Except you're wrong. Every woman I've talked to has been talking about how awesome the woman kicking CGI robot ass commercial was. And the phones don't cost the same. I got an LG Optimus S for $120. Free and clear. No contract. And I pay $35 for 500 minutes and unlimited data. That's about half the cost of an iphone in all regards. Now it's not the same hardware. But I've used iPhones and it's not twice as good as my LG Optimus S. Nor does it stay twice as good every month.
Interestingly enough these low end cell phones are becoming THE internet device for most of the people I encounter living in poverty. You need internet access these days and a pay as you go phone with Internet is significantly cheaper than a desktop computer and an ISP to the house. Not to mention the cost of a landline. The economics of cell phones are replacing a lot of devices. But not with iPhones.
It's 3G data. It is interesting, though. I've found that because people are so used to paying > $50 for a phone with any sort of data plan they find it really had to believe that the $35 can actually be real and worthwhile.
No. other poster was right. I was basically pointing out that my wife tweets by voice with her android phone and is really happy with it. Yeah, she has to click on the twitter app first. But she doesn't get why having Siri being able to launch twitter and then send the tweet automatically is somehow worth the price premium.
I use Virgin Mobile. We don't have as nice phones, but the monthly payment makes up for it for me. For $75/month my wife and I get unlimited text, data, and 500 minutes of calls each. Most of the services we use are Internet services. Not phone specific apps, so it really does boil down to price.
No it's because iPhones are marketed like wine. The people who buy them are going to love them at least somewhat based upon owning something of "quality". Something that's exclusive. Something that's better than what you have, because it is. And much like wine, you're never going to convince them that Android has all the same features. Because they have a price differential to prove otherwise. Granted at one point the iPhone was far ahead. But it has long since become about the cachet of being able to afford the device and data plan. My wife voice tweets on her $120 unsubsidized android phone with an unlimited data plan for $35/month. Yet somehow that's not as impressive as a device with Siri and a $199 subsidized phone and a $90/month plan.
I've been very happy with smugmug. It's very affordable to have unlimited video and photos, and you can order backup DVDs to put in a safety deposit box.
I can see how that would be important for some people. But one thing that has led to massive productivity loses in the past has been the assumption that all people think or act the same way, and trying to structure corporations around conformity rather than around productivity.
If I ran the company I would certainly not insist that you attend all meetings in your pajamas, since obviously that's less productive for you.
Why does it matter if we stay in our pajamas? How am I less effective if I spend my time working rather than grooming?
This is a typical anti-labor attack. Try to build a movement against a pro-worker stance by coming up with a laundry list of complaints that make other envious and/or disgusted.
If I only work an hour a day at home. Then my employer shouldn't be wondering what he's paying me for. He should be wondering why he's paying rent on a building for 7 unproductive hours a day for my co-workers.
It's apparently not particularly radioactive and CAN be blocked by tinfoil. So we can either put a small shield around it, or you can use your existing tinfoil suit. Your choice.
I still don't understand what "spending money directly on people is". You keep saying that and implying it's corrupt and stealing. Could you list a few of the budget line items you're referring to?
You seem confused. A huge majority of Americans love their Social Security, their Medicare, their free education and roads. The 90% you refer to are the ones in favor of spending.
If you'd like to, please feel free to sit down and shut up since you Tea Partiers are a tiny minority of a minority party.
Democrats are possibly richer not so much because of corruption (although that has happened), but because the majority of wealthy, well-educated non-politicians in this country are also liberal.
I guess I'm not debating your points as much as your conclusions. Feel free to vote for the tea party. They won't raise taxes to fulfill their balanced budget amendment (not that it could be passed and allowed them to pander without making any tough decisions) and overwhelmingly pushed for the tax refunds in Obama's tax bill, but whatever makes you happy.
This sounds like you're saying everyone who does something I don't like is stealing, but when I do the same thing I'm not. Can you please clarify what kind of things are voting to "take money" from taxpayers, and which are pooling in self interest? Because to me it just sounds like you're saying "people who want money to do things I don't like are stealing from taxpayers". I personally think it's morally abhorant to give tax cuts during a war, but I still don't call every Republican who voted to put money in their pocket while running up huge debts a thief.
The wealthy (if they are large business owners which is implied if we're talking about giving them tax cuts), depend upon interstate highways for purposes of commerce more than do you or I. It's not that they use it more, it's that they depend on it being there more. No highways I can't go on vacation. No highways WalMart can't deliver goods to their store. Substantially higher stakes for top 10%.
