Not nearly as " The LaBrea Tar Pits"... which when rendered in 100% English ends up being "the the tar tar pits".
For those who don't know, LaBrea Tar Pits (redundant I know) is a archeological dig site of oil tar pools where prehistoric mammals like SaberTooth Tigers and Giant Sloths (not to be confused with Cowboy Neal), fell trapped to their deaths. You can see parts of it in the movie Volcano, which takes part near the site.
They didn't get enough from Microsoft. I can almost guarantee you that. Microsoft is trying to buy the market, I realized before this post. The problem is, Microsoft isn't buying the phones, Nokia is still going to have to sell them (or try to), and will most likely end up with excess inventory sitting around and whatever Microsoft is paying them won't pay for the production of unsold units. Nokia will be force to dump them on the market or grind them up, neither of which is good for Nokia, and only makes Microsoft look like it shipped/sold more WP7 phones than it really has, like the current state of WP7 phones in the marketplace really is.
My version of "unlocked rootable" means more or less "I don't cater to the carriers, I cater to the person buying the phone". Meaning 'We'll let you update the OS even if the carriers don't want you to". So people getting Android 1.5 phones aren't stuck with Android 1.5 because the carrier locked the phone and isn't going to upgrade it to 2.1. or 2.2, even when it is fully capable.
That is what I mean. It isn't the geek side of me that says "I want to tether my laptop but the carrier won't let me" type of rooting the phone. Both have the same solution, I realize it. Most people don't want or know about such thing as tethering.
If Meego is superior then where is it? Is it a Marketing Deficiency? I went to buy a smartphone a few months ago, never once ran into a Meego phone, at least not that I know of. Behind means not in front. If I can't find one, without LOOKING for it, and I can't even recall seeing one having gone looking at all the Smartphones that were out there, then it is behind. Quality doesn't matter if it isn't available.
Symbian is the 14.99 phone because if I wanted a better than 14.99 phone I would get a Smartphone (like I did). Granted, these other phones are priced with 2 year contracts, but since I'm paying for subsidized phone whether or not I buy one (no discounts for owning my own phone), I'm going to buy one that way. My phone, Droid X, was only $99 on Cyber Monday, with a 2 year deal. I had my last phone 2 years. In two years, I'll look at 4G phones and wash rinse repeat.
Maemo, the Linux of phones. Nuff said. (except Android is too, shhhh). It may be capable, but who (besides a few geeks) care about the things it can do over Android (rooted)? Do you really think those things are worth it to most people?
The battle is on for the third tier phone OS. iOS and Android are the top two, everything else is an "also ran". This includes Palm's offering, Meego, Symbian, and WP7. You have four legitimate third tier phone OSes, two are offerings of Nokia.
As for the other two, Microsoft would have to pay me to make a phone WP7(radioactive), and Palm's WebOS will only come on HP products (yawn). This leave Nokia with two viable third tier products, one Open source and similar enough to Android, and too far behind it to really matter, and Symbian, the $14.99 walmart phone.
Nokia has lost the Smartphone market. UNLESS they do Android, and make a phone that is unlocked, easily rootable and with a "we support users not telcos" attitude.
I'm American. You're not wrong. Flatter than a pancake is used to describe 12 year old girls and Howie Long's Hair. The phrase should have been "thinner than a pancake". But that is vague. I would have said, as thin as a crepe but that is probably not accurate either.
Now, when are we going to get SSD in the TB range?
Certainly a dollar spent in taxes is a dollar not spent elsewhere, but I think you will have trouble arguing that a dollar taxed to a rich person is hurting a poor person just as much as if you'd taxed the poor person directly.
You missed the point then. Again the point is that taxes are regressive, to society. They are necessary to raise funds for government operations, but ultimately always impact everyone across the board. Yes, some are impacted more than others. The rich avoided taxes on boats by buying them elsewhere or not at all. Government didn't raise any funds, the progressives didn't get the feather in the hat they thought, and a bunch of people lost their jobs. In my case such an action didn't affect me directly. Instead, it affected everyone indirectly (Unemployment payments), and probably ended up costing more than it ever raised.
