It never ceases to amaze me how much goodwill can be engendered by learning to say: Please. Thank you. Hello. Good-bye. Do you speak English
in the local language. The reaction to a horribly prounounced "Bonjour, Monsieur. Parlez-vous Anglais?" is HUGELY different than the reaction to "Hello, do you speak English." Just making a minimal effort really helps - it shows the courtest that you're not _assuming_ that everyone speaks English.
While I agree with your comments on the complexity of the tax code, earnings statements are _not_ done under the tax code. In the US (other countries don't have this particular eccentricity), the accounting for tax purposes and the accounting for reporting purposes are quite different, and often yield notably different results.
I can understand if poor grammar exist in the discussions with shorthand or acronyms. However, this is just bad. Any thoughts on this Commander Taco?
You mean:
I can understand if poor grammar exists in the discussions with shorthand or acronyms. However, this is just bad. Any thoughts on this, Commander Taco?
Frankly, I think that if you're walking around with a "head-mounted" strobe light (even one that's not visible to the naked eye), you'll get a lot of attention.
Actually, BillG is far more likely to be on this list than BobF, who lives under a bridge near Austin with his imaginary friends. Basically, if you've ever gotten junk mail, you're in the database.
Don't read Mein Kampf - the ideology is repugnant - the prose is almost as bad. My mother used to teach sections of it to upper-level college German students as examples of how _not_ to write.
But you don't have to have a contract. If you do, it's cheaper, but you can go month-to-month. Catch is, you have to pay full price for your handset. Currently, the cellular companies subsidize the cost of the handset, and need the one-year-contract to ensure that they'll earn enough on you to cover the cost of the subsidy as well as the admin costs of bringing you online, the commission to the salesman (if you got service through one of their stores) or the commission of the third party (if you bought service through Ed's Cellular Hut). If you show up with your own handset (bought off eBay, or wherever), they'll be happy to activate it for you, no contract required.
Not to be overly pedantic, but there is only one Air Force One, and that's whatever plane the President is on. A Cessna could be Air Force One. These two 747s are VC-25 aircraft, tail #s 28000 and 29000.
"Despite common belief, not all music is owned by the RIAA, and I certainly wouldn't want a part of my tuition going into the pockets of these monopolists."
Sorry to be pedantic, but this doesn't make sense. If they're monopolists, then they own all music. If they don't own all music, then they're not monopolists. Can't have your rhetorical cake and eat it too.
Yup, this is the KKR, the "Original Bad Boy" of the private equity world. Remember that book, Barbarians at the Gate, about the leveraged buyout of RJR Nabisco? KKR were the "barbarians."
I hate to break it to you, but there's two huge costs you're forgetting (it's not just you, your fellow employees, and electricity):
1. The Movie Studios (you know, the folks who actually make the movies) Theaters get the bulk of their revenues from concessions. The studios get 70% of the revenue from ticket sales of new releases, although this declines to about 30% by the time a movie's been out for six weeks. This is designed to ensure that the theaters get about the same $ per showing even as the movies age and screenings get less crowded.
2. Mortgages United Artists, Carmike, Loews, Regal Cinemas, and General Cinemas (5 of the 6 largest chains) have all gone through bankruptcy in the last five years, mainly because they overbuilt theaters, and didn't attract the audiences necessary to make the payments on the debt they took on to build those theaters.
From what I've heard, Fox (and particularly their General Counsel's office) knew that the suit didn't have a snowball's chance in hell, knew that they'd lose, and knew that they'd look like idiots if they went forward. They were forced to do it by Bill O'Reilly. Probably shouldn't blame the lawyers on this one, sometimes, as an attorney, you're forced to argue something you don't believe for a second.
It's tax avoidance, not tax evasion. They're fully within the law in what they're doing (as the article notes), so calling them tax "cheats" is both inflammatory and ignorant.
It's useful to note, (again, as this article does), that the US corporate (and personal) tax systems are by far the most aggressive of any developed country - no other country taxes income of its companies on their foreign earnings (i.e. Alcatel pays tax to France on income it earns in France, but not from its operations in the US, but Cisco has to pay US tax on income it generates in France).
"Anyway, I couldn't imagine anyone better to cast the first stone than the one person on Earth who has never done anything remotely illegal."
I certainly do illegal things (I speed, for example, and I sure as hell didn't wait until I was 21 to drink!). That being said, I make no pretense that what I am/was doing is/was _legal_, nor do I complain about the "unjustness" of it when I get a speeding ticket - I took the risk, I accept the consequences.
"I may not have the billions it takes to fight the system, but I sure as hell can avoind buying their products so they can't screw me with my own money...Not to mention the quality of most games today is garbage."
