it's not gambling for the city... it's a for certain revenue stream. it's not called gambling for that reason; it's called gambling because those that play online are for certain to lose (the money has to come from somewhere), but the sell it based on some small chance of occasionally regaining a small amount of that lost.
There is absolutely no evidence for this. Look at the historical record - higher taxes have never kept people from seeking higher income.
historically i don't know of any countries stupid enough to tax the rich into oblivion to pay for stupid government mistakes, and its also unlikely to happen in the united states i think. the rich being targeted have more power than the middle class (because they pay campaign contributions to elected officials who vote on these decisions) so they are in a better position to lobby alternatives to taxing the rich, and i think that's what is happening now. it's not so much whether it has happened or is likely to happen (it isn't); left wing liberal progressives keep insisting on something that is just never going to happen. it offers a nice diversion from the real debate for politicians though, and that's probably the real origin of it all. to think obama really wants to tax the rich is just more bullshit. that's like someone saying they are going to tax themselves (not going to happen). if you look at much of the tax hikes and closed loopholes from the fiscal cliff deal (which was supposed to be all about taxing the rich), most of those who cop it are middle class investors.
the talk of taxing the rich is just that... talk, and people in the united states probably really need to stop procrastinating about their government's financial problems and focus on real solutions rather than media fluff. the rich already pay taxes, and those that dodge the system aren't going to be affected by any changes to it, so let's move on already.
except in the case of use by trained law enforcement, how many instances of guns (in the hands of private citizens) having prevented a crime have you ever heard of?
maybe a lot, but what about compared to instances of guns being used to perpetrate a crime, or in accidental shootings, etc?
guns may be good in unlikely scenarios (like someone successfully pulling off a dirty harry move when someone breaks into their house in the middle of the night) but they do relatively far more harm than good
would you remove all the locks on the doors and windows of your house merely because they couldn't stop aliens from abducting you?
also, window locks are uselss because burglers can simply smash the window
any level of personal security (even the fake security cameras, lasers, etc) is better than none at all
but on the other hand, imposing your ideas of "security" on others is not a good idea (such as the TSA)
people should be free to decide what level of security they think is appropriate for themselves, as long as it doesn't adversely affect others (don't install a nuclear reactor powered ion cannon in your back yard because your neighbors likely won't be very happy having risks from your ideas of security imposed on them)
the choice with education isn't about school or no school, it's about which school. if government got out of the way and all schools were privatized, schools would compete with each other for tuition fees which would keep prices down, and it becomes "user pays" rather than everyone being forced to bear the burden of the cost of education.
if poor people can't afford education, lack of schooling opportunities isn't the problem... it is lack of working opportunities to enable a family to pay that is the problem. it isn't a god given right to be educated. how is it fair that working middle class americans are forced to subsidize the education of the kids of welfare bludgers? in fact, getting their kids educated is probably one of the best incentives for welfare bludgers to get off their asses and look for a job (even if it may be doing something they don't want to be doing).
people don't need to be "given" money... that is socialism and it will kill the private sector (why work for a living if you can get more money off the government for being unemployed). welfare is a jobs killer (both private and public). on the other hand, if the government is going to give working people money, it would be better off reducing income taxes (achieves the same thing).
the problem with taxing "rich" people is that the rich people being targeted ($250k+) aren't really "rich"... they are merely households with more than one decent income. most really rich people ($450k+) get most of their money from things other than working, such as investments (stock dividends, rental properties, etc). there are ceo's that get significant bonuses, golden handshakes etc, but these people are no doubt smart enough to avoid the US tax system (or they pay people that are). also, how do you define "rich"? the other problem with taxing only rich people is that the higher the defining income figure, the fewer will be affected, and if you happen to be unfortunate enough to just fall into the "rich" bracket, you're likely to do whatever you can to put yourself below the bracket (the odd occasion where a reduced gross income can mean increased net income, due to lower tax penalties). people who pay a lot of tax generally put in a fair amount of effort into reducing their tax, so increasing their tax further will simply give them more incentive to try to reduce it.
the biggest problem with taxing the rich more is that less people will want to be rich, which is kinda the whole point of capitalism in the first place. what's the point of taking risks, investing, starting and growing a business and trying to maximize profit if the government is just going to penalize you for doing so. there is a point (google the laffer curve) at which raising tax rates actually reduces government revenue because of all these factors, and despite what many left wing morons are led to believe, the united states is a high tax country (when you take into account state and federal income taxes, payroll taxes, etc).