It was regressive, and all taxes are. If we realize taxes are regressive then we can create more sane taxation policies and outline our goals for society better. Do you think that the rich pay their fair share of taxes? Do you think they ever will? And if they do, do you think it won't negatively affect other aspects of the economy?
All of what you suggest is predicated on the idea that the "rich" can pay taxes, that don't affect anyone else, ever. This is flawed in premise because it is overly simplistic. All taxes are regressive.
When the government set up the progressive "luxury tax" on things like Boats and what not, it just didn't "soak the rich" like the progressives thought. It closed several boat building firms and laid off a bunch of average guys who built them, because the rich stopped buying boats. Tell me, how progressive that was in the end?
My solution is to REALIZE and use taxes for regressive purposes and shape society, like we do with cigarettes. The war on drugs is turning out like the war on Alcohol of the late 20's last century. Gangs and war lords rule the illegal marketplace, costing society in the end. Legalize it, Tax it, Control it rather than Make it illegal, lose money chasing bad guys, and ultimately never have any control what so ever.
My assumption isn't incorrect. Your assumption that taxes stay with the person paying them is incorrect. I didn't say spread evenly. I said it makes all products and services more expensive.
Want to see my point fully? Let say, I want to provide a service, website design. Let us say that I want to earn $20 hour for such a website design service. I can earn a living, pay my bills etc working at $20 hour. Taxes, state, income, fees, licenses etc all add up. In order for my "business" to allow me to "earn" $20/hr, how much do you think I need to charge? I can tell you, by the time I'm done paying the tax man I have to charge somewhere between 60 and 75 / hour.
Of course, I could do this kind of work, under the table and keep all the money, and charge $20 hour like the college kid next door. One of us passes the taxes we pass onto the customer, one does not (because they don't pay taxes). You tell me, where is my assumption wrong?
I think I should be able to kill my wife, since she is my property. You think that behavior should be suppressed? So, in your world, how would we arbitrate this difference in opinion?
I'm making the case that we ALREADY do directly vote on things to make them legal or illegal. That is how society actually is civil about things. This is as opposed to a dictator, making all the rules for everyone.
As for your last point. You can still smoke. You just can't do it anywhere you want. Kind of like peeing isn't it? I don't want to have to go to a designated area to pee, I want to pee wherever I want. Funny thing is, we don't have to smoke, but we all have to pee. I find your suggestion dangerously silly.
Two ways to become "rich". Inheritance or earning it. Business is one way of earning it. You earn a living right, you're in "business" by definition. You're confusing "business" with "corporations", they aren't the same, just related. Businesses incorporate to avoid penalties society places on earning a living. One of those penalties is Taxes.
You want to fix the problem with corporations? Stop Penalizing people for working in anything other than a corporation.
I have my problems with Corporations, so don't get me wrong. However much of it has to do with legal rulings that make Corporations the same as people in way too many areas (ie, 1st Amendment). And I'm probably closer to your views on those than you think.
The problem with your logic is that you ignore something considered "harmful" to the point of making it illegal that did take place. That would be alcohol and prohibition. Making Alcohol illegal altogether was one of the worst ideas in history, and one of the reasons why I'm Libertarian, even though I was born well after both Prohibition and its repeal.
You cannot legislate against vice. It doesn't work. You legislate against crime (murder, stealing, etc), but not against vice (drinking, smoking etc). You can control vices only if people willingly chose not to do them, and the easiest way is to tax them.
On the other hand, we tax things we want people in society to engage in, such as employment and so on. Taxation is, by its very nature, punitive. In essence, we are punishing people for working when we tax income. We want people to work, and be productive, so why are we taxing it?
