300,000 miles? Not impressed. Let me know when that reaches millions of miles then there is reason to celebrate. That's the standard that the transportation industry uses. Hell, even 1 million safe miles for a single person isn't a big deal anymore.
"Last year, a federal program paid out $1.6 billion to cover free cell phones and the monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts. The program, overseen by the FCC and intended to help low-income Americans, is popular for obvious reasons, with participation rising steeply since 2008, when the government paid $772 million for phones and monthly bills.
This is bullshit. We should not be paying for phones, TV, Internet access, etc. All we do is add more and more people to government programs. When was the last time that the US government had a successful program to get people off of government assistance?
We cannot continue down this path. It is not sustainable.
BES express is free. And I'm pretty sure that your $50,000 scenario is only valid for large BB customers with over 1,000 handsets. Which, in that scenario makes $50,000 rather cheap.
Probably because not enough people paid attention to the fact that Chick-Fil-A was donating to anti-gay groups until their COO publicly talked about their stance on marriage.
Look at how that worked (I'm being sarcastic here) in California with Enron and a pile of other places that followed that lead. Everything goes into decline apart from bills to consumers. Your other example is telecommunication? Are you joking or just haven't seen what happens when you privatise telecommunication?
Surely you can recognize the difference between power generation and transport being done by private industry while still being tightly regulated by the government.
To my knowledge, California's problems came after their market was deregulated. Their power had always been generated and transported by private companies.
I think his point, however poorly made, was that if they did switch to micro-USB, there would have to be more ports to supplement the additional capabilities the dock connector is used for (line-level analog audio, analog and HDMI video, additional power options, etc).
At the very minimum, there would have to be a second minijack connector to provide line-level audio, in a standardized location across all their devices so that it could still be placed in a dock, along with a separate stabilizing mechanism since otherwise you would have to rely on the minijack connector and micro-USB connector holding the device in place. This sounds like a less elegant solution by far. And is likely the reason that no other manufacturer has a docking standard that works across all of their devices.
Why not provide three ports at the bottom of the device: 1/8" headphone jack, micro USB and micro HDMI? Use those as the docking ports. Viola! No proprietary connectors needed. You can use each of the three ports independently when not docked. The dock would then consist of one, two or all three connectors depending on the functionality of the dock.
The playbook should have been a blackberry in a tablet form. Instead you needed a BB and as PB to get function. = Fail. Do not now how that ever, ever, ever passed QA and system testing.
When the BB Playbook was first released I agreed 100% with this statement. However, now that the Playbook can be managed via their new Mobile Fusion Server its not that big of a deal.
I wish I had points to mod you up. The writing is most definitely NOT on the wall. They have a chance to redeem themselves with their new line of phones based on QNX and their new mobile management server software appears to be very promising. We'll know by next summer.
Cloud computing brings availability to the "small guys". It also allows for quick scalability. You can't really accomplish similar things in-house unless you use 100s of servers, but then you have logistical issues as you have to ship these servers all over the place. If you just have one data drop to your 100 servers at one location, guess what? Your infrastructure is no better than hosting everything with a 3rd party in one data center.
Ever heard of server virtualization? It makes availability and scalability ridiculously cheap and easy.
Surely you recognize the difference between being taxed for being a live and being taxed because you bought something or are employed.
The 16th amendment does not amend the 1st amendment. It amends the Constitution.
If the Amendments weren't part of the Constitution laws violating freedom of religion would be Antiamendmental, not Unconstitutional. Moreover parts of the 12th Amendment which set the Presidential Inauguration to March, are superseded by the 20th Amendment which sets a January inauguration date; despite the fact the 20th does not include the words "12th Amendment." It just says Inauguration day is in January, and *poof* all previous disagreeing Amendments don't count.
Which means the later Amendments Amend earlier Amendments, and the 16th must Amend the first. In other words Congress can't ban the Jewish religion, but it's power to set income taxes "from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration" can tax the Jewish religion into nonexistence.
I'm not saying I support this, or that if Congress tried this BS I wouldn't be right out there protesting it. Hell, if you could find a rationalization I'd sleep a lot better. But the simple fact is that Congress has this power.
