No that is the poor pretending to be rich you don't get rich by spending more than you earn.
Yes the rich buy stuff on credit, but it is as an investment, if the cost of borrowing is less than what you expect to get in return, then it is prudent to borrow. Also if it turns out you fail other people bare the burden on you loss. Bankruptcy is not that bad ask Mr Trump.
The poor tend to by on credit not backed by anything, because they have no choice and end up paying higher interest and being able to buy less in the long run.
Although the rich buy more expensive items, the percentage of there total income they spend is much less. If you can barely survive you are spending 100% of your income. Where if you can save you are not consuming so you are not being taxed. A regressive tax is one that taxes a higher percentage of poor persons income than a rich person, not a higher absolute value (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp)
Not taxing food is a start at addressing this but there are other essentials that the poor must buy in order function, housing, transport, clothing. A consumption tax should be only taxing unnecessary consumption. Think of it this way you need a certain level "consumption" just to go to work, so really it is an investment for making more money. What percentage of your income do you pay in rent? What percentage of rich persons income do they pay? probably 0% since they will own the property, ok they have to pay maintenance and stuff, but it is probably much smaller as a percentage of their income.
Also there are luxury foods why shouldn't they be taxed?
This system would probably be far too complex to maintain, and the rich are the ones that can afford the accountants in order to avoid the taxes anyway.
Afraid, weary same thing, the reason we have fear is because we need it, we evolved to need and we still need it. Kids don't usually jump of high thing because they are afraid.
If this case if we underestimate the danger, it will be too late, you are right we will not be able to run an hide from this. So a little bit of overreaction is better than a little bit of under reaction.
Being afraid accomplishes lots, it motivates us, it is stops us doing stupid things, but too much, of pretty much anything including fear can be a bad thing too, it can do the opposite, paralyze us, make us do stupid things.
Maybe if the nurse was a little more afraid she would have followed procedures better. (don't know what went wrong so I am only guessing).
Maybe if we are afraid we have tested this first patient at the border instead of taking his word for it.
Maybe it will stop the US spending billions on fighting terrorism which truly is an insignificant problem, and has very little potential to become bigger. And start focusing more on this which is small but has the potential to become massive.
Where I live a car is not an essential item, it maybe in some places, but people still buy cars that the cannot afford here. Without one you will probably end up healthier anyway. It costs a lot of money to maintain. This may be different in places without public transport.
If you cannot afford to buy a car for cash you probably cannot afford to pay double or triple that price in interest to borrow the money to buy that car. If you borrow to buy the car you are effectively paying a higher price for the car, so if you are broke do you really want to throw your money away? It is a bad decision.
If you actually need a car, and I mean NEED, for example for work, not just really really want because would be more convenient, that logic would change of course but you should still get the cheapest possible car. Be careful you don't convince yourself you need the car, when you really don't, if you try hard enough you can come up reason to justify any purchase. I need a TV to keep up with current events, I need a smart phone, keep up my emails,... people survived thousands of years without any of these things and you probably can too.
I drive a 1994 Toyota, works fine doesn't break down often. I don't actually need the car.
There are countries that are socialist, (e.g. Nordic countries) compared to the US and doing quite well, better based on quality of life measures.
Don't get me wrong capitalism as severed the world well, it has increase its production capability nicely, but times have changed, we have reached a point where we are now not struggling to survive, on the contrary our excesses are now killing us, we are now simply consuming for the sake of consuming, there is no reason our economic system shouldn't change to meet our current needs.
The world is not black and white, and not even shades of gray. There is no need either one or the other, you can be in between, their may also be other alternatives, we can throw in the mix as well. If we limit our thinking to Capitalism vs Communism we limit the possible solutions we can come up with.
So if you loose your phone, or it getsbroken you loose all your iMessages? I am not sure you might be right but doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the cloud. Tim Cook Says:
Apple previously said that even it can't access iMessage and FaceTime communications, stating that such messages and calls are not held in an "identifiable form."
saying they are not held in "identifiable form." means they are held. therefore they are idenfiable since the apple user can identify them, since apple has the knowledge to identify them.
He also may be using weasel words, he may be stating there is no application that currently exists that allows a staff member read your emails. Not that one cannot be written, rather simply.
This maybe true, but the intent of the statement is still to deceive.
The questions are this: 1. If you get a new phone can you access your emails with that phone? 2. Can you reset your password?
