What's really hilarious is that it's Russia we're talking about here. Putin would have had Snowden disappeared by now, or dying of radiation poisoning.
I'm far from a Holder fan, but there is no reason to think Snowden would be treated differently than the likes of Hanssen or other modern spies in the civil criminal justice system.
So this isn't an example of Apple innovating, but rather preventing any competitors from getting their hands on the same technology.
Apple licensed the basic liquidmetal techology years ago, but is developing it into something that can be mass-manufactured. The first two names on this patent are Apple employees.
In a vacuum, one could say that this is a our capital gains tax is progressive.
No, you can say flat-out that it is progressive, because it is.
two separate taxation schedules: one for the rich, and one for the poor
We have these schedules to encourage investment in companies. We tax long-term less than short-term to discourage quick flipping. However, I wouldn't mind seeing the long-term rate for anything held over three years.
The rich have a long-term capital gains tax that is capped at 15%. The poor have an income tax that is capped at 35%.
By definition, the poor never get to that 35%. By the time you're being taxed at 35%, you're rich. That doesn't even count that the standard deductions eliminate all or most of the income tax liability for the poor, while they mean basically nothing to the rich.
Wikipedia lists 31 wars. The US was involved in two of them, Iraq and Somalia. We had major combat involvement in Somalia long after it had been started by others.
The short-term rate scales exactly with the progressive income tax. The long-term rate is LOWER than the progressive income tax for the poor (as in it's more progressive), equalling it at the 25% bracket, and then remaining flat.
The most regressive tax we have is fuel tax. The well-off can afford the latest fuel efficient cars, $60,000 hybrid SUVs, and even $100,000+ electric cars with range and performance rivaling gas cars. The poor have whatever transportation they can afford, usually older and much less efficient. The rich family can afford the SUV with mileage in the 30s, while the poor one is stuck in the teens, paying twice as much tax. And the poor family is more likely to have it driven by a laborer who actually needs the interior and towing capacity.
Sales tax is flat. The rich buy more expensive things, so they pay more tax. However, I do understand that a certain level of purchasing is necessary for living, and would agree that the taxes resulting from that level of purchasing should be rebated back to all people. This way the less you make, the greater the tax relief you get relative to your income.
Again, back to Standard Oil. Even when Standard Oil wasn't loss-leading kerosene sales to run competition out of business, their efficiencies lowered prices for everyone.
Amazon's price controls hurt the publishers, the authors, and of course B&N which couldn't afford to loss-lead as much. The Publishers couldn't sell the books for what they wanted to, because their monopoly outlet for sales dictated prices, and they had been trying to get out from under that for years. Now they have a range of prices that they have negotiated with three separate retailers.
The market is now more free, and government intervention wasn't required. In fact, the government is punishing this market correction.
Amazon voluntarily entered into a contractual agreement - at what point was force involved? Did they have a gun held to their heads?
Apple didn't either, yet was found guilty.
It is easy to point to the benefits of government intervention into the marketplace
I meant in the end after Apple broke the Amazon monopoly, not in the end after the government intervention. All this trial has done is warn companies against trying new business models.
Many gays disagree. If it's genetic, biological, then the anti-gay people could potentially come up with a "cure." It could go back to being considered a disease, which it was until recently.
I don't care what gay people do, although I do resist any small group of the population trying to force its views on the rest (religious right, activist gays, same thing). I just took time to understand the views of those against gay marriage, something gays and their supporters rarely do. It's much easier demonize the opposition, which lets you feel morally superior.
I'm pretty sure regardless of wording, that wasn't the intent of the section
It was adopted in 1948, a time when homosexual conduct itself was illegal in most Western countries.Alan Turing was convicted of homosexual activity four years after this.
Apple sold this plan to the Publishers as a way to eliminate Amazon's control over pricing.
There you go. This was a case of Amazon's monopoly price controls being broken by giving that control back to the several publishers. A "conspiracy" to end a monopoly should be applauded, not prosecuted.
The leading gay marriage advocate in the country, Evan Wolfson, disagrees, "I'm not in this just to change the law. It's about changing society." His goal is not just for equal rights, it's forcing homosexuality and gay marriage to be socially acceptable.
