income can have a devestating
> results in a society.
any society has been devastated by that.
Consider, if I buy shares and make a profit on
> selling them later, versus if I go into a bookies office and make a bet
> that a companies shares will go up (or down), can attract a different
> rate of tax.
free unless you are a professional gambler.
> AFAIK, many internet-associated companies reward their investors
> with share-price growth, rather than payments from profits.
> As always, the film, "The Producers", comes to mind
JHY
Jul 30, 2015, 4:09:00 PM7/30/15
to
"Osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d1ulnn...@mid.individual.net...
> Did either of you ever think about using the damn thing to resolve that
> issue? For example, plugging <taxable municpal bonds> into Google?
JHY
Jul 30, 2015, 4:22:53 PM7/30/15
to
"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:mpdigj$pvv$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 29-Jul-15 15:57, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:21:07 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't
>>> afford to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine,
>>> so they end up losing their insurance and their license, but they
>>> can't afford not to drive because they'll lose what little income
>>> they have (even if only welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually
>>> they get caught and locked up (i.e. more non-violent offenders
>>> taking up space we need for violent ones), which means losing their
>>> income, their home, their car, their kids, etc. and now we're back
>>> to the welfare trap discussion.
>>
>> If the traffic citation is valid, then the system is working *as it
>> is supposed to* in the case of the poor,
>
> But is it justice that a person who has a job, a home, a car, a family,
> etc. will lose it all just because of a speeding ticket?
No one does. The penalty for a single speeding ticket is
>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:21:07 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't
>>> afford to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine,
>>> so they end up losing their insurance and their license, but they
>>> can't afford not to drive because they'll lose what little income
>>> they have (even if only welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually
>>> they get caught and locked up (i.e. more non-violent offenders
>>> taking up space we need for violent ones), which means losing their
>>> income, their home, their car, their kids, etc. and now we're back
>>> to the welfare trap discussion.
>>
>> If the traffic citation is valid, then the system is working *as it
>> is supposed to* in the case of the poor,
>
> But is it justice that a person who has a job, a home, a car, a family,
> etc. will lose it all just because of a speeding ticket?
just a fine that you are free to pay and don’t speed again.
> Does the punishment really fit the crime?
>> the only problem is that people who have money get away with driving
>> badly on multiple occasions without accuulating demerit points and
>> losing their licenses.
>
> That doesn't sound like justice to me.
If we're going to take away one
> person's job, home, car, family, etc. for a speeding ticket,
enough to lose their license by repeatedly exceeding the
speed limit or even by gross exceeding the speed limit on
a single occasion. They worst they have to do is go to work
some other way like getting a lift with someone else like
their spouse etc while the license is suspended.
shouldn't
> we do the same to everyone?
not allow anyone to escape the loss of points by paying
a higher fine.
Don't you think the system would get fixed
> if the rich couldn't buy their way out of crimes?
>> Although here in Alberta, Canada, what happens is that drivers who
>> accumulate too many demerit points simply have to take a driving
>> course - then their points are moved down so that they're one point
>> away from a license suspension, so that they can drive again.
>
> We have that too, for certain moving violations (e.g. speeding less than
> 25mph over the limit), but you can only do it once every 24 months. And
> it costs a _lot_ more than just paying the fine, which the poor can't
> afford in the first place.
Radical concept, I know.
> You can argue that they shouldn't be speeding if they can't afford to
> pay the ticket,
> but local govts deliberately set speed limits well below the
> actual flow of traffic,
because of the congestion on the roads.
> so driving at that speed is _dangerous_.
> Also, police enforcement is normally lax, giving drivers a false sense
> of what is allowed, and then when the city/county is short of cash, the
> cops start ticketing everyone for things they ignored the day before;
doesn’t receive the fines, the state does.
> such arbitrary enforcement should not be permitted.
that.
> Plus, it is well known that cops discriminate when deciding _who_ to
> ticket. For instance, a white girl driving a newer car will almost
> always get a warning
> whereas a black man driving an older car will
> almost always get a ticket--if not arrested and/or shot--
for exactly the
> same offense. Obviously, such discriminatory enforcement should not be
> permitted either.
automated using speed cameras and no cop gets any discretion on
who gets fined.
>> Demerits don't mean a permanent loss of the ability to drive legally.
>> I suspect it works this way in many other jurisdictions.
>
> Excessive points within a period mean loss of license and/or insurance
> until some of the points expire and bring you back under the limit;
> losing your license permanently is quite rare and AFAIK requires more
> than just simple tickets.
JHY
Jul 30, 2015, 4:29:01 PM7/30/15
to
news:mpdlrh$7m2$1...@dont-email.me...
Because it's only criminals that do real crime.
