Mod the parent up. The error is in the original article, as well.
AT&T charges $25/month for the 2 gigabytes/month data plan for the iPhone. Adding tethering increases the charge to $45/month for 4 gigabytes/month. However, if you are currently on the $30/month "unlimited" plan, it's only $15/month more to change to the 4 gigabytes/month + tethering plan.
I switched from the unlimited dataplan when iOS 4.3 was released, as I could finally replace my Sprint MiFi hotspot with my iPhone. I didn't feel like I was giving up anything significant, because I never used more than 200 megabytes/month on my iPhone alone.
When I used the MiFi all day at a client, I never exceeded 100 megabytes/day, and was usually in the 50-60 megabyte/day range. I could use 100 megabytes/day all month, and still have 1 gigabyte/month left for my iPhone usage. In the unlikely event I exceed the 4 gigabyte/month cap, it's only $10/gigabyte, or 1 cent per megabyte -- and I can live with that.
The one requirement to signing up was that you needed to use a genuine credit card, not a bank-backed credit/debit card but a genuine going-into-debt card. What's the difference? The real credit card won't stop you from spending beyond your limit; ergo they get their money no matter what even if you can't technically afford it.
The rental car companies have the exact same requirement: You must make the reservation with a credit card, although you can eventually pay the bill with a debit card. The reason was so they could put a hold on enough funds to cover the payment plus the damages if you totaled the car (note this is not the value of the entire car, but the limited "deductible" you agree to in the contract).
Very often, when they put a hold on this amount on a debit card, it pushed the underlying checking account into overdraft, or at least locked up enough funds that the card holder couldn't use the card for anything else. With a credit card, this doesn't cause problems unless the cardholder has nearly maxed out their credit limit.
Perhaps Blockbuster was putting a hold on the amount of money needed to replace the game if it wasn't returned? With a debit card, they would have encountered the problem I described above, albeit on a lesser magnitude.
My guess is you're not an EE either. Interference doesn't quite work like that; orthogonal frequencies, for instance, do not interfere at all even when one is extremely high-powered.
And I'm guessing that you aren't an RF engineer.
It is extremely difficult (and nearly impossible, at a reasonable cost) to design and build a transmitter that only radiates RF on the fundamental frequency. It invariably radiates on harmonic frequencies (integer multiples of the fundamental). FCC regulations limit the acceptable power level for harmonics, but if the transmitter's primary power output is high enough, the harmonics can still interfere with a nearby receiver -- depending on the local strength of the intended signal.
In addition, there is the potential of "intermodulation", or mixing of two transmitted signals to produce a third signal that is a different frequency than either of the originals.
[Disclaimer: I'm not an RF engineer, either. But, this was basic knowledge required for an amateur radio license in the US, at least back when I got mine]
I know that the 4.3 betas allowed use of the Personal Hotspot on AT&T, but is the feature actually available on the released version?
I'd like to drop my Sprint MiFi card and replace it with an iPhone 4 hotspot. But, I don't want to switch away from the unlimited data plan (to the 4 GB limit), only to find that it doesn't work.
I understand your concern about dental X-rays. I have an implant that needs to be checked every year or so, so I'd like to limit exposure.
One thing that helps: Find a dentist that has invested in a digital X-ray system. Rather than sticking a piece of film in your mouth, they put a small sensor that is about the same surface area and a bit thicker (but not flexible). Aside from the convenience and efficiency issues, the digital sensor is much more sensitive than film. So, the X-ray source can be set to about 10% of the power required for film.
However, It's an expensive investment. My dentist has a computer in each exam room, but only a single sensor that is moved to where it is needed and plugged into the USB port. The sensor alone costs about $8,000.
In many (most?) countries, receiving an SMS is free for every plan.
Not in the US. The cellphone companies have decided that SMS is a profit center. They don't mind giving out free calling minutes (that consume much more bandwidth and resources), but will charge you 25 cents to receive a message that is no bigger than the control messages that your phone exchanges with the system on a regular basis..
Some of them are starting to get a clue and bundling it with other features, or charging separately for unlimited messages. But, there's still no connection between actual cost and price.