I can choose to download and use the Kindle app or the Nook app on my iPhone. You know what I can't choose? I can't uninstall Apple's iBook app.
You can't uninstall a lot of apps on a lot of phones. So what? An iPhone comes with much less junkware than the average Android. Note that Apple is not preventing you from installing the Kindle or Nook apps.
As for the conspiracy, well that was just proven in court.
They only proved a "conspiracy" to break a monopoly and let the producers of the goods set their prices (what a concept!). Prior to the iBookstore we had pretty much one legal source for new ebooks. Now we have three (Apple and B&N at 20%, Amazon at 60%). The government should be thanking Apple.
You do not understand. Even if all rights are equal, they still wouldn't be happy if they could not get the socially sanctioned title of "marriage" to apply to their fully rights-equal civil union.
Their website, the Nook, etc are responses to Amazon, but they don't push it.
You have got to be kidding. For a couple years, the entire entry way for a B&N was crowded with Nooks. They were shoving them down peoples' throats more than a Krisha at an airport.
They want to keep their tablet competitive with Amazon's tablets
They are not even in the same market. There's no competition. Putting an e-reader on the iPad was even a last-minute thought. Eddie Cue convinced Steve Jobs to do it just before the iPad's launch. Then the idea to couple it with a store hit, and Cue had two months to have the app, the store and the publisher deals done because Jobs wanted to demo them on stage.
Seriously, it's not a grand conspiracy, it's a hastily-constructed afterthought that ended up being successful.
Amazon's $9.99 model was pushing books at a loss leader, below the wholesale price, in order to keep everyone else out of the market. They were able to do this because they were selling Kindles. Consistently selling at a loss is a key indicator you have an anti-competitive monopoly. The consumers benefitted from low kerosene prices with Standard Oil's monopoly, but the government still broke them up because of how they treated other companies.
Along comes Apple, a new player, who says they could probably do pretty good in the eBook market with the popular iPad. The publishers see this as a way to break Amazon's wholesale model grip and introduce the agency model they've been wanting, where books are priced according to what the market will bear. Deal done.
Ta-da, Amazon monopoly broken, each book can be priced appropriately, not artifically limited to $9.99 in order to sustain one company's profit.
Regardless, they would not be happy with 100% civil union throughout the country. Even in states that allowed civil unions, they still demanded gay marriage.
Slashdot Mirror
What's really hilarious is that it's Russia we're talking about here. Putin would have had Snowden disappeared by now, or dying of radiation poisoning.
I'm far from a Holder fan, but there is no reason to think Snowden would be treated differently than the likes of Hanssen or other modern spies in the civil criminal justice system.
Apple licensed the basic liquidmetal techology years ago, but is developing it into something that can be mass-manufactured. The first two names on this patent are Apple employees.
These are people who brought their kids to public executions for the entertainment value.
The patent protects the small company Liquidmetal so that Apple had to pay $$$ to get the technology.
Berkeley: Loopy Looney Land
No, you can say flat-out that it is progressive, because it is.
We have these schedules to encourage investment in companies. We tax long-term less than short-term to discourage quick flipping. However, I wouldn't mind seeing the long-term rate for anything held over three years.
By definition, the poor never get to that 35%. By the time you're being taxed at 35%, you're rich. That doesn't even count that the standard deductions eliminate all or most of the income tax liability for the poor, while they mean basically nothing to the rich.
It's been built-in for years. The problem is that a person with a problem isn't going to use them to restrict himself.
Wikipedia lists 31 wars. The US was involved in two of them, Iraq and Somalia. We had major combat involvement in Somalia long after it had been started by others.
The short-term rate scales exactly with the progressive income tax. The long-term rate is LOWER than the progressive income tax for the poor (as in it's more progressive), equalling it at the 25% bracket, and then remaining flat.
The most regressive tax we have is fuel tax. The well-off can afford the latest fuel efficient cars, $60,000 hybrid SUVs, and even $100,000+ electric cars with range and performance rivaling gas cars. The poor have whatever transportation they can afford, usually older and much less efficient. The rich family can afford the SUV with mileage in the 30s, while the poor one is stuck in the teens, paying twice as much tax. And the poor family is more likely to have it driven by a laborer who actually needs the interior and towing capacity.
