Presumably true, but what if they swallowed the tax burden? Could they recoup enough $$ from local shipping operations and same-day upgrades to cover it?
Amazon can not swallow the tax burden. The burden falls on the customer, whether they pay via a seller or pay it directly to the state. Amazon can only continue to make it easy for the self-deluded to cheat on their own tax returns by failing to observe the tax laws.
Workers walk out of one failing business model which requires customers to come to them. ..
Is the brick-and-motar model failing? Or is it being nickle-and-dimed to death? I guess if "unable to meet the unreasonable, short-sighted demands of customers who are easily wooed by cheap prices and gratuitous convenience and lack the prescience to perceive the end-game of a completely homogenized and automated marketplace" is a failure on the part of the business, then they are failing.
On the other hand, the "better" business model represents a race to the bottom that the customers will surely win, but with the businesses a close second.
How many people shop at Amazon BECAUSE there is no tax?
I can tell you that I have shopped there for years because they have a good selection, good enough prices, fast shipping and good customer service. I do almost all of my online shopping with Amazon, which makes it easy to calculate the use tax I've been tacking on to my state filings since the late 90s, since that has always been a legal requirement in the states that I have lived in.
I think Amazon is alright some times but they're not perfect. Just recently I ordered some car parts and the parts they sent were some off-brand made in China crap instead of the name brand high quality parts that I paid for.
My one beef with Amazon is that you have to be careful about who is actually selling and fulfilling the orders. If it isn't Amazon itself, I usually steer clear.
. ..the fact remains that the US is significantly behind where it should be in terms of infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc. given its wealth and natural resources.
Which, frankly, is worse than being an actual Third World country. We are underperforming despite a total lack of excuses for doing so, exhibiting the lack of initiative that Americans love to blame for the problems of the genuniely poor.
No, you can't. Not when it is 100F and 100% humidity. People could survive back then, SORT OF. Did you forget about what the life expectancy was back then versus today? We aren't talking about whether or not a 25 year old can survive, we are talking about 80 year olds.
Life expectancy was lower, but it wasn't anything close to 25 before AC was invented. Can you cite any evidence of a significant increase in life expectancy that coincided with the introduction of AC?
There are relatively few 80 year olds -- accommodations can be made for the particularly vulnerable. Everyone else can figure out how to survive -- just like all the poor people who don't have AC at home, people who work out doors in the summer, etc.
When you've got temperatures around 100F and humidity over 90%, you become very keen on air conditioning.
Under those conditions, air conditioning provides a significant increase in comfort, but it is not essential for anyone who is not in an especially vulnerable physical state (elderly, infirm etc.)
Americans are obsessed with air conditioning because they are conditioned to believe that a neutral physical environment is the only acceptable state. Any concession to physical realities beyond their control is an affront to their God-given dominion over nature.
In the hottest places in the world people have learned to live without technological crutches, but Americans can't hack a few sweaty days without AC (again, not counting the infirm for whom special considerations are reasonable). American dwellings are built as though technology can provide complete impunity over climate, and thus they lack all the features that thousands of years of human ingenuity have developed to manage hot climates (shade, air flow, etc.).
Of course, it is also much cheaper to clear cut land and build cookie-cutter suburban tracts, rather than work around trees and other natural features that might provide a more inherently livable environment. Screw it, we're always going to have more power and we will always get paid more every year to buy it!
I don't have one, so I really don't know. But aren't they five versions of the same model?
In a significant way, yes. It is almost overstating it, to Apple's detriment, to say there is more than one model. This is what Apple does the most right. No confusion, no BS "feature" versions. You can get the latest, which has everything that Apple has to offer. Or you can save money and get a previous version.
I don't have an iPhone. It is more than I need or want in a phone. However, navigating the market for basic dumb phones is a disaster. A zillion options that all suck in their own way trying to do more than is required.
The people with this attitude are often those who know nothing about tech and dont care to learn.
Disagree somewhat. I know plenty about technology and because of that I don't care to spend my money on tech gadgets. Nonetheless, overall, most of the "made in America" enthusiast I know are more into spending money on food, booze, clothing and housewares. They buy tech, but usually less often (and, FWIW, almost always from Apple).
He went on to speak about the design of the glasses. There were two paths they had to choose from. Their initial instinct was to make these as much like glasses as possible; essentially a device disguised as glasses. Sergey said, "When we went through design options, decided, lets be bold.. a lot of people go through a fair amount of effort not to wear glasses; they wear contacts and things like that." So, they discarded glasses and made it an asymmetrical thing, very non-glasses like.