If 1 is true clearly there is nothing on your phone that is needed access your emails. If 2 is true and they use your password to encrypt your data: They clearly can decrypt it without you providing the old password, and re-encrypt it. else they decrypt it with some key stored on their sever so they can clearly decrypt it. else don't encrypt it at all.
So either Tim Cook's technical knowledge is lacking or he is lying.
Disclaimer: I don't have an iphone or use icloud, so I don't know for sure but I assume the answer to both questions is yes
You make it sound like they work out what a reasonable profit is and then charge you for it in one way or another.
They will charge you as much as they can get away with, and give you as cheap and crappy service as they can without effecting there bottom line. Maintance of their equipment is not an advertised cost, they are not really competing on this, they will charge as much as they can. Any extra money goes right into the CEOs and shareholders pockets.
They don't have to be, although simply taking a picture of a card and being able to make purchases through an actual terminal is actually quite scary.
Credit card should always do a challenge response even over the internet, that is "plug" the credit card into the device, make the transaction.
An even simpler solution would be for the bank to txt/inform your cell phone as soon as possible that a credit card transaction has been made.
Frankly the only computer I am happy for my credit card details to be stored on is the banks, basically because I have no other choice, well actually they only need the public key as well.
Just because the crime rate in cities is decreasing doesn't go against the point that packing people closer together may increase violence. There are many factors that contribute to crime, population density may only be one.
This article http://science.time.com/2013/0... says cities are safer to live but if you read further its basically because you are far more likely to die from accidental death. murder per person is still higher in cities.
I personally don't know if it true that packing people in, increases violence I think at some point it probably does, but it is not a valid counter argument to look at decrease in city crime rates.
This is actually more of a problem than a solution, low transaction amounts are more likely to be missed by a person, here is a quote from the terms and conditions of a credit card I assume most have similar clauses:
You are responsible for checking your statements to ensure their accuracy and advising us of any mistakes, even if you are not at the address to which you have requested us to send statements. If you do not notify us of a disputed transaction within the time period stated below, then the charge or record of the transaction will remain on your account. If you wish to dispute any transaction recorded in your monthly statement, you must notify us in writing within 30 days of the statement period closing date, giving the following information:
I am very likely miss a $20 transaction on my credit card statement and not at all likely to miss a $2000 one. So I am likely bare the burden of the crime. If they are really that secure why not have all transactions contactless no pin.
I also am interested in knowing if I increase the power of transmission and the size of of the antenna can I increase the range on NFC, Yes it may violate safety standards, but I am sure criminals won't be too concerned.
What really annoys me is I should have a choice of if I want contactless enabled or not, I don't appreciate it being rammed down my throat if I have a credit card, it could simply be an option on the server side saying allow contactless/pinless transactions. When credit card is upgraded I intend to ring my bank and question every transaction under $80, every month.
Yes I understand there are a lot of insecure things about credit cards, but I don't need another.
sigh, you do realize you're an anti-religious troll right? The worlds religions aren't the issue, extremists are, extremists don't need religion to be extremists, its just a convenient twist on the work done by someone else for their own personal gain.
and that is the problem with banning trolls, Extremists aren't trolls they are people that disagree enough with you, that you consider their opinion extreme. People who considered women should have the right to vote where probably considered extremists a one point.
Trolls are people who make comments, who's purpose is meant to invoke an emotional response. when he says:
You've just described the teaching methods of the world's most popular religions, so I guess all those folks are out.
If he is expressing his true belief then he is not a troll, if he is just doing to to annoy religious people then he is.
I personally like having people disagree with me, it makes for much more interesting discussions than with people who agree with me.
Once you introduce moderation, you are likely to remove peoples opinions that you strongly disagree with as well. I would rather have a few idiots posting stupid comments, which I can choose to ignore, and keep strongly opposing views. My life won't be significantly effected if someone I don't know insults me, or my beliefs, and if it does significantly effect someone's life I think they had bigger issues to start with.
It maybe society as a whole has a problem that we are creating so many people who have so little self esteem.
Why should it be a % of the money under management is $200 somehow twice as hard to manage as $100, or do they guarantee your money so if they lose it they will pay you back? No, so the risk is all yours.
You may say $1,000,000,000 is harder than managing $100, not sure but if it is, is it 10,000,000 times harder? Its interesting since they fund managers tend to under perform the market, so they are worse than just blindly picking stock.
I agree IBM will charge whatever they can get away with, but they are competing with other companies with bad employees as well, wastefulness effects everyone no matter if it is private or public. High labour costs will be used to justify high prices if they can, we are not functioning in a market with perfect competition. Your under the false assumption that the only way for IBM to remove a efficient competitor is though price, it isn't they can file patents to remove competition, advertise, buy it out, change legislation,....