That starts breaking down when people go out to the movies more and skip the payments for their fire insurance (which now includes the service of putting out the fire), and then entire neighborhoods burn down while fire-fighters just form perimeters around the homes of paying customers and otherwise toast marshmallows
this isn't really a very likely scenario (and i think you probably know it). firefighters don't ask about whether a home has fire insurance before they attack a fire, even if they are volunteers. to highlight this, in australia, ambulance services aren't entirely paid for by the government so individuals must pay for ambulance membership (insurance), but if you don't pay for membership you still get picked up by the ambulance if you dial 000. you just get a $5000 bill in the mail afterwards and its up to you to find the money... the result is that it is extremely stupid to not pay ambulance service membership, but you are free not to and if the time comes when you take a ride in an ambulance then you
the government should be operating zero-sum regardless - if it spends less it taxes less, if it spends more it taxes more (setting aside borrowing, which complicates this but doesn't really change the underlying principles).
i agree with this entirely.... but the higher the ratio of private to public sector jobs, the more the government brings in from taxes and the less it spends on public service jobs, which then means taxes can be reduced, which improves the economy even more
Government is really just another form of a market, just one that isn't free - you get less choice over whether you participate, what you pay, and what you get. Taxpayers trade taxes for services.
not quite, because unlike in the private sector where if you think something is too expensive you don't have to buy it, if the government spends money on useless and expensive shit, tax payers are FORCED to pay for it whether it benefits them or not
The real question isn't whether the government spends more money or less, but whether the services received by taxpayers are worth the cost to them.
in a free market without government intervention (the private sector) this isn't an issue because worth is judged by the consumer, and it doesn't matter whether you think something is worth it or not because you are free to not buy it.
the other (major) problem with government is that it reduces market competition, because nobody in the private sector can compete with the limitless financial resources of government
the difference between a private sector job and a public sector job is that a public sector job is a net loss for the government and a private sector job is a net gain.
yes public service workers pay taxes to, but they get payed more than they pay (otherwise they wouldn't work obviously), hence net loss to the government. on the other hand, a private sector job doesn't have to be paid by the government but the government still gets income taxes (and payroll taxes etc), so there is a net gain for the government from a private sector worker.
if you have a large portion of the economy being in the public sector, money does move (velocity or whatever they call it), but it all winds up costing the government more than it brings in, so the government must borrow to pay the difference.
private sector jobs are more economically productive not in any practical sense but because they don't end up costing other tax payers to keep them in a job. private sector jobs are payed for by real economic activity (buying and selling) rather than by government.
it has nothing to do with paperwork or bureaucracy.
if teachers worked only in the private sector, their wages would be determined by supply and demand... if there are a lot of teachers, each teacher on their own is less valuable than if there were a teacher shortage. whereas in the case of government, teachers can just be paid more from borrowed government money regardless of how well they teach. in the private sector if you perform well you are paid well and if you perform poorly your pay is on par with that (generally), whereas government salaries are rarely measured by performance, because there is less emphasis on the bottom line.
