For the love of Pete. Has this American sickness infected everyone?
This one is more like a Danish sickness festering. The sad reality is that Denmark has been a habitual user solitary confinement of suspects for a long time. A long time both in terms of how long it has been used (the first explicit rules on its use came in 1978) as well as the duration of solitary confinement: Often it will last until the trial is over, a long time after the actual investigation has ended. Sometimes suspects are confined in solitary for more than a year. Fortunately, it seems that the solitary confinement is over for Gottfrid.
I used to use their "classic" (old-fashioned) mail but they forced me and everyone else out of that last year.
You can actually still switch to an even more old-fashioned UI. I know, because I did. The main reason was that their new and "improved" UI hides folders, so you cannot see new mail in your folders unless you actively expand your folders list. Secondary reason was that you could no longer move your mouse over a sender and get a tooltip stating the address of the sender.
But what Yahoo has going for it is that the high-inertia crowd has been using it for a while and won't budge from it. I know a lot of tech un-savvy baby boomers who won't leave Yahoo because they don't know how to transfer their information and don't want to lose their history. (It's the same crowd that still pays for AOL.)
The main reason not to leave your current provider is that decade worth of friends and contacts who know your email address and will most likely continue to use your old email address for quite a while after you switch. I know from experience: I switched from hotmail 8 years ago, and still get the occasional email from a friend there.
Your initial statement was a bit more important than you may have thought. At a 0% profit rate, ANY business would have to do something or face being driven out of business. And at a 100% tax rate, well, it would be close to impossible to run a modern business, so the point is moot.
You argue that any tax increase on profits will be sent directly to the consumer. This, however, carries a number of implicit assumptions:
1) Increasing the price will not impact sales: Increasing the price by x% may make fewer consumers buy the product, decreasing the sales by y%. This could easily lead to lower total profits for the corporation.
2) No competition: Competing companies may opt not to increase prices and be able to undercut prices. This allows them to build a larger market share by attracting the customers of those corporations that increased prices.
Regarding your arguments on cutting cost, this will happen regardless of taxation. Any corporation in a Capitalist economy will look for ways to minimize costs in order to become more competitive and drive out competition.
You do realize that most countries tax a corporation on its profits, not on its turnover, right? So, it is not the $5000 price per good that is taxed, but the $1000 of profits. And that the corporate tax rate is quite low, compared to income tax. Where I live, corporate tax has been reduced from 50% to 25% over the last 30 years. And guess what? 30 years ago corporations did turn a profit!
That is including community tax. You are getting confused by the tax on the last earned dollar, as this tax can be high, but total income tax will not increase above 51.7 % of the income. As you note, there are other taxes that muddles the picture, as these depend on how the tax earner lives his or her life.
The maximum income tax in Denmark is 51.7%, but there are a lot of ways to decrease the taxed part of the incomes (e.g. union membership, transportation costs, debt, pension savings) so the actual average tax rate on income is in the mid 30s.
I really love it when people post off-topic drivel and get it modded up. I also love all those "funny" comments that always seem to dominate topics like this one. Sigh.
As I understand it, the brain is highly adaptive. This begs the question that early conditioning and training may very well have long term consequences to how our brains develop. If boys and girls are subjected to different stimuli and expectations, it follows that their brains are also going to develop differently. Or, to be more blunt, any change in development trajectories that happen after birth could be due to different biology just as well as environmental pressure on the child. This, naturally, makes it very difficult when one wants to consider which is cause and which is effect.
Yes, if someone goes overboard in security, they can have all sorts of defenses against theft. But how many regular people will set up *any* encryption beyond their pin codes? And all to often it will be easy to guess the code as you can see the residue of the greasy fingers on the screen.
I never understood why people think it's a good idea to enter (or even worse, store) credit card info in a phone. That's the height of stupidity, in my opinion.
It's no less secure than your PC. Actually, the average Joe's automatically-updated iPhone is probably more likely to be free of malware than his Windows PC.
It is also a lot easier to steal Joe's iPhone than it is to break into his apartment and run away with his desktop PC;-)
TFA says that a study with test subjects would cost $1 mio per person, so I don't see how you can get the procedure to cost $6 mio. According to this article, the device is already on sale in Europe for $100,000, though it may just be for the system itself, not the install.
Hijacking airplanes was much easier back then, because it was much easier to smuggle guns and explosives on board. Often there were little, if any, security checks, making it relatively easy to smuggle guns on board. In turn, guns make crowd control a lot easier. Today, it is extremely difficult to smuggle anything but very primitive weapons on board. And even that requires careful planning and preparation. These primitive weapons makes it comparatively easy for passengers to rush the would-be hijackers. My point is that the security checks actually do increase security. (Some of them are quite obnoxious, and seem to be dictated by airport shops rather than security concerns, though).