Anyway the patent office is probably/should be funded by filing fees, should that excuse them, no.
The problem with this scheme is that if your computer is compromised, then an attacker can access all your passwords once you enter the decryption key. I don't think biometrics can actually decrypt stuff though since each scan is slightly different.
I think the best way is to have a hardware key (e.g. usb stick) that does a challenge response, with public/private keys, that never actually gives out the key to anyone, not even the computer you are on. In order to activate it you need to do something physical on that stick, e.g. press a button, or scan a finger print if you want for added security.
You can easily change your password, get a new key. (you could just make the device have a write only private key but you would have to be careful that a virus can't write a known key to the device) You can give out your public key to multiple servers and know that they are not doing something stupid/bad with it. How do you know that people are not storing your password in clear text on the database? You can have multiple keys, for different security levels, or simply because you don't want to be tracked. Some could still steal the key but that is a physical act, and you would most likely eventually notice.
I don't think serviscope_minor implied that either, he just said its hardly news that either a private sector or public sector employees slack off, they both do. You can argue that we all pay taxes so we should care more however if you buy the product you may also pay higher prices for products. Of course people should care that this is happening, and it should be addressed, all serviscope_minor implied is that it wasn't a problem specific to the public sector. I think its more big vs small, or little buget vs big buget. e.g. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/a..., you can't tell me there wasn't a bit of waste there.
I actually think the reason that this is important is not private/public sector but due to the consequences of bad work. If a patent office employ grants a bad patient it effectively blocks the rest of the world from using that knowledge, without a costly, and long legal battle. That is a massive cost to the world. Where the Xbox one controller, so what it really only effects microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
So the goal is to encourage people to consume as much as they can. That sounds totally reasonable.
Everybody can be x months away from abject poverty, if they loose their jobs.
Of course I would pay my wife, and she would pay me, problem solved.
No that is the poor pretending to be rich you don't get rich by spending more than you earn.
Yes the rich buy stuff on credit, but it is as an investment, if the cost of borrowing is less than what you expect to get in return, then it is prudent to borrow. Also if it turns out you fail other people bare the burden on you loss. Bankruptcy is not that bad ask Mr Trump.
The poor tend to by on credit not backed by anything, because they have no choice and end up paying higher interest and being able to buy less in the long run.
Although the rich buy more expensive items, the percentage of there total income they spend is much less. If you can barely survive you are spending 100% of your income. Where if you can save you are not consuming so you are not being taxed. A regressive tax is one that taxes a higher percentage of poor persons income than a rich person, not a higher absolute value (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp)
Not taxing food is a start at addressing this but there are other essentials that the poor must buy in order function, housing, transport, clothing. A consumption tax should be only taxing unnecessary consumption. Think of it this way you need a certain level "consumption" just to go to work, so really it is an investment for making more money. What percentage of your income do you pay in rent? What percentage of rich persons income do they pay? probably 0% since they will own the property, ok they have to pay maintenance and stuff, but it is probably much smaller as a percentage of their income.
Also there are luxury foods why shouldn't they be taxed?
This system would probably be far too complex to maintain, and the rich are the ones that can afford the accountants in order to avoid the taxes anyway.
Afraid, weary same thing, the reason we have fear is because we need it, we evolved to need and we still need it. Kids don't usually jump of high thing because they are afraid.
If this case if we underestimate the danger, it will be too late, you are right we will not be able to run an hide from this. So a little bit of overreaction is better than a little bit of under reaction.
So be afraid, be slightly afraid.
Being afraid accomplishes lots, it motivates us, it is stops us doing stupid things,
but too much, of pretty much anything including fear can be a bad thing too, it can do the opposite, paralyze us, make us do stupid things.
Maybe if the nurse was a little more afraid she would have followed procedures better. (don't know what went wrong so I am only guessing).
Maybe if we are afraid we have tested this first patient at the border instead of taking his word for it.
Maybe it will stop the US spending billions on fighting terrorism which truly is an insignificant problem, and has very little potential to become bigger. And start focusing more on this which is small but has the potential to become massive.
yes it is passed on by touching someones sweat.
http://www.afro.who.int/en/clu...
Isn't sweat, a bodily fluid? or is ebola not passed on by that one?