Rod Speed
Jul 30, 2015, 4:36:06 PM7/30/15
to
news:PM00051C1...@aca40d24.ipt.aol.com...
Irrelevant to the tax free status. There is just no point
in doing away with the tax free status because of the
stimulus package and that clearly can not have been
due to any condition imposed by the stimulus package
because it clearly didn’t see all states have taxable munis.
> However, if it was a state-specific thing,
It wasn’t, and google proves that it wasn’t.
> I'm now wondering what the requirements were.
You could get radical and use google to check that.
But then the NSA would know that you did check that.
in doing away with the tax free status because of the
stimulus package and that clearly can not have been
due to any condition imposed by the stimulus package
because it clearly didn’t see all states have taxable munis.
> However, if it was a state-specific thing,
> I'm now wondering what the requirements were.
But then the NSA would know that you did check that.
Rod Speed
Jul 30, 2015, 4:45:13 PM7/30/15
to
> You'll be bit badly some day with kind of thinking.
Dave Garland
Jul 30, 2015, 6:16:04 PM7/30/15
to
On 7/30/2015 11:15 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 29-Jul-15 15:57, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:21:07 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't
>>> afford to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine,
>>> so they end up losing their insurance and their license, but they
>>> can't afford not to drive because they'll lose what little income
>>> they have (even if only welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually
>>> they get caught and locked up (i.e. more non-violent offenders
>>> taking up space we need for violent ones), which means losing their
>>> income, their home, their car, their kids, etc. and now we're back
>>> to the welfare trap discussion.
>>
>> If the traffic citation is valid, then the system is working *as it
>> is supposed to* in the case of the poor,
>
> But is it justice that a person who has a job, a home, a car, a family,
> etc. will lose it all just because of a speeding ticket? Does the
> punishment really fit the crime?
>
>> the only problem is that people who have money get away with driving
>> badly on multiple occasions without accuulating demerit points and
>> losing their licenses.
>
> That doesn't sound like justice to me. If we're going to take away one
> person's job, home, car, family, etc. for a speeding ticket, shouldn't
> we do the same to everyone? Don't you think the system would get fixed
> if the rich couldn't buy their way out of crimes?
>
In Finland (and apparently some other places), some fines are based on
> On 29-Jul-15 15:57, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3:21:07 PM UTC-6, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> This is yet another case where the poor get screwed; they can't
>>> afford to pay extra to avoid points, or even pay the original fine,
>>> so they end up losing their insurance and their license, but they
>>> can't afford not to drive because they'll lose what little income
>>> they have (even if only welfare), so they keep driving. Eventually
>>> they get caught and locked up (i.e. more non-violent offenders
>>> taking up space we need for violent ones), which means losing their
>>> income, their home, their car, their kids, etc. and now we're back
>>> to the welfare trap discussion.
>>
>> If the traffic citation is valid, then the system is working *as it
>> is supposed to* in the case of the poor,
>
> But is it justice that a person who has a job, a home, a car, a family,
> etc. will lose it all just because of a speeding ticket? Does the
> punishment really fit the crime?
>
>> the only problem is that people who have money get away with driving
>> badly on multiple occasions without accuulating demerit points and
>> losing their licenses.
>
> That doesn't sound like justice to me. If we're going to take away one
> person's job, home, car, family, etc. for a speeding ticket, shouldn't
> we do the same to everyone? Don't you think the system would get fixed
> if the rich couldn't buy their way out of crimes?
>
a day's income. In 2002 a Nokia exec was fined $103K for going 45 in a
30 zone, and more recently a businessman pulled an 8 day fine for
doing 64 in a 50 zone: €54,024.
Christian Brunschen
Jul 30, 2015, 6:24:13 PM7/30/15
to
In article <mpe7k5$n07$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Day fines" (see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine>) are in use in
Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Croatia, Switzerland and Macao.
>In 2002 a Nokia exec was fined $103K for going 45 in a
>30 zone, and more recently a businessman pulled an 8 day fine for
>doing 64 in a 50 zone: €54,024.
// Christian
Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Croatia, Switzerland and Macao.
>In 2002 a Nokia exec was fined $103K for going 45 in a
>30 zone, and more recently a businessman pulled an 8 day fine for
>doing 64 in a 50 zone: €54,024.
Charlie Gibbs
Jul 30, 2015, 6:51:01 PM7/30/15
to
On 2015-07-23, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>
>> Computers were invented and used from the inception as tools. Like other
>> tools, they evolved over time to become more user friendly and affordable.
>
> Would substituting "appliance" for "tool" cause less distraction?
I don't think that would be appropriate. Tools are used by skilled
craftsmen, appliances by naive users. It's a different mindset.
Perhaps we should say that although computers began as tools,
some have evolved into mere appliances (note the word "mere").