Yet, many trendy people willing to spend $$$-$$$$ on functionally useless accessories wear frames with non-prescription clear lenses. But I guess such a person is probably not the target market for a pricey, vanity-centric device like Google Glass. . .
Then there is the fact that eyeglasses are the culmination of generations of research on how to mount something over the human eye in a way that is comfortable during everyday activity. But hey, why not reinvent that wheel?
I just have to ask, is it really reasonable to assume that everyone should have great analytical skills? The study says that about one third of the students had the necessary reasoning skills. This sounds about right to me. Most people are not very analytical. This is why professions that require good analytical skills (medicine, engineering, law, etc.) tend to pay good wages.
It is ironic that current popular "wisdom" has concluded that everyone must have these skills in order for our society to succeed. Reasoning skills indeed.
YouTube is not trustworthy forum, regardless of how many sides of the story it hosts. Moreover, the police are not subject to any sanction that would be enforced solely based on the one-sidedness of YouTube videos. They can not be "proven guilty" in any meaningful sense by losing a YouTube propaganda pissing match. At worst, they could be subject to scrutiny by a real authority, which will give them ample opportunity to defend themselves.
The solution is for police to focus on enforcing the law (inc. WRT their own conduct), and for guilt or innocence to be determined in the courts.
From just his comment it sounds like they were sitting in the middle of a street blocking the crosswalk, which is not only illegal it's also dangerous. ..
They were sitting across a paved foot path that crossed a larger grassy area on a college campus. Just see for yourself how scary and threatening these protesters were: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably true, but what if they swallowed the tax burden? Could they recoup enough $$ from local shipping operations and same-day upgrades to cover it?
Amazon can not swallow the tax burden. The burden falls on the customer, whether they pay via a seller or pay it directly to the state. Amazon can only continue to make it easy for the self-deluded to cheat on their own tax returns by failing to observe the tax laws.
Workers walk out of one failing business model which requires customers to come to them. . .
Is the brick-and-motar model failing? Or is it being nickle-and-dimed to death? I guess if "unable to meet the unreasonable, short-sighted demands of customers who are easily wooed by cheap prices and gratuitous convenience and lack the prescience to perceive the end-game of a completely homogenized and automated marketplace" is a failure on the part of the business, then they are failing.
On the other hand, the "better" business model represents a race to the bottom that the customers will surely win, but with the businesses a close second.
Perhaps what we need is for people to get back in the business of producing.
Agree.
Unlike many businesses, our family actually does the work. We farm. We turn sunlight into food.
Most businesses just take the sunlight itself and blow it you-know-where.
How many people shop at Amazon BECAUSE there is no tax?
I can tell you that I have shopped there for years because they have a good selection, good enough prices, fast shipping and good customer service. I do almost all of my online shopping with Amazon, which makes it easy to calculate the use tax I've been tacking on to my state filings since the late 90s, since that has always been a legal requirement in the states that I have lived in.
I think Amazon is alright some times but they're not perfect. Just recently I ordered some car parts and the parts they sent were some off-brand made in China crap instead of the name brand high quality parts that I paid for.
My one beef with Amazon is that you have to be careful about who is actually selling and fulfilling the orders. If it isn't Amazon itself, I usually steer clear.
. . .the fact remains that the US is significantly behind where it should be in terms of infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc. given its wealth and natural resources.
Which, frankly, is worse than being an actual Third World country. We are underperforming despite a total lack of excuses for doing so, exhibiting the lack of initiative that Americans love to blame for the problems of the genuniely poor.
No, you can't. Not when it is 100F and 100% humidity. People could survive back then, SORT OF. Did you forget about what the life expectancy was back then versus today? We aren't talking about whether or not a 25 year old can survive, we are talking about 80 year olds.
Life expectancy was lower, but it wasn't anything close to 25 before AC was invented. Can you cite any evidence of a significant increase in life expectancy that coincided with the introduction of AC?
There are relatively few 80 year olds -- accommodations can be made for the particularly vulnerable. Everyone else can figure out how to survive -- just like all the poor people who don't have AC at home, people who work out doors in the summer, etc.
When you've got temperatures around 100F and humidity over 90%, you become very keen on air conditioning.
Under those conditions, air conditioning provides a significant increase in comfort, but it is not essential for anyone who is not in an especially vulnerable physical state (elderly, infirm etc.)
Americans are obsessed with air conditioning because they are conditioned to believe that a neutral physical environment is the only acceptable state. Any concession to physical realities beyond their control is an affront to their God-given dominion over nature.