This is what happens when you read the Constitution literally. To get around your literalism and run the damn country they have to Amend it, and since the Amendments amend the Bill of Rights as well as the enumerated powers you end up giving Congress powers willy-nilly.
What the fuck are you talking about? We're not talking about the 12th and 20th amendments. And no, the 16th amendment has absolutely no effect on the 1st amendment. The 16th amendment could have amended the 1st, but it didn't.
You have completely deflected from the point of the discussion.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
The tax is to help pay for the current freeloaders and to help bring costs down overall (larger risk pool). And I don't need to show you where in the constitution that is allowed. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just did it for me.
In other words, they just legislated from the bench. The fact is that this is/was *not* allowed per the Constitution. The federal government does not have the ability to do what it pleases. It's powers are enumerated from the Constitution and anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is granted to the states per the 10th Amendment. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. There is nothing from stopping the government forcing you to purchase any product and/or service that they desire.
No, they did not "legislate from the bench." They UPHELD a law that was passed by the legislature. "Legislating from the bench" is a phrase used solely by poor losers.
Then kindly show me where the Constitution allows this or show me a precedent where it has been allowed.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
The tax is to help pay for the current freeloaders and to help bring costs down overall (larger risk pool). And I don't need to show you where in the constitution that is allowed. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just did it for me.
In other words, they just legislated from the bench. The fact is that this is/was *not* allowed per the Constitution. The federal government does not have the ability to do what it pleases. It's powers are enumerated from the Constitution and anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is granted to the states per the 10th Amendment. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. There is nothing from stopping the government forcing you to purchase any product and/or service that they desire.
the government already gives favorable tax treatment for homeowners and college grads.
Hell the 16th Amendment which allows the income tax is broadly written, and it's 16th so it amends the First Amendment, which means that a 110% income tax on Jews is almost certainly Constitutional.
Surely you recognize the difference between being taxed for being a live and being taxed because you bought something or are employed.
The 16th amendment does not amend the 1st amendment. It amends the Constitution.
Say your mortgage payment is the same as your rent payment. One group is getting preferential tax treatment. We need to kill off all the social engineers.
Nope. Not the same. The government is trying to encourage people to invest in homes and properties.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
No Obama's lawyers TOLD the Supreme Court it's just a tax, and therefore should be legal. Go review their arguments. The grandparent poster was correct: Obama and his lawyers lied and said "it's not a tax" back in 2009/10, but in 2012 his lawyers argued it was in order to make it pass the court.
Even though the word "tax" doesn't appear in the 2,200 pages of the law.
I don't see why people that get government approved insurance don't pay it. If it's a tax and not a shitty way to coerce people into the program then it should apply to everyone.
To only apply it to people that don't get the policies is a bill of attainder.
You are nuts. There are GOBS of taxes that not everyone pays. Do you pay Alternative Minimum Tax? How about the Luxury Tax? Estate tax? etc., etc., etc.,.
Get a clue.
Ah, but the taxes you cited are because of economic activity by the individual. The ACA is taxing people for INACTIVITY. In other words, people are being fined (which Justice Roberts equates to a tax even though the word "tax" does not appear in the 2,200 page law) just for living. Something that was previously not allowed by the Constitution.
Are you retarded? You are not taxed for not having a mortgage. If you have a mortgage you can use it to pay less in taxes, but you still pay more money out of your pocket with the mortgage. If you do not have a mortgage then you are actually keeping more of your money.
For all of its flaws (and there are many), the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction.
It is most definitely not a step in the right direction. With this ruling the US federal government now has the power to force everyone to purchase a product. This power was previously not granted in the Constitution or its amendments. With rulings like this there is virtually no end to the power of the federal government.
Slashdot Mirror
Why have would-be terrorists resorted to increasingly bizarre and ineffective weapons - the shoe bomb, underwear bomb, and chemical cocktail?>
And none of those were caught by the TSA. They were caught by civilians.
300,000 miles? Not impressed. Let me know when that reaches millions of miles then there is reason to celebrate. That's the standard that the transportation industry uses. Hell, even 1 million safe miles for a single person isn't a big deal anymore.
"Last year, a federal program paid out $1.6 billion to cover free cell phones and the monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts. The program, overseen by the FCC and intended to help low-income Americans, is popular for obvious reasons, with participation rising steeply since 2008, when the government paid $772 million for phones and monthly bills.
