Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 2 Dec 2006 21:22 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <64ec7$456a5c9b$4fe73b3$25547(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <ce8ce$45688adc$4fe7197$9197(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>> >>>[....] >>> >>> >>>>>>Actually it's even simpler -- your Medicare taxes are withheld every payday >>>>>>and I assume for most businesses now, electronically sent to the IRS >> >>with the >> >>>>>>push of a key. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That key is likely to cost a penny. >>>> >>>>Nope. You have to distribute IRS costs proportionally to >>>>their destination. The Infrastructure, etc, isn't >>>>free to some, and costly to others. >>> >>> >>>Huh? >> >>Illustration, with inaccurate numbers and categories: >> >>IRS BUdget: 1 Billion US$ >> >>Sent to states 10% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 10% >>Sent to medicare 17% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 17% >>Executive Branch 12% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 12% >> >>In the illustration, we'd have to add 17% of the total cost of >>operating expenses of the IRS to the overhead incurred by Medicare. > > > Oh, I thought it was a new point. I had previously made that exact point > when I said that the "button" likely cost something to push. > > >>That would start making the actual overhead for Medicare align with >>the cost items reported by insurance companies. > > > I wonder if it would. How much money does the IRS spill in collecting it? > I don't think it is a very large fraction. I'll do out homework for us. LOL IRS budget for FY 2005 10.674 billion. <www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/budget-brief-05.pdf> "Medicare will spend over $250 billion in 2004 on health care for approximately 41 million senior and disabled citizens. " <http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/medicare_budget_FY04.shtml> 2005 outlays total 2,472 billion http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html Looks like you add ~1.067 billion to medicare expenditures as the collections expense. That adds about 0.4% to the overhead which is usually reported elsewhere. That increases their reported expenses by more than 10%. >>Then there's all the paper provided by the GPO. And probably other >>stuff as well
From: unsettled on 2 Dec 2006 21:24 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <456A7E96.F0D2EF8B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>[...] >>> >>>>>More properly, you live in a representative democracy which is a >>>>>Constitutional Monarchy with a hereditary Monarch who is the Head of >>>>>State. >>>> >>>>Titular Head of State. >>> >>>Only because she's female? >> >>Nope. > > > Try reading to your self out loud. Merican humor zips right past him.....
From: Ken Smith on 2 Dec 2006 21:29 In article <456EFE61.92EE5E87(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >I never get involved in assembler aside from DSP. It's far too difficult to >maintain and far too easy to write nonsense code. Well if the Jihad needs microcontrollers programmed, Graham is obviously not the man to call. Assembler code is no harder to maintain that "C" code. Poorly written and poorly documented code in either is very hard to deal with. Well written and documented assembler code is very easy to work on. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 2 Dec 2006 21:36 In article <ekpaa1$8ss_007(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >I pity those who dealt with assembler and never had DDT >to help them eradicate the bugs. Don't pity those early years of mine. I had some very good tools back then. The first one I used was the "monitor" on the Intel MDS-800. Later I used ICE-80. Things went to hell when Intel brought out the 8086. ICE-86 took so long to transfer the software that I wrote a program to let me bring it in via the serial port to speed things up. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 2 Dec 2006 21:40
unsettled wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: > > > The world government I see forming will be a very strictly secular one. > > The US has the seperation of church and state because the founders saw the > > horrors that results when you mix the two. A world government would have > > the seperation for different and very practical reasons. Even within > > Islam, there is a great deal of disagreement about what the rules really > > are. > > They remain in a medieval tribal mindset. Nothing else matters. Tribalism only applies to some Muslims, not all. Graham |