And neither of those planes have enough room in them to easily use a laptop other than in first class, of which there are about 16 seats.
I travel "those planes" on a regular basis. When I walk back to the restroom in coach, I find that 1/3rd to 1/2 of the passengers are either working or watching a DVD on their laptop.
Not to mention no power adapters so half way through your flight you're done anyway.
AA has power at selected seats. I almost always sit in the exit row, which does have power. In the rest of the "prime seats" (used by business travelers), I find that approximately every other row has power. If it isn't your row, it isn't difficult to negotiate with the row in front of you to let you use their power outlet.
Interestingly enough, Connexion was a partnership between Boeing, American, United and Delta airlines. I wonder what has changed...
Connexion was primarily on international flights, and used satellites. It was a lot more expensive to install ($500,000 per plane) and significantly more expensive to use.
Backelin said the Internet access will be filtered to block pornographic sites -- the airline at first said it wouldn't do that, but relented after hearing complaints from customers and flight attendants. And American won't allow voice-over-Internet phone service, to keep chattering to a minimum.
See Summary Table 1. Note the effective tax rate for social insurance taxes was already 1.7% for the top 1% of US taxpayers in 2005. Of course, if you are proposing that your 1% is actually 2% (1% from employee + 1% from employer), then their effective rate was close to what you propose.
But, that refutes your proposal: there's no way that you can lower everyone else's contribution to 1% (or 2% combined) and maintain the existing revenue, much less increase it. Plus, remember that FICA and Medicare are payroll taxes, and is not assessed on non-wage income like dividends and capital gains.
In fact, the table in question tells you the effective rate for social insurance taxes on all pre-tax income: 7.6% for all quintiles in 2005.
Summary Table 2 also refutes any contention that upper income isn't paying their share: The top 20% paid 43.6% of social insurance taxes in 2005. The top 40% paid 68.7% of social insurance taxes.
Read that again: The top 2/5th of taxpayers paid over 2/3rds of the social insurance taxes in 2005.
Baby boomers have got to be the biggest pack of whiny, self-indulgent motherfuckers that ever lived on this planet. Even though they are all getting old now, they still act like a bunch of goddamn teenagers. The sooner they die off, the better America will be.
A correction: "Social Security" is OASDI, a "trust fund" of government debt that will start to be drawn down in 2017 and exhausted by 2041, at least according to the last projections by the Social Security Trustees.
"Prescriptions for endless psychological disorders and sports injuries" are covered by Medicare: a separately funded program. It in even worse shape -- the "trust fund" is expected to be exhausted by 2017.
Some of us baby boomers have been pointing out the problems with both programs for the last 30 years, and have been effectively told by previous generations to STFU. But at this point, Social Security alone has collected about $500,000 from me (assuming a modest rate of return).
I didn't plan to depend on Social Security benefits. But, my expectation is that I will need them just to pay the increased income taxes that will be required to fund the current administration's spending spree. So, I will offer you the same advice given to me when I was in your position: STFU.
I get all my nuke sub info from Tom Clancy novels....
Why do you think I asked if it was fact, rumor or fiction, and that I couldn't remember the source?
Clancy also published a purportedly non-fiction book entitled Submarine, although I don't think it said much about the propulsion section. In fact, I think he specifically said he wasn't allowed there.
While it is true that a nuke boat is inherently noisier than a diesel boat, it should be pointed out that an Ohio class boat (and later LA class boats, for that matter) are quieter than background - you detect them by looking for places you don't hear normal aquatic noises like fish and such.
I recall reading long ago that US nuke sub reactors were designed to cool by convection if the pumps are shut down, making them undetectable except by the means you describe.
Fact, rumor, or fiction? I don't remember the source, so I'm not sure.
The original Parrot was an April Fool's joke
on
Parrot 1.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
My question (which was never answered) was how fake does a wrestling federation have to be to end up on SciFi in the first place.
Wrestling is fake? Oh, the horror! This is worse than the day I learned the truth about Santa Claus!