One interesting question is if airplane hijacking will get a renaissance when/if 3D printing becomes able to print robust automatic weapons in plastic.
However, the situation has not returned to the pre-1968 level and the number of successful hijackings continues to be high - an average of 18 per annum during the 10-year period between 1988 and 1997, as against the pre-1968 average of five.[2]
Are you seriously arguing that making it much more difficult to bring firearms and explosives on board has no effect on aircraft hijackings!? And that, say, a few machine guns will not deter passengers?
Between 1948 and 1957, there were 15 hijackings worldwide, an average of a little more than one per year. Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed to 48, or about five per year. The number dropped to 38 in 1968, but grew to 82 in 1969, the largest number in a single year in the history of civil aviation; in January 1969 alone, eight airliners were hijacked to Cuba.[5] Between 1968 and 1977, the annual average jumped to 41.
Now, how many aircrafts have you heard being hijacked over the last decade? Do you think that the heightened security level has nothing to do with that?
I have used Xmarks for many years (from before browsers included sync capability), and I have never seen issues with duplicated folders. I never used RSS or similar features, so I would have missed the related issues. My experience is that Xmarks just works cross browsers and cross platforms.
Then stop wasting your time. Use the XMarks addon. It is able to sync bookmarks among a number of browsers, including Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer. It is also available on Android.
Good point. However, it depends a bit on how much the spinup/spindown cycle stresses the hard drive. If it is equivalent to an hour of usage, turning off the computer every night will increase durability, whereas if it is equivalent to 24 hours of usage, turning off the computer at night will cause the hard drive to fail faster.
Oups. Did mean to write "minions of the evil villains", but I got an acute case of brain fart while the dog was eating my homework. Thanks for spotting it!
Slashdot Mirror
For the love of Pete. Has this American sickness infected everyone?
This one is more like a Danish sickness festering. The sad reality is that Denmark has been a habitual user solitary confinement of suspects for a long time. A long time both in terms of how long it has been used (the first explicit rules on its use came in 1978) as well as the duration of solitary confinement: Often it will last until the trial is over, a long time after the actual investigation has ended. Sometimes suspects are confined in solitary for more than a year. Fortunately, it seems that the solitary confinement is over for Gottfrid.
I used to use their "classic" (old-fashioned) mail but they forced me and everyone else out of that last year.
You can actually still switch to an even more old-fashioned UI. I know, because I did. The main reason was that their new and "improved" UI hides folders, so you cannot see new mail in your folders unless you actively expand your folders list. Secondary reason was that you could no longer move your mouse over a sender and get a tooltip stating the address of the sender.
But what Yahoo has going for it is that the high-inertia crowd has been using it for a while and won't budge from it. I know a lot of tech un-savvy baby boomers who won't leave Yahoo because they don't know how to transfer their information and don't want to lose their history. (It's the same crowd that still pays for AOL.)
The main reason not to leave your current provider is that decade worth of friends and contacts who know your email address and will most likely continue to use your old email address for quite a while after you switch. I know from experience: I switched from hotmail 8 years ago, and still get the occasional email from a friend there.
Almost, but not quite: The key step was not the alcohol,but the boiling while brewing the alcohol.
Your initial statement was a bit more important than you may have thought. At a 0% profit rate, ANY business would have to do something or face being driven out of business. And at a 100% tax rate, well, it would be close to impossible to run a modern business, so the point is moot.
You argue that any tax increase on profits will be sent directly to the consumer. This, however, carries a number of implicit assumptions:
1) Increasing the price will not impact sales: Increasing the price by x% may make fewer consumers buy the product, decreasing the sales by y%. This could easily lead to lower total profits for the corporation.
2) No competition: Competing companies may opt not to increase prices and be able to undercut prices. This allows them to build a larger market share by attracting the customers of those corporations that increased prices.
Regarding your arguments on cutting cost, this will happen regardless of taxation. Any corporation in a Capitalist economy will look for ways to minimize costs in order to become more competitive and drive out competition.
You do realize that most countries tax a corporation on its profits, not on its turnover, right? So, it is not the $5000 price per good that is taxed, but the $1000 of profits. And that the corporate tax rate is quite low, compared to income tax. Where I live, corporate tax has been reduced from 50% to 25% over the last 30 years. And guess what? 30 years ago corporations did turn a profit!