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>
>> Computers were invented and used from the inception as tools. Like other
>> tools, they evolved over time to become more user friendly and affordable.
>
> Would substituting "appliance" for "tool" cause less distraction?
I don't think that would be appropriate. Tools are used by skilled
craftsmen, appliances by naive users. It's a different mindset.
Perhaps we should say that although computers began as tools,
some have evolved into mere appliances (note the word "mere").
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Charlie Gibbs
Jul 30, 2015, 6:51:01 PM7/30/15
to
On 2015-07-24, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 8:45:07 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> For instance, at school board meetings, it does not help that old farts
>>> jump up and demand that every kid be tested for drug use, and anyone with
>>> positive results be expelled and sent to a work camp.
>>
>> I remember reading about how a Federal "drug czar" recommended that kids
>> competing in chess tournaments be tested for drugs.
>
> Got to watch those chess nerds, you never know.
I find it difficult - although not impossible, perhaps - to believe
that anyone doing something as mentally demanding as playing chess
would not be sufficiently impaired that he wouldn't make it to
tournament level. The same goes for any physical activity demanding
fine co-ordination. I quickly learned that I couldn't play pinball
worth a damn after drinking.
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 8:45:07 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> For instance, at school board meetings, it does not help that old farts
>>> jump up and demand that every kid be tested for drug use, and anyone with
>>> positive results be expelled and sent to a work camp.
>>
>> I remember reading about how a Federal "drug czar" recommended that kids
>> competing in chess tournaments be tested for drugs.
>
> Got to watch those chess nerds, you never know.
I find it difficult - although not impossible, perhaps - to believe
that anyone doing something as mentally demanding as playing chess
would not be sufficiently impaired that he wouldn't make it to
tournament level. The same goes for any physical activity demanding
fine co-ordination. I quickly learned that I couldn't play pinball
worth a damn after drinking.
Charlie Gibbs
Jul 30, 2015, 6:51:01 PM7/30/15
to
On 2015-07-22, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:07:46 +0000 (UTC)
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe DEC should have seen it, but I certaInly didn't. Computers were
>> computers and PCs were toys - not tht I didn't want one, but _real_ work
>
> I came into the business in the late 1970s, educated on mainframes
> and minis but working on micros. Id say it was mid to late 1980s before
> it was clear to me that the days of the mainframe were numbered, at least in
> terms of price/performance and total performance. In the late 80s I was on
> a contract to get the numbers to decide on the hardware platform to roll
> out a very complex application - the candidates included the biggest
> servers Sun, HP and Sequent could provide at the time and an Amdahl
> mainframe running UTS. Management people were suprised when the Amdahl
> came in a convincing last place, technical people were not.
So did you get the Amdahl anyway? <g,d&r>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:07:46 +0000 (UTC)
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe DEC should have seen it, but I certaInly didn't. Computers were
>> computers and PCs were toys - not tht I didn't want one, but _real_ work
>
> I came into the business in the late 1970s, educated on mainframes
> and minis but working on micros. Id say it was mid to late 1980s before
> it was clear to me that the days of the mainframe were numbered, at least in
> terms of price/performance and total performance. In the late 80s I was on
> a contract to get the numbers to decide on the hardware platform to roll
> out a very complex application - the candidates included the biggest
> servers Sun, HP and Sequent could provide at the time and an Amdahl
> mainframe running UTS. Management people were suprised when the Amdahl
> came in a convincing last place, technical people were not.
So did you get the Amdahl anyway? <g,d&r>
Charlie Gibbs
Jul 30, 2015, 6:51:01 PM7/30/15
to
On 2015-07-22, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> Property crimes mostly hurt insurance companies, not people.
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>
> You never get enough money back to make up for what you lose.
Especially if they are heirlooms. No amount of money can replace them.
Andrew Swallow
Jul 30, 2015, 9:09:38 PM7/30/15
to
are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
JHY
Jul 31, 2015, 12:00:28 AM7/31/15
to
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:mpe9n...@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 2015-07-23, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs
>>>> became
>>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>>
>>> Computers were invented and used from the inception as tools. Like
>>> other
>>> tools, they evolved over time to become more user friendly and
>>> affordable.
>>
>> Would substituting "appliance" for "tool" cause less distraction?
>
> I don't think that would be appropriate. Tools are used by skilled
> craftsmen, appliances by naive users.
Not necessarily, particularly with kitchen and gardening tools.
>
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs
>>>> became
>>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>>
>>> Computers were invented and used from the inception as tools. Like
>>> other
>>> tools, they evolved over time to become more user friendly and
>>> affordable.
>>
>> Would substituting "appliance" for "tool" cause less distraction?