Goes off into corner to wail for awhile....
Seriously, it's about money. Wrestling is extremely profitable: it costs next to nothing to produce and the fans are apparently a desirable demographic for advertisers.
I've been to Japan several times and on all but one trip I didn't see much outside of walking range from my hotel - which was in a small city of no particular significance (other than having a Shinkansen stop - for a reason none of the locals could fathom). One trip was two weeks in duration so I was able to spend the weekend in Tokyo and the vicinity sightseeing - friendly coworkers were definitely helpful there!
My trip to Tokyo was one of the few business trips where I had "fun", although it was a different situation: I took some time off from a short vacation to work for a day, in exchange for my employer splitting some of my expenses.
If you go back, jump on the bullet train to Utsunomiya and switch to the local train to Nikko. Then, you can either catch a cab or walk about 20 minutes to the Futarasan Shrine.
It's a popular tourist destination for the Japanese, especially in the fall. There's another train from Tokyo that takes a "scenic" route through the mountains to Nikko, but I wanted to ride the bullet train.:-)
I found myself in a square of uncrossable roads containing me, the DART station, a car park, and Fry's Electronics. I could see the CompUSA I wanted to get to on the other side of the road; I just couldn't get there...
Walk north past Fry's to Plano Parkway and cross 75 there. You will have to dodge some traffic, but you can get there.
On the other hand, it's very unlikely there's anything you can buy at CompUSA that isn't available at Fry's -- and it's almost certainly less expensive.
Yes, I've been using the DART --- Galatyn Park is about five minutes walk from my hotel. I never knew Dallas had public transport! And apparently, neither does anyone here, because whenever I mention it I get blank looks.
The popularity of DART rises and falls in inverse relation to gas prices. But, it's primarily used by people to commute to downtown Dallas, as there isn't much at the rest of the stations except a parking lot.
[...]given that I'm used to driving on the left and having had a look at the traffic on I-75 I think I'd prefer to live.
It took me a few days to adapt to driving on the right in the UK, but I survived. However, you can get anywhere via the side streets, it will just take a bit longer....
So far I've been here about two months, and I don't have a car. In Dallas. I do not have a car in Dallas. That should give you some idea of the kind of opportunities I have to go out and do stuff.
Ouch. I sympathize. I had the same situation in Washington, DC, last year.... although they have the Metro, and I was able to rent a car for a few hours from Zipcar a couple of times on weekends when the train didn't go where I wanted to go.
If you can somehow get to one of the DART stations, that will give you some options. Another possibility: ask your employer if they will allow you to expense a car for a weekend day. Even if they don't, you can rent from a place like Enterprise starting at $32/day. Enterprise will bring the car to you.
Yeah, it was over fifteen years into my career before I was sent anywhere interesting. And even then, you end up spending so much time actually working that I got very little time to actually go look at the historic European city I was sent to.
It was a bit longer for me, but I was working in OS development. It wasn't until I was finishing up a system for a specific customer that I got to go somewhere interesting, and that was my first international trip for business.
As others have posted, traveling for business can be a real grind: you are typically there to do a specific job as fast as humanly possible. I work all day at the client's office, get dinner, go back to the hotel and catch up on my email with the rest of the company, then go to sleep. Repeat all week and hopefully go home on Thursday so that I'll have Friday for dentist appointments and other personal tasks that can't be done on the weekend.
What most new college grads don't seem to understand is that everyone in the industry wants to do the fun stuff and go the fun places, and as a college grad, everyone in the industry has more experience than you do. You have to pay your dues like everyone else.
The only time I get to do "fun stuff" is when I arrange two back-to-back trips to stay over the weekend. I've done it several times, either by plan or when forced to do so by weather (and a canceled flight). But, trips to "fun places" are rare, especially when your clients are in company towns that have little else to see or do.
