< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3090 OF 4460 ·
|Apr-26-12|| ||goldenbear: <al wazir> Speaking as someone who researches corporate balance sheets often, you are correct. Many large corporations have effective tax rates of less than 1%. That is a fact, folks.|
|Apr-26-12|| ||FSR: <Jim Bartle: OCF: I don't think defendants are ever walked into a courtroom in handcuffs in the presence of a jury, the people who need to presume the defendants are innocent. At least not unless they've displayed violent behavior in court.>|
That is essentially correct. See http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s115.htm
|Apr-26-12|| ||King Death: < galdur: Staggering glut: 2010 corn production was a whopping 900 million tons (wikipedia). That comes to about 130 kilograms per human on the planet. So, why is anybody starving?>|
It's for all them stills to produce whiskey. A big cash crop at least here in the southern USA.
|Apr-26-12|| ||King Death: <goldenbear: Speaking as someone who researches corporate balance sheets often, you are correct. Many large corporations have effective tax rates of less than 1%. That is a fact, folks.>|
Where do we ordinary folks get in line for that kind of tax rate?
|Apr-26-12|| ||Shams: Since when did "intuitive thinker" come to mean "person terrible at math"?|
"Scientists claim the way a person answers simple math problem is a good predictor of their belief in a religion."
<Q: If a baseball and bat cost $110, and the bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?
If you answered $10 you are inclined to believe in religion. If you answered $5 you are inclined to disbelieve.
Why? Because, according to new research reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, the $10 answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the $5 answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your gut instinct.
Psychologists William Gervais and Ara Norenzayan, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, predicted that people who were more analytic in thinking would tend not to believe in religion, whereas people who approach problems more intuitively would tend to be believers. Their study confirmed the hypothesis and the findings illuminate the mysterious cognitive process by which we reach decisions about our beliefs.>
|Apr-26-12|| ||OhioChessFan: Wow, I never knew I was inclined to disbelieve. (NB This isn't the first time I've seen that logic equivalent of a Monday POTD) Why didn't it happen? I guess I'm not stupid enough........errrrrrrr.....not analytical enough to think a bunch of mud and water got hit by lightning and magically produced Bach, Brahms, and the Beatles.|
|Apr-26-12|| ||FSR: <Shams> In other words, dumber people are more likely to be religious. Not exactly a revelation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...|
|Apr-26-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <OCF> <I guess I'm not stupid enough........errrrrrrr.....not analytical enough to think a bunch of mud and water got hit by lightning and magically produced Bach, Brahms, and the Beatles.>|
But you believe an all powerful being can part the Red Sea.
What a dumb contradiction.
|Apr-26-12|| ||cormier: niti nito ...|
|Apr-26-12|| ||Jim Bartle: "errrrrrrr.....not analytical enough to think a bunch of mud and water got hit by lightning and magically produced Bach, Brahms, and the Beatles."|
If I'm not mistaken, the theory states there were several intermediate steps.
|Apr-26-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <JB: If I'm not mistaken, the theory states there were several intermediate steps.>|
Yes, almost all the intermediate steps took a gazillion years, very slow, very incremental, but the development of say, lungs, THAT took a few seconds. Obviously.
|Apr-26-12|| ||Jim Bartle: You've been studying, I see.|
|Apr-26-12|| ||twinlark: <Ohio> It took more than a few seconds. It's embarrassing to hear that from you, even if you are expressing it metaphorically.|
|Apr-26-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: It's funny how these <OCF> types are unwilling to consider scientific evidence and pass it off as 'lighting-hits-mud-and water' voodoo magic.|
BUT they don't consider it magic when a little man upstairs creates the World in 6 days.
Actually it's not funny - it's a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance.
|Apr-26-12|| ||FSR: <PinnedPiece: ... <FSR> Because I am interested in your mind and logic abilities, I went to view your teaching videos again, and again appreciated your organization and thinking. Just to let you know I may disagree but be an appreciative fan.>|
Thanks, <PinnedPiece>. I really appreciate that. And your comment beats the heck out of the people who make fun of my voice, say that the trap featured in my "Sicilian Defense: The Most Useful Trap You've Never Seen" video isn't really a trap but something only an idiot would fall into (the universe of chess idiots apparently includes experts and A players), that I'm a fish (I suppose I should've mentioned that I'm a master, but didn't want to brag), etc.