>
> I don't think that would be appropriate. Tools are used by skilled
> craftsmen, appliances by naive users.
Rod Speed
Jul 31, 2015, 12:19:43 AM7/31/15
to
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:at6dnQaY-YhNVyfI...@giganews.com...
only applys to school days in most of the states and
only in two segments of the day, 8-9:30 and 2:30-4.
> They are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
around outside the schools for much of the day.
Stan Barr
Jul 31, 2015, 2:58:55 AM7/31/15
to
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 06:08:50 +1000, JHY <JHY...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:d1ulnn...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>
>
> "Osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:d1ulnn...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> WRT taxable municipal bonds. You two people *both* have access to
>> computers, right?
>
> She doesn’t. She refuses to use google because of the alleged security risk.
>
>> Did either of you ever think about using the damn thing to resolve that
>> issue? For example, plugging <taxable municpal bonds> into Google?
>
> Too radical by far.
>
>> This is on the first page of results.
>> http://www.investinginbonds.com/learnmore.asp?catid=5&subcatid=24&id=241
>
>
Hey! *I* don't use Google either...
>> computers, right?
>
> She doesn’t. She refuses to use google because of the alleged security risk.
>
>> Did either of you ever think about using the damn thing to resolve that
>> issue? For example, plugging <taxable municpal bonds> into Google?
>
> Too radical by far.
>
>> This is on the first page of results.
>> http://www.investinginbonds.com/learnmore.asp?catid=5&subcatid=24&id=241
>
>
DuckDuckGo does it for me, I prefer their privacy policy.
No sponsored results either.
--
Stan Barr pla...@bluesomatic.org
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Jul 31, 2015, 4:30:01 AM7/31/15
to
On 30 Jul 2015 22:50:37 GMT
measurements were done the contract was over and I was off elsewhere. I'd
guess the Sequent the application involved a lot of processes passing data
around in queues which suited the sequent (32 486DX50s) quite well, OTOH
the place was fond of Sun gear so they might have gone with that.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2015-07-22, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:07:46 +0000 (UTC)
> > Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe DEC should have seen it, but I certaInly didn't. Computers were
> >> computers and PCs were toys - not tht I didn't want one, but _real_
> >> work
> >
> > I came into the business in the late 1970s, educated on
> > mainframes and minis but working on micros. Id say it was mid to late
> > 1980s before it was clear to me that the days of the mainframe were
> > numbered, at least in terms of price/performance and total performance.
> > In the late 80s I was on a contract to get the numbers to decide on the
> > hardware platform to roll out a very complex application - the
> > candidates included the biggest servers Sun, HP and Sequent could
> > provide at the time and an Amdahl mainframe running UTS. Management
> > people were suprised when the Amdahl came in a convincing last place,
> > technical people were not.
>
> So did you get the Amdahl anyway? <g,d&r>
I never did find out - the joys of contracting, once the
> On 2015-07-22, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:07:46 +0000 (UTC)
> > Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe DEC should have seen it, but I certaInly didn't. Computers were
> >> computers and PCs were toys - not tht I didn't want one, but _real_
> >> work
> >
> > I came into the business in the late 1970s, educated on
> > mainframes and minis but working on micros. Id say it was mid to late
> > 1980s before it was clear to me that the days of the mainframe were
> > numbered, at least in terms of price/performance and total performance.
> > In the late 80s I was on a contract to get the numbers to decide on the
> > hardware platform to roll out a very complex application - the
> > candidates included the biggest servers Sun, HP and Sequent could
> > provide at the time and an Amdahl mainframe running UTS. Management
> > people were suprised when the Amdahl came in a convincing last place,
> > technical people were not.
>
> So did you get the Amdahl anyway? <g,d&r>
measurements were done the contract was over and I was off elsewhere. I'd
guess the Sequent the application involved a lot of processes passing data
around in queues which suited the sequent (32 486DX50s) quite well, OTOH
the place was fond of Sun gear so they might have gone with that.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Jul 31, 2015, 4:30:01 AM7/31/15
to
On 30 Jul 2015 22:50:38 GMT
any number of tools (sometimes good ones) being used by people who barely
reach the level of naive.
Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> Tools are used by skilled
> craftsmen, appliances by naive users.
I think that sentence needs some implication of intent, I've seen
> Tools are used by skilled
> craftsmen, appliances by naive users.
any number of tools (sometimes good ones) being used by people who barely
reach the level of naive.
jmfbahciv
Jul 31, 2015, 8:14:44 AM7/31/15
to
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Jul 31, 2015, 8:14:44 AM7/31/15
to
law? It became "cheaper" for an entity to issue taxable bonds
than tax-free bonds, so that's what happened.