OK, you don't want to buy their products, then don't, but don't pretend that the fact that you don't like their products enough to PAY for them somehow gives you the right to get them for FREE. Also, I might ask, if they're such garbage, why do you play them?
Yeah, sure, most modchippers are doing it for perfectly legitimate purposes, just like most Kazaa users are sharing music files from bands that have authorized it.
"Also consider this, once the naturally genetic code is gone... there is no getting it back."
The "organic" canola plants used to produce food products are the result of serious human genetic intervention. The first rapeseed plants capable of producing edible oils (previously, it had just been an industrial lubricant) were introduced in Canada in 1968, and dubbed canola, a contraction of "Canada Oil."
In the analog spectrum there are three (sometimes only two) large groups of channels:
1. Basic (i.e. lifeline service). This is the local broadcast channels, plus maybe CSPAN and a couple of community access channels, and (in some systems, home shopping). This is typically channels 2 to ~25. For customers who just want this service, the cable operator puts a single filter on a line that screens out everything above channel 25 (~200Mhz, don't remember precisely). This is typically $8-10 a month.
2. Expanded Basic. This includes ESPN, TNT, TNN, USA, etc. etc. These are typically channels 25 to ~70. For customers who want this service, the cable operator pulls the filter off the line. This service is typically $30-40 a month.
3. Premium Analog. Includes HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Playboy, etc. etc. Many operators now offer these channels only to customers who get digital packages. For those who do still offer them in the analog, customers need an analog box. You can actually see the channels without a box, but they're scrambled, so you get those huge wavy pictures with the weird colors and distorted sound. You could use this same technology (analog boxes) to offer a la carte service, but it wouldn't make much sense - if you're going to require everyone get a box, might as well be a digital box (small cost increment, and a lot of benefits (Video on Demand, lots more channels possible, etc.).
Bottom line is that filtering a couple of blocks of channels is doable within reason, but true a la carte, where you take 2,3,7,11,43, and 97, and I take 3,4,9,21,22,24, and 56, isn't feasible without a box on every TV.
While we'd all like a la carte pricing of cable, it's a nightmare from a technical point of view. The only possible way to do it would be to require everyone to have a digital box - trying to do this in analog simply wouldn't be feasible (i.e. try filtering 100-106Mhz out, allowing 106-112Mhz, filtering out 112-124Mhz, allowing 124-130Mhz, etc. - each cable tap would have dozens of filters, and each would push the limits of what passive filters can actually do).
Therefore, we're talking requiring a digital box for each customer, and every single TV set - that alone will tack $5+ per TV onto everyone's monthly cable bill (digital boxes are ~$150-200 and up.
You'd probably also end up with a lot of marginal channels going off the air (outside of Slashdot, how many folks will actually _pay_ for TechTV on an a la carte basis?).
"The real criminal is the company that charges $100 for the latest game knowing that it will sell at that price for no other reason than a carefully socially engineered populance."
First off, the sheer arrogance of this comment is mind-boggling. So, because you don't think game X is worth $100, but someone else does, means that they're "ignorant?" Wow, I must have missed the email where you were appointed arbiter of the value of all things.
Secondly, the company that creates the game, owns the game. They don't HAVE to sell it to you, they don't HAVE to sell it at all. They're free to stick it in a vault somewhere and let it rot (which might explain Duke Nukem...). By the same token, you don't HAVE to buy the game. They offer the game for $X. You're COMPLETELY free to walk away, buy another game, turn on the TV, go outside, read a book, whatever. The transaction is completely voluntary for both parties. It sounds like you're saying that the authors of the game should be FORCED to sell it for less (after all, they're "criminals," and we force people to stop engaging in criminal behavior). By the same token, shouldn't we then FORCE you to buy the game? It'd be only fair. So, it seems like we have a deal - game publishers can only charge $30 per game (rather than $100), but you MUST buy everything they publish. Somehow, I don't see you signing up.
It's amuses the hell out of me that when the RIAA uses John Doe lawsuits followed by subpoenas to fill in names for the John Does, it's abusive and horrible, but when the _exact same tactic_ is used to fight spammers, it gets a laudatory response?
Two places use $2 bills: horse racetracks ($2 is still a standard small bet) and Monticello (Jefferson's home). I chuckled when I got $8 in change at Montcello in the form of four twos, rather than a five and three ones. They keep up the good fight.
Slashdot Mirror
It never ceases to amaze me how much goodwill can be engendered by learning to say:
Please.
Thank you.
Hello.
Good-bye.
