« August 2006 | Main | December 2006 »
November 28, 2006
Poincare conjecture
Разъяренный доктор Яо
Пишет грозный Дадзыбао
"Эта Сильвия Насар
Пусть ответит за базар,
Оскорбления такого
не могу я перенесть,
Крючкотвор наемный Купер
Отомстит за мою честь!
На себя карикатуры
Не желаю я терпеть,
Как арабы на датчанов
Я могу рассвирепеть!
Ганг Тиан, смутьян известный,
Интриган, скорей бы сдох!
Разгоню его студентов,
Словно банду четырех!
Перельман пускай заткнется,
Не получит ни %&@
Мой студент получит Сяо
И собачка Чао-Чао
Так сказал Великий Я!"
Posted by Victor at 01:43 PM
Victor wrote
The flow of spam into my spam folders continues. Mainly it is not "Hi it's Bill" (or Joe or Jane)
s it was few days ago but rather "Bill wrote" (or Joe, or Jane).
Now Victor (me) wrote:
Dear Bill (or Joe, or Jane or other Windoze idiot who cannot clean the piece of crap he/she has instead of computer from viruses):
Don't send me your stupid spam,
Your a lamer, you are loser,
You are moron, you are scum!
Posted by Victor at 01:30 PM
November 23, 2006
Income splitting
The very modest proposal by the Finance Minister to allow income splitting for pensions with the hint that it could follow by the general income splitting for the tax purposes.
Instantly Liberals, NDPs and other critics began to claim that this is bad. Their arguments are of three types:
1." It is not fair because singles/pairs with equal incomes/people with little income do not benefit from it."
These arguments are based on the assumption that the current sstem is absolutely fair, which is not the case. Further, taking these arguments to their logical end one would conclude that any change in the policy is not fair. No money to school and preschool education (those who do not have children would not benefit), for cancer research, for universities, for TTC... No money for anything I do not benefit from.
2. "It is not fair because only richest would benefit from it". This is BS. Benefits would be mainly in the mid-class. If one spouse gets $1,000,000 per annum, the other spouse has a lot of money to invest and report investment income, thus actually splitting income for tax purposes. But this is meaningful for the richest ones only.
3. "It is bad because tax reduction is bad". I agree. Let us increase tax burden by imposing a new tax: for economists who are against tax reduction. $10,000 per annum per person (let's call it "Stupidity Tax"). And according to 1. it should never be cancelled.
Posted by Victor at 06:15 AM
November 22, 2006
Niqab vs. barely covered
National Post published two pictures: one of the lady in niqab, with only small area around eyes open (2% of the body?) and of the lady with 60% of the body exposed, with a question "Which Is More Offensive?"
ROTFL! Look, the first of them had 2% of the body exposed; for the symmetry the second one should 2% of the body covered :-) which would be achieved if she was just wearing strings. In which case I doubt this lady would be allowed in the lecture room or movie theater.
Seriously, covering face should be prohibited unless due to medical reasons:
1) Security: the person should be reliably identifiable
2) Fairness: Deaf people often are able to read lips, denying them reading lips would be a discrimination.
3) Mutual respect: if the person does not allow me to see her/his face, I can deny this person right to see my. Sorry, get out of my office and use the phone!
Posted by Victor at 05:10 AM
November 09, 2006
It's Bill :)
Recently my spam folders a full of messages with the subject: It's Don :)' orIt’s Jim :)’ etc but as the absolute majority of the spam I receive containing lines
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
(versions vary).
So, it’s the same old Bill Gates, who made a company, which makes a crapware, which sends all these spam.
For each M$ user I have greetings:
Microsoft crapware User,
You a lamer, you are loser!
Posted by Victor at 02:52 PM
November 06, 2006
Miller for a Green Bin!
Mayor elections are coming to Toronto. Current mayor David Miller against Jane Pitfield (and a bunch of miniscule candidates).
Mrs. Pitfield seems to be a reasonably good candidate. In contrast to Mr. Miller who is completely unappropriate. The flour from his mill is only for very partisan consumption.
- He is the member of NDP. No matter that he was elected on non-party platform, he and his buddies J.Layton and O.Chow remain the remain the same lef-wing loons.
- He is heavily biased in favor of Toronto Downtown. Wasting $ 35 millions to break the Island Airport bridge and his crusade against an Island Airport to please few residents while ignoring much heavier air traffic over north-west of Toronto shows his true colors. Also his opposition to the PowerPlant construction again show that he cares only about Downtown. Reduction of the garbage collection hurts mainly to the suburban areas. The suburban raccoons (who are much smarter than most of the downtown residents) open raccoon proof green bins introduced by Miller just fo a sport. I bet, neither Mr. Miller nor his buddies are able to open these green bind :)
- His unhealthy passion to different mega-projects (Expo, Waterfront, Olympics etc) which would bring only big troubles and huge taxes to the majority of Toronto residents demonstrate his complete incompetence.
- After London’s terrorists attacks he send the official condolences letter to the mayor of London, notorious `Red Ken Livingstone’, while ignoring other similar attacks (Spain, Turkey, Israel etc), including those with the higher casualties. Is this because he is an Englishman? Or because Red Ken is his buddy?
According to the instructions, put in the green bin any garbage which stinks.
Posted by Victor at 04:17 AM
What is fair?
The Finance minister of Canada announced the plan to allow the tax-splitting for pensions which would be benefitial for families with one high income (pension) earner. Immediately this measure was condemned as not fair' because only pairs where one spouse has much higher pension than other would benefit from this and gives nothing tothe most vulnerable’. Among accusers is some Professor of
Economics, teaching tax law.
This is ridiculous!
1) These people do not distinguish between fairness' andcompassion’. Fairness means that for the same services everyone pays the same amount. And since all Canadians receive approximately the same services from the government, the fair tax would be even not flat rate' but justflat’. Surely, this is impossible. Tax is based mainly on the ability to pay. However this is not a fairness, this is a compassion. The system should strike a fine balance between the fairness and compassion.
2) If single-earners families were treated unfairly for many years it is not fair to continue this practice. Any step in the correct direction is fair.
At this moment income-splitting is announced only for pensions. This is not fair! It should cover all incomes of all the families. If there are no money in the budget, the fair share levy should be introduced.
Posted by Victor at 04:00 AM