<snip>
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Jul 31, 2015, 8:14:44 AM7/31/15
to
Osmium wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 29-Jul-15 06:59, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>> On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>> On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>>>> The interest wasn't taxed; occasionally, there was long or
>>>>>>>> short term gains and sometimes a a capital gains
>>>>>>>> distribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they
>>>>>>> are not different things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are taxed differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that. However, your wording implies that long- and
>>>>> short-term capital gains are somehow difference from capital gains.
>>>>> They aren't.
>>>>
>>>> You could also read the wording to imply that they are treated
>>>> differently for income tax...which is what I was talking about.
>>>
>>> Long- and short-term capital gains are the two types of capital gains.
>>>
>>> Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a different
>>> tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
>>
>>>>>>>> short term gains and sometimes a a capital gains
>>>>>>>> distribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Long- and short-term capital gains comprise capital gains; they
>>>>>>> are not different things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are taxed differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that. However, your wording implies that long- and
>>>>> short-term capital gains are somehow difference from capital gains.
>>>>> They aren't.
>>>>
>>>> You could also read the wording to imply that they are treated
>>>> differently for income tax...which is what I was talking about.
>>>
>>> Long- and short-term capital gains are the two types of capital gains.
>>>
>>> Therefore, how can long- and short-term capital gains have a different
>>> tax rate from capital gains? That makes no sense.
>>
>> I don't know what you are arguing about. You snipped the context.
>> A tax-free muni fund can generate taxable items. Some are long-term;
>> some are short-term and others were capital gain distributions.
>> The first two require a Schedule D for income tax. The last one
>> is a line item on the 1040. Most of the time, one didn't know
>> there was going to be taxable items until the December statement
>> was sent.
>
>> A tax-free muni fund can generate taxable items. Some are long-term;
>> some are short-term and others were capital gain distributions.
>> The first two require a Schedule D for income tax. The last one
>> is a line item on the 1040. Most of the time, one didn't know
>> there was going to be taxable items until the December statement
>> was sent.
>
> WRT taxable municipal bonds. You two people *both* have access to
> computers, right? Did either of you ever think about using the damn thing
> to resolve that issue? For example, plugging <taxable municpal bonds> into
> Google?
Why should I Google? I'm talking about my experience during that time frame.
> Google?
Munis can be issued as tax-free, taxable and a sub-form of tax-free
whose interest is subject to AMT (passive activity bonds). I've been
talking about the time when the tax-free bond market dried up.
>
> This is on the first page of results.
> http://www.investinginbonds.com/learnmore.asp?catid=5&subcatid=24&id=241
>
danny burstein
Jul 31, 2015, 8:34:31 AM7/31/15
to
In <PM00051C2...@aca24c3a.ipt.aol.com> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
[snippeth]
hate, hate, HATE speedbumps.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
[snippeth]
>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools. They
>> are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>That might work as long as there isn't any snow nor emergencies.
Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks,
>> are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>That might work as long as there isn't any snow nor emergencies.
hate, hate, HATE speedbumps.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Stephen Wolstenholme
Jul 31, 2015, 9:05:48 AM7/31/15
to
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:34:30 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <PM00051C2...@aca24c3a.ipt.aol.com> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>[snippeth]
>>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools. They
>>> are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>
>>That might work as long as there isn't any snow nor emergencies.
>
>Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks,
>hate, hate, HATE speedbumps.
Speedbumps can delay a response to a fire by enough to result in
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <PM00051C2...@aca24c3a.ipt.aol.com> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>[snippeth]
>>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools. They
>>> are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>
>>That might work as long as there isn't any snow nor emergencies.
>
>Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks,
>hate, hate, HATE speedbumps.
disaster.
--
Neural Network Software http://www.npsnn.com
EasyNN-plus More than just a neural network http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN Prediction software http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN Just a neural network http://www.justnn.com
greymausg
Jul 31, 2015, 10:03:26 AM7/31/15
to
described them as unwanted, but mothers insisted. He said that
SUV-type vehicles were a bigger problem, as the drivers could
not see small children going by the vehicle
>
> That's a lousy idea given that the kids aren't walking
> around outside the schools for much of the day.
>
--
> That's a lousy idea given that the kids aren't walking
> around outside the schools for much of the day.
>
greymaus
.
.
...
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 31, 2015, 10:03:45 AM7/31/15
to
On 30-Jul-15 20:09, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 30/07/2015 19:45, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> OTOH, courts here (amusingly) ruled that permanent speed limits
>> below 30mph constitute "cruel and unusual punishment"; most have
>> been raised, and tickets for doing 30 in a (rare) remaining 20 are
>> automatically tossed, so cops don't bother. If a road isn't safe
>> at a mere 30mph, then fix the road, not the drivers.
