Sorry but the ability of AT&T to keep you from attaching things to the telephones was ended in 1968 with the FCC "Carterphone" decision. AT&T wasn't broken up until 1984.
The original AT&T was not an illegal monopoly. They were granted an exception to monopoly laws by the government. However, when the Personal Computer Age began, AT&T saw the opportunity to make even greater profits by entering into many of the new business opportunities that were arising (among them becoming an ISP). The Federal Government told AT&T they could either keep their monopoly on telephone service or they could get into these new businesses. They chose to spin off their local telephone services (after losing several legal battles with the Justice Department over its interpretation of their status) and attempt to enter these new businesses.
Oh yes, the courts had ruled against AT&T on issues like fax machines and modems well before the breakup (although those rulings had something to do with why AT&T accepted the breakup rather than be locked out of other businesses).
Later in the article he says, "we don't see a significant difference between the return rate for Windows versus the rate for Linux. " Return rate has a very specific meaning in the retail industry, it means a percentage of units sold.
Microsoft's Turner said that Linux netbooks are being returned at a rate 4 to 5 times higher than Windows netbooks. Dell hasn't disputed this fact at all. Linux netbooks *are* being returned at a very high rate, and Dell's Finch says so right in the article:
Where consumers have returned machines, Finch said, it wasn't because of technical problems but because they'd bought a low-priced machine expecting Windows and opened it to find a different interface.
The difference is that people are returning the Windows netbooks because of technical reasons (broken hardware) and Linux netbooks because they don't want Linux.
That's a win for Microsoft, no matter how you spin it.
From TFA: "we don't see a significant difference between the return rate for Windows versus the rate for Linux." So, yes Dell has disputed Microsoft's assertion. A return rate 4 to 5 times higher would be a significant difference.
So, it is not a win for Microsoft, no matter how you spin it.
So, according to the contents of the article, the title of the article is wrong. If East Asians misread fear as surprise, it means that the expression of fear is universal, but East Asians (at least those in this study) don't read the signs that separate fear from surprise. This study fails to tell us anything we didn't know.
If the sample size had been larger, the conclusions of this study might have had some value. The only value this study might have is as a test of methodology(using eye movement trackers to record where the subject is looking). However, I believe there have been several studies recently using this type of methodology, so I don't see the real use even for that.
The title of the summary says that facial expressions are not global, but the summary says that the way people read facial expressions varies in different geographical areas. A more interesting test would be how accurate people from East Asia are at reading the facial expressions of Westerners and vice versa.
I didn't like BSG 2004 because it was a soap opera. The original series was campy (and most of the acting was bad), but it was an action show. The new BSG was a soap opera with some action scenes.
The big difference between Australia's responsiveness to the populace and the U.S.'s is population size. Australia has a population of about 22 million. The U.S. has a population of over 300 million. The smaller the population the more responsive a democratic government is to the will of the people. As the population gets larger the easier it is to play off people who care about one issue against people who care about other issues. Additionally, as the population gets larger the more people one needs to get riled up to change the outcome of an election.
So, you are saying that you have no choice but to give your money to a particular ISP, no matter how abhorrent you find their practices? But with the government you can decide to stop giving them money any time you don't like what they do?
Better yet, just start a rumor that Republicans are using Ham radio to organize opposition to nationalized health care and the Democrats will do everything they can to get rid of it. Of course, in that case they will claim that any debate is "un-American".
However, it does seem to me that many of them are misinformed. There are plenty of valid things to be concerned about with this health care reform, but death panels aren't really one of those things. No one is suggesting death panels. Being misinformed and refusing to listen to anyone who might inform you better can be problematic behavior.
You're right they aren't "death panels". They are panels that will decide whether you get treatment based on their assessment of whether your "quality of life" plus remaining years of life expectancy is high enough to justify the expense. If it isn't, they will give you counsel on pain amelioration and writing a living will.
In the U.S., very few textbooks have a price printed on the cover (as far as I know, no books that are published in the U.S. as textbooks come with a price printed on the cover). Most textbooks are sold by publishers at what is known as "net price". That means that the publisher lists a price that is what they charge the bookstore not what the end user pays. This often leads to problems when a professor selects a textbook because it is "cheaper" than the one he/she had been using. In most cases the professor bases the decision on comparing the price of the new text quoted by the publisher (the net price) to the price charged for the old text the previous semester by the bookstore. I had cases where a professor ordered a new text because it was "cheaper" where it ended up costing the students more than the old text book would have (and the bookstore was unable to buy the old books back for as much).
