I'm not an MS fanboy... but using MS dev tools, writing software to work on MS operating systems, and with a user audience where MS software has a nearly-100% market share by choice... is my day job.
As such, I don't have the luxury of time either in or out of my regular work hours to explore other things. I'm busy enough keeping up with current trends on the.NET Framework, which is exactly what the folks who fund my living want and need me to do.
Of course, if #1 were to be true, then you end up with a drop in tax revenue collected from doctors and other healthcare providers, as well as the rest of that industry.
Government still has to Feed The Beast, somehow, some way.
But since you're a little dense, I'll expand it for you: a 12oz can of Coke has approx 150 calories. A 20oz bottle has 240 calories. Even TWO BOTTLES PER DAY is not going to make anyone obese.
As for broccoli, too much of that or anything will make you overweight. It may be more difficult, but point being, if the issue is that certain items should be taxed because those items can bring about obesity, well, then ALL FOOD, not just Coca-Cola would have to have taxes levied. Google around and you'll see many examples, including this one.
As "danomac" stated rather concisely, it's not rocket science.
Other than a minimal amount of safety regulations to prevent injury and/or illness due to faulty packaging or spoiled food product, the government should stay out of the business of telling us what and what not to eat. We can, should and must be allowed to make our own decisions.
No, it's not. It's about collecting revenue, pure and simple.
Why do you think cigarette taxes just went up from $0.39 to $1.01 per pack? As people stopped smoking (which by the way, doesn't necessarily make anyone healthier - most people switch from putting smokes in their mouth to putting more food in it), the government collected less and less revenue to fund their health care schemes. They HAD to increase the taxes if they wanted to continue to bring in more money.
I'm not a nutritionist, nor play one on TV, but I can make the argument that one can of Coke every day does *not* make a person overweight, while eating too much broccoli *will*.
The point: this is not about nutrition or health, but rather, about the government finding *any excuse it can* to extract more and more money from the pockets of it's citizenry... while at the same time imposing more and more of it's will on them.
A day will come... sooner than the busybody pointy-head academics, power hungry Congressional thugs, and greedy special-interest lobbyists think... when those of us peasants who continuously get ravaged by out of control lawmakers, have finally had enough... and we begin reaching for our pitchforks.
Rather than have these ridiculous, confiscatory rates for so-called "unlimited" service (which will still be capped under some other excuse)... why don't the ISP's just provide metered service?
This way, Grandma who just wants a couple of recipies every now and then, and occasionally looks at baby photos posted on thier adult children's Facebook accounts (and is not pulling down 10GB/month)... only pays a little bit.
And the Torrent operators pay for what they use.
Pay for what you consume. Fair for everyone.
Or is that too much common-sense for all involved?
Check the track record of leaders. Less than squeaky-clean past governors and other politicians with criminal records (mostly corruption-related)... what's that place called... Crook County?
I was personally shaken down in Champaign just this past week. (I'll spell it out some other time, when pending legal action I am taking is concluded.)
I went out of my way not to drink any of the water in Illinois, so as not to become personally corrupted by whatever may be in it.
Opera's asserting something that's provably false. It's asserting that bundling leads to market share. I don't know how you can make the claim with a straight face.
"...they are worried about becoming the next monopoly just like Microsoft is now."
I'm not sure how either of these statements can be made with a straight face.
First of all, how are browsers being measured in terms of market share? What happens when there are multiple brands installed in the same seat? How about VM images?
And how twisted is logic of "we don't want to be offered with the most dominant OS ever produced because we may become the most dominant browser, which would be bad"...?! What's up with that?
Uhuh. So, tell me, what does the local carpenter do when the local industry tanks thanks to the credit bubble bursting? Let's see, they could:
1) Educate themselves in a different field. Problem: They can't get a student loan because the banks aren't giving out credit. Besides which, they can't afford to take time off to re-educate because they're busy, you know... surviving.
Student loan, you say... so why don't you tell me how much your carpenter borrowed and what university did he/she go to? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe carpenters need a post-secondary education (or a degree) to go ply their trade. A number of other (well-paying) occupations also don't need university time.
I don't know about other countries, In the US, it's not necessary to go to any bank to get a student loan; loans are applied for and written directly out of the financial aid office through any number of instituions, and student loan credit has not frozen up by any means.
Besides which, they can't afford to take time off to re-educate because they're busy, you know... surviving.
Again, everyone has the same 24 hours per day. No more, no less. We all choose what to do with our time. I never said it was going to be easy.
2) Move. Sorry, no money == no mobility. Besides, the industry is tanking nation-wide.
So pick another industry! If it's that obvious already, then learn another trade. Don't let yourself get left behind.
3) Get a different job. Ah, but there aren't any. The few that do exist pay worse, possibly so much worse that they can no longer support themselves.
