The sequestration portrayed in the press as reckless budget slashing is anything but. In actuality, it's a slightly lower rate of increase.
For 2013, the announced 'sequestration' is $84B in a $3600B budget which is an increase of about $140B over last year's. So by the official numbers, the 'cuts' are actually an increase of ~$56B. To go on, half of that $84B decrease actually doesn't take place until later years but is represented in 2013 via accounting sleight-of-hand. So in the end those crazy sequestration cuts - closing air-traffic towers, grounding the Blue Angels, and ending White House tours - are really a $100B increase over last year.
After an (apparently successful) effort to convince the public that the problem isn't that we spend too much but rather confiscate too little, there's a witch hunt for anyone perceived as getting away with something. So while the meals aren't directly subsidized by a payment from the government, his position is that since he pays taxes to fund the government and someone at Google (who likely pays more in taxes than he does) isn't paying income tax on their lunch, he's doing more than his "share".
If they already provide a free over-the-air signal, in order to be available to the most viewers (and therefore to the most advertising targets), isn't another company extending that viewer base at no expense to Fox, Univision, CBS, NBC, ABC a *benefit* to them?
Not charging employees income tax on an employer-provided lunch is "letting them walk off with the henhouse"? And coporations complying with tax laws in order to not pay more than they're legally required are "malefactors"? I'd argue that they'd be in dereliction of their duty to shareholders if they *didn't*.
They (statistically as a group) pay far more of their "share" than most. Certainly more than the professor who complains about having to subsidize their lunch - especially ironic while he eats lunch at a state-subsidized university's cafeteria.
It's an ad. A picture and some words and a link. It doesn't need to show me a movie or play me a song. Flash and Java are at or near the top of the list of frequency of vulnerabilities found. Plus, they're often pigs.
Stop that and people won't be annoyed by the ads. Will a single site that addresses those concerns still suffer because of ad-backlash to all the other sites? Probably.
Your assessment is only correct if he *intended* to use the wrong word (your). While not impossible, it's far more likely that he intended (and understood) the "you're" ( as in "while you're in college " ) but.... spelled it wrong. It's not a grammar error unless he intended to use the wrong word, and (as you propose) spelled that wrong word correctly.
The question in this post is whether the "six strikes" warning is better than being taken to court by the RIAA. That's what I meant by civil case. But yes, I see your point that the "six strikes" system has no protections or presumptions for the customer.
And it's not even really a 1% reduction in spending, because this year's budget represents $100B+ in increases over last year's. The "sky is falling" horseshit over this is amazing.
Really? Most of the complaints I've read about them include mentions of all the collateral damage (including child-killing, etc). That would seem to belie your assertion.
Taking a boat because of the paperwork error he described is more outlandish and unreasonable an action than if it were something smaller. Not because the non-wealthy are downtrodden, or whatever you were fed in your poli sci class, but because it's a government agent acting seemingly without reason or limit.
Do you really think it's only newsworthy because it's a rich guy, and how dare they abuse a rich guy? It's because they seized A FUCKING BOAT over its owner's insistence to correct a paperwork discrepancy.
I'd be super-pissed if they took my laptop or my phone or my car, and I'd be just as justified. And I'm sure others would support me and agree that it was wrong. But that they seized something so huge and valuable over something so stupid underlines the effrontery of the DHS and its agent.
What an assholish thing to post. The guy earned his money - you're somehow more okay with his property being seized because you're envious of it? Grow up.
We're already keeping profits from foreign subsidiaries (profits that have already been taxed in the jusrisdiction they were generated, something the US does that few if any other countries do) out of our economy. Now we're going to chase it out of our banks too?
It's stupid in the practical sense - in that they'd just park the money somewhere else. And it's stupid in the moral sense - that indignant people see no problem with and have no shame advocating as much confiscation as possible of something belonging to someone else.
I bought my N9 before the Nokia-Microsoft deal and have been happy with it, though disappointed that it was a product dead-end. I had an N900 before that and was happy with that too.
"the online industry's highly successful self-regulatory privacy practices"
Right, which is why all junk mails are opt-in and all unsubscribe requests are honored quickly.
"Online advertising has been one of the few unqualified success stories in our economy in recent years"
Yes, pop-up ads, and then the new pop-up ads designed to defeat my wanting to avoid them, have been an "unqualified success". Ditto for hovering crap, garishly flashing crap, and automatically starting embedded video and audio.
All that has really made the web a better place.
"they would have to employ subscription models where consumers pay a la carte"
better than suffering through all of the above.
"Eric is the Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of 33Across."
Slashdot Mirror
The sequestration portrayed in the press as reckless budget slashing is anything but. In actuality, it's a slightly lower rate of increase.
For 2013, the announced 'sequestration' is $84B in a $3600B budget which is an increase of about $140B over last year's. So by the official numbers, the 'cuts' are actually an increase of ~$56B. To go on, half of that $84B decrease actually doesn't take place until later years but is represented in 2013 via accounting sleight-of-hand. So in the end those crazy sequestration cuts - closing air-traffic towers, grounding the Blue Angels, and ending White House tours - are really a $100B increase over last year.