I do understand the magnitude of the problem. The problem is that we think we can control people by taxing and spending us into oblivion. ALL the taxing and spending and social programs and whatnot have produced VERY change. It is an utter failure and has instead created a whole class of people dependent upon money and services given to them by government. And we're no better off because of it. In fact I would suggest to you that we're worse off, because we cannot possibly change course at this point without a great deal of pain. And that pain is coming anyway, we're just postponing it for as long as we can, making it worse in the long run.
If you put the burden on the purchaser, then the state will have to scrutinize every citizen (which is not practical/possible) - but this problem doesn't go away if you require businesses to collect them.
Why does government feel the need to burden the people for anything? The government is here to help society, not put unreasonable burdens on it.
All taxes are regressive. The lie of the left is taxes can be progressive at all. Everyone pays all the taxes. Hiding taxes among the 'rich' doesn't help people realize this, as the taxes just get hidden, and passed down to the little guy in the form of higher prices, lower wages and so on.
But this suits the "progressives" because it creates class warfare upon which to win elections. And when you pit the 'rich' against the 'poor' the people in the middle get screwed the most. If everyone were to realize how much of what they buy is "tax" they throw a fit and toss all the bums out of the legislature and executive branches of government.
Here's a picture: We're taxed when we earn money. We're taxed when we spend money. We're tax openly and we're taxed in secret (hidden). We're taxed to stick it to the other guy without realizing we are the "other guy".
You want my solution to taxes, spending, and so on? It is simple. Vote on things you don't want society to promote, make it legal and tax those things. Legalize drugs, tax them. Legalize Prostitution, tax it. Legalize whatever you think is a "victimless crime" and tax the activity. You'll end up with far more revenue, far less crime (by definition) and the problems of society become controlled.
You can see this with Cigarettes. Legal, taxed to death, and we don't have nearly the problem with second hand smoke as we used to.
I've not seen roaming charges in years here. But then again, I chose my carrier for because it has the best coverage.
I've seen people with second/third tier carriers get Roaming, but that is simply because they are cheap bastards who end up paying more trying to be cheap.
But I was told this was a war for (cheap)oil. So, did we get cheap(er) oil or not? If not, you better tell that to all the Bush Haters out there that kept that screed going. And if we did, then it wasn't a money sink per se.
On the one hand, Bush ran grand conspiracy and evil pots abounded. On the other hand he was a stupid monkey.
Here a little gift from me to you. Overlay a map of the Continental US over the top of Europe. If you're like most Europeans, you have no real idea how BIG the US actually is, in square miles. The TGV is great, but it wouldn't even pass all the way through Texas. Here's the map for the lazy.
People in Europe wanting this and that for the whole of the US have no real concept of how expansive this country really is. Try going from LA to NY by train? Better to fly. You wouldn't take a train from Paris to Kiev, would you? To give you an idea, distance from Calais to Nice (France) is about the same distance as Sacramento to San Diego California. That is just ONE STATE.
Because Europeans have no real grasp of how big the US is, they make all sorts of faulty assumptions. Assumptions Europeans wouldn't accept for Europe.
As someone who wanted to test his home router with Comcast IPV6 testing, I was sorely disappointed with the firmware running on my router. Appearently the version I have USED to have some IPV6 support, but recent revs have either broken it, or stopped supporting it.
Cisco doesn't care about Linksys brand. It was simply a marketing decision to buy the company to promote Corporate products. I won't buy Corporate Cisco equipment if I can ever help it. My company is replacing Cisco with much less expensive HP gear and can't be happier.
Do you hear that Cisco, your Microsoft style tactics will let your lessor rivals overtake you.
If you have existing Linksys gear, see if DD-WRT works on it. If it does, you'll get MUCH better support and it is IPV6.
Slashdot Mirror
Not nearly as " The LaBrea Tar Pits" ... which when rendered in 100% English ends up being "the the tar tar pits".
For those who don't know, LaBrea Tar Pits (redundant I know) is a archeological dig site of oil tar pools where prehistoric mammals like SaberTooth Tigers and Giant Sloths (not to be confused with Cowboy Neal), fell trapped to their deaths. You can see parts of it in the movie Volcano, which takes part near the site.
