swansont

I pay taxes, too. I have no such notion. Perhaps you should explain this to the people in the interview in the link provided in the OP, since they were specifically discussing the increase in tax on small businesses, instead of trying to make it apply outside of that context. Do we or do we not tax the profits of businesses? (Yes) The businessman in the interview claimed that the change in the small business tax would cost him $120k. By "the administration's plan" you of course mean the Bush administration, who passed the tax legislation that is going to expire, right? That what is being discussed is a partial mitigation of this tax increase that was signed into law by Bush. No, really, they are a dodge to mitigate the effect of the deduction cap, though more recent legislation that forces companies to count stock options as expenses make it somewhat less attractive than it was. By all means, read up on it. But more to the point, they are still compensation that doesn't show up as salary in your example.

Brownian motion usually refers to larger particles being moved around by collisions with atoms and molecules. But why would you assume that a higher energy photon wouldn't move atoms around? Momentum is still conserved.

As granpa has said, you accelerate a free charge. Or, you can have some sort of transition: atomic, molecular or nuclear de-excitation. Or you can annihilate matter and antimatter. The sun, being a plasma, has lots of charges bouncing around, undergoing accelerations when they scatter.

I guess I was confused by your assertion that the frequency offset cannot be a constant. You obviously meant something else by that. And one uses the standard value of c in those calculations. So, do you have a point here?

I'm not doing any association, or group generalization. But I am really getting tired of this crap.

Stock options and grants are a form of non-salary compensation. It's disingenuous to suggest that millions of dollars of income from this is from an "investment;" it's a way of funneling more money to executives and get around the $1 million limit on corporate income tax deductions for executive pay. The article also notes that it is not including rents and royalties as income, either. So if you are e.g. an author, or own and run an apartment building, your income in not being counted in this assessment.

I'm not suggesting this. I don't see how one might construe my remarks to think that I am.

If we taxed based solely on revenue, there would be no need for accountants. If the other workers are going to have to work longer and harder, they are probably going to be paid more, if they are on hourly wages, at least. The "we'll have less money to expand" argument makes sense, and was made by one of the interviewees, but that's one of the reasons for having a threshold. You aren't in that position unless you already have a significant amount of money already. You brought it up, but OK. ——————— I'm calling BS on the 894,000 number, in terms of impact on employment. What we really want to know is how many employers are affected. Luckily, this issue of small business tax came up in the past two elections, so there's already work debunking it. The problem is that ABC probably asked the wrong question: how many small business owners fall into the top tax rates. The problem with that is that anyone who reports any business income is included, even if they earned just a dollar and/or have no employees, e.g. it includes people like the President, who made money from his book but has a job; his "small business" has nobody else on the payroll. If 2.5% represents 894,000 small businesses, then there must be more than 35 million small businesses, who, at best could employ an average of about 4 employees (10% unemployment is about 15 million workers, so we have 150 million workers, and 150/35 = 4.3. And there are big companies out there who employ millions) For evey small business which employ dozens of people, there have to be a whole lot which employ just one. And some of those make more than $200k (or $250k filing jointly) http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html There are some numbers here, though it does not break down quite the way that would be most useful, but you can see that for the income levels in question, only ~25%-30% of these people made more than half of their money from their business, since the numbers are from anyone who reported a business gain or loss. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1790&DocTypeID=7

Again, I would appreciate it if you would not do this. It's a personal attack and is counterproductive and inflammatory. jryan made a claim, and the numbers provided (though unsubstiantated; I don't see a way to check them on that site) do not come close to backing up that claim. Discussions will almost always go awry when the arguments are built upon falsehoods. I don't know why one needs to manufacture any motive beyond facilitating honest debate.

Really? I thought I was pointing out the goalposts being moved. I really would appreciate it if you would focus on the discussion itself rather than try and guess my motives.

Similar numbers? What happened to the 100,000:1 ratio you claimed just a few posts back?

Not that I think this number came from any credible source, but if we include all forms of violent behavior, does that number still hold? Can I blame all of Christianity for occurrences of e.g. abortion clinic arson?

I'll hold that both positions are unreasonable and untrue, thank you.

Here's what I don't get. We tax profits, right? The businessman who said that he would lose ~$120k to additional taxes is paying about 3% more in taxes. Which means his business makes upwards of $4 million a year in profit. (Also, presumably he does this because paying corporate tax instead of declaring it as income is cheaper, and would continue to be cheaper) So if he has to pay more in tax, why would he fire people, which means his company does less business and makes less of a profit? How does he win, or at least break even, by doing that? The only way this makes sense is if these workers aren't actually working very much, and this makes it cheaper to fire them rather than keep them on the payroll. Krugman didn't say that. He didn't even come close to saying that. The statement was in the future tense, not the past, he said majority, not all, and your numbers are way off. He's saying that more than $360 billion would be going to the richest people, the one-tenth of one percent, and that's more than half of the tax cuts. And if you expand this (using the analysis of the non-partisan Tax Policy Center) to include all of the richest 1%, it's around $640 billion. Does 640/680 = 94% not count as "nearly all?"

I don't care if it sounds silly to you. Photon number is not a conserved quantity. A laser is simple proof that you can create photons. And I've already mentioned the way they are created: it's blackbody radiation.

It can't both work and not work. The frequency offset in GPS clocks is a constant.

The dryer is a device to save time and space, at the cost of energy and hardware. A fan would cost a few Watt-hours, but I would not be surprised if it was 100x less energy what it took to run a dryer.

I find it ironic that the protest in Pakistan involved burning an American flag, over the intolerance and disrespect connected with a plan to burn Korans. Way to lead by example, folks.

The + or - sign is the vector information; that term in the equation is actually a dot product. You can choose down to be positive or negative if you wish, as Janus has indicated, but the acceleration and displacement will have the same sign in this problem, so the product will be positive.

I'm guessing that the electron recombination with a bare proton could be estimated classically. To first order, it's probably just a matter of whether the electron can shed enough energy to become bound (KE < |PE|)

It's happened again, but I don't know of any useful details, other than it seems to happen every 9 or 10 days thus far. FYI, I'm getting around the RSS problem for scheduled posts by editing the posts after they appear, if I remember to do so.

Wait, what? How is "grossed out and insulted that anything Islamic be erected near the site where Islamic extremists killed people" not an indictment of all Islam? And the objections about where the money is coming from, the fear that this will be a breeding ground for extremist views (all of this on Fox news), and I'm the one making connections that don't exist? I didn't make that argument, and the Civil Rights act was passed despite the attitudes of the south, not because they won hearts and minds, so I don't know what your point is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals

Equating murdering for Islam with all of Islam is a lack of critical thought. Very few Muslims are terrorists. The reason there is a connection is because people have abandoned rational thought and are letting emotional arguments win the day. Good thing we have laws and rights, and for this very reason. In 1963, a poll of Southern Whites showed that more than 70% felt racial integration was being pushed too fast, and more than 80% did not want to see a law passed that would allow all people to be served in hotels, restaurants, etc. In 1958, 96% of white Americans were against interracial marriages. http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2010/08/this-is-why-i-support-majoritarian-rule.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws#United_States So I don't think that it means anything special just because you have 70% of people on the same side of the argument. Intolerance and hatred is still intolerance and hatred, and if it exists, that makes it easier for the media to exploit the controversy.

Not at all. Fusion is exothermic, PV=nRT, and fusion rates are strongly dependent on temperature. http://cass.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/StevI.html Section 3

http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap8/node8.html