Sales tax is flat. The rich buy more expensive things, so they pay more tax. However, I do understand that a certain level of purchasing is necessary for living, and would agree that the taxes resulting from that level of purchasing should be rebated back to all people. This way the less you make, the greater the tax relief you get relative to your income.
Again, back to Standard Oil. Even when Standard Oil wasn't loss-leading kerosene sales to run competition out of business, their efficiencies lowered prices for everyone.
Amazon's price controls hurt the publishers, the authors, and of course B&N which couldn't afford to loss-lead as much. The Publishers couldn't sell the books for what they wanted to, because their monopoly outlet for sales dictated prices, and they had been trying to get out from under that for years. Now they have a range of prices that they have negotiated with three separate retailers.
The market is now more free, and government intervention wasn't required. In fact, the government is punishing this market correction.
In the US, it's common for someone who brings a copyright suit and loses to be ordered to pay costs for the defendant.
Apple didn't either, yet was found guilty.
I meant in the end after Apple broke the Amazon monopoly, not in the end after the government intervention. All this trial has done is warn companies against trying new business models.
Many gays disagree. If it's genetic, biological, then the anti-gay people could potentially come up with a "cure." It could go back to being considered a disease, which it was until recently.
I don't care what gay people do, although I do resist any small group of the population trying to force its views on the rest (religious right, activist gays, same thing). I just took time to understand the views of those against gay marriage, something gays and their supporters rarely do. It's much easier demonize the opposition, which lets you feel morally superior.
It was adopted in 1948, a time when homosexual conduct itself was illegal in most Western countries.Alan Turing was convicted of homosexual activity four years after this.
There you go. This was a case of Amazon's monopoly price controls being broken by giving that control back to the several publishers. A "conspiracy" to end a monopoly should be applauded, not prosecuted.
The leading gay marriage advocate in the country, Evan Wolfson, disagrees, "I'm not in this just to change the law. It's about changing society." His goal is not just for equal rights, it's forcing homosexuality and gay marriage to be socially acceptable.
You can't uninstall a lot of apps on a lot of phones. So what? An iPhone comes with much less junkware than the average Android. Note that Apple is not preventing you from installing the Kindle or Nook apps.
They only proved a "conspiracy" to break a monopoly and let the producers of the goods set their prices (what a concept!). Prior to the iBookstore we had pretty much one legal source for new ebooks. Now we have three (Apple and B&N at 20%, Amazon at 60%). The government should be thanking Apple.
You do not understand. Even if all rights are equal, they still wouldn't be happy if they could not get the socially sanctioned title of "marriage" to apply to their fully rights-equal civil union.
You have got to be kidding. For a couple years, the entire entry way for a B&N was crowded with Nooks. They were shoving them down peoples' throats more than a Krisha at an airport.
They are not even in the same market. There's no competition. Putting an e-reader on the iPad was even a last-minute thought. Eddie Cue convinced Steve Jobs to do it just before the iPad's launch. Then the idea to couple it with a store hit, and Cue had two months to have the app, the store and the publisher deals done because Jobs wanted to demo them on stage.
Seriously, it's not a grand conspiracy, it's a hastily-constructed afterthought that ended up being successful.
Amazon's $9.99 model was pushing books at a loss leader, below the wholesale price, in order to keep everyone else out of the market. They were able to do this because they were selling Kindles. Consistently selling at a loss is a key indicator you have an anti-competitive monopoly. The consumers benefitted from low kerosene prices with Standard Oil's monopoly, but the government still broke them up because of how they treated other companies.
Along comes Apple, a new player, who says they could probably do pretty good in the eBook market with the popular iPad. The publishers see this as a way to break Amazon's wholesale model grip and introduce the agency model they've been wanting, where books are priced according to what the market will bear. Deal done.
Ta-da, Amazon monopoly broken, each book can be priced appropriately, not artifically limited to $9.99 in order to sustain one company's profit.
And this is a bad thing?
Because we don't need the DOJ when the market can work it out through competition, as it clearly did.
This is your brain. This is your brain on religion.
Regardless, they would not be happy with 100% civil union throughout the country. Even in states that allowed civil unions, they still demanded gay marriage.
I'm not as petty as they are.