Yup, I've been around long enough to have seen it many times over.
Ahhh, Amiga, Mac, Microsoft Flamwars of old. Good times good times.
Meego sounds like a two year old wanting something .... "meego potty", "meego home", "meego outside" .... "meego phone".
They didn't get enough from Microsoft. I can almost guarantee you that. Microsoft is trying to buy the market, I realized before this post. The problem is, Microsoft isn't buying the phones, Nokia is still going to have to sell them (or try to), and will most likely end up with excess inventory sitting around and whatever Microsoft is paying them won't pay for the production of unsold units. Nokia will be force to dump them on the market or grind them up, neither of which is good for Nokia, and only makes Microsoft look like it shipped/sold more WP7 phones than it really has, like the current state of WP7 phones in the marketplace really is.
My version of "unlocked rootable" means more or less "I don't cater to the carriers, I cater to the person buying the phone". Meaning 'We'll let you update the OS even if the carriers don't want you to". So people getting Android 1.5 phones aren't stuck with Android 1.5 because the carrier locked the phone and isn't going to upgrade it to 2.1. or 2.2, even when it is fully capable.
That is what I mean. It isn't the geek side of me that says "I want to tether my laptop but the carrier won't let me" type of rooting the phone. Both have the same solution, I realize it. Most people don't want or know about such thing as tethering.
If Meego is superior then where is it? Is it a Marketing Deficiency? I went to buy a smartphone a few months ago, never once ran into a Meego phone, at least not that I know of. Behind means not in front. If I can't find one, without LOOKING for it, and I can't even recall seeing one having gone looking at all the Smartphones that were out there, then it is behind. Quality doesn't matter if it isn't available.
Symbian is the 14.99 phone because if I wanted a better than 14.99 phone I would get a Smartphone (like I did). Granted, these other phones are priced with 2 year contracts, but since I'm paying for subsidized phone whether or not I buy one (no discounts for owning my own phone), I'm going to buy one that way. My phone, Droid X, was only $99 on Cyber Monday, with a 2 year deal. I had my last phone 2 years. In two years, I'll look at 4G phones and wash rinse repeat.
Maemo, the Linux of phones. Nuff said. (except Android is too, shhhh). It may be capable, but who (besides a few geeks) care about the things it can do over Android (rooted)? Do you really think those things are worth it to most people?
The battle is on for the third tier phone OS. iOS and Android are the top two, everything else is an "also ran". This includes Palm's offering, Meego, Symbian, and WP7. You have four legitimate third tier phone OSes, two are offerings of Nokia.
As for the other two, Microsoft would have to pay me to make a phone WP7(radioactive), and Palm's WebOS will only come on HP products (yawn). This leave Nokia with two viable third tier products, one Open source and similar enough to Android, and too far behind it to really matter, and Symbian, the $14.99 walmart phone.
Nokia has lost the Smartphone market. UNLESS they do Android, and make a phone that is unlocked, easily rootable and with a "we support users not telcos" attitude.
I'm American. You're not wrong. Flatter than a pancake is used to describe 12 year old girls and Howie Long's Hair. The phrase should have been "thinner than a pancake". But that is vague. I would have said, as thin as a crepe but that is probably not accurate either.
Now, when are we going to get SSD in the TB range?
You missed the point then. Again the point is that taxes are regressive, to society. They are necessary to raise funds for government operations, but ultimately always impact everyone across the board. Yes, some are impacted more than others. The rich avoided taxes on boats by buying them elsewhere or not at all. Government didn't raise any funds, the progressives didn't get the feather in the hat they thought, and a bunch of people lost their jobs. In my case such an action didn't affect me directly. Instead, it affected everyone indirectly (Unemployment payments), and probably ended up costing more than it ever raised.