>
> On 30/07/2015 19:45, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> OTOH, courts here (amusingly) ruled that permanent speed limits
>> below 30mph constitute "cruel and unusual punishment"; most have
>> been raised, and tickets for doing 30 in a (rare) remaining 20 are
>> automatically tossed, so cops don't bother. If a road isn't safe
>> at a mere 30mph, then fix the road, not the drivers.
>
> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools.
> They are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
In the US, we have "school zones" that are typically 20mph, but they are
> They are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
only active at the start and end of the school day; the normal speed
limit applies at all other times. IOW, they are not "permanent".
Considering that the road in front of a school may have a speed limit of
up to 75mph, a speed limit of 20mph at all times and putting in speed
bumps for a few hundred feet every couple miles, when the schools only
need protecting a few hours per week, would not make much sense.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 31, 2015, 10:40:08 AM7/31/15
to
>> Also, police enforcement is normally lax, giving drivers a false
>> sense of what is allowed, and then when the city/county is short of
>> cash, the cops start ticketing everyone for things they ignored the
>> day before; such arbitrary enforcement should not be permitted.
>> sense of what is allowed, and then when the city/county is short of
>> cash, the cops start ticketing everyone for things they ignored the
>
> Such fines over here go to central government, thus removing the
> incentive for this sort of behaviour, as I mentioned before.
I can envision the exact same scenario happening at the county or state
level, and for the same reason, as I mentioned before.
This isn't an organizational problem; it's a stupid politician problem.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 31, 2015, 10:45:35 AM7/31/15
to
politicians would never let it happen.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 31, 2015, 10:51:16 AM7/31/15
to
On 31-Jul-15 07:13, jmfbahciv wrote:
soundly refuted?
> I've been talking about the time when the tax-free bond market
> dried up.
That never happened.
> Osmium wrote:
>> WRT taxable municipal bonds. You two people *both* have access to
>> computers, right? Did either of you ever think about using the
>> damn thing to resolve that issue? For example, plugging <taxable
>> municpal bonds> into Google?
>
> Why should I Google? I'm talking about my experience during that
> time frame.
You mean like your "experience" of Obama raising your taxes, which we
>> WRT taxable municipal bonds. You two people *both* have access to
>> computers, right? Did either of you ever think about using the
>> damn thing to resolve that issue? For example, plugging <taxable
>> municpal bonds> into Google?
>
> Why should I Google? I'm talking about my experience during that
> time frame.
soundly refuted?
> I've been talking about the time when the tax-free bond market
> dried up.
Michael Black
Jul 31, 2015, 11:29:19 AM7/31/15
to
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:34:30 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In <PM00051C2...@aca24c3a.ipt.aol.com> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>> [snippeth]
>>>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools. They
>>>> are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>>
>>> That might work as long as there isn't any snow nor emergencies.
>>
>> Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks,
>> hate, hate, HATE speedbumps.
>
> Speedbumps can delay a response to a fire by enough to result in
> disaster.
>
Yes, one area here put in "too many" speed bumps, and the fire department
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:34:30 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In <PM00051C2...@aca24c3a.ipt.aol.com> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>> [snippeth]
>>>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools. They
>>>> are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>>
>>> That might work as long as there isn't any snow nor emergencies.
>>
>> Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks,
>> hate, hate, HATE speedbumps.
>
> Speedbumps can delay a response to a fire by enough to result in
> disaster.
>
turned around and said "you have to take them out, it impedes our response
time".
Michael
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 31, 2015, 11:58:24 AM7/31/15
to
On 31-Jul-15 11:05, Michael Black wrote:
so they can't avoid them (at least on both sides of the car), but
narrower than a fire truck, so they can straddle them.
However, some folks (like me) have discovered that if you go over a
speed bump fast enough, your shocks completely absorb it, whereas no
matter how slow you go, it bounces the car all over the place. So,
putting in speed bumps can result in traffic going _faster_, which is
the exact opposite of what is desired.
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>> danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks, hate,
>>> hate, HATE speedbumps.
>>
>> Speedbumps can delay a response to a fire by enough to result in
>> disaster.
>>
> Yes, one area here put in "too many" speed bumps, and the fire
> department turned around and said "you have to take them out, it
> impedes our response time".
Clever folks have invented speed bumps/humps that are wider than a car,
>> danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks, hate,
>>> hate, HATE speedbumps.
>>
>> Speedbumps can delay a response to a fire by enough to result in
>> disaster.
>>
> Yes, one area here put in "too many" speed bumps, and the fire
> department turned around and said "you have to take them out, it
> impedes our response time".
so they can't avoid them (at least on both sides of the car), but
narrower than a fire truck, so they can straddle them.