Do you speak English
in the local language. The reaction to a horribly prounounced "Bonjour, Monsieur. Parlez-vous Anglais?" is HUGELY different than the reaction to "Hello, do you speak English." Just making a minimal effort really helps - it shows the courtest that you're not _assuming_ that everyone speaks English.
While I agree with your comments on the complexity of the tax code, earnings statements are _not_ done under the tax code. In the US (other countries don't have this particular eccentricity), the accounting for tax purposes and the accounting for reporting purposes are quite different, and often yield notably different results.
"During the next 10 years, millions of programmers and users will utilize this system."
:)
Bill was almost certainly right about this prediction. I'm sure that, between 1988 and 1998, at least two million people used OS/2 at least once.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt?
It never existed. The standard is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt - that's a long way from a "shadow of a doubt."
I can understand if poor grammar exist in the discussions with shorthand or acronyms. However, this is just bad. Any thoughts on this Commander Taco?
, Commander Taco?
You mean:
I can understand if poor grammar exist s in the discussions with shorthand or acronyms. However, this is just bad. Any thoughts on this
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
Frankly, I think that if you're walking around with a "head-mounted" strobe light (even one that's not visible to the naked eye), you'll get a lot of attention.
Actually, BillG is far more likely to be on this list than BobF, who lives under a bridge near Austin with his imaginary friends. Basically, if you've ever gotten junk mail, you're in the database.
Don't read Mein Kampf - the ideology is repugnant - the prose is almost as bad. My mother used to teach sections of it to upper-level college German students as examples of how _not_ to write.
But you don't have to have a contract. If you do, it's cheaper, but you can go month-to-month. Catch is, you have to pay full price for your handset. Currently, the cellular companies subsidize the cost of the handset, and need the one-year-contract to ensure that they'll earn enough on you to cover the cost of the subsidy as well as the admin costs of bringing you online, the commission to the salesman (if you got service through one of their stores) or the commission of the third party (if you bought service through Ed's Cellular Hut). If you show up with your own handset (bought off eBay, or wherever), they'll be happy to activate it for you, no contract required.
OK, am I the only one who thought "My God, they've built Daleks!"
Not to be overly pedantic, but there is only one Air Force One, and that's whatever plane the President is on. A Cessna could be Air Force One. These two 747s are VC-25 aircraft, tail #s 28000 and 29000.
"Despite common belief, not all music is owned by the RIAA, and I certainly wouldn't want a part of my tuition going into the pockets of these monopolists."
Sorry to be pedantic, but this doesn't make sense. If they're monopolists, then they own all music. If they don't own all music, then they're not monopolists. Can't have your rhetorical cake and eat it too.
Yup, this is the KKR, the "Original Bad Boy" of the private equity world. Remember that book, Barbarians at the Gate, about the leveraged buyout of RJR Nabisco? KKR were the "barbarians."
"I can imagine where the money goes."
I hate to break it to you, but there's two huge costs you're forgetting (it's not just you, your fellow employees, and electricity):
1. The Movie Studios (you know, the folks who actually make the movies)
Theaters get the bulk of their revenues from concessions. The studios get 70% of the revenue from ticket sales of new releases, although this declines to about 30% by the time a movie's been out for six weeks. This is designed to ensure that the theaters get about the same $ per showing even as the movies age and screenings get less crowded.
2. Mortgages
United Artists, Carmike, Loews, Regal Cinemas, and General Cinemas (5 of the 6 largest chains) have all gone through bankruptcy in the last five years, mainly because they overbuilt theaters, and didn't attract the audiences necessary to make the payments on the debt they took on to build those theaters.
From what I've heard, Fox (and particularly their General Counsel's office) knew that the suit didn't have a snowball's chance in hell, knew that they'd lose, and knew that they'd look like idiots if they went forward. They were forced to do it by Bill O'Reilly. Probably shouldn't blame the lawyers on this one, sometimes, as an attorney, you're forced to argue something you don't believe for a second.
It's tax avoidance, not tax evasion. They're fully within the law in what they're doing (as the article notes), so calling them tax "cheats" is both inflammatory and ignorant.
It's useful to note, (again, as this article does), that the US corporate (and personal) tax systems are by far the most aggressive of any developed country - no other country taxes income of its companies on their foreign earnings (i.e. Alcatel pays tax to France on income it earns in France, but not from its operations in the US, but Cisco has to pay US tax on income it generates in France).
"Anyway, I couldn't imagine anyone better to cast the first stone than the one person on Earth who has never done anything remotely illegal."
I certainly do illegal things (I speed, for example, and I sure as hell didn't wait until I was 21 to drink!). That being said, I make no pretense that what I am/was doing is/was _legal_, nor do I complain about the "unjustness" of it when I get a speeding ticket - I took the risk, I accept the consequences.