It was regressive, and all taxes are. If we realize taxes are regressive then we can create more sane taxation policies and outline our goals for society better. Do you think that the rich pay their fair share of taxes? Do you think they ever will? And if they do, do you think it won't negatively affect other aspects of the economy?
This just in, Technology is over-hyped in education.
I'm in education, and I see technology being employed simply for technology's sake.
Stop Drop n Roll doesn't work in the forest. It just lights the pine needles on the ground. I know, I've got the scars (not kidding).
On the happier side, I was declared the official Olympic Torch in 1984.
end up like this guy ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtPkxzHKLpk
Luckly we have the equivalent of Sun Tzu's Art of War for the IT crowd.
B.O.F.H
All of what you suggest is predicated on the idea that the "rich" can pay taxes, that don't affect anyone else, ever. This is flawed in premise because it is overly simplistic. All taxes are regressive.
When the government set up the progressive "luxury tax" on things like Boats and what not, it just didn't "soak the rich" like the progressives thought. It closed several boat building firms and laid off a bunch of average guys who built them, because the rich stopped buying boats. Tell me, how progressive that was in the end?
My solution is to REALIZE and use taxes for regressive purposes and shape society, like we do with cigarettes. The war on drugs is turning out like the war on Alcohol of the late 20's last century. Gangs and war lords rule the illegal marketplace, costing society in the end. Legalize it, Tax it, Control it rather than Make it illegal, lose money chasing bad guys, and ultimately never have any control what so ever.
My assumption isn't incorrect. Your assumption that taxes stay with the person paying them is incorrect. I didn't say spread evenly. I said it makes all products and services more expensive.
Want to see my point fully? Let say, I want to provide a service, website design. Let us say that I want to earn $20 hour for such a website design service. I can earn a living, pay my bills etc working at $20 hour. Taxes, state, income, fees, licenses etc all add up. In order for my "business" to allow me to "earn" $20/hr, how much do you think I need to charge? I can tell you, by the time I'm done paying the tax man I have to charge somewhere between 60 and 75 / hour.
Of course, I could do this kind of work, under the table and keep all the money, and charge $20 hour like the college kid next door. One of us passes the taxes we pass onto the customer, one does not (because they don't pay taxes). You tell me, where is my assumption wrong?
I think I should be able to kill my wife, since she is my property. You think that behavior should be suppressed? So, in your world, how would we arbitrate this difference in opinion?
I'm making the case that we ALREADY do directly vote on things to make them legal or illegal. That is how society actually is civil about things. This is as opposed to a dictator, making all the rules for everyone.
As for your last point. You can still smoke. You just can't do it anywhere you want. Kind of like peeing isn't it? I don't want to have to go to a designated area to pee, I want to pee wherever I want. Funny thing is, we don't have to smoke, but we all have to pee. I find your suggestion dangerously silly.
Two ways to become "rich". Inheritance or earning it. Business is one way of earning it. You earn a living right, you're in "business" by definition. You're confusing "business" with "corporations", they aren't the same, just related. Businesses incorporate to avoid penalties society places on earning a living. One of those penalties is Taxes.
You want to fix the problem with corporations? Stop Penalizing people for working in anything other than a corporation.
I have my problems with Corporations, so don't get me wrong. However much of it has to do with legal rulings that make Corporations the same as people in way too many areas (ie, 1st Amendment). And I'm probably closer to your views on those than you think.
The problem with your logic is that you ignore something considered "harmful" to the point of making it illegal that did take place. That would be alcohol and prohibition. Making Alcohol illegal altogether was one of the worst ideas in history, and one of the reasons why I'm Libertarian, even though I was born well after both Prohibition and its repeal.
You cannot legislate against vice. It doesn't work. You legislate against crime (murder, stealing, etc), but not against vice (drinking, smoking etc). You can control vices only if people willingly chose not to do them, and the easiest way is to tax them.
On the other hand, we tax things we want people in society to engage in, such as employment and so on. Taxation is, by its very nature, punitive. In essence, we are punishing people for working when we tax income. We want people to work, and be productive, so why are we taxing it?