Where I live a car is not an essential item, it maybe in some places, but people still buy cars that the cannot afford here. Without one you will probably end up healthier anyway. It costs a lot of money to maintain. This may be different in places without public transport.
If you cannot afford to buy a car for cash you probably cannot afford to pay double or triple that price in interest to borrow the money to buy that car. If you borrow to buy the car you are effectively paying a higher price for the car, so if you are broke do you really want to throw your money away? It is a bad decision.
If you actually need a car, and I mean NEED, for example for work, not just really really want because would be more convenient, that logic would change of course but you should still get the cheapest possible car. Be careful you don't convince yourself you need the car, when you really don't, if you try hard enough you can come up reason to justify any purchase. I need a TV to keep up with current events, I need a smart phone, keep up my emails, ... people survived thousands of years without any of these things and you probably can too.
I drive a 1994 Toyota, works fine doesn't break down often. I don't actually need the car.
There are countries that are socialist, (e.g. Nordic countries) compared to the US and doing quite well, better based on quality of life measures.
Don't get me wrong capitalism as severed the world well, it has increase its production capability nicely, but times have changed, we have reached a point where we are now not struggling to survive, on the contrary our excesses are now killing us, we are now simply consuming for the sake of consuming, there is no reason our economic system shouldn't change to meet our current needs.
The world is not black and white, and not even shades of gray. There is no need either one or the other, you can be in between, their may also be other alternatives, we can throw in the mix as well. If we limit our thinking to Capitalism vs Communism we limit the possible solutions we can come up with.
If third world countries become richer the should have less children, so 2 birds with one obese stone.
So if you loose your phone, or it getsbroken you loose all your iMessages? I am not sure you might be right but doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the cloud.
Tim Cook Says:
Apple previously said that even it can't access iMessage and FaceTime communications, stating that such messages and calls are not held in an "identifiable form."
saying they are not held in "identifiable form." means they are held. therefore they are idenfiable since the apple user can identify them, since apple has the knowledge to identify them.
He also may be using weasel words, he may be stating there is no application that currently exists that allows a staff member read your emails. Not that one cannot be written, rather simply.
This maybe true, but the intent of the statement is still to deceive.
The questions are this:
1. If you get a new phone can you access your emails with that phone?
2. Can you reset your password?
If 1 is true clearly there is nothing on your phone that is needed access your emails.
If 2 is true and they use your password to encrypt your data:
They clearly can decrypt it without you providing the old password, and re-encrypt it.
else they decrypt it with some key stored on their sever so they can clearly decrypt it.
else don't encrypt it at all.
So either Tim Cook's technical knowledge is lacking or he is lying.
Disclaimer:
I don't have an iphone or use icloud, so I don't know for sure but I assume the answer to both questions is yes
You make it sound like they work out what a reasonable profit is and then charge you for it in one way or another.
They will charge you as much as they can get away with, and give you as cheap and crappy service as they can without effecting there bottom line. Maintance of their equipment is not an advertised cost, they are not really competing on this, they will charge as much as they can. Any extra money goes right into the CEOs and shareholders pockets.
They don't have to be, although simply taking a picture of a card and being able to make purchases through an actual terminal is actually quite scary.
Credit card should always do a challenge response even over the internet, that is "plug" the credit card into the device, make the transaction.
An even simpler solution would be for the bank to txt/inform your cell phone as soon as possible that a credit card transaction has been made.
Frankly the only computer I am happy for my credit card details to be stored on is the banks, basically because I have no other choice, well actually they only need the public key as well.
Why? Why can't you like one part of capitalism and not others, why does it have to be an all or nothing choice? Because someone says so?
Just because the crime rate in cities is decreasing doesn't go against the point that packing people closer together may increase violence. There are many factors that contribute to crime, population density may only be one.
This article http://science.time.com/2013/0... says cities are safer to live but if you read further its basically because you are far more likely to die from accidental death. murder per person is still higher in cities.
I personally don't know if it true that packing people in, increases violence I think at some point it probably does, but it is not a valid counter argument to look at decrease in city crime rates.
This is actually more of a problem than a solution, low transaction amounts are more likely to be missed by a person, here is a quote from the terms and conditions of a credit card I assume most have similar clauses:
You are responsible for checking your statements to ensure their accuracy and advising us of any mistakes, even if you are not at the address to which you have requested us to send statements. If you do not notify us of a disputed transaction within the time period stated below, then the charge or record of the transaction will remain on your account. If you wish to dispute any transaction recorded in your monthly statement, you must notify us in writing within 30 days of the statement period closing date, giving the following information:
I am very likely miss a $20 transaction on my credit card statement and not at all likely to miss a $2000 one. So I am likely bare the burden of the crime. If they are really that secure why not have all transactions contactless no pin.