"I may not have the billions it takes to fight the system, but I sure as hell can avoind buying their products so they can't screw me with my own money...Not to mention the quality of most games today is garbage."
OK, you don't want to buy their products, then don't, but don't pretend that the fact that you don't like their products enough to PAY for them somehow gives you the right to get them for FREE. Also, I might ask, if they're such garbage, why do you play them?
Yeah, sure, most modchippers are doing it for perfectly legitimate purposes, just like most Kazaa users are sharing music files from bands that have authorized it.
"Also consider this, once the naturally genetic code is gone... there is no getting it back."
The "organic" canola plants used to produce food products are the result of serious human genetic intervention. The first rapeseed plants capable of producing edible oils (previously, it had just been an industrial lubricant) were introduced in Canada in 1968 , and dubbed canola, a contraction of "Canada Oil."
In the analog spectrum there are three (sometimes only two) large groups of channels:
1. Basic (i.e. lifeline service). This is the local broadcast channels, plus maybe CSPAN and a couple of community access channels, and (in some systems, home shopping). This is typically channels 2 to ~25. For customers who just want this service, the cable operator puts a single filter on a line that screens out everything above channel 25 (~200Mhz, don't remember precisely). This is typically $8-10 a month.
2. Expanded Basic. This includes ESPN, TNT, TNN, USA, etc. etc. These are typically channels 25 to ~70. For customers who want this service, the cable operator pulls the filter off the line. This service is typically $30-40 a month.
3. Premium Analog. Includes HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Playboy, etc. etc. Many operators now offer these channels only to customers who get digital packages. For those who do still offer them in the analog, customers need an analog box. You can actually see the channels without a box, but they're scrambled, so you get those huge wavy pictures with the weird colors and distorted sound. You could use this same technology (analog boxes) to offer a la carte service, but it wouldn't make much sense - if you're going to require everyone get a box, might as well be a digital box (small cost increment, and a lot of benefits (Video on Demand, lots more channels possible, etc.).
Bottom line is that filtering a couple of blocks of channels is doable within reason, but true a la carte, where you take 2,3,7,11,43, and 97, and I take 3,4,9,21,22,24, and 56, isn't feasible without a box on every TV.
While we'd all like a la carte pricing of cable, it's a nightmare from a technical point of view. The only possible way to do it would be to require everyone to have a digital box - trying to do this in analog simply wouldn't be feasible (i.e. try filtering 100-106Mhz out, allowing 106-112Mhz, filtering out 112-124Mhz, allowing 124-130Mhz, etc. - each cable tap would have dozens of filters, and each would push the limits of what passive filters can actually do).
Therefore, we're talking requiring a digital box for each customer, and every single TV set - that alone will tack $5+ per TV onto everyone's monthly cable bill (digital boxes are ~$150-200 and up.
You'd probably also end up with a lot of marginal channels going off the air (outside of Slashdot, how many folks will actually _pay_ for TechTV on an a la carte basis?).
"The real criminal is the company that charges $100 for the latest game knowing that it will sell at that price for no other reason than a carefully socially engineered populance."
First off, the sheer arrogance of this comment is mind-boggling. So, because you don't think game X is worth $100, but someone else does, means that they're "ignorant?" Wow, I must have missed the email where you were appointed arbiter of the value of all things.
Secondly, the company that creates the game, owns the game. They don't HAVE to sell it to you, they don't HAVE to sell it at all. They're free to stick it in a vault somewhere and let it rot (which might explain Duke Nukem...). By the same token, you don't HAVE to buy the game. They offer the game for $X. You're COMPLETELY free to walk away, buy another game, turn on the TV, go outside, read a book, whatever. The transaction is completely voluntary for both parties. It sounds like you're saying that the authors of the game should be FORCED to sell it for less (after all, they're "criminals," and we force people to stop engaging in criminal behavior). By the same token, shouldn't we then FORCE you to buy the game? It'd be only fair. So, it seems like we have a deal - game publishers can only charge $30 per game (rather than $100), but you MUST buy everything they publish. Somehow, I don't see you signing up.
Are you perhaps thinking about the Soviet anthrax release in 1979 at a bioweapons lab in Sverdlovsk? Killed about 60 people and a lot of livestock.
It's amuses the hell out of me that when the RIAA uses John Doe lawsuits followed by subpoenas to fill in names for the John Does, it's abusive and horrible, but when the _exact same tactic_ is used to fight spammers, it gets a laudatory response?
Two places use $2 bills: horse racetracks ($2 is still a standard small bet) and Monticello (Jefferson's home). I chuckled when I got $8 in change at Montcello in the form of four twos, rather than a five and three ones. They keep up the good fight.