I do understand the magnitude of the problem. The problem is that we think we can control people by taxing and spending us into oblivion. ALL the taxing and spending and social programs and whatnot have produced VERY change. It is an utter failure and has instead created a whole class of people dependent upon money and services given to them by government. And we're no better off because of it. In fact I would suggest to you that we're worse off, because we cannot possibly change course at this point without a great deal of pain. And that pain is coming anyway, we're just postponing it for as long as we can, making it worse in the long run.
Why does government feel the need to burden the people for anything? The government is here to help society, not put unreasonable burdens on it.
All taxes are regressive. The lie of the left is taxes can be progressive at all. Everyone pays all the taxes. Hiding taxes among the 'rich' doesn't help people realize this, as the taxes just get hidden, and passed down to the little guy in the form of higher prices, lower wages and so on.
But this suits the "progressives" because it creates class warfare upon which to win elections. And when you pit the 'rich' against the 'poor' the people in the middle get screwed the most. If everyone were to realize how much of what they buy is "tax" they throw a fit and toss all the bums out of the legislature and executive branches of government.
Here's a picture: We're taxed when we earn money. We're taxed when we spend money. We're tax openly and we're taxed in secret (hidden). We're taxed to stick it to the other guy without realizing we are the "other guy".
You want my solution to taxes, spending, and so on? It is simple. Vote on things you don't want society to promote, make it legal and tax those things. Legalize drugs, tax them. Legalize Prostitution, tax it. Legalize whatever you think is a "victimless crime" and tax the activity. You'll end up with far more revenue, far less crime (by definition) and the problems of society become controlled.
You can see this with Cigarettes. Legal, taxed to death, and we don't have nearly the problem with second hand smoke as we used to.
Roaming?
I've not seen roaming charges in years here. But then again, I chose my carrier for because it has the best coverage.
I've seen people with second/third tier carriers get Roaming, but that is simply because they are cheap bastards who end up paying more trying to be cheap.
Penny wise, Pound Foolish.
Okay, I can't be the only one thinking that an OPEN SOURCE logo is going to see a great deal of images that look like this ...
http://unintentionalgoatse.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/westnet-logo-goatse/
But I was told this was a war for (cheap)oil. So, did we get cheap(er) oil or not? If not, you better tell that to all the Bush Haters out there that kept that screed going. And if we did, then it wasn't a money sink per se.
On the one hand, Bush ran grand conspiracy and evil pots abounded. On the other hand he was a stupid monkey.
Sounds more like Schrodinger Cat.
Here a little gift from me to you. Overlay a map of the Continental US over the top of Europe. If you're like most Europeans, you have no real idea how BIG the US actually is, in square miles. The TGV is great, but it wouldn't even pass all the way through Texas. Here's the map for the lazy.
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm
People in Europe wanting this and that for the whole of the US have no real concept of how expansive this country really is. Try going from LA to NY by train? Better to fly. You wouldn't take a train from Paris to Kiev, would you? To give you an idea, distance from Calais to Nice (France) is about the same distance as Sacramento to San Diego California. That is just ONE STATE.
Because Europeans have no real grasp of how big the US is, they make all sorts of faulty assumptions. Assumptions Europeans wouldn't accept for Europe.
DD-WRT
As someone who wanted to test his home router with Comcast IPV6 testing, I was sorely disappointed with the firmware running on my router. Appearently the version I have USED to have some IPV6 support, but recent revs have either broken it, or stopped supporting it.
Cisco doesn't care about Linksys brand. It was simply a marketing decision to buy the company to promote Corporate products. I won't buy Corporate Cisco equipment if I can ever help it. My company is replacing Cisco with much less expensive HP gear and can't be happier.
Do you hear that Cisco, your Microsoft style tactics will let your lessor rivals overtake you.
If you have existing Linksys gear, see if DD-WRT works on it. If it does, you'll get MUCH better support and it is IPV6.
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/IPV6