With all due respect, this is not true, either. The economy is not great, but there ARE jobs, lots of them... you just have to figure out what you want to do, find out what opportunities are there for you, and go for them.
So, got any other ideas?, smart guy?
Yes. First, fix your attitude. When you're self-defeatist, you're destroing your chances to succeed... even in this market.
Second, go to Monster.com and just look at the job openings. I don't care if it's not something you currently don't do! My point is, your comment "ah, but there aren't any" is utter nonsense.
You just earned yourself a new job: figure out what else to do, figure out what it takes to do it, then DO IT. No excuses. No whining about how hard it is. Just DO IT.
We all were born broke.
Uhh, no. Most people are born into a family that has some sort of income or wealth.
Wah, wah, wah.
You got dealt a pair of threes when someone else got a royal flush.
Learn to win with the cards you have to play with, and play them!
Let me tell you something: when I was 19 and 20, I was homeless for several months. Because of my own stupidity. I learned from it, accepted responibility, and worked harder!
People who lose thier jobs have no business blaming Washington (or London, or wherever) if thier employer or your entire industry went belly up and they didn't make the right choices that result in thier continued employment... or *employability*... somewhere else.
Uhh... who said anything about blaming Washington?
I did, because that's what's happening right now, at least here in the US. Everyone is going to Washington for their own bailout. GM, Ford and Chrysler are doing it today. And frankly, I find it rather disgusting. They all deserve to go out of business if they cannot find a way succeed in the marketplace. Japanese, German and Korean car companies come over here, play by the same rules and do just fine.
Look, your original post was the absolutely ridiculous claim that you "refuse to participate
Says the guy on a tech forum who probably has some sort of higher degree or otherwise advanced and specialized skillset. Meanwhile, the average Joe out there faces the real possibility of layoffs, and with a contracting job market, long-term unemployment on the horizon.
*You* may not choose to participate in the recession, but there are millions who will likely have no choice in the matter.
*Everyone* has choices.
If that average Joe (or Josephine) pays attention to the industry for which he (or she) works and sees that it's in decline but does nothing about it... who is to blame?
We all were born broke. We all have the same 24 hours in a day, and (setting aside the physically and/or mentally impaired - that's a separate issue) we all have the same gift of free will to pick our own paths in life.
People who lose thier jobs have no business blaming Washington (or London, or wherever) if thier employer or your entire industry went belly up and they didn't make the right choices that result in thier continued employment... or *employability*... somewhere else.
As for my own so-called "advanced and specialized skillset"... I stand a far, FAR greater chance of being put out in the street. Trust me, I practice that which I preach.
Saving like you always did should put you down between 3 and 8 years of savings... and you refuse to participate? Ok maybe your a matress guy..
No, I don't have an account with First National Mattress.
"Saving like I always did" means doing my homework, and saving (and yes, investing) where I may continiue to strike the best balance between maximized returns and level of safety.
That doesn't mean I'm going to make 10% every single year... just that I'm going to apply the same strategy I always have... doing the best I can.
That requires active participation... not ignoring my holdings and then one day finding out they all evaporated.
What happens when the industry that is bolstering the job that's the source of your sense of economic giddiness goes sour? Sure you may not experience any 'doom and gloom' per se, but a recession can have impacts felt by even the highly skilled, highly marketable 1% of us.
Reread my original post. I mentioned "marketable skills". If the industry for which you ply said skills "goes sour", then those skills are no longer marketable now, are they?
That's why I stated it the way that I did: "keep your skills updated and always marketable".
It may be necessary to prepare for a new line of work altogether. So be it. My statement stands.
As long as I work and earn, I will save and spend just as I always did. My family's economy won't be dictated to by some namby-pamby report by a bunch of gloom and doom busybodies.
Seriously.
If you practice fiscal responsibility (something the U.S. government seems unwilling to do, hence the current mess), work hard and consistently, keep your skills updated and always marketable, you'll stay out of trouble... or at least be nimble enough to make whatever moves are necessary to get out of trouble very quickly.
Some folks want to wail and gnash their teeth at the falling sky. Hey, whatever floats their boat.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an MS fanboy... but using MS dev tools, writing software to work on MS operating systems, and with a user audience where MS software has a nearly-100% market share by choice... is my day job.
As such, I don't have the luxury of time either in or out of my regular work hours to explore other things. I'm busy enough keeping up with current trends on the .NET Framework, which is exactly what the folks who fund my living want and need me to do.
End of story.
Of course, if #1 were to be true, then you end up with a drop in tax revenue collected from doctors and other healthcare providers, as well as the rest of that industry.
Government still has to Feed The Beast, somehow, some way.
My statement made it's own case. Re-read it.
But since you're a little dense, I'll expand it for you: a 12oz can of Coke has approx 150 calories. A 20oz bottle has 240 calories. Even TWO BOTTLES PER DAY is not going to make anyone obese.