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/08/how-to-get-the-government-to-cover-your-cell-phone-bills/
This is bullshit. We should not be paying for phones, TV, Internet access, etc. All we do is add more and more people to government programs. When was the last time that the US government had a successful program to get people off of government assistance?
We cannot continue down this path. It is not sustainable.
BES express is free. And I'm pretty sure that your $50,000 scenario is only valid for large BB customers with over 1,000 handsets. Which, in that scenario makes $50,000 rather cheap.
Probably because not enough people paid attention to the fact that Chick-Fil-A was donating to anti-gay groups until their COO publicly talked about their stance on marriage.
Citation needed.
Look at how that worked (I'm being sarcastic here) in California with Enron and a pile of other places that followed that lead. Everything goes into decline apart from bills to consumers. Your other example is telecommunication? Are you joking or just haven't seen what happens when you privatise telecommunication?
Surely you can recognize the difference between power generation and transport being done by private industry while still being tightly regulated by the government.
To my knowledge, California's problems came after their market was deregulated. Their power had always been generated and transported by private companies.
Is this anything like Gatekeeper from The Net?
If so, stay away! ;)
I think his point, however poorly made, was that if they did switch to micro-USB, there would have to be more ports to supplement the additional capabilities the dock connector is used for (line-level analog audio, analog and HDMI video, additional power options, etc).
At the very minimum, there would have to be a second minijack connector to provide line-level audio, in a standardized location across all their devices so that it could still be placed in a dock, along with a separate stabilizing mechanism since otherwise you would have to rely on the minijack connector and micro-USB connector holding the device in place. This sounds like a less elegant solution by far. And is likely the reason that no other manufacturer has a docking standard that works across all of their devices.
Why not provide three ports at the bottom of the device: 1/8" headphone jack, micro USB and micro HDMI? Use those as the docking ports. Viola! No proprietary connectors needed. You can use each of the three ports independently when not docked. The dock would then consist of one, two or all three connectors depending on the functionality of the dock.
Problem solved.
The playbook should have been a blackberry in a tablet form. Instead you needed a BB and as PB to get function. = Fail. Do not now how that ever, ever, ever passed QA and system testing.
When the BB Playbook was first released I agreed 100% with this statement. However, now that the Playbook can be managed via their new Mobile Fusion Server its not that big of a deal.
But since it was beta, you shouldn't rely on it since it can be shut down, metamorphosed or change.
Are you implying that nonbeta cloud services will not shut down or change? That seems like a stretch.
I wish I had points to mod you up. The writing is most definitely NOT on the wall. They have a chance to redeem themselves with their new line of phones based on QNX and their new mobile management server software appears to be very promising. We'll know by next summer.
Not dense population-wise......
Well done.
Cloud computing brings availability to the "small guys". It also allows for quick scalability. You can't really accomplish similar things in-house unless you use 100s of servers, but then you have logistical issues as you have to ship these servers all over the place. If you just have one data drop to your 100 servers at one location, guess what? Your infrastructure is no better than hosting everything with a 3rd party in one data center.
Ever heard of server virtualization? It makes availability and scalability ridiculously cheap and easy.
Surely you recognize the difference between being taxed for being a live and being taxed because you bought something or are employed.
The 16th amendment does not amend the 1st amendment. It amends the Constitution.
If the Amendments weren't part of the Constitution laws violating freedom of religion would be Antiamendmental, not Unconstitutional. Moreover parts of the 12th Amendment which set the Presidential Inauguration to March, are superseded by the 20th Amendment which sets a January inauguration date; despite the fact the 20th does not include the words "12th Amendment." It just says Inauguration day is in January, and *poof* all previous disagreeing Amendments don't count.
Which means the later Amendments Amend earlier Amendments, and the 16th must Amend the first. In other words Congress can't ban the Jewish religion, but it's power to set income taxes "from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration" can tax the Jewish religion into nonexistence.
I'm not saying I support this, or that if Congress tried this BS I wouldn't be right out there protesting it. Hell, if you could find a rationalization I'd sleep a lot better. But the simple fact is that Congress has this power.