actually it's the federal reserve's fault for keeping interest rates artificially low for so long that there was (and still is) a housing problem
but the fed has no choice but to keep rates low because the government has borrowed so much money that to raise rates would bankrupt the entire country due to inability to pay interest
the us government can pay interest on its debt now and that is why the world keeps lending, but if it gets to the point where money has to be borrowed just to pay the interest your debt skyrockets exponentially
these idiot keynesians claim that the government isn't like a household because it isn't a user of the currency, but that's hogwash... if the government wasn't a user like the rest of us it wouldn't have to pay interest... it is a user of the currency, and surprise surprise keynesians are stupid
answer me this: what makes you think nikon hasn't been paying licensing royalties to microsoft for use of patented technologies for years? surely it's not merely because it hasn't garnered the attention of slashdot?
i'm not sure what the operating system in previous nikon cameras was, but android possibly opens up all sorts of opportunities for nikon, some of which may be related to closer integration with software like photoshop and lightroom. i'm not sure what technologies are required for tethering, but some may require access to certain windows features that are licensed.
mitsubishi group isn't really a conglomerate in the normal sense. nikon is an independent company that forms part of a loose knit group called mitsubishi. nikon is still a large company, but there is no single overarching mitsubishi empire. mitsubishi corporation is a large japanese corporation but it is also merely part of the group, not its parent. the japanese economy is also in deep doodoo so i'm not sure how desperate nikon is reaching out to foreign companies like microsoft to build partnerships and help secure its future if/when the shit hits the fan. i'm not sure if microsoft could help even if it wanted to in that situation (the us economy is pretty fucked as well) but i guess nikon shareholders expect the company to at least do something to try to protect their interests.
i don't even think microsoft really has much clout when it comes to android (linux) fud, since pretty much everyone now knows its just fud. if a company gets summonsed to court, they probably wouldn't even need lawyers because the media and the oin (ibm) legal arsenal would pound microsoft into the ground. only stupid companies like sco even poke sticks at ibm. i know microsoft is a big company that can afford expensive lawyers, but ibm is bigger, meaner, has more patents, and is a big investor in linux, and microsoft knows that if they fuck with linux they fuck with ibm, and that would not end well for microsoft.
advertisers will just find other ways and means... there is too much at stake for them to just roll over. there are probably a lot of programmers working in the advertising industry that would be combing the firefox source code for other doors to help their clients gate crash the user experience.
unfortunately a lot of people who have grown up with microsoft office don't realize how much time and effort they have invested in learning how to use it, asking questions and battling its problems... then they try something like openoffice and get frustrated because they can't figure something out and think its a fault of the software for not being like ms office.
i'm not saying that microsoft office is bad (i use it in addition to libreoffice) but with the notable exceptions of access and outlook, open/libreoffice can do pretty much anything that word/excel/powerpoint can do, although it would be interesting to hear any thoughts regarding what people *think* openoffice can't do that they know how to do in ms office.
i don't think what nikon is paying for has a whole lot to do with android (omg i can't believe slashdot would be spreading fud!)
nikon would no doubt have heard of the open innovation network (oin), which pools patents and defends open source (linux mainly), so if microsoft was threatening nikon with a linux lawsuit, the oin would probably be all over it
ibm laywers in particular have no doubt been salivating at the prospect of a decent linux battle in court for a long time... alas for now they will probably have to continue to wait
i've had a go at doing the same thing for australia (which supposedly has a fairly healthy economy) and i got a full-time employment figure of 52%, which is a little higher than the 46% figure i got for america but it still seems pretty bad
google is taking ideas from hollywood, but they're taking them literally
"start up computer" "initiate auto destruct sequence, command authorisation alphi pi" "compile virus to infect alien mothership" "it's a unix system... i know this"
Slashdot Mirror
i agree with the difference between balance and equal, but...
your an open-sores advocate and Android fanboi
... that didn't make much sense (what does open-source have to do with this argument again?)
unless you're just troll-baiting, in which case let it roll and we'll see what happens :)
it's not gambling for the city... it's a for certain revenue stream. it's not called gambling for that reason; it's called gambling because those that play online are for certain to lose (the money has to come from somewhere), but the sell it based on some small chance of occasionally regaining a small amount of that lost.