As for broccoli, too much of that or anything will make you overweight. It may be more difficult, but point being, if the issue is that certain items should be taxed because those items can bring about obesity, well, then ALL FOOD, not just Coca-Cola would have to have taxes levied. Google around and you'll see many examples, including this one.
http://jawbonejournal.blogspot.com/2007/08/sugar-vs-broccoli-does-it-really-matter.html
As "danomac" stated rather concisely, it's not rocket science.
Other than a minimal amount of safety regulations to prevent injury and/or illness due to faulty packaging or spoiled food product, the government should stay out of the business of telling us what and what not to eat. We can, should and must be allowed to make our own decisions.
No, it's not. It's about collecting revenue, pure and simple.
Why do you think cigarette taxes just went up from $0.39 to $1.01 per pack? As people stopped smoking (which by the way, doesn't necessarily make anyone healthier - most people switch from putting smokes in their mouth to putting more food in it), the government collected less and less revenue to fund their health care schemes. They HAD to increase the taxes if they wanted to continue to bring in more money.
I'm not a nutritionist, nor play one on TV, but I can make the argument that one can of Coke every day does *not* make a person overweight, while eating too much broccoli *will*.
The point: this is not about nutrition or health, but rather, about the government finding *any excuse it can* to extract more and more money from the pockets of it's citizenry... while at the same time imposing more and more of it's will on them.
A day will come... sooner than the busybody pointy-head academics, power hungry Congressional thugs, and greedy special-interest lobbyists think... when those of us peasants who continuously get ravaged by out of control lawmakers, have finally had enough... and we begin reaching for our pitchforks.
I mean, come on. Web ads and rates are far outstripping "old" media, and now he wants to use an "old" media business model?
Kinda puts an interesting slant to the term "Crazy like a Fox"...
Oookkkaaayyy... where can I get software that can protect me from an overbearing and overreaching government?
(I love this nation, but will never, ever, put my faith and/or trust in any government.)
If the allegations are true, they should easily win an appeal... assuming the rest of the judicial system is not so corrupt... allegedly, of course.
Rather than have these ridiculous, confiscatory rates for so-called "unlimited" service (which will still be capped under some other excuse)... why don't the ISP's just provide metered service?
This way, Grandma who just wants a couple of recipies every now and then, and occasionally looks at baby photos posted on thier adult children's Facebook accounts (and is not pulling down 10GB/month)... only pays a little bit.
And the Torrent operators pay for what they use.
Pay for what you consume. Fair for everyone.
Or is that too much common-sense for all involved?
The very fact that ANYONE is WORKING ON THIS AT ALL, is what frightens the hell out of me.
Why would such a document, even one in a draft status, exist?
There's no such thing.
Check the track record of leaders. Less than squeaky-clean past governors and other politicians with criminal records (mostly corruption-related)... what's that place called... Crook County?
I was personally shaken down in Champaign just this past week. (I'll spell it out some other time, when pending legal action I am taking is concluded.)
I went out of my way not to drink any of the water in Illinois, so as not to become personally corrupted by whatever may be in it.
Opera's asserting something that's provably false. It's asserting that bundling leads to market share. I don't know how you can make the claim with a straight face.
"...they are worried about becoming the next monopoly just like Microsoft is now."
I'm not sure how either of these statements can be made with a straight face.
First of all, how are browsers being measured in terms of market share? What happens when there are multiple brands installed in the same seat? How about VM images?
And how twisted is logic of "we don't want to be offered with the most dominant OS ever produced because we may become the most dominant browser, which would be bad"...?! What's up with that?
Smash An Identity Thief.
Truly a case of Uncle Sam's left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, considering the recent creation of a Copyright Czar.
At least Apple is moving in the right direction, announcing yesterday that it will drop DRM from it's tracks.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4811674a28.html (and elsewhere)
Phishers don't make squat. Right. Because obviously it's not as profitable as working at the local oil change shop, or at Wally World.
I'd like to see 419 examples of how Nigerian scammers don't make money.
When buying your booze (and being carded) or being pulled over for speeding, you're generally annoyed, surprised or just plain ticked off, right?
So perhaps the driver's license photo should be graced with one of those common expressions.
(This is my last post on this thread.)
*Everyone* has choices.
Uhuh. So, tell me, what does the local carpenter do when the local industry tanks thanks to the credit bubble bursting? Let's see, they could:
1) Educate themselves in a different field. Problem: They can't get a student loan because the banks aren't giving out credit. Besides which, they can't afford to take time off to re-educate because they're busy, you know... surviving.
Student loan, you say... so why don't you tell me how much your carpenter borrowed and what university did he/she go to? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe carpenters need a post-secondary education (or a degree) to go ply their trade. A number of other (well-paying) occupations also don't need university time.