The gasoline tax is *frequently* used to pay for roads. Our roads are not exclusively paid for by gas taxes nor are gas taxes used exclusively to build roads. They are not fair at all, however. A suburban driver requires the use of federal and state roads paid for by gas tax as well as local roads paid for by urban residents. Thus suburban and rural voters generally get a far better deal on roads since they use the most and pay the least. Higher taxed city residents pay gas taxes on the interstates and state highways they are less likely to use as well as paying for urban roads through their high property taxes. The gas tax is only fair-ish. There's no way to have truly "fair" in taxes.
Your definition of stealing is silly. You're defining government. I'm in the top 10%, but I can't afford to build a interstate highway system. I vote for elected officials to pool my money with others to build things I want and can't afford on my own - like an interstate highway system. I also vote for universal health care, but sadly I haven't been able to convince the other 90% to take the money. On the other hand, I don't particularly like the military and would prefer none of my tax dollars went to subsidize it, but I'm mature enough to realize that in a Democracy there are many priorities and others get a say as well. But I still don't call it stealing when the other 90% vote to have my tax dollars go to fund the military.
There have been federal budget cuts for years now. There were just some wars and a massive new entitlement from a Republican president that have wiped out their effect. They're still costing me more at the local level even if they haven't helped out the federal budget situation.
I live in Texas. My state has record low unemployment. My local and state taxes are high because the federal government has stopped handing out block grants for many programs they previously were.
Your grasp of economics is atrocious. Doing what you mention actually does stimulate the economy in the short term, it's what we as a nation just did from about 2004-2008. It worked wonderfully. It does have consequences, though. But your illustration doesn't include the fact that the federal government has been throwing away money in the form of tax cuts. So it's a pretty bad analogy.
The budget cuts affect "all of us" also. And thanks to the Bush tax cuts and all these federal level cuts, my state and local taxes are through the roof to compensate for what the federal government isn't doing and/or providing.
Perhaps because your perception of "stealing" is incorrect? And actually considering that most local roads are built from property and sales tax there's a lot of stealing from the top 10% from the bottom 90% based on your definition of "stealing".
Slashdot Mirror
Except you're wrong. Every woman I've talked to has been talking about how awesome the woman kicking CGI robot ass commercial was. And the phones don't cost the same. I got an LG Optimus S for $120. Free and clear. No contract. And I pay $35 for 500 minutes and unlimited data. That's about half the cost of an iphone in all regards. Now it's not the same hardware. But I've used iPhones and it's not twice as good as my LG Optimus S. Nor does it stay twice as good every month.
Like the difference between a $50 and $10 bottle of wine.
Interestingly enough these low end cell phones are becoming THE internet device for most of the people I encounter living in poverty. You need internet access these days and a pay as you go phone with Internet is significantly cheaper than a desktop computer and an ISP to the house. Not to mention the cost of a landline. The economics of cell phones are replacing a lot of devices. But not with iPhones.
It's 3G data. It is interesting, though. I've found that because people are so used to paying > $50 for a phone with any sort of data plan they find it really had to believe that the $35 can actually be real and worthwhile.
No. other poster was right. I was basically pointing out that my wife tweets by voice with her android phone and is really happy with it. Yeah, she has to click on the twitter app first. But she doesn't get why having Siri being able to launch twitter and then send the tweet automatically is somehow worth the price premium.
I use Virgin Mobile. We don't have as nice phones, but the monthly payment makes up for it for me. For $75/month my wife and I get unlimited text, data, and 500 minutes of calls each. Most of the services we use are Internet services. Not phone specific apps, so it really does boil down to price.
That's a fantastic deal from AT&T. But, I pay $70/month for two phones. 500 minutes. Unlimited data. Unlimited texting.
No it's because iPhones are marketed like wine. The people who buy them are going to love them at least somewhat based upon owning something of "quality". Something that's exclusive. Something that's better than what you have, because it is. And much like wine, you're never going to convince them that Android has all the same features. Because they have a price differential to prove otherwise.
Granted at one point the iPhone was far ahead. But it has long since become about the cachet of being able to afford the device and data plan. My wife voice tweets on her $120 unsubsidized android phone with an unlimited data plan for $35/month. Yet somehow that's not as impressive as a device with Siri and a $199 subsidized phone and a $90/month plan.
warnings about hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis.
Oh maybe you're right. I hadn't seen the new "Download" feature. The pictures I'd previously uploaded are definitely still re-sized down, however.
Many services don't. We were talking about Facebook...
I've been very happy with smugmug. It's very affordable to have unlimited video and photos, and you can order backup DVDs to put in a safety deposit box.
Except that they downgrade your photos.