There is absolutely no evidence for this. Look at the historical record - higher taxes have never kept people from seeking higher income.
historically i don't know of any countries stupid enough to tax the rich into oblivion to pay for stupid government mistakes, and its also unlikely to happen in the united states i think. the rich being targeted have more power than the middle class (because they pay campaign contributions to elected officials who vote on these decisions) so they are in a better position to lobby alternatives to taxing the rich, and i think that's what is happening now. it's not so much whether it has happened or is likely to happen (it isn't); left wing liberal progressives keep insisting on something that is just never going to happen. it offers a nice diversion from the real debate for politicians though, and that's probably the real origin of it all. to think obama really wants to tax the rich is just more bullshit. that's like someone saying they are going to tax themselves (not going to happen). if you look at much of the tax hikes and closed loopholes from the fiscal cliff deal (which was supposed to be all about taxing the rich), most of those who cop it are middle class investors.
the talk of taxing the rich is just that... talk, and people in the united states probably really need to stop procrastinating about their government's financial problems and focus on real solutions rather than media fluff. the rich already pay taxes, and those that dodge the system aren't going to be affected by any changes to it, so let's move on already.
except in the case of use by trained law enforcement, how many instances of guns (in the hands of private citizens) having prevented a crime have you ever heard of?
maybe a lot, but what about compared to instances of guns being used to perpetrate a crime, or in accidental shootings, etc?
guns may be good in unlikely scenarios (like someone successfully pulling off a dirty harry move when someone breaks into their house in the middle of the night) but they do relatively far more harm than good
would you remove all the locks on the doors and windows of your house merely because they couldn't stop aliens from abducting you?
also, window locks are uselss because burglers can simply smash the window
any level of personal security (even the fake security cameras, lasers, etc) is better than none at all
but on the other hand, imposing your ideas of "security" on others is not a good idea (such as the TSA)
people should be free to decide what level of security they think is appropriate for themselves, as long as it doesn't adversely affect others (don't install a nuclear reactor powered ion cannon in your back yard because your neighbors likely won't be very happy having risks from your ideas of security imposed on them)
it's the debian package manager :)
in sim city (i think 2000 or something) enacting the "legalize gambling" ordinance was usually a sign that you were running out of money
the choice with education isn't about school or no school, it's about which school. if government got out of the way and all schools were privatized, schools would compete with each other for tuition fees which would keep prices down, and it becomes "user pays" rather than everyone being forced to bear the burden of the cost of education.
if poor people can't afford education, lack of schooling opportunities isn't the problem... it is lack of working opportunities to enable a family to pay that is the problem. it isn't a god given right to be educated. how is it fair that working middle class americans are forced to subsidize the education of the kids of welfare bludgers? in fact, getting their kids educated is probably one of the best incentives for welfare bludgers to get off their asses and look for a job (even if it may be doing something they don't want to be doing).
people don't need to be "given" money... that is socialism and it will kill the private sector (why work for a living if you can get more money off the government for being unemployed). welfare is a jobs killer (both private and public). on the other hand, if the government is going to give working people money, it would be better off reducing income taxes (achieves the same thing).
the problem with taxing "rich" people is that the rich people being targeted ($250k+) aren't really "rich"... they are merely households with more than one decent income. most really rich people ($450k+) get most of their money from things other than working, such as investments (stock dividends, rental properties, etc). there are ceo's that get significant bonuses, golden handshakes etc, but these people are no doubt smart enough to avoid the US tax system (or they pay people that are). also, how do you define "rich"? the other problem with taxing only rich people is that the higher the defining income figure, the fewer will be affected, and if you happen to be unfortunate enough to just fall into the "rich" bracket, you're likely to do whatever you can to put yourself below the bracket (the odd occasion where a reduced gross income can mean increased net income, due to lower tax penalties). people who pay a lot of tax generally put in a fair amount of effort into reducing their tax, so increasing their tax further will simply give them more incentive to try to reduce it.
the biggest problem with taxing the rich more is that less people will want to be rich, which is kinda the whole point of capitalism in the first place. what's the point of taking risks, investing, starting and growing a business and trying to maximize profit if the government is just going to penalize you for doing so. there is a point (google the laffer curve) at which raising tax rates actually reduces government revenue because of all these factors, and despite what many left wing morons are led to believe, the united states is a high tax country (when you take into account state and federal income taxes, payroll taxes, etc).