However, some folks (like me) have discovered that if you go over a
speed bump fast enough, your shocks completely absorb it, whereas no
matter how slow you go, it bounces the car all over the place. So,
putting in speed bumps can result in traffic going _faster_, which is
the exact opposite of what is desired.
Stephen Sprunk
Jul 31, 2015, 12:47:55 PM7/31/15
to
On 30-Jul-15 06:50, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 29-Jul-15 06:59, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> On 28-Jul-15 07:11, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>>> On 22-Jul-15 07:20, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>>> Munis disappeared a few years ago because of some program
>>>>>>> Obama had which allowed taxable bonds to be issued with a
>>>>>>> lower rate than munis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blatantly incorrect on all counts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps in your state, not mine.
>>>>
>>>> Federal laws are uniform.
>>>
>>> WTF does that have to do with this? New issues in this state,
>>> during that time period were taxable. So I got corporate bonds
>>> whose interest rate was 3 times the taxable munis.
>>
>>>>>>> Obama had which allowed taxable bonds to be issued with a
>>>>>>> lower rate than munis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blatantly incorrect on all counts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps in your state, not mine.
>>>>
>>>> Federal laws are uniform.
>>>
>>> WTF does that have to do with this? New issues in this state,
>>> during that time period were taxable. So I got corporate bonds
>>> whose interest rate was 3 times the taxable munis.
>>
>> Obama made no changes to how the federal govt taxes muni bonds.
>
> His program subsidized muni bond issues; these bonds had a lower
>
> interest rate (less than 2%) but were taxable.
What is the name of this alleged program?
In any event, tax-exempt muni bonds were and are still available, so
your claims that they "disappeared" was a blatant lie.
> If I had to pay tax on interest, buying a corporate bond at 6% or
> 7% was better.
Since you have claimed to be in the lowest tax bracket (10%), buying
taxable bonds should always be a better deal for you--unless you have so
much bond interest income that it'd put you in a MUCH higher bracket, in
which case your claims of poverty are also bullshit.
Charlie Gibbs
Jul 31, 2015, 2:01:34 PM7/31/15
to
On 2015-07-31, Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 30-Jul-15 20:09, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
>> On 30/07/2015 19:45, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>> OTOH, courts here (amusingly) ruled that permanent speed limits
>>> below 30mph constitute "cruel and unusual punishment"; most have
>>> been raised, and tickets for doing 30 in a (rare) remaining 20 are
>>> automatically tossed, so cops don't bother. If a road isn't safe
>>> at a mere 30mph, then fix the road, not the drivers.
>>
>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools.
>> They are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>
> In the US, we have "school zones" that are typically 20mph, but they are
> only active at the start and end of the school day; the normal speed
> limit applies at all other times. IOW, they are not "permanent".
Ours are active all day (8 a.m. - 5 p.m.).
> On 30-Jul-15 20:09, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
>> On 30/07/2015 19:45, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>> OTOH, courts here (amusingly) ruled that permanent speed limits
>>> below 30mph constitute "cruel and unusual punishment"; most have
>>> been raised, and tickets for doing 30 in a (rare) remaining 20 are
>>> automatically tossed, so cops don't bother. If a road isn't safe
>>> at a mere 30mph, then fix the road, not the drivers.
>>
>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools.
>> They are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>
> In the US, we have "school zones" that are typically 20mph, but they are
> only active at the start and end of the school day; the normal speed
> limit applies at all other times. IOW, they are not "permanent".
> Considering that the road in front of a school may have a speed limit of
> up to 75mph, a speed limit of 20mph at all times and putting in speed
> bumps for a few hundred feet every couple miles, when the schools only
> need protecting a few hours per week, would not make much sense.
Charlie Gibbs
Jul 31, 2015, 2:01:34 PM7/31/15
to
On 2015-07-31, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <PM00051C2...@aca24c3a.ipt.aol.com> jmfbahciv
> <See....@aol.com> writes:
> [snippeth]
>
>>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools.
>>> They are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>>
>> That might work as long as there isn't any snow nor emergencies.
>
> Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks,
> hate, hate, HATE speedbumps.
An old Bizarro cartoon depicts a man in a small car in Hell,
> In <PM00051C2...@aca24c3a.ipt.aol.com> jmfbahciv
> <See....@aol.com> writes:
> [snippeth]
>
>>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools.
>>> They are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>>
>> That might work as long as there isn't any snow nor emergencies.
>
> Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks,
> hate, hate, HATE speedbumps.
facing an endless line of speed bumps. The devil, smirking,
is leaning on the car and saying, "What could be better than
an eternity of speed bumps? After all, you invented them..."