The text book industry is such a ridiculous racket it sickens me. Hopefully this becomes a standard thing across the world that colleges eventually adopt. Honestly, the only times I did open a textbook in high school and college was to do the problems out of the book. The Internet resources were more than enough to service my educational needs, in many cases it was actually far better than the crap in the textbooks.
The problem is that the education industry is a ridiculous racket. The textbook industry is merely a subset of the education industry. One mistake many people make is that since most schools are non-profit and/or government run, they think that they are not driven to make money. I used to work for two separate college bookstore companies (not at the same time). Everybody always thinks that the for profit companies charge more for textbooks than the college run bookstores. That is not true, most college run bookstores charge a higher markup than the contractual markup that the for profit companies have (the for profit companies have a contract with the college or university that--among other things--sets the amount of markup the bookstore charges for textbooks over the publisher's price).
What is recent about it is leaders of the House actually saying that Congressmen(and women) can't be expected to read the bills they are voting on(and if they did read them they couldn't understand them).
The problem is that in all probability the database of the criminals does not have their SSN. Therefore there is no way to know if the Rosa Martinez in Redwood, CA is the Rosa Martinez with an outstanding drug warrant from Miami, FL or not. Of course it would have been nice if someone had thought this through before they passed a law, but then as we have recently discovered it is just too much work for Congressman to actually read the laws before they pass them.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
is just window dressing and it doesn't really mean anything? Since I can't see how by your interpretation of
provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States
anything not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution is off limits to Congress.
That is the mistake that people make all the time. New York and New Jersey are states (read countries) that chose to form a federation with other states (countries). The U.S. does not correspond to Finland or Norway. The closest analogs to the U.S. in the world today are Canada and the E.U. (Canada is the same sort of thing as the U.S., but the population/area is different enough to generate its own problems). Comparing how things work in the U.S. to how they work in Finland is worse than comparing how things work in Nilsia, Finland to how they work in Paris, France. Things just don't scale up like that.
I was not suggesting that those people need to be paying more. My main point is that people who want to "soak the rich" with high income tax rates, aren't. Most people who fall for the idea of "soaking the rich" with high taxes are thinking of people like the Rockefellers, the Duponts, etc. People like the Rockefellers and the Duponts do not pay much in taxes. Most massively progressive income tax schemes are actually partially designed to keep people out of that class (thus keeping power concentrated in the hands of those who already have it).
I oppose progressive taxation. I believe that the tax rate should be the same for everyone. The furthest I am willing to go toward progessive taxation is some base deduction for every individual (say the poverty line). Everything above that should be taxed at a flat rate (assuming we have an income tax at all).
The only thing you said that I disagree with is that Bill Gates' charity effort does more good than the poor schlub working in a soup kitchen every weekend for fifty years. As a general rule, I believe that the person who is able to interact with the individuals that they help does far more good than the person who writes massive checks that "helps" the faceless masses. Nevertheless, it is Bill Gates' money to do with as he sees fit.
You explain where Federal incentive comes from (not that it needs any besides pure power grab), but where in the Constitution is the Federal government given authority over education or healthcare. If you meant that the interstate commerce clause gives the Federal Government the authority, then you don't believe there are any limits on the power of the Federal government. And I think it is quite clearly a different reading of the Interstate Commerce clause than the one understood by the people who actually wrote it.
That isn't income tax, that is capital gains tax, And Warren Buffet claims that he only pays 17% on his income without using a tax accountant or tax shelters. I am assuming he is counting his capital gains and other forms of revenue as income (either that or he is flat out lying). However, that still means he has money coming in that isn't covered under capital gains because both the income tax and the capital gains tax rate are higher than 17%.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but the ability of AT&T to keep you from attaching things to the telephones was ended in 1968 with the FCC "Carterphone" decision. AT&T wasn't broken up until 1984.
.... genetic mutation for less sheep. That could cause problems in alabama...
Nah, there aren't that many Scotsmen in Alabama. You do realize there is a reason that Dolly was cloned in Scotland, right?