That starts breaking down when people go out to the movies more and skip the payments for their fire insurance (which now includes the service of putting out the fire), and then entire neighborhoods burn down while fire-fighters just form perimeters around the homes of paying customers and otherwise toast marshmallows
this isn't really a very likely scenario (and i think you probably know it). firefighters don't ask about whether a home has fire insurance before they attack a fire, even if they are volunteers. to highlight this, in australia, ambulance services aren't entirely paid for by the government so individuals must pay for ambulance membership (insurance), but if you don't pay for membership you still get picked up by the ambulance if you dial 000. you just get a $5000 bill in the mail afterwards and its up to you to find the money... the result is that it is extremely stupid to not pay ambulance service membership, but you are free not to and if the time comes when you take a ride in an ambulance then you
the government should be operating zero-sum regardless - if it spends less it taxes less, if it spends more it taxes more (setting aside borrowing, which complicates this but doesn't really change the underlying principles).
i agree with this entirely.... but the higher the ratio of private to public sector jobs, the more the government brings in from taxes and the less it spends on public service jobs, which then means taxes can be reduced, which improves the economy even more
Government is really just another form of a market, just one that isn't free - you get less choice over whether you participate, what you pay, and what you get. Taxpayers trade taxes for services.
not quite, because unlike in the private sector where if you think something is too expensive you don't have to buy it, if the government spends money on useless and expensive shit, tax payers are FORCED to pay for it whether it benefits them or not
The real question isn't whether the government spends more money or less, but whether the services received by taxpayers are worth the cost to them.
in a free market without government intervention (the private sector) this isn't an issue because worth is judged by the consumer, and it doesn't matter whether you think something is worth it or not because you are free to not buy it.
the other (major) problem with government is that it reduces market competition, because nobody in the private sector can compete with the limitless financial resources of government
How do you define "productive economy?"
the difference between a private sector job and a public sector job is that a public sector job is a net loss for the government and a private sector job is a net gain.
yes public service workers pay taxes to, but they get payed more than they pay (otherwise they wouldn't work obviously), hence net loss to the government. on the other hand, a private sector job doesn't have to be paid by the government but the government still gets income taxes (and payroll taxes etc), so there is a net gain for the government from a private sector worker.
if you have a large portion of the economy being in the public sector, money does move (velocity or whatever they call it), but it all winds up costing the government more than it brings in, so the government must borrow to pay the difference.
private sector jobs are more economically productive not in any practical sense but because they don't end up costing other tax payers to keep them in a job. private sector jobs are payed for by real economic activity (buying and selling) rather than by government.
it has nothing to do with paperwork or bureaucracy.
if teachers worked only in the private sector, their wages would be determined by supply and demand... if there are a lot of teachers, each teacher on their own is less valuable than if there were a teacher shortage. whereas in the case of government, teachers can just be paid more from borrowed government money regardless of how well they teach. in the private sector if you perform well you are paid well and if you perform poorly your pay is on par with that (generally), whereas government salaries are rarely measured by performance, because there is less emphasis on the bottom line.
actually it's the federal reserve's fault for keeping interest rates artificially low for so long that there was (and still is) a housing problem
but the fed has no choice but to keep rates low because the government has borrowed so much money that to raise rates would bankrupt the entire country due to inability to pay interest
the us government can pay interest on its debt now and that is why the world keeps lending, but if it gets to the point where money has to be borrowed just to pay the interest your debt skyrockets exponentially
these idiot keynesians claim that the government isn't like a household because it isn't a user of the currency, but that's hogwash... if the government wasn't a user like the rest of us it wouldn't have to pay interest... it is a user of the currency, and surprise surprise keynesians are stupid
answer me this: what makes you think nikon hasn't been paying licensing royalties to microsoft for use of patented technologies for years?