To clarify, this is typically implemented with a wallet card the size of a credit card, with something like 100 5-digit codes. The 5-digit codes are generated pseudo-randomly for each customer, or at least there is a non-trivial number of unique cards.
At login, the user is challenged with a random index from 0 to 99, and they must enter the 5-digit code from the wallet card that corresponds to the index.
I've seen this method used by a Brazilian online banking system.
I know you're going to get some Boomers calling for your head about this post, but they should realize that this is not some fringe opinion. There are US cities (San Diego comes to mind) that are considering declaring bankruptcy simply so they wont have to pay any Boomer pensions. Financially, it is impossible for us to pay for their retirement with the jobs we have available. The math simply does not add up. What choice do they have? It's either have a city government or pay Boomer pensions. They can't do both in the next 15 years, so the Boomers in power may choose to keep their political positions and sacrifice the city pensions. There's a tricky problem in there.
You're blaming the irresponsibility of local and state governments on Boomers?
I've got news for you: only a small fraction of "Boomers" have a cushy state or city pension. A small percentage of the rest have a fixed pension which will be rapidly diminished by even modest inflation. Everyone else might have a 401(k), if they invested wisely.
I have a simple solution: take away the Boomers' Social Security and Medicare. All of it. Keep the Boomers' parents on it. They paid in and didn't give us this situation. They passed on the baton of leadership to the Boomers around Bush Sr. and the Boomers hit prime time in the Clinton and Bush years.
The Boomer's parents paid a fraction of what they received (and are still receiving) from Social Security and Medicare.
The Boomers will be lucky to receive a fraction of what they paid into Social Security. What they get from Medicare will largely depend on their personal medical situation.
My mortgage is paid was full, after 10 years. I don't have a pension, generous or otherwise. My retirement assets are in IRAs and a 401(k) -- and are substantial despite the gyrations of the market, because I have been contributing the maximum allowed on top of contributing to Social Security and Medicare.
If I had the opportunity to invest my contributions to Social Security alone into the prevailing long-term US Treasury Bonds (the same as the "trust fund") each year, I've calculated that I would have $730,000 right now, and nearly $1.5 million by the time I turn 65. You want me to give all that up? What are you offering in return?
Before you were even born, people like me were pointing out the problems with Social Security. We saw the train wreck coming, but the reason the Boomer's haven't done anything about it is because the Boomer's parents made the issue politically radioactive.
We were told to STFU. So, 30 years later, I have the same advice for you: STFU, at least until you come up with an exit strategy that spreads the pain equally over every generation.
Gabriel Iglesias has a story about this.
on
Auto Incorrect
·
· Score: 1
Gabriel Iglesias does an entire stand-up routine about how his iPhone auto-corrected his confession to his wife (about being out drinking) and "lied for him" by changing it to something more innocuous:
Shut up. You're a bank. Just move people's money around for them and don't try to have an opinion.
US banking regulations don't allow them to do so.
Financial institutions have all kinds of rules they must comply with. If there's any indication that the customer or the recipient of a payment is engaged in illegal activities, they are required to suspend the transaction.
You can complain about the rules being applied inconsistently or overzealously, but the banks are pretty much between a rock and a hard place: federal regulators get to scrutinize transactions with 20-20 hindsight and with knowledge the banks never had -- and then hold the banks responsible if they find something wrong.
Not that my anecdotal evidence has any weight, but I personally experience more like a 5 to 10% dropped call rate with AT&T (one time I was dropped 4 times in a half hour).
I don't have that kind of rate overall, but I have had the experience of being dropped multiple times in about 10 minutes. Each time, I used AT&T's "Mark the Spot" application to report a dropped call. On the last couple of reports, I added a comment to the effect of "Please get out here and fix this cell base station!" -- I was at home and never had any problems with dropped calls until then.
A couple of days later, I noticed that the signal strength on my phone was 0-1 bars, instead of the usual 4-5. I'm a couple of blocks from the nearest cell base station, so I realized they had shut down that cell for repair. A few hours later, my signal strength was at the usual level and I haven't had problems with dropped calls since then.
With very few exceptions, no employee consent is ever required as part of a merger/sale/takeover/bankruptcy.
If employees own a substantial percentage of the stock, it's required.