I don't know about other countries, In the US, it's not necessary to go to any bank to get a student loan; loans are applied for and written directly out of the financial aid office through any number of instituions, and student loan credit has not frozen up by any means.
Besides which, they can't afford to take time off to re-educate because they're busy, you know... surviving.
Again, everyone has the same 24 hours per day. No more, no less. We all choose what to do with our time. I never said it was going to be easy.
2) Move. Sorry, no money == no mobility. Besides, the industry is tanking nation-wide.
So pick another industry! If it's that obvious already, then learn another trade. Don't let yourself get left behind.
3) Get a different job. Ah, but there aren't any. The few that do exist pay worse, possibly so much worse that they can no longer support themselves.
With all due respect, this is not true, either. The economy is not great, but there ARE jobs, lots of them... you just have to figure out what you want to do, find out what opportunities are there for you, and go for them.
So, got any other ideas?, smart guy?
Yes. First, fix your attitude. When you're self-defeatist, you're destroing your chances to succeed... even in this market.
Second, go to Monster.com and just look at the job openings. I don't care if it's not something you currently don't do! My point is, your comment "ah, but there aren't any" is utter nonsense.
You just earned yourself a new job: figure out what else to do, figure out what it takes to do it, then DO IT. No excuses. No whining about how hard it is. Just DO IT.
We all were born broke.
Uhh, no. Most people are born into a family that has some sort of income or wealth.
Wah, wah, wah.
You got dealt a pair of threes when someone else got a royal flush.
Learn to win with the cards you have to play with, and play them!
Let me tell you something: when I was 19 and 20, I was homeless for several months. Because of my own stupidity. I learned from it, accepted responibility, and worked harder!
People who lose thier jobs have no business blaming Washington (or London, or wherever) if thier employer or your entire industry went belly up and they didn't make the right choices that result in thier continued employment... or *employability*... somewhere else.
Uhh... who said anything about blaming Washington?
I did, because that's what's happening right now, at least here in the US. Everyone is going to Washington for their own bailout. GM, Ford and Chrysler are doing it today. And frankly, I find it rather disgusting. They all deserve to go out of business if they cannot find a way succeed in the marketplace. Japanese, German and Korean car companies come over here, play by the same rules and do just fine.
Look, your original post was the absolutely ridiculous claim that you "refuse to participate
Says the guy on a tech forum who probably has some sort of higher degree or otherwise advanced and specialized skillset. Meanwhile, the average Joe out there faces the real possibility of layoffs, and with a contracting job market, long-term unemployment on the horizon.
*You* may not choose to participate in the recession, but there are millions who will likely have no choice in the matter.
*Everyone* has choices.
If that average Joe (or Josephine) pays attention to the industry for which he (or she) works and sees that it's in decline but does nothing about it... who is to blame?
We all were born broke. We all have the same 24 hours in a day, and (setting aside the physically and/or mentally impaired - that's a separate issue) we all have the same gift of free will to pick our own paths in life.
People who lose thier jobs have no business blaming Washington (or London, or wherever) if thier employer or your entire industry went belly up and they didn't make the right choices that result in thier continued employment... or *employability*... somewhere else.
As for my own so-called "advanced and specialized skillset"... I stand a far, FAR greater chance of being put out in the street. Trust me, I practice that which I preach.
Saving like you always did should put you down between 3 and 8 years of savings... and you refuse to participate? Ok maybe your a matress guy..
No, I don't have an account with First National Mattress.
"Saving like I always did" means doing my homework, and saving (and yes, investing) where I may continiue to strike the best balance between maximized returns and level of safety.
That doesn't mean I'm going to make 10% every single year... just that I'm going to apply the same strategy I always have... doing the best I can.
That requires active participation... not ignoring my holdings and then one day finding out they all evaporated.
What happens when the industry that is bolstering the job that's the source of your sense of economic giddiness goes sour? Sure you may not experience any 'doom and gloom' per se, but a recession can have impacts felt by even the highly skilled, highly marketable 1% of us.
Reread my original post. I mentioned "marketable skills". If the industry for which you ply said skills "goes sour", then those skills are no longer marketable now, are they?
That's why I stated it the way that I did: "keep your skills updated and always marketable".
It may be necessary to prepare for a new line of work altogether. So be it. My statement stands.
I refuse to participate in any recession.
As long as I work and earn, I will save and spend just as I always did. My family's economy won't be dictated to by some namby-pamby report by a bunch of gloom and doom busybodies.
Seriously.
If you practice fiscal responsibility (something the U.S. government seems unwilling to do, hence the current mess), work hard and consistently, keep your skills updated and always marketable, you'll stay out of trouble... or at least be nimble enough to make whatever moves are necessary to get out of trouble very quickly.
Some folks want to wail and gnash their teeth at the falling sky. Hey, whatever floats their boat.