surely it's not merely because it hasn't garnered the attention of slashdot?
i'm not sure what the operating system in previous nikon cameras was, but android possibly opens up all sorts of opportunities for nikon, some of which may be related to closer integration with software like photoshop and lightroom. i'm not sure what technologies are required for tethering, but some may require access to certain windows features that are licensed.
mitsubishi group isn't really a conglomerate in the normal sense. nikon is an independent company that forms part of a loose knit group called mitsubishi. nikon is still a large company, but there is no single overarching mitsubishi empire. mitsubishi corporation is a large japanese corporation but it is also merely part of the group, not its parent. the japanese economy is also in deep doodoo so i'm not sure how desperate nikon is reaching out to foreign companies like microsoft to build partnerships and help secure its future if/when the shit hits the fan. i'm not sure if microsoft could help even if it wanted to in that situation (the us economy is pretty fucked as well) but i guess nikon shareholders expect the company to at least do something to try to protect their interests.
i don't even think microsoft really has much clout when it comes to android (linux) fud, since pretty much everyone now knows its just fud. if a company gets summonsed to court, they probably wouldn't even need lawyers because the media and the oin (ibm) legal arsenal would pound microsoft into the ground. only stupid companies like sco even poke sticks at ibm. i know microsoft is a big company that can afford expensive lawyers, but ibm is bigger, meaner, has more patents, and is a big investor in linux, and microsoft knows that if they fuck with linux they fuck with ibm, and that would not end well for microsoft.
advertisers will just find other ways and means... there is too much at stake for them to just roll over. there are probably a lot of programmers working in the advertising industry that would be combing the firefox source code for other doors to help their clients gate crash the user experience.
unfortunately a lot of people who have grown up with microsoft office don't realize how much time and effort they have invested in learning how to use it, asking questions and battling its problems... then they try something like openoffice and get frustrated because they can't figure something out and think its a fault of the software for not being like ms office.
i'm not saying that microsoft office is bad (i use it in addition to libreoffice) but with the notable exceptions of access and outlook, open/libreoffice can do pretty much anything that word/excel/powerpoint can do, although it would be interesting to hear any thoughts regarding what people *think* openoffice can't do that they know how to do in ms office.
i don't think what nikon is paying for has a whole lot to do with android (omg i can't believe slashdot would be spreading fud!)
nikon would no doubt have heard of the open innovation network (oin), which pools patents and defends open source (linux mainly), so if microsoft was threatening nikon with a linux lawsuit, the oin would probably be all over it
ibm laywers in particular have no doubt been salivating at the prospect of a decent linux battle in court for a long time... alas for now they will probably have to continue to wait
actually, i reckon you might be onto something
i've had a go at doing the same thing for australia (which supposedly has a fairly healthy economy) and i got a full-time employment figure of 52%, which is a little higher than the 46% figure i got for america but it still seems pretty bad
point taken
french people are even more lazy than americans... you aren't saying much there :)
also, france is in almost as dire straits as america as far as employment goes, so you're comparing one sick nation with another
google is taking ideas from hollywood, but they're taking them literally
"start up computer"
"initiate auto destruct sequence, command authorisation alphi pi"
"compile virus to infect alien mothership"
"it's a unix system... i know this"
without government support, the economy collapses
how much more socialist can you get?
omg! mr ballmer uses linux everyday!?
the closest things in the animal world to humans are viruses
just don't tell the us government or they'll pass laws requiring you to shit at certain times
TIMMAAAAAH!!!!
shove a pipe us their asses and such it out by force
imagine being the guy in charge of that!
+5 awesome right there :)