Not to get too nitpicky, but if the truth is in fine print, then the truth is told. Consumers just get excited for a deal that looks too good to be true, and they jump without understanding it first.
Or maybe the simplest way to put it is the old axiom of running a con: you can't cheat an honest man. The mark has to have greed in his heart before he'll fall for something stupid.
Expecting those on the sales side to be good and pure is unrealistic. Consumer education is the best bet to equalizing things. After all, who needs even half the crap they pay for?
Ok, so you watch way too much TV or otherwise waste your time with mindless entertainment. Did you want sympathy for that? Or maybe applause? I can't actually determine your point otherwise.
That 200 billion is composed of higher rates and tax credits, which means they weren't paid by the taxpayer at all. I guess it's harder to make a populist cause out of it with the truth, though.
I'm not really defending the telecoms here, I just cringe when people use lies and half-truths to make a case.
Receivers aren't cheap? Shit, they give out GPS units in cereal boxes these days. They're cheap as hell. They're so cheap they aren't even a differentiating feature on phones anymore, just expected.
Dismissing little things like paying for the equipment and the maintenance thereof, is profit unreasonable? Or is it that your personal greed for bandwidth is the unbeatable trump?
Heh, unwarranted assumptions for the win. I simply made an accidental proper noun of the form, no party intended. Nice of you to run with one little piece of it, and include some insults for good measure. Demonstrates that you are an excellent thinker indeed.
Now that you have my mea culpa, wanna try for a real response?
I was going to respond with an opportunity for you to demonstrate further brilliance, but I decided the insult contest is more fun, so not only are you an idiot, but your father has smelly balls and your mother's vag looks like a delicious roast beef sandwich with yeasty gravy.
Here's a bit of food for thought: did you consider what it would take to retarget our entire industrial output to feeding our country? That's essentially what you proposed. There, I did give you a chance to be brilliant yet again, and I started with an insult so you should be comfortable with the tone, as well.
I'll note this - I'm not exactly against you. I have a serious problem with the current way things work. Executive compensation is obviously out of control in a number of scenarios, and the growing poverty class is getting stuck in a cycle that frightens me.
Punitive taxation still seems like beating the cow and expecting more milk to me. I'm not certain I have any workable answers myself, so think of this as more of a fake Socratic dialogue to try and extract your thinking more than me opposing you.
At what point did you detail this scheme? I just saw 90% over 5 million. Since that's way out of band with how our current system works, I saw no real point in assuming it all carried over. I see now my fault - my psychic powers haven't caught up to where I need them to be.
So how's about my question - why does the government deserve that money? And who gets to set these income limits, incidentally? And where does all this boon money go?
Oh, it's right in the article. Nothing specifically prohibited cadmium used in this manner. Probably working from the foolish assumption that nobody would be this stupid, I suppose.
Ask the millions of people who have consistently decided for 40 years to put off all problems until some unspecified tomorrow. I have no say, I just scream into the wind and feel smug that someday I might get to say "I told you so."
When the bank has 1 billion people, nukes, and the ability to destroy your current and near future economic holdings (and let's remember, I'm talking about the 300+ million people of the US here), I'd say they pretty neatly turned that problem around.
I'm not suggesting China ever thinks they will be able to collect. I'm not even suggesting they would use their ability to destroy this country as a punitive action. But do you think it's beyond them to, say, cause a few food riots here and there just to remind us who holds the reins? They certainly don't mind with their own people, and they probably like them a lot more.
How would you propose to pull that off without China pulling the plug on our economy, which they currently own? With but a few simple manipulations, they can send our currency into a wild freefall. It would be a war won without a shot.
Interestingly, people accuse the US government of being run by a cabal of free enterprise, but the free enterprise and government in China have no ties?
I prepared a response about the follies of corruption and then realized you proposed a 90% (!!!) tax. Holy punishment for success, that's awesome. Anything I say to you would be more or less equivalent to attempting headbutt destruction of a skyscraper, so instead, I say cheers.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to get too nitpicky, but if the truth is in fine print, then the truth is told. Consumers just get excited for a deal that looks too good to be true, and they jump without understanding it first.
Or maybe the simplest way to put it is the old axiom of running a con: you can't cheat an honest man. The mark has to have greed in his heart before he'll fall for something stupid.
Expecting those on the sales side to be good and pure is unrealistic. Consumer education is the best bet to equalizing things. After all, who needs even half the crap they pay for?
Ok, so you watch way too much TV or otherwise waste your time with mindless entertainment. Did you want sympathy for that? Or maybe applause? I can't actually determine your point otherwise.