However, the part that some don't realize: you aren't going on a trip unless you have the skill, knowledge, or experience to meet a need at the remote location. Travel costs are far too high to send people on junkets. Furthermore, companies are becoming more comfortable with various "tele-presence" systems enabled by the 'Net, whether it's a conference bridge, NetMeeting/GotoMeeting, or even full-scale video-conferencing systems.
This I agree with. The plane she currently flies is in fact a military owned plane. The problem is that she has to stop part way to refuel and she doesn't like doing it. She needs to suck it up, but instead rails against CEOs all day while doing the same stuff herself.
I've heard conflicting info on this: the non-stop requirement is either because Pelosi threw a tantrum about making refueling stops, or it's due to security issues at the refueling locations.
BTW, most congress people commute back to their districts every weekend. They work 4 days/week, fly home on Fri. and we pay them ~130k/year + all the extras + extras they get when they leave office. And, they have the nerve to criticize business people? ROFL.
I made this point in my original posting, but it got snipped in the quoting. Pelosi is in no position to complain about business people flying around the country in when she does the same thing. At the very least, she should cut back her trips to once a month.
Although Dems still aren't held to the same standard as Republicans are. Don't think so? Grow a pair and research how Nancy Pelosi uses Air Force jets as her private taxi service and ask yourself why that's not all over the news.
The following should not be interpreted as a defense of Pelosi. It's just a fact:
Pelosi travels on an Air Force jet for security reasons: she is second in the line of succession for the Presidency.
The choice of plane (a 757) seems excessive, but it's reportedly the only one readily available that can fly non-stop from DC to her home in California.
I think that Pelosi should acknowledge the political implications and cut back on the number of trips that she makes. Maybe she had done so.
But, I believe the parent poster is correct in one aspect: if Pelosi was a Republican, the mainstream media would be all over this, with repeated editorials masquerading as news reports.
Apple have a very surprising clause in their development agreement that prohibits 'turn by turn navigation' apps.
I'm speculating, but I've always suspected that this prohibition was associated with liability issues associated with operating a motor vehicle, rather than a preemptive strike against competition for a future application.
No, it doesn't. But, the GP's point is correct: if this had been a member of Bush's administration, this article would already have 500 comments of wailing about how it was Bush's fault, Cheney's fault, and the fault of neo-cons, the Illuminati, FBI, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, etc....
Read it again, and follow the link to read all the details about tv CBO's methodology.
The second set of percentages include ALL federal taxes, including income, payroll, and excise taxes.
There's no need for me to "have another go" when the only problem was your failure of reading comprehension.
In 2005, the top 20% paid 86.3% of federal income taxes, and 68.7% of all federal taxes (social security, individual and corporate income, excise). The average pre-tax income in that quintile was $231,500, although that was adjusted for household size. See the footnotes for an explanation.
For the top 10%, it was 72.7% and 54.7%, on average pre-tax income of $339,100.
For the top 5%, it was 60.7% and 43.8%, on average pre-tax income of $520,200.
And for the top 1%, it was 38.8% and 27.6%, on average pre-tax income of $1,558,500.
The same URL provides information about effective tax rates, which range from 25.2% for the top 20% to 31.4% for the top 1%, when accounting for all taxes.
In comparison, the lowest 20% paid 0.9% of all federal taxes, on average pre-tax income of $15,800.
The facts are a lot different than the propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
For a short while, I thought maybe Slashdot would forego the usual orgy of April Fool's jokes this year.
And neither of those planes have enough room in them to easily use a laptop other than in first class, of which there are about 16 seats.
I travel "those planes" on a regular basis. When I walk back to the restroom in coach, I find that 1/3rd to 1/2 of the passengers are either working or watching a DVD on their laptop.
Not to mention no power adapters so half way through your flight you're done anyway.
AA has power at selected seats. I almost always sit in the exit row, which does have power. In the rest of the "prime seats" (used by business travelers), I find that approximately every other row has power. If it isn't your row, it isn't difficult to negotiate with the row in front of you to let you use their power outlet.
Interestingly enough, Connexion was a partnership between Boeing, American, United and Delta airlines. I wonder what has changed...