In the hottest places in the world people have learned to live without technological crutches, but Americans can't hack a few sweaty days without AC (again, not counting the infirm for whom special considerations are reasonable). American dwellings are built as though technology can provide complete impunity over climate, and thus they lack all the features that thousands of years of human ingenuity have developed to manage hot climates (shade, air flow, etc.).
Of course, it is also much cheaper to clear cut land and build cookie-cutter suburban tracts, rather than work around trees and other natural features that might provide a more inherently livable environment. Screw it, we're always going to have more power and we will always get paid more every year to buy it!
If are going to have "What do you want?", you also need "Who are you", and "Why are you here?"
To the extend that Facebook cares, the latter two can be deduced from the former.
Why didn't the headline just say that then?
It was subtracting by subtracting.
"Log Out"
I'm sure they are looking in to ways to phase it out.
I don't have one, so I really don't know. But aren't they five versions of the same model?
In a significant way, yes. It is almost overstating it, to Apple's detriment, to say there is more than one model. This is what Apple does the most right. No confusion, no BS "feature" versions. You can get the latest, which has everything that Apple has to offer. Or you can save money and get a previous version.
I don't have an iPhone. It is more than I need or want in a phone. However, navigating the market for basic dumb phones is a disaster. A zillion options that all suck in their own way trying to do more than is required.
The people with this attitude are often those who know nothing about tech and dont care to learn.
Disagree somewhat. I know plenty about technology and because of that I don't care to spend my money on tech gadgets. Nonetheless, overall, most of the "made in America" enthusiast I know are more into spending money on food, booze, clothing and housewares. They buy tech, but usually less often (and, FWIW, almost always from Apple).
Sure, many find it useful anyway, but theirs is not a technological problem.
The fact many of you don't already know this is quite frankly, scary as hell!
People know this. They just don't have a problem with it.
He went on to speak about the design of the glasses. There were two paths they had to choose from. Their initial instinct was to make these as much like glasses as possible; essentially a device disguised as glasses. Sergey said, "When we went through design options, decided, lets be bold .. a lot of people go through a fair amount of effort not to wear glasses; they wear contacts and things like that." So, they discarded glasses and made it an asymmetrical thing, very non-glasses like.
Yet, many trendy people willing to spend $$$-$$$$ on functionally useless accessories wear frames with non-prescription clear lenses. But I guess such a person is probably not the target market for a pricey, vanity-centric device like Google Glass. . .
Then there is the fact that eyeglasses are the culmination of generations of research on how to mount something over the human eye in a way that is comfortable during everyday activity. But hey, why not reinvent that wheel?
With South Park it's obvious that people put some thought into the satire and try to convey a "moral lesson learned".
Too obvious, IMO.
It insists on itself.
"...a move that Facebook claims was 'to protect users' and to create 'consistency,' ... Yeah, right. Same shit, different day.
Consistency created!
I frankly do not care about being left out by people who forget about me just because I am not on Facebook. With "friends" like those. . .
Obviously, opportunity must be a problem!
I just have to ask, is it really reasonable to assume that everyone should have great analytical skills? The study says that about one third of the students had the necessary reasoning skills. This sounds about right to me. Most people are not very analytical. This is why professions that require good analytical skills (medicine, engineering, law, etc.) tend to pay good wages.
It is ironic that current popular "wisdom" has concluded that everyone must have these skills in order for our society to succeed. Reasoning skills indeed.
Another name for this is "job security".
Unless the value of your job to others requires that they have reasoning skills.
Granted, those types of jobs have been losing propositions for a while now. Jobs like "educator", for example.
- What? What ad are you seeing?
- Its some damned ad for. . . [cash register sound effect]
YouTube is not trustworthy forum, regardless of how many sides of the story it hosts. Moreover, the police are not subject to any sanction that would be enforced solely based on the one-sidedness of YouTube videos. They can not be "proven guilty" in any meaningful sense by losing a YouTube propaganda pissing match. At worst, they could be subject to scrutiny by a real authority, which will give them ample opportunity to defend themselves.
The solution is for police to focus on enforcing the law (inc. WRT their own conduct), and for guilt or innocence to be determined in the courts.
From just his comment it sounds like they were sitting in the middle of a street blocking the crosswalk, which is not only illegal it's also dangerous. . .
They were sitting across a paved foot path that crossed a larger grassy area on a college campus. Just see for yourself how scary and threatening these protesters were: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4