This is what happens when you read the Constitution literally. To get around your literalism and run the damn country they have to Amend it, and since the Amendments amend the Bill of Rights as well as the enumerated powers you end up giving Congress powers willy-nilly.
What the fuck are you talking about? We're not talking about the 12th and 20th amendments. And no, the 16th amendment has absolutely no effect on the 1st amendment. The 16th amendment could have amended the 1st, but it didn't.
You have completely deflected from the point of the discussion.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
The tax is to help pay for the current freeloaders and to help bring costs down overall (larger risk pool). And I don't need to show you where in the constitution that is allowed. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just did it for me.
In other words, they just legislated from the bench. The fact is that this is/was *not* allowed per the Constitution. The federal government does not have the ability to do what it pleases. It's powers are enumerated from the Constitution and anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is granted to the states per the 10th Amendment. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. There is nothing from stopping the government forcing you to purchase any product and/or service that they desire.
No, they did not "legislate from the bench." They UPHELD a law that was passed by the legislature. "Legislating from the bench" is a phrase used solely by poor losers.
Then kindly show me where the Constitution allows this or show me a precedent where it has been allowed.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
The tax is to help pay for the current freeloaders and to help bring costs down overall (larger risk pool). And I don't need to show you where in the constitution that is allowed. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just did it for me.
In other words, they just legislated from the bench. The fact is that this is/was *not* allowed per the Constitution. The federal government does not have the ability to do what it pleases. It's powers are enumerated from the Constitution and anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is granted to the states per the 10th Amendment. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. There is nothing from stopping the government forcing you to purchase any product and/or service that they desire.
Dude,
Why are you surprised?
the government already gives favorable tax treatment for homeowners and college grads.
Hell the 16th Amendment which allows the income tax is broadly written, and it's 16th so it amends the First Amendment, which means that a 110% income tax on Jews is almost certainly Constitutional.
Surely you recognize the difference between being taxed for being a live and being taxed because you bought something or are employed.
The 16th amendment does not amend the 1st amendment. It amends the Constitution.
Nobody's forcing you to buy insurance. You just don't get the tax rebate if you don't.
That's not how it works. And people with a brain don't get tax rebates - they pay in.
If you don't buy insurance the government is fining (taxing) you. You are being taxed for being alive.
You do realize that in order to drive on public roads, you are required by law to buy into private auto insurance? This isn't a new phenomenon.
But I'm not required to purchase a car and drive. I'm only taxed for public roads AFTER I make my own decision to purchase a car.
Say your mortgage payment is the same as your rent payment. One group is getting preferential tax treatment. We need to kill off all the social engineers.
Nope. Not the same. The government is trying to encourage people to invest in homes and properties.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
No Obama's lawyers TOLD the Supreme Court it's just a tax, and therefore should be legal. Go review their arguments. The grandparent poster was correct: Obama and his lawyers lied and said "it's not a tax" back in 2009/10, but in 2012 his lawyers argued it was in order to make it pass the court.
Even though the word "tax" doesn't appear in the 2,200 pages of the law.
I don't see why people that get government approved insurance don't pay it. If it's a tax and not a shitty way to coerce people into the program then it should apply to everyone.
To only apply it to people that don't get the policies is a bill of attainder.
You are nuts. There are GOBS of taxes that not everyone pays. Do you pay Alternative Minimum Tax? How about the Luxury Tax? Estate tax? etc., etc., etc.,.
Get a clue.
Ah, but the taxes you cited are because of economic activity by the individual. The ACA is taxing people for INACTIVITY. In other words, people are being fined (which Justice Roberts equates to a tax even though the word "tax" does not appear in the 2,200 page law) just for living. Something that was previously not allowed by the Constitution.
I'm already taxed for not having a mortgage
Are you retarded? You are not taxed for not having a mortgage. If you have a mortgage you can use it to pay less in taxes, but you still pay more money out of your pocket with the mortgage. If you do not have a mortgage then you are actually keeping more of your money.
For all of its flaws (and there are many), the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction.
It is most definitely not a step in the right direction. With this ruling the US federal government now has the power to force everyone to purchase a product. This power was previously not granted in the Constitution or its amendments. With rulings like this there is virtually no end to the power of the federal government.