After an (apparently successful) effort to convince the public that the problem isn't that we spend too much but rather confiscate too little, there's a witch hunt for anyone perceived as getting away with something. So while the meals aren't directly subsidized by a payment from the government, his position is that since he pays taxes to fund the government and someone at Google (who likely pays more in taxes than he does) isn't paying income tax on their lunch, he's doing more than his "share".
If they already provide a free over-the-air signal, in order to be available to the most viewers (and therefore to the most advertising targets), isn't another company extending that viewer base at no expense to Fox, Univision, CBS, NBC, ABC a *benefit* to them?
Not charging employees income tax on an employer-provided lunch is "letting them walk off with the henhouse"? And coporations complying with tax laws in order to not pay more than they're legally required are "malefactors"? I'd argue that they'd be in dereliction of their duty to shareholders if they *didn't*.
They (statistically as a group) pay far more of their "share" than most. Certainly more than the professor who complains about having to subsidize their lunch - especially ironic while he eats lunch at a state-subsidized university's cafeteria.
Meals at the office (apparently from the article, to a point) are deductible.
I meant to mod this as "funny" but I clicked "overrated" by accident so I'm posting a reply to negate my mod.
It's an ad. A picture and some words and a link. It doesn't need to show me a movie or play me a song. Flash and Java are at or near the top of the list of frequency of vulnerabilities found. Plus, they're often pigs.
Stop that and people won't be annoyed by the ads. Will a single site that addresses those concerns still suffer because of ad-backlash to all the other sites? Probably.
For only a few dollars extra per car, all the blacksmiths would still be in business.
Your assessment is only correct if he *intended* to use the wrong word (your). While not impossible, it's far more likely that he intended (and understood) the "you're" ( as in "while you're in college " ) but .... spelled it wrong. It's not a grammar error unless he intended to use the wrong word, and (as you propose) spelled that wrong word correctly.
No; as read aloud the sentence is grammatically correct. He spelled "you're" wrong. That's spelling, not grammar.
The question in this post is whether the "six strikes" warning is better than being taken to court by the RIAA. That's what I meant by civil case. But yes, I see your point that the "six strikes" system has no protections or presumptions for the customer.
"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to criminal charges. These are civil cases; the plaintiffs have a lower standard/burden of proof.
And it's not even really a 1% reduction in spending, because this year's budget represents $100B+ in increases over last year's. The "sky is falling" horseshit over this is amazing.
No, they do not. That you provide an example of one with a target/collateral ration orders of magnitude worse than does not make it "pretty good".
Really? Most of the complaints I've read about them include mentions of all the collateral damage (including child-killing, etc). That would seem to belie your assertion.
SuSE's in use in my corporate environment.
Taking a boat because of the paperwork error he described is more outlandish and unreasonable an action than if it were something smaller. Not because the non-wealthy are downtrodden, or whatever you were fed in your poli sci class, but because it's a government agent acting seemingly without reason or limit.
Whine whine.
Do you really think it's only newsworthy because it's a rich guy, and how dare they abuse a rich guy? It's because they seized A FUCKING BOAT over its owner's insistence to correct a paperwork discrepancy.
I'd be super-pissed if they took my laptop or my phone or my car, and I'd be just as justified. And I'm sure others would support me and agree that it was wrong. But that they seized something so huge and valuable over something so stupid underlines the effrontery of the DHS and its agent.
Everything isn't class warfare or OWS.
What an assholish thing to post. The guy earned his money - you're somehow more okay with his property being seized because you're envious of it? Grow up.
We're already keeping profits from foreign subsidiaries (profits that have already been taxed in the jusrisdiction they were generated, something the US does that few if any other countries do) out of our economy. Now we're going to chase it out of our banks too?
It's stupid in the practical sense - in that they'd just park the money somewhere else. And it's stupid in the moral sense - that indignant people see no problem with and have no shame advocating as much confiscation as possible of something belonging to someone else.
I bought my N9 before the Nokia-Microsoft deal and have been happy with it, though disappointed that it was a product dead-end. I had an N900 before that and was happy with that too.
... not witnesses or victims.
"the online industry's highly successful self-regulatory privacy practices"
Right, which is why all junk mails are opt-in and all unsubscribe requests are honored quickly.
"Online advertising has been one of the few unqualified success stories in our economy in recent years"
Yes, pop-up ads, and then the new pop-up ads designed to defeat my wanting to avoid them, have been an "unqualified success". Ditto for hovering crap, garishly flashing crap, and automatically starting embedded video and audio.
All that has really made the web a better place.
"they would have to employ subscription models where consumers pay a la carte"
better than suffering through all of the above.
"Eric is the Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of 33Across."
Oooooooooh!
I just wanted to have the first Tattoine reference