The purchasing company can also require that a high percentage of employees accept the offer to work for them before the sale is completed. And no, that's not hypothetical.
Figure 5: Share of capital income earned by top 1% and bottom 80%, 1979-2003
Did you bother to read the definition of capital income in your citation? It's only a subset of all income.
That one factor alone makes your following assertions demonstrably false. But, I'll leave it to you as an exercise: maybe you'll learn something. You can start with the CBO figures I started earlier.
Households making over $250,000 are 1.5% of the population.
And your citation is?
According to the CBO (in the same URL I cited above), there were 1.2 million households in the top 1% in 2007. That's 1.3% of the total.
The minimum adjusted income for the top 1% was $352,900 in 2007. That's normalized to a single person household. Multiply that number by the square root of the number of people in the household to calculate the amount for multiple-person households.
If we lower the threshold to the top 5%, then it's 5.9 million households, or 5% of the total. The minimum adjusted income was $141,900. That's closer to the $250,000 threshold for a couple with 2 children, but still not quite there.
Therefore, your assertion is demonstrably wrong, and I won't bother with the rest -- other than to point out that "wealth" is usually considered equivalent to "assets", neither of which are the same as "income".
These numbers have to be wrong, because I can guarantee you there are at least 2000 homes over 250K just because of sports (MLB has 1200 players with a minimum salary of $400K, NFL has 1280 players with a minimum of over $300K).
He didn't read the column header. Those numbers are thousands.
In response to your FYI, the top 5% is earners over $157K, and above 250K is a meager 1.57%. Thus that $700B will be distributed over a mere 1,699 households over the next 10 years.
Since I don't know how your citation's methodology compares to the methodology used by the CBO, I'll instead cite the CBO's table in the same URL that I provided earlier.
The first table on page 7 says there were 11.9 million households in the top 10% in 2007. There 5.9 million households in the top 5%, and 1.2 million households in the top 1%.
The last table on page 9 lists the minimum adjusted income for the various categories. For the top 10%, it was $102,900 for a single person household. The methodology is on the last page: multiply the number in the table by the square root of the number of family members. For married without kids, multiply by 1.414 = $144,500. For married with 2 kids, multiply by 2 = $205800.
It's not exactly $250,000 for a married couple, but I thought it was close enough for a rough estimate.
However, I think you might want to read your own citation a bit more closely. It's not 1,699 households. It's 1,699 THOUSAND households.
Pulling out big numbers sure sounds impressive, but they're paying much less than the lowest groups pay relative to the income.
No, they aren't. Read the "big numbers" in the URL that I cited. The first table documents the effective tax rates, and it's highest for the top 1%, and lowest for the bottom 20%.
You sound like a smart guy. How about reading the data and interpreting it for yourself, rather than spouting someone else's taking points?
You (and others) also seem want to shift the discussion to "assets", rather than "income". In the US, we don't have an "asset" tax at the federal level (unless you count the estate tax).
Assets are less volatile, but aren't necessarily income-producing. In states with no income taxes, retired homeowners have to pay large property tax bills on homes they own outright, even though they may have little income. Their only recourse is to sell the home, or borrow money against the home.
According to the IRS last year, I made just over 90k last year (gross) and I was in the top 15% of income earners in the U.S. So the top 10% might be lower than you think.
The CBO documents their methodology in the URL that I cited earlier. They include some sources of income that the IRS may not include.
For 2007, the minimum adjusted income for the top 10% was $102,900 for a single person household. To calculate the number for multiple persons, multiply that number by the square root of the number of people in the household.
So, it's not likely that the CBO's methodology and the IRS's methodology line up exactly. But, I think the top 10% is close enough to the $250,000 threshold for couples with two children.
Slashdot Mirror
The risk of a nuclear explosion exists (has happened on multiple occasions)
[CITATION NEEDED]
Error in summary: $20 more per month, not $45.
Mod the parent up. The error is in the original article, as well.
AT&T charges $25/month for the 2 gigabytes/month data plan for the iPhone. Adding tethering increases the charge to $45/month for 4 gigabytes/month. However, if you are currently on the $30/month "unlimited" plan, it's only $15/month more to change to the 4 gigabytes/month + tethering plan.