Connexion was primarily on international flights, and used satellites. It was a lot more expensive to install ($500,000 per plane) and significantly more expensive to use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connexion_by_Boeing
Backelin said the Internet access will be filtered to block pornographic sites -- the airline at first said it wouldn't do that, but relented after hearing complaints from customers and flight attendants. And American won't allow voice-over-Internet phone service, to keep chattering to a minimum.
Another problem is the "tax base" thingy that effectively makes FICA one of the most regressive taxes in existence.
Yes, about half of wage earners in the US pay more in payroll taxes (FICA and Medicare) than federal income taxes.
But oh noes, it would make the rich fatcats actually notice how much they are paying.
No, they would simply shift their compensation to non-wage income.
In fact, if we got rid of the cap and made SS taxes a mere 1 percent of your income, I would propose that there would be a net gain.
You would be wrong.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
See Summary Table 1. Note the effective tax rate for social insurance taxes was already 1.7% for the top 1% of US taxpayers in 2005. Of course, if you are proposing that your 1% is actually 2% (1% from employee + 1% from employer), then their effective rate was close to what you propose.
But, that refutes your proposal: there's no way that you can lower everyone else's contribution to 1% (or 2% combined) and maintain the existing revenue, much less increase it. Plus, remember that FICA and Medicare are payroll taxes, and is not assessed on non-wage income like dividends and capital gains.
In fact, the table in question tells you the effective rate for social insurance taxes on all pre-tax income: 7.6% for all quintiles in 2005.
Summary Table 2 also refutes any contention that upper income isn't paying their share: The top 20% paid 43.6% of social insurance taxes in 2005. The top 40% paid 68.7% of social insurance taxes.
Read that again: The top 2/5th of taxpayers paid over 2/3rds of the social insurance taxes in 2005.
Baby boomers have got to be the biggest pack of whiny, self-indulgent motherfuckers that ever lived on this planet. Even though they are all getting old now, they still act like a bunch of goddamn teenagers. The sooner they die off, the better America will be.
A correction: "Social Security" is OASDI, a "trust fund" of government debt that will start to be drawn down in 2017 and exhausted by 2041, at least according to the last projections by the Social Security Trustees.
"Prescriptions for endless psychological disorders and sports injuries" are covered by Medicare: a separately funded program. It in even worse shape -- the "trust fund" is expected to be exhausted by 2017.
Some of us baby boomers have been pointing out the problems with both programs for the last 30 years, and have been effectively told by previous generations to STFU. But at this point, Social Security alone has collected about $500,000 from me (assuming a modest rate of return).
I didn't plan to depend on Social Security benefits. But, my expectation is that I will need them just to pay the increased income taxes that will be required to fund the current administration's spending spree. So, I will offer you the same advice given to me when I was in your position: STFU.
I get all my nuke sub info from Tom Clancy novels....
Why do you think I asked if it was fact, rumor or fiction, and that I couldn't remember the source?
Clancy also published a purportedly non-fiction book entitled Submarine, although I don't think it said much about the propulsion section. In fact, I think he specifically said he wasn't allowed there.
While it is true that a nuke boat is inherently noisier than a diesel boat, it should be pointed out that an Ohio class boat (and later LA class boats, for that matter) are quieter than background - you detect them by looking for places you don't hear normal aquatic noises like fish and such.
I recall reading long ago that US nuke sub reactors were designed to cool by convection if the pumps are shut down, making them undetectable except by the means you describe.
Fact, rumor, or fiction? I don't remember the source, so I'm not sure.
It included a mock press release: Perl and Python Announce Joint Development.
And a joint "interview" of Larry and Guido.
O'Reilly Media even tossed in a bogus book announcement: Programming Parrot in a Nutshell.
A few days later, O'Reilly published The Story Behind the Parrot Prank.
The name was eventually adopted by this project.
My question (which was never answered) was how fake does a wrestling federation have to be to end up on SciFi in the first place.