I can see how that would be important for some people. But one thing that has led to massive productivity loses in the past has been the assumption that all people think or act the same way, and trying to structure corporations around conformity rather than around productivity.
If I ran the company I would certainly not insist that you attend all meetings in your pajamas, since obviously that's less productive for you.
Why does it matter if we stay in our pajamas? How am I less effective if I spend my time working rather than grooming?
This is a typical anti-labor attack. Try to build a movement against a pro-worker stance by coming up with a laundry list of complaints that make other envious and/or disgusted.
If I only work an hour a day at home. Then my employer shouldn't be wondering what he's paying me for. He should be wondering why he's paying rent on a building for 7 unproductive hours a day for my co-workers.
It's apparently not particularly radioactive and CAN be blocked by tinfoil. So we can either put a small shield around it, or you can use your existing tinfoil suit. Your choice.
I still don't understand what "spending money directly on people is". You keep saying that and implying it's corrupt and stealing. Could you list a few of the budget line items you're referring to?
You seem confused. A huge majority of Americans love their Social Security, their Medicare, their free education and roads. The 90% you refer to are the ones in favor of spending.
If you'd like to, please feel free to sit down and shut up since you Tea Partiers are a tiny minority of a minority party.
Democrats are possibly richer not so much because of corruption (although that has happened), but because the majority of wealthy, well-educated non-politicians in this country are also liberal.
I guess I'm not debating your points as much as your conclusions. Feel free to vote for the tea party. They won't raise taxes to fulfill their balanced budget amendment (not that it could be passed and allowed them to pander without making any tough decisions) and overwhelmingly pushed for the tax refunds in Obama's tax bill, but whatever makes you happy.
Beware common sense it's frequently neither.
This sounds like you're saying everyone who does something I don't like is stealing, but when I do the same thing I'm not. Can you please clarify what kind of things are voting to "take money" from taxpayers, and which are pooling in self interest? Because to me it just sounds like you're saying "people who want money to do things I don't like are stealing from taxpayers".
I personally think it's morally abhorant to give tax cuts during a war, but I still don't call every Republican who voted to put money in their pocket while running up huge debts a thief.
The wealthy (if they are large business owners which is implied if we're talking about giving them tax cuts), depend upon interstate highways for purposes of commerce more than do you or I. It's not that they use it more, it's that they depend on it being there more. No highways I can't go on vacation. No highways WalMart can't deliver goods to their store. Substantially higher stakes for top 10%.
The gasoline tax is *frequently* used to pay for roads. Our roads are not exclusively paid for by gas taxes nor are gas taxes used exclusively to build roads. They are not fair at all, however. A suburban driver requires the use of federal and state roads paid for by gas tax as well as local roads paid for by urban residents. Thus suburban and rural voters generally get a far better deal on roads since they use the most and pay the least. Higher taxed city residents pay gas taxes on the interstates and state highways they are less likely to use as well as paying for urban roads through their high property taxes. The gas tax is only fair-ish. There's no way to have truly "fair" in taxes.
Your definition of stealing is silly. You're defining government. I'm in the top 10%, but I can't afford to build a interstate highway system. I vote for elected officials to pool my money with others to build things I want and can't afford on my own - like an interstate highway system. I also vote for universal health care, but sadly I haven't been able to convince the other 90% to take the money. On the other hand, I don't particularly like the military and would prefer none of my tax dollars went to subsidize it, but I'm mature enough to realize that in a Democracy there are many priorities and others get a say as well. But I still don't call it stealing when the other 90% vote to have my tax dollars go to fund the military.
There have been federal budget cuts for years now. There were just some wars and a massive new entitlement from a Republican president that have wiped out their effect. They're still costing me more at the local level even if they haven't helped out the federal budget situation.
I live in Texas. My state has record low unemployment. My local and state taxes are high because the federal government has stopped handing out block grants for many programs they previously were.
Your grasp of economics is atrocious. Doing what you mention actually does stimulate the economy in the short term, it's what we as a nation just did from about 2004-2008. It worked wonderfully. It does have consequences, though. But your illustration doesn't include the fact that the federal government has been throwing away money in the form of tax cuts. So it's a pretty bad analogy.
The budget cuts affect "all of us" also. And thanks to the Bush tax cuts and all these federal level cuts, my state and local taxes are through the roof to compensate for what the federal government isn't doing and/or providing.
Nope, just read your comment wrong. Thought you were jmottram08 repeating the same point.
Perhaps because your perception of "stealing" is incorrect? And actually considering that most local roads are built from property and sales tax there's a lot of stealing from the top 10% from the bottom 90% based on your definition of "stealing".