I switched from the unlimited dataplan when iOS 4.3 was released, as I could finally replace my Sprint MiFi hotspot with my iPhone. I didn't feel like I was giving up anything significant, because I never used more than 200 megabytes/month on my iPhone alone.
When I used the MiFi all day at a client, I never exceeded 100 megabytes/day, and was usually in the 50-60 megabyte/day range. I could use 100 megabytes/day all month, and still have 1 gigabyte/month left for my iPhone usage. In the unlikely event I exceed the 4 gigabyte/month cap, it's only $10/gigabyte, or 1 cent per megabyte -- and I can live with that.
The one requirement to signing up was that you needed to use a genuine credit card, not a bank-backed credit/debit card but a genuine going-into-debt card. What's the difference? The real credit card won't stop you from spending beyond your limit; ergo they get their money no matter what even if you can't technically afford it.
The rental car companies have the exact same requirement: You must make the reservation with a credit card, although you can eventually pay the bill with a debit card. The reason was so they could put a hold on enough funds to cover the payment plus the damages if you totaled the car (note this is not the value of the entire car, but the limited "deductible" you agree to in the contract).
Very often, when they put a hold on this amount on a debit card, it pushed the underlying checking account into overdraft, or at least locked up enough funds that the card holder couldn't use the card for anything else. With a credit card, this doesn't cause problems unless the cardholder has nearly maxed out their credit limit.
Perhaps Blockbuster was putting a hold on the amount of money needed to replace the game if it wasn't returned? With a debit card, they would have encountered the problem I described above, albeit on a lesser magnitude.
My guess is you're not an EE either. Interference doesn't quite work like that; orthogonal frequencies, for instance, do not interfere at all even when one is extremely high-powered.
And I'm guessing that you aren't an RF engineer.
It is extremely difficult (and nearly impossible, at a reasonable cost) to design and build a transmitter that only radiates RF on the fundamental frequency. It invariably radiates on harmonic frequencies (integer multiples of the fundamental). FCC regulations limit the acceptable power level for harmonics, but if the transmitter's primary power output is high enough, the harmonics can still interfere with a nearby receiver -- depending on the local strength of the intended signal.
In addition, there is the potential of "intermodulation", or mixing of two transmitted signals to produce a third signal that is a different frequency than either of the originals.
[Disclaimer: I'm not an RF engineer, either. But, this was basic knowledge required for an amateur radio license in the US, at least back when I got mine]
I'd like to drop my Sprint MiFi card and replace it with an iPhone 4 hotspot. But, I don't want to switch away from the unlimited data plan (to the 4 GB limit), only to find that it doesn't work.
One thing that helps: Find a dentist that has invested in a digital X-ray system. Rather than sticking a piece of film in your mouth, they put a small sensor that is about the same surface area and a bit thicker (but not flexible). Aside from the convenience and efficiency issues, the digital sensor is much more sensitive than film. So, the X-ray source can be set to about 10% of the power required for film.
However, It's an expensive investment. My dentist has a computer in each exam room, but only a single sensor that is moved to where it is needed and plugged into the USB port. The sensor alone costs about $8,000.
In many (most?) countries, receiving an SMS is free for every plan.
Not in the US. The cellphone companies have decided that SMS is a profit center. They don't mind giving out free calling minutes (that consume much more bandwidth and resources), but will charge you 25 cents to receive a message that is no bigger than the control messages that your phone exchanges with the system on a regular basis..
Some of them are starting to get a clue and bundling it with other features, or charging separately for unlimited messages. But, there's still no connection between actual cost and price.
Why no one time pad with index lookup?
To clarify, this is typically implemented with a wallet card the size of a credit card, with something like 100 5-digit codes. The 5-digit codes are generated pseudo-randomly for each customer, or at least there is a non-trivial number of unique cards.
At login, the user is challenged with a random index from 0 to 99, and they must enter the 5-digit code from the wallet card that corresponds to the index.
I've seen this method used by a Brazilian online banking system.
My wife would be amused if she found that, because the only public picture on my Facebook profile includes BOTH of us.