The original AT&T was not an illegal monopoly. They were granted an exception to monopoly laws by the government. However, when the Personal Computer Age began, AT&T saw the opportunity to make even greater profits by entering into many of the new business opportunities that were arising (among them becoming an ISP). The Federal Government told AT&T they could either keep their monopoly on telephone service or they could get into these new businesses. They chose to spin off their local telephone services (after losing several legal battles with the Justice Department over its interpretation of their status) and attempt to enter these new businesses.
Oh yes, the courts had ruled against AT&T on issues like fax machines and modems well before the breakup (although those rulings had something to do with why AT&T accepted the breakup rather than be locked out of other businesses).
Later in the article he says, "we don't see a significant difference between the return rate for Windows versus the rate for Linux. " Return rate has a very specific meaning in the retail industry, it means a percentage of units sold.
Microsoft's Turner said that Linux netbooks are being returned at a rate 4 to 5 times higher than Windows netbooks. Dell hasn't disputed this fact at all. Linux netbooks *are* being returned at a very high rate, and Dell's Finch says so right in the article:
The difference is that people are returning the Windows netbooks because of technical reasons (broken hardware) and Linux netbooks because they don't want Linux.
That's a win for Microsoft, no matter how you spin it.
From TFA: "we don't see a significant difference between the return rate for Windows versus the rate for Linux." So, yes Dell has disputed Microsoft's assertion. A return rate 4 to 5 times higher would be a significant difference.
So, it is not a win for Microsoft, no matter how you spin it.
So, according to the contents of the article, the title of the article is wrong. If East Asians misread fear as surprise, it means that the expression of fear is universal, but East Asians (at least those in this study) don't read the signs that separate fear from surprise. This study fails to tell us anything we didn't know.
If the sample size had been larger, the conclusions of this study might have had some value. The only value this study might have is as a test of methodology(using eye movement trackers to record where the subject is looking). However, I believe there have been several studies recently using this type of methodology, so I don't see the real use even for that.
The title of the summary says that facial expressions are not global, but the summary says that the way people read facial expressions varies in different geographical areas. A more interesting test would be how accurate people from East Asia are at reading the facial expressions of Westerners and vice versa.
I didn't like BSG 2004 because it was a soap opera. The original series was campy (and most of the acting was bad), but it was an action show. The new BSG was a soap opera with some action scenes.
The big difference between Australia's responsiveness to the populace and the U.S.'s is population size. Australia has a population of about 22 million. The U.S. has a population of over 300 million. The smaller the population the more responsive a democratic government is to the will of the people. As the population gets larger the easier it is to play off people who care about one issue against people who care about other issues. Additionally, as the population gets larger the more people one needs to get riled up to change the outcome of an election.
So, you are saying that you have no choice but to give your money to a particular ISP, no matter how abhorrent you find their practices? But with the government you can decide to stop giving them money any time you don't like what they do?
Better yet, just start a rumor that Republicans are using Ham radio to organize opposition to nationalized health care and the Democrats will do everything they can to get rid of it. Of course, in that case they will claim that any debate is "un-American".
Really bad joke. Acknowledging a persons skin color is not the same as racism.
You are absolutely correct. What is racist is opposing the political goals of the Democratic Party (whatever they happen to be at the moment).
However, it does seem to me that many of them are misinformed. There are plenty of valid things to be concerned about with this health care reform, but death panels aren't really one of those things. No one is suggesting death panels. Being misinformed and refusing to listen to anyone who might inform you better can be problematic behavior.
You're right they aren't "death panels". They are panels that will decide whether you get treatment based on their assessment of whether your "quality of life" plus remaining years of life expectancy is high enough to justify the expense. If it isn't, they will give you counsel on pain amelioration and writing a living will.
In the U.S., very few textbooks have a price printed on the cover (as far as I know, no books that are published in the U.S. as textbooks come with a price printed on the cover). Most textbooks are sold by publishers at what is known as "net price". That means that the publisher lists a price that is what they charge the bookstore not what the end user pays. This often leads to problems when a professor selects a textbook because it is "cheaper" than the one he/she had been using. In most cases the professor bases the decision on comparing the price of the new text quoted by the publisher (the net price) to the price charged for the old text the previous semester by the bookstore. I had cases where a professor ordered a new text because it was "cheaper" where it ended up costing the students more than the old text book would have (and the bookstore was unable to buy the old books back for as much).