I also am interested in knowing if I increase the power of transmission and the size of of the antenna can I increase the range on NFC, Yes it may violate safety standards, but I am sure criminals won't be too concerned.
What really annoys me is I should have a choice of if I want contactless enabled or not, I don't appreciate it being rammed down my throat if I have a credit card, it could simply be an option on the server side saying allow contactless/pinless transactions. When credit card is upgraded I intend to ring my bank and question every transaction under $80, every month.
Yes I understand there are a lot of insecure things about credit cards, but I don't need another.
That would be all well and good if it was true but actually having great disparity between winners and losers everybody is worse off even the winners.
There is a talk here https://www.ted.com/talks/rich... if you want skip to the relevant section it starts at about 11:06
sigh, you do realize you're an anti-religious troll right? The worlds religions aren't the issue, extremists are, extremists don't need religion to be extremists, its just a convenient twist on the work done by someone else for their own personal gain.
and that is the problem with banning trolls, Extremists aren't trolls they are people that disagree enough with you, that you consider their opinion extreme. People who considered women should have the right to vote where probably considered extremists a one point.
Trolls are people who make comments, who's purpose is meant to invoke an emotional response. when he says:
You've just described the teaching methods of the world's most popular religions, so I guess all those folks are out.
If he is expressing his true belief then he is not a troll, if he is just doing to to annoy religious people then he is.
I personally like having people disagree with me, it makes for much more interesting discussions than with people who agree with me.
Once you introduce moderation, you are likely to remove peoples opinions that you strongly disagree with as well. I would rather have a few idiots posting stupid comments, which I can choose to ignore, and keep strongly opposing views. My life won't be significantly effected if someone I don't know insults me, or my beliefs, and if it does significantly effect someone's life I think they had bigger issues to start with.
It maybe society as a whole has a problem that we are creating so many people who have so little self esteem.
Why should it be a % of the money under management is $200 somehow twice as hard to manage as $100, or do they guarantee your money so if they lose it they will pay you back? No, so the risk is all yours.
You may say $1,000,000,000 is harder than managing $100, not sure but if it is, is it 10,000,000 times harder? Its interesting since they fund managers tend to under perform the market, so they are worse than just blindly picking stock.
I agree IBM will charge whatever they can get away with, but they are competing with other companies with bad employees as well, wastefulness effects everyone no matter if it is private or public. High labour costs will be used to justify high prices if they can, we are not functioning in a market with perfect competition. Your under the false assumption that the only way for IBM to remove a efficient competitor is though price, it isn't they can file patents to remove competition, advertise, buy it out, change legislation, ....
Anyway the patent office is probably/should be funded by filing fees, should that excuse them, no.
The problem with this scheme is that if your computer is compromised, then an attacker can access all your passwords once you enter the decryption key. I don't think biometrics can actually decrypt stuff though since each scan is slightly different.
I think the best way is to have a hardware key (e.g. usb stick) that does a challenge response, with public/private keys, that never actually gives out the key to anyone, not even the computer you are on. In order to activate it you need to do something physical on that stick, e.g. press a button, or scan a finger print if you want for added security.
You can easily change your password, get a new key. (you could just make the device have a write only private key but you would have to be careful that a virus can't write a known key to the device)
You can give out your public key to multiple servers and know that they are not doing something stupid/bad with it. How do you know that people are not storing your password in clear text on the database?
You can have multiple keys, for different security levels, or simply because you don't want to be tracked.
Some could still steal the key but that is a physical act, and you would most likely eventually notice.
Seriously do don't already subcontract your job off to someone in China?
I don't think serviscope_minor implied that either, he just said its hardly news that either a private sector or public sector employees slack off, they both do. You can argue that we all pay taxes so we should care more however if you buy the product you may also pay higher prices for products. Of course people should care that this is happening, and it should be addressed, all serviscope_minor implied is that it wasn't a problem specific to the public sector. I think its more big vs small, or little buget vs big buget. e.g. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/a..., you can't tell me there wasn't a bit of waste there.
I actually think the reason that this is important is not private/public sector but due to the consequences of bad work. If a patent office employ grants a bad patient it effectively blocks the rest of the world from using that knowledge, without a costly, and long legal battle. That is a massive cost to the world. Where the Xbox one controller, so what it really only effects microsoft.