Seriously? Out of curiosity, can you provide some sources for that? Not because I'm doubting you, but because I'd like to dig a bit further ...
That is including community tax. You are getting confused by the tax on the last earned dollar, as this tax can be high, but total income tax will not increase above 51.7 % of the income. As you note, there are other taxes that muddles the picture, as these depend on how the tax earner lives his or her life.
It causes you to dehydrate and get a stroke! I'm sure that I heard that somewhere. If only I could find the source ...
The maximum income tax in Denmark is 51.7%, but there are a lot of ways to decrease the taxed part of the incomes (e.g. union membership, transportation costs, debt, pension savings) so the actual average tax rate on income is in the mid 30s.
Yeah, I suppose you are right. Sometimes it just gets me down when interesting discussions almost disappear among all the clutter. Lightening up :-)
I really love it when people post off-topic drivel and get it modded up. I also love all those "funny" comments that always seem to dominate topics like this one. Sigh.
As I understand it, the brain is highly adaptive. This begs the question that early conditioning and training may very well have long term consequences to how our brains develop. If boys and girls are subjected to different stimuli and expectations, it follows that their brains are also going to develop differently. Or, to be more blunt, any change in development trajectories that happen after birth could be due to different biology just as well as environmental pressure on the child. This, naturally, makes it very difficult when one wants to consider which is cause and which is effect.
Yes, if someone goes overboard in security, they can have all sorts of defenses against theft. But how many regular people will set up *any* encryption beyond their pin codes? And all to often it will be easy to guess the code as you can see the residue of the greasy fingers on the screen.
I never understood why people think it's a good idea to enter (or even worse, store) credit card info in a phone. That's the height of stupidity, in my opinion.
It's no less secure than your PC. Actually, the average Joe's automatically-updated iPhone is probably more likely to be free of malware than his Windows PC.
It is also a lot easier to steal Joe's iPhone than it is to break into his apartment and run away with his desktop PC ;-)
TFA says that a study with test subjects would cost $1 mio per person, so I don't see how you can get the procedure to cost $6 mio. According to this article, the device is already on sale in Europe for $100,000, though it may just be for the system itself, not the install.
Hijacking airplanes was much easier back then, because it was much easier to smuggle guns and explosives on board. Often there were little, if any, security checks, making it relatively easy to smuggle guns on board. In turn, guns make crowd control a lot easier. Today, it is extremely difficult to smuggle anything but very primitive weapons on board. And even that requires careful planning and preparation. These primitive weapons makes it comparatively easy for passengers to rush the would-be hijackers. My point is that the security checks actually do increase security. (Some of them are quite obnoxious, and seem to be dictated by airport shops rather than security concerns, though).
One interesting question is if airplane hijacking will get a renaissance when/if 3D printing becomes able to print robust automatic weapons in plastic.
According to this list there have been 10 "notable" hijackings in the last decade.
However, the situation has not returned to the pre-1968 level and the number of successful hijackings continues to be high - an average of 18 per annum during the 10-year period between 1988 and 1997, as against the pre-1968 average of five.[2]
Are you seriously arguing that making it much more difficult to bring firearms and explosives on board has no effect on aircraft hijackings!? And that, say, a few machine guns will not deter passengers?
Between 1948 and 1957, there were 15 hijackings worldwide, an average of a little more than one per year. Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed to 48, or about five per year. The number dropped to 38 in 1968, but grew to 82 in 1969, the largest number in a single year in the history of civil aviation; in January 1969 alone, eight airliners were hijacked to Cuba.[5] Between 1968 and 1977, the annual average jumped to 41.
Now, how many aircrafts have you heard being hijacked over the last decade? Do you think that the heightened security level has nothing to do with that?
I have used Xmarks for many years (from before browsers included sync capability), and I have never seen issues with duplicated folders. I never used RSS or similar features, so I would have missed the related issues. My experience is that Xmarks just works cross browsers and cross platforms.
Today I was trying to lose Chrome, and go for another browser. I wasted about an hour and a half trying to sync Firefox between Android and my Mint Linux desktop, then gave up.
Then stop wasting your time. Use the XMarks addon. It is able to sync bookmarks among a number of browsers, including Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer. It is also available on Android.
Good point. However, it depends a bit on how much the spinup/spindown cycle stresses the hard drive. If it is equivalent to an hour of usage, turning off the computer every night will increase durability, whereas if it is equivalent to 24 hours of usage, turning off the computer at night will cause the hard drive to fail faster.
Oups. Did mean to write "minions of the evil villains", but I got an acute case of brain fart while the dog was eating my homework. Thanks for spotting it!