The text book industry is such a ridiculous racket it sickens me. Hopefully this becomes a standard thing across the world that colleges eventually adopt. Honestly, the only times I did open a textbook in high school and college was to do the problems out of the book. The Internet resources were more than enough to service my educational needs, in many cases it was actually far better than the crap in the textbooks.
The problem is that the education industry is a ridiculous racket. The textbook industry is merely a subset of the education industry. One mistake many people make is that since most schools are non-profit and/or government run, they think that they are not driven to make money. I used to work for two separate college bookstore companies (not at the same time). Everybody always thinks that the for profit companies charge more for textbooks than the college run bookstores. That is not true, most college run bookstores charge a higher markup than the contractual markup that the for profit companies have (the for profit companies have a contract with the college or university that--among other things--sets the amount of markup the bookstore charges for textbooks over the publisher's price).
What is recent about it is leaders of the House actually saying that Congressmen(and women) can't be expected to read the bills they are voting on(and if they did read them they couldn't understand them).
Yes, but when a 1500 page bill lands on a congresscritter's desk 2-3 days before the vote, what do you expect?
As someone else replied, I expect them to vote against that 1500 (or 500, or 100 or 2) page bill that they haven't had time to read.
The problem is that in all probability the database of the criminals does not have their SSN. Therefore there is no way to know if the Rosa Martinez in Redwood, CA is the Rosa Martinez with an outstanding drug warrant from Miami, FL or not. Of course it would have been nice if someone had thought this through before they passed a law, but then as we have recently discovered it is just too much work for Congressman to actually read the laws before they pass them.
So, you think that ruling was correct?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
is just window dressing and it doesn't really mean anything? Since I can't see how by your interpretation of
provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States
anything not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution is off limits to Congress.
That is the mistake that people make all the time. New York and New Jersey are states (read countries) that chose to form a federation with other states (countries). The U.S. does not correspond to Finland or Norway. The closest analogs to the U.S. in the world today are Canada and the E.U. (Canada is the same sort of thing as the U.S., but the population/area is different enough to generate its own problems).
Comparing how things work in the U.S. to how they work in Finland is worse than comparing how things work in Nilsia, Finland to how they work in Paris, France. Things just don't scale up like that.
I was not suggesting that those people need to be paying more. My main point is that people who want to "soak the rich" with high income tax rates, aren't. Most people who fall for the idea of "soaking the rich" with high taxes are thinking of people like the Rockefellers, the Duponts, etc. People like the Rockefellers and the Duponts do not pay much in taxes. Most massively progressive income tax schemes are actually partially designed to keep people out of that class (thus keeping power concentrated in the hands of those who already have it).
I oppose progressive taxation. I believe that the tax rate should be the same for everyone. The furthest I am willing to go toward progessive taxation is some base deduction for every individual (say the poverty line). Everything above that should be taxed at a flat rate (assuming we have an income tax at all).
The only thing you said that I disagree with is that Bill Gates' charity effort does more good than the poor schlub working in a soup kitchen every weekend for fifty years. As a general rule, I believe that the person who is able to interact with the individuals that they help does far more good than the person who writes massive checks that "helps" the faceless masses. Nevertheless, it is Bill Gates' money to do with as he sees fit.
You explain where Federal incentive comes from (not that it needs any besides pure power grab), but where in the Constitution is the Federal government given authority over education or healthcare. If you meant that the interstate commerce clause gives the Federal Government the authority, then you don't believe there are any limits on the power of the Federal government. And I think it is quite clearly a different reading of the Interstate Commerce clause than the one understood by the people who actually wrote it.
That isn't income tax, that is capital gains tax, And Warren Buffet claims that he only pays 17% on his income without using a tax accountant or tax shelters. I am assuming he is counting his capital gains and other forms of revenue as income (either that or he is flat out lying). However, that still means he has money coming in that isn't covered under capital gains because both the income tax and the capital gains tax rate are higher than 17%.
As stated in the summary, that's the EPA's rating, not GM's rating. ...
So because the majority stockholder says it, it must be true?