Not to burst the bashing bubble, but this is more like falling behind, not catching up. We're getting knocked down to your level is all.
So you were an asshole in high school? Shocking.
That 200 billion is composed of higher rates and tax credits, which means they weren't paid by the taxpayer at all. I guess it's harder to make a populist cause out of it with the truth, though.
I'm not really defending the telecoms here, I just cringe when people use lies and half-truths to make a case.
I guess anything you personally can't do must be pretty easy, huh?
Actually, Comcast is in a pretty good position to know the normal data usage patterns. Much better than you are, for certain. Just sayin.
I imagine when someone makes a post about "stolen" copyrighted materials, this is what shows up on your computer:
Semantic defense squad to the rescue! We have a situation we need to derail with a meaningless argument immediately.
I get your point, but did you have to use the most annoying textual construct of the modern internet era to do so?
It would only be worse if you did one of those snarky parenthetical explanations (read: this shit.)
Receivers aren't cheap? Shit, they give out GPS units in cereal boxes these days. They're cheap as hell. They're so cheap they aren't even a differentiating feature on phones anymore, just expected.
Dismissing little things like paying for the equipment and the maintenance thereof, is profit unreasonable? Or is it that your personal greed for bandwidth is the unbeatable trump?
I'm not sure if you've noticed: rampant file sharers think EVERYTHING should be free. At least for them.
Heh, unwarranted assumptions for the win. I simply made an accidental proper noun of the form, no party intended. Nice of you to run with one little piece of it, and include some insults for good measure. Demonstrates that you are an excellent thinker indeed.
Now that you have my mea culpa, wanna try for a real response?
You, sir, are an idiot...
I was going to respond with an opportunity for you to demonstrate further brilliance, but I decided the insult contest is more fun, so not only are you an idiot, but your father has smelly balls and your mother's vag looks like a delicious roast beef sandwich with yeasty gravy.
Here's a bit of food for thought: did you consider what it would take to retarget our entire industrial output to feeding our country? That's essentially what you proposed. There, I did give you a chance to be brilliant yet again, and I started with an insult so you should be comfortable with the tone, as well.
Yeah, it's a huge difference - even the most ambitious gang in history couldn't possibly achieve the power of a Democratic government.
However methods, motives, and disposition are all pretty much the same.
I'll note this - I'm not exactly against you. I have a serious problem with the current way things work. Executive compensation is obviously out of control in a number of scenarios, and the growing poverty class is getting stuck in a cycle that frightens me.
Punitive taxation still seems like beating the cow and expecting more milk to me. I'm not certain I have any workable answers myself, so think of this as more of a fake Socratic dialogue to try and extract your thinking more than me opposing you.
At what point did you detail this scheme? I just saw 90% over 5 million. Since that's way out of band with how our current system works, I saw no real point in assuming it all carried over. I see now my fault - my psychic powers haven't caught up to where I need them to be.
So how's about my question - why does the government deserve that money? And who gets to set these income limits, incidentally? And where does all this boon money go?
Oh, it's right in the article. Nothing specifically prohibited cadmium used in this manner. Probably working from the foolish assumption that nobody would be this stupid, I suppose.
Ask the millions of people who have consistently decided for 40 years to put off all problems until some unspecified tomorrow. I have no say, I just scream into the wind and feel smug that someday I might get to say "I told you so."
How much food can be grown and distributed without fuel? And how much fuel can we import without money?
I sincerely hope your right, but I'm unshaken in my conviction that it's foolish to count on it.
When the bank has 1 billion people, nukes, and the ability to destroy your current and near future economic holdings (and let's remember, I'm talking about the 300+ million people of the US here), I'd say they pretty neatly turned that problem around.
I'm not suggesting China ever thinks they will be able to collect. I'm not even suggesting they would use their ability to destroy this country as a punitive action. But do you think it's beyond them to, say, cause a few food riots here and there just to remind us who holds the reins? They certainly don't mind with their own people, and they probably like them a lot more.
After your proposal, the reward would actually be $500,000. Certainly plenty of money, to be sure, and nothing I'd turn down.
But allow me to ask the reverse question - what did the government do to deserve the 4.5 million?
How would you propose to pull that off without China pulling the plug on our economy, which they currently own? With but a few simple manipulations, they can send our currency into a wild freefall. It would be a war won without a shot.
Interestingly, people accuse the US government of being run by a cabal of free enterprise, but the free enterprise and government in China have no ties?
Curious.
I prepared a response about the follies of corruption and then realized you proposed a 90% (!!!) tax. Holy punishment for success, that's awesome. Anything I say to you would be more or less equivalent to attempting headbutt destruction of a skyscraper, so instead, I say cheers.