Wrestling is fake? Oh, the horror! This is worse than the day I learned the truth about Santa Claus!
Goes off into corner to wail for awhile....
Seriously, it's about money. Wrestling is extremely profitable: it costs next to nothing to produce and the fans are apparently a desirable demographic for advertisers.
I've been to Japan several times and on all but one trip I didn't see much outside of walking range from my hotel - which was in a small city of no particular significance (other than having a Shinkansen stop - for a reason none of the locals could fathom). One trip was two weeks in duration so I was able to spend the weekend in Tokyo and the vicinity sightseeing - friendly coworkers were definitely helpful there!
My trip to Tokyo was one of the few business trips where I had "fun", although it was a different situation: I took some time off from a short vacation to work for a day, in exchange for my employer splitting some of my expenses.
If you go back, jump on the bullet train to Utsunomiya and switch to the local train to Nikko. Then, you can either catch a cab or walk about 20 minutes to the Futarasan Shrine.
It's a popular tourist destination for the Japanese, especially in the fall. There's another train from Tokyo that takes a "scenic" route through the mountains to Nikko, but I wanted to ride the bullet train. :-)
I found myself in a square of uncrossable roads containing me, the DART station, a car park, and Fry's Electronics. I could see the CompUSA I wanted to get to on the other side of the road; I just couldn't get there...
Walk north past Fry's to Plano Parkway and cross 75 there. You will have to dodge some traffic, but you can get there.
On the other hand, it's very unlikely there's anything you can buy at CompUSA that isn't available at Fry's -- and it's almost certainly less expensive.
Yes, I've been using the DART --- Galatyn Park is about five minutes walk from my hotel. I never knew Dallas had public transport! And apparently, neither does anyone here, because whenever I mention it I get blank looks.
The popularity of DART rises and falls in inverse relation to gas prices. But, it's primarily used by people to commute to downtown Dallas, as there isn't much at the rest of the stations except a parking lot.
[...]given that I'm used to driving on the left and having had a look at the traffic on I-75 I think I'd prefer to live.
It took me a few days to adapt to driving on the right in the UK, but I survived. However, you can get anywhere via the side streets, it will just take a bit longer....
So far I've been here about two months, and I don't have a car. In Dallas. I do not have a car in Dallas. That should give you some idea of the kind of opportunities I have to go out and do stuff.
Ouch. I sympathize. I had the same situation in Washington, DC, last year.... although they have the Metro, and I was able to rent a car for a few hours from Zipcar a couple of times on weekends when the train didn't go where I wanted to go.
If you can somehow get to one of the DART stations, that will give you some options. Another possibility: ask your employer if they will allow you to expense a car for a weekend day. Even if they don't, you can rent from a place like Enterprise starting at $32/day. Enterprise will bring the car to you.
Yeah, it was over fifteen years into my career before I was sent anywhere interesting. And even then, you end up spending so much time actually working that I got very little time to actually go look at the historic European city I was sent to.
It was a bit longer for me, but I was working in OS development. It wasn't until I was finishing up a system for a specific customer that I got to go somewhere interesting, and that was my first international trip for business.
As others have posted, traveling for business can be a real grind: you are typically there to do a specific job as fast as humanly possible. I work all day at the client's office, get dinner, go back to the hotel and catch up on my email with the rest of the company, then go to sleep. Repeat all week and hopefully go home on Thursday so that I'll have Friday for dentist appointments and other personal tasks that can't be done on the weekend.
What most new college grads don't seem to understand is that everyone in the industry wants to do the fun stuff and go the fun places, and as a college grad, everyone in the industry has more experience than you do. You have to pay your dues like everyone else.
The only time I get to do "fun stuff" is when I arrange two back-to-back trips to stay over the weekend. I've done it several times, either by plan or when forced to do so by weather (and a canceled flight). But, trips to "fun places" are rare, especially when your clients are in company towns that have little else to see or do.