It's good to know that we can see eye to eye on chess, at least. :-)
|Apr-26-12|| ||goldenbear: <Colonel Mortimer> I've never met a scientist personally who was not MORE dogmatic than any religious leader I've ever personally known... |
Incidentally, scanning the question (or actually misreading it), I thought the ball was $10. But that doesn't mean I'm bad at math; in fact, I have a very intuitive understanding of math and always have as long as I can remember. I remember an incident which occurred during my state's academic bowl championship. I had answered several questions in a row and was on quite a roll when a math question came up. Everyone always takes out pencil and paper for such questions, but I never did, preferring instead to solve the problems in my head. The questioner read: "What is 12?" when suddenly I flinched and buzzed in accidentally. Since the number 12 was the only information I had, I immediately began thinking about powers of 12. I thought 12 squared was obviously too easy, so in the 3 seconds I had to answer I solved for 12 cubed and answered "1,728". To everyone's astonishment, the answer was correct! Naturally, a bru-ha-ha ensued which ended with the other team walking out in protest, as they were convinced I had advanced knowledge of the questions.
|Apr-26-12|| ||cormier: <CM> and the 7th ... ask <diceman> .... lol ..... tks G|
|Apr-26-12|| ||Jim Bartle: "Everyone always takes out pencil and paper for such questions,..."|
Pencil and paper? What century was this?
|Apr-26-12|| ||twinlark: I was wondering whether he'd met one.|
|Apr-26-12|| ||al wazir: <Jim Bartle: Send me the name of your account, al wazir.> She isn't cheap. And you may not be eligible to use the gaping loophole that I benefited from, the R&D tax credit. (This is *not* a deduction, but money that gets subtracted from the final tax bill. Tax credits are government's gift to private enterprise.)|
I wouldn't want to do my business taxes myself -- it really does take a CPA. But the biggest tax boondoggle I ever got away with was one I devised, on my personal taxes, which I have always done myself. I donated all the physics journals I had subscribed to since grad school, decades of them, to a university (which shall remain nameless) that I had a connection with at the time, and I got the publisher, the American Institute of Physics, to write a letter averring that they had a value determined by the single-copy replacement cost -- approximately the subscription price. That year, when the University of ____ published the list of its biggest charitable donors, guess whose name led all the rest? And it didn't cost me a cent; the only downside was that I'm now on a bunch of begging lists of charitable foundations.
I told some friends about this coup and they attempted to emulate it, but alas! the AIP stopped writing those certification letters. Apparently I had killed the goose that laid the golden eggs -- but not before I got to enjoy my omelet.
|Apr-26-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <twinlark: It took more than a few seconds. It's embarrassing to hear that from you, even if you are expressing it metaphorically.>|
Okay, so they incrementally were created, not functional, just these big old pouches with no particular use, but once they became functional, <then> it took just a few seconds.
|Apr-26-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: Stick to world creation in a week - it's easier to comprehend.|
|Apr-26-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <aw: I donated all the physics journals I had subscribed to since grad school, decades of them, to a university (which shall remain nameless) that I had a connection with at the time, and I got the publisher, the American Institute of Physics, to write a letter averring that they had a value determined by the single-copy replacement cost -- approximately the subscription price. >|
A nameless university in the Midwest will write such a letter affirming a $10-20 value for all LP albums of classical music you might wish to donate to their music department. I am aware of a person who bought a box of them at an auction for $1 and got quite a deduction out of it.
|Apr-26-12|| ||al wazir: <OCF>: I think we can both agree that the tax code needs revision.|
|Apr-26-12|| ||HeMateMe: <OhioChessFan> Your thinking is full of holes. 35,000 years ago the Beatles and Rolling Stones would have been wearing furry loin clothes and trying to beat each other to death with clubs, not trying to outpoint each other on the pop charts.|
35,000 years is enough time for primitive man to evolve into Bach and the Beatles.
And, a few million years is enough for the rock and mud to spawn the eneoba and develop to primitive man.
I love <Roger Eberts> comments in his recent autobiography. He said "I"m a cultural Catholic", meaning that he doesn't belive in evolution, but he participates in church affairs in his community, perhaps likes gospel music feels the church can play a positive role in one's community.
A perfect answer. Be respectful of other's opionions, enjoy what their religion contributes to the community, but don't believe any silliness about water being changed into wine.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3090 OF 4460 ·