Today, history has been made. A social networking site actually listened to its users and implemented a bit of security. *astonished*
Nope, looks like this is the reason that FB implemented https: across their site:
The Inside Story of How Facebook Responded to Tunisian Hacks
They also mention the identification of photos in your account as another measure they used to prevent password hijacking by Tunisian censors.
Who put those terrible, terrible administrations in power? Who was part of them?
Every voter did. Or at least a majority of them.
You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror.
I know you're going to get some Boomers calling for your head about this post, but they should realize that this is not some fringe opinion. There are US cities (San Diego comes to mind) that are considering declaring bankruptcy simply so they wont have to pay any Boomer pensions. Financially, it is impossible for us to pay for their retirement with the jobs we have available. The math simply does not add up. What choice do they have? It's either have a city government or pay Boomer pensions. They can't do both in the next 15 years, so the Boomers in power may choose to keep their political positions and sacrifice the city pensions. There's a tricky problem in there.
You're blaming the irresponsibility of local and state governments on Boomers?
I've got news for you: only a small fraction of "Boomers" have a cushy state or city pension. A small percentage of the rest have a fixed pension which will be rapidly diminished by even modest inflation. Everyone else might have a 401(k), if they invested wisely.
I have a simple solution: take away the Boomers' Social Security and Medicare. All of it. Keep the Boomers' parents on it. They paid in and didn't give us this situation. They passed on the baton of leadership to the Boomers around Bush Sr. and the Boomers hit prime time in the Clinton and Bush years.
The Boomer's parents paid a fraction of what they received (and are still receiving) from Social Security and Medicare.
The Boomers will be lucky to receive a fraction of what they paid into Social Security. What they get from Medicare will largely depend on their personal medical situation.
My mortgage is paid was full, after 10 years. I don't have a pension, generous or otherwise. My retirement assets are in IRAs and a 401(k) -- and are substantial despite the gyrations of the market, because I have been contributing the maximum allowed on top of contributing to Social Security and Medicare.
If I had the opportunity to invest my contributions to Social Security alone into the prevailing long-term US Treasury Bonds (the same as the "trust fund") each year, I've calculated that I would have $730,000 right now, and nearly $1.5 million by the time I turn 65. You want me to give all that up? What are you offering in return?
Before you were even born, people like me were pointing out the problems with Social Security. We saw the train wreck coming, but the reason the Boomer's haven't done anything about it is because the Boomer's parents made the issue politically radioactive.
We were told to STFU. So, 30 years later, I have the same advice for you: STFU, at least until you come up with an exit strategy that spreads the pain equally over every generation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GZYNP3CZOw
Short version: it changed it from "Cina Bar" to "Cinnabon".
Shut up. You're a bank. Just move people's money around for them and don't try to have an opinion.
US banking regulations don't allow them to do so.
Financial institutions have all kinds of rules they must comply with. If there's any indication that the customer or the recipient of a payment is engaged in illegal activities, they are required to suspend the transaction.
You can complain about the rules being applied inconsistently or overzealously, but the banks are pretty much between a rock and a hard place: federal regulators get to scrutinize transactions with 20-20 hindsight and with knowledge the banks never had -- and then hold the banks responsible if they find something wrong.
Not that my anecdotal evidence has any weight, but I personally experience more like a 5 to 10% dropped call rate with AT&T (one time I was dropped 4 times in a half hour).
I don't have that kind of rate overall, but I have had the experience of being dropped multiple times in about 10 minutes. Each time, I used AT&T's "Mark the Spot" application to report a dropped call. On the last couple of reports, I added a comment to the effect of "Please get out here and fix this cell base station!" -- I was at home and never had any problems with dropped calls until then.
A couple of days later, I noticed that the signal strength on my phone was 0-1 bars, instead of the usual 4-5. I'm a couple of blocks from the nearest cell base station, so I realized they had shut down that cell for repair. A few hours later, my signal strength was at the usual level and I haven't had problems with dropped calls since then.
With very few exceptions, no employee consent is ever required as part of a merger/sale/takeover/bankruptcy.
If employees own a substantial percentage of the stock, it's required.
The purchasing company can also require that a high percentage of employees accept the offer to work for them before the sale is completed. And no, that's not hypothetical.
Figure 5: Share of capital income earned by top 1% and bottom 80%, 1979-2003
Did you bother to read the definition of capital income in your citation? It's only a subset of all income.
That one factor alone makes your following assertions demonstrably false. But, I'll leave it to you as an exercise: maybe you'll learn something. You can start with the CBO figures I started earlier.
Households making over $250,000 are 1.5% of the population.
And your citation is?
According to the CBO (in the same URL I cited above), there were 1.2 million households in the top 1% in 2007. That's 1.3% of the total.
The minimum adjusted income for the top 1% was $352,900 in 2007. That's normalized to a single person household. Multiply that number by the square root of the number of people in the household to calculate the amount for multiple-person households.
If we lower the threshold to the top 5%, then it's 5.9 million households, or 5% of the total. The minimum adjusted income was $141,900. That's closer to the $250,000 threshold for a couple with 2 children, but still not quite there.
Therefore, your assertion is demonstrably wrong, and I won't bother with the rest -- other than to point out that "wealth" is usually considered equivalent to "assets", neither of which are the same as "income".
The table also shows the top 10% earn 42% of all income so paying 55% of all the taxes isn't really such a big sacrifice.
I don't dispute that, and I don't remember saying that it was.
What I don't understand is how anyone can believe that the "rich" don't pay any taxes when the numbers clearly indicate that isn't the truth.
One can argue all day about how much the "rich" should pay. But, it's an outright lie to claim they don't pay a significant share.
These numbers have to be wrong, because I can guarantee you there are at least 2000 homes over 250K just because of sports (MLB has 1200 players with a minimum salary of $400K, NFL has 1280 players with a minimum of over $300K).
He didn't read the column header. Those numbers are thousands.
In response to your FYI, the top 5% is earners over $157K, and above 250K is a meager 1.57%. Thus that $700B will be distributed over a mere 1,699 households over the next 10 years.
Since I don't know how your citation's methodology compares to the methodology used by the CBO, I'll instead cite the CBO's table in the same URL that I provided earlier.
The first table on page 7 says there were 11.9 million households in the top 10% in 2007. There 5.9 million households in the top 5%, and 1.2 million households in the top 1%.
The last table on page 9 lists the minimum adjusted income for the various categories. For the top 10%, it was $102,900 for a single person household. The methodology is on the last page: multiply the number in the table by the square root of the number of family members. For married without kids, multiply by 1.414 = $144,500. For married with 2 kids, multiply by 2 = $205800.
It's not exactly $250,000 for a married couple, but I thought it was close enough for a rough estimate.
However, I think you might want to read your own citation a bit more closely. It's not 1,699 households. It's 1,699 THOUSAND households.
It's not a meme...it's a direct quote from Leona Helmsley.
Leona Helmsley said: "Only little people pay taxes".
And she was stupid, too.
Pulling out big numbers sure sounds impressive, but they're paying much less than the lowest groups pay relative to the income.
No, they aren't. Read the "big numbers" in the URL that I cited. The first table documents the effective tax rates, and it's highest for the top 1%, and lowest for the bottom 20%.
You sound like a smart guy. How about reading the data and interpreting it for yourself, rather than spouting someone else's taking points?
You (and others) also seem want to shift the discussion to "assets", rather than "income". In the US, we don't have an "asset" tax at the federal level (unless you count the estate tax).
Assets are less volatile, but aren't necessarily income-producing. In states with no income taxes, retired homeowners have to pay large property tax bills on homes they own outright, even though they may have little income. Their only recourse is to sell the home, or borrow money against the home.
Are you sure you want to tax assets?
According to the IRS last year, I made just over 90k last year (gross) and I was in the top 15% of income earners in the U.S. So the top 10% might be lower than you think.
The CBO documents their methodology in the URL that I cited earlier. They include some sources of income that the IRS may not include.
For 2007, the minimum adjusted income for the top 10% was $102,900 for a single person household. To calculate the number for multiple persons, multiply that number by the square root of the number of people in the household.
So, it's not likely that the CBO's methodology and the IRS's methodology line up exactly. But, I think the top 10% is close enough to the $250,000 threshold for couples with two children.