However, the part that some don't realize: you aren't going on a trip unless you have the skill, knowledge, or experience to meet a need at the remote location. Travel costs are far too high to send people on junkets. Furthermore, companies are becoming more comfortable with various "tele-presence" systems enabled by the 'Net, whether it's a conference bridge, NetMeeting/GotoMeeting, or even full-scale video-conferencing systems.
This I agree with. The plane she currently flies is in fact a military owned plane. The problem is that she has to stop part way to refuel and she doesn't like doing it. She needs to suck it up, but instead rails against CEOs all day while doing the same stuff herself.
I've heard conflicting info on this: the non-stop requirement is either because Pelosi threw a tantrum about making refueling stops, or it's due to security issues at the refueling locations.
BTW, most congress people commute back to their districts every weekend. They work 4 days/week, fly home on Fri. and we pay them ~130k/year + all the extras + extras they get when they leave office. And, they have the nerve to criticize business people? ROFL.
I made this point in my original posting, but it got snipped in the quoting. Pelosi is in no position to complain about business people flying around the country in when she does the same thing. At the very least, she should cut back her trips to once a month.
Although Dems still aren't held to the same standard as Republicans are. Don't think so? Grow a pair and research how Nancy Pelosi uses Air Force jets as her private taxi service and ask yourself why that's not all over the news.
The following should not be interpreted as a defense of Pelosi. It's just a fact:
Pelosi travels on an Air Force jet for security reasons: she is second in the line of succession for the Presidency.
The choice of plane (a 757) seems excessive, but it's reportedly the only one readily available that can fly non-stop from DC to her home in California.
I think that Pelosi should acknowledge the political implications and cut back on the number of trips that she makes. Maybe she had done so.
But, I believe the parent poster is correct in one aspect: if Pelosi was a Republican, the mainstream media would be all over this, with repeated editorials masquerading as news reports.
Apple have a very surprising clause in their development agreement that prohibits 'turn by turn navigation' apps.
I'm speculating, but I've always suspected that this prohibition was associated with liability issues associated with operating a motor vehicle, rather than a preemptive strike against competition for a future application.
Oh, wait.....
They're both right about that much. A plague on both your houses.
Now that's something about which we can violently agree!
The only good thing I can see so far about Obama is he's a very effective speaker. I know he's full of shit and I still want to believe in him.
Don't take away his teleprompter, or it will destroy your last positive illusion.
The politicizing that seems to be going on here is worrisome.
You must be new here.
Not, it's got nothing to do with Dems or Repubs.
No, it doesn't. But, the GP's point is correct: if this had been a member of Bush's administration, this article would already have 500 comments of wailing about how it was Bush's fault, Cheney's fault, and the fault of neo-cons, the Illuminati, FBI, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, etc....
Can you say "partisan"? I knew you could.
[...] I have no problem taxing them 40% and redistributing their wealth.
At least you are honest about it, rather than claiming the "rich" are somehow paying less taxes than everyone else.
Read it again, and follow the link to read all the details about tv CBO's methodology. The second set of percentages include ALL federal taxes, including income, payroll, and excise taxes. There's no need for me to "have another go" when the only problem was your failure of reading comprehension.
Seems like not taxing the rich was a huge mistake.
No, the mistake is claiming that the rich aren't being taxed.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
In 2005, the top 20% paid 86.3% of federal income taxes, and 68.7% of all federal taxes (social security, individual and corporate income, excise). The average pre-tax income in that quintile was $231,500, although that was adjusted for household size. See the footnotes for an explanation.
For the top 10%, it was 72.7% and 54.7%, on average pre-tax income of $339,100.
For the top 5%, it was 60.7% and 43.8%, on average pre-tax income of $520,200.
And for the top 1%, it was 38.8% and 27.6%, on average pre-tax income of $1,558,500.
The same URL provides information about effective tax rates, which range from 25.2% for the top 20% to 31.4% for the top 1%, when accounting for all taxes.
In comparison, the lowest 20% paid 0.9% of all federal taxes, on average pre-tax income of $15,800. The facts are a lot different than the propaganda.