I can think of a few user interfaces whose designers I'd like
to see consigned to the same fate.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Jul 31, 2015, 3:02:03 PM7/31/15
to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
> I never did find out - the joys of contracting, once the
> measurements were done the contract was over and I was off elsewhere. I'd
> guess the Sequent the application involved a lot of processes passing data
> around in queues which suited the sequent (32 486DX50s) quite well, OTOH
> the place was fond of Sun gear so they might have gone with that.
note sequent had been selling into commerical market for some time,
> I never did find out - the joys of contracting, once the
> measurements were done the contract was over and I was off elsewhere. I'd
> guess the Sequent the application involved a lot of processes passing data
> around in queues which suited the sequent (32 486DX50s) quite well, OTOH
> the place was fond of Sun gear so they might have gone with that.
much more than the other platforms
trivia/topic drift ... meeting in ellison's conference room on
ha/cmp cluster scaleup (jan1992)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13
other HA/CMP posts&references
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
within weeks, the cluster scaleup is transferred, announced as
supercomputer (for technical and scientific *ONLY*) and we are
told we can't work on anything with more than four processors ...
significantly increasing the motivation to leave.
Later two other people from the meeting ... are at a small client/server
startup responsible for something called commerce server. We are brought
in as consultants because they want to do payment transactions on the
server; the small startup had also invented some technology they call
"SSL" they want to use ... the result is now frequently called
"electronic commerce".
During this period, they were making products available to download over
the internet. However, the systems on the platforms they were using had
an increasing FINWAIT processing bottleneck problem ... and they were
constantly having to add servers ... and informing users to do their own
load balancing across all the download servers (this is before changes
to boundary routers that would dynamically do the load balancing).
They then brought in a single Sequent server that easily handled all the
load. They had run into (& fixed) the FINWAIT processing problem some
years before.
recent posts mentioning FINWAIT
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015d.html#2 Knowledge Center Outage May 3rd
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015d.html#50 Western Union envisioned internet functionality
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#25 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable
Sequent then is doing some amount of business selling sequent systems to
run commercial mainframe emaulator. Chen has left his supercomputer
business (after having left cray) and is CTO at sequent ... and he
brings us in to do some consulting at Sequent (this is before IBM buys
sequent and dissolves it).
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Jul 31, 2015, 3:08:05 PM7/31/15
to
greymausg <ma...@mail.com> writes:
> Known in Ireland as `inverse potholes' One highway official
> described them as unwanted, but mothers insisted. He said that
> SUV-type vehicles were a bigger problem, as the drivers could
> not see small children going by the vehicle
another kind of inverse potholes found on the mass pike was frost heaves
> Known in Ireland as `inverse potholes' One highway official
> described them as unwanted, but mothers insisted. He said that
> SUV-type vehicles were a bigger problem, as the drivers could
> not see small children going by the vehicle
(warning signs and 35mph speed limit was constant occurance). After
moving to mass I complained to some of the long time residents (out
west, even county roads would do 6ft deep road beds as
countermeasure). They pointed out that the road industry having done
mass pike they way they did ... then got reoccuring annual revenue to
constantly go back and fix it.
past posts mentioning frost heaves:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#22 Roads as Runways Was: Re: BA Solves Y2K (Was: Re: Chinese Solve Y2K)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#28 trains was: Al Gore and the Internet
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#35 pop density was: trains was: Al Gore and the Internet
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#36 pop density was: trains was: Al Gore and the Internet
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#42 Transportation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#68 Killer Hard Drives - Shrapnel?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003j.html#11 Idiot drivers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006h.html#45 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008l.html#24 dollar coins
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008l.html#26 dollar coins
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008l.html#36 dollar coins
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#12 OT: Tax breaks to Oracle debated
JHY
Jul 31, 2015, 3:18:05 PM7/31/15
to
"Stephen Wolstenholme" <stephenwo...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:thsmralsit3uta8q4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:34:30 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>In <PM00051C2...@aca24c3a.ipt.aol.com> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com>
>>writes:
>>[snippeth]
>>>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools.
>>>> They
>>>> are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>>
>>>That might work as long as there isn't any snow nor emergencies.
>>
>>Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks,
>>hate, hate, HATE speedbumps.
>
> Speedbumps can delay a response to a fire by enough to result in
> disaster.
In theory, maybe. In practice we have not seen Britain with a worse
> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>In <PM00051C2...@aca24c3a.ipt.aol.com> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com>
>>writes:
>>[snippeth]
>>>> In Britain they are installing 20 mph speed limits outside schools.
>>>> They
>>>> are enforced by speed bumps in the road.
>>
>>>That might work as long as there isn't any snow nor emergencies.
>>
>>Firemen, both the male and female types, and their trucks,
>>hate, hate, HATE speedbumps.
>
> Speedbumps can delay a response to a fire by enough to result in
> disaster.
result with fires because of that.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages