Paying for sending messages is ok, I think, even though they are extremely over-priced (do the math... compare the cost per byte of one minute of voice at 9600bps, to the cost of the 160 characters of a SMS, even accounting for some more bytes for SMS overhead).
I agree. I've never used SMS for the same reason. 10 cents per message? What? Given what a minute of cell time costs (often zero!), where in the world does 10 cents a message come from? A brief "conversation" is going to cost me a buck and I'm going to waste a lot of time "typing" it. With few exceptions it's going to save time AND money by just calling them.
Basically, a minute of cell time at 9600bps amounts to 57,600 bytes of bandwidth. A 160-character SMS is 160 bytes. That's 360 times more bandwidth so if SMS costs 10 cents per message it seems to me cell time should cost $36 per minute.
Of course, cell time doesn't cost that much. Looking at AT&T Wireless, after you've used up your airtime they charge 40 centts per minute. Based on that, an SMS message should cost about 1/10th of a cent.
SMS is overpriced by about two orders of magnitude. Then again, people pay for ringtones, so I guess they'll pay for anything.
Still I have yet to understand how Republicans can justify increasing military spending while at the same providing a tax cut which seem to me to have the same effect on the budget.
Well, you increase military spending due to a perceived deficiency in our state of readiness and in preparation for a probable war with Iraq (whether the war is necessary is not the point right now). The goal is the defense of the country and is one of the two main issues facing our country.
Tax cuts is meant to address the other main isue facing our country, the economy. By cutting taxes you stimulate the economy now--which we definitely need.
Do both cost money? Sure.
If we are not at a balanced budget now, with Republicans we will never have a chance at doing so. Does a balanced budget mean nothing to Republicans?
We don't have a balanced budget now because we're in a recession and because we're at war. Check your statistics for previous wars and recessions and see how the federal budget did. This has nothing to do with the Republicans being in power right now--you'd see virtually the same deficit if Clinton were still running the show.
Perhaps if it said "One nation, without God" you'd see it my way.;-)
Like I said (I believe?), I do understand your point of view. In fact, had I been alive when the "under God" clause was added, I would have been uncomfortable with the addition. I'm surprised the addition wasn't argued in courts back then and, if it was, I'm surprised the challenge wasn't successful.
However, it's now been in the Pledge for, what, about 40 or 50 years? It's tradition at this point. Just like Christmas which is celebrated throughout the country, is a national holiday, and many people--including atheists--join in, but you don't see challenges trying to make Christmas NOT a national holiday.
Again, I think the addition should have been challenged when it was added. Not half a century later. At this point any such challenge is just a cry-baby pissing and moaning with too much time on his hands.
... the Democrats haven't really whole-heartedly adopted the ideological opposite economic platform of "trickle-up" economics (where you give the people at the bottom a chance to dig their way out of their hell lives, and leave the rich to their own devices)
The problem is: How do you give the people at the bottom a chance to "climb" while leaving the rich to their own devices? In reality, everyone is left to their own devices--but the rich have to pay for more of the poor's "devices."
Unfortunately, what that really means is that the rich need to pay more in taxes so that the government can spend/give more to the poor with the hope that that will actually lift them up the economic ladder, despite the fact that there is little evidence that doing so does little more than maintain them at the very bottom--and quite a bit of evidence that the system does not work efficiently enough to achieve its stated goals.
It all comes down to personal responsibility. There are success stories where some of the poorest strike it rich and join the millionaire's club. There are also stories of rich people losing everything. Sure, most of us fall somewhere in between because, unfortunately, most people AREN'T exceptional--or at the very least most people don't make the dedicated effort it takes to truly excel in this world. And that's not the "rich's" fault.
The truth is, this IS the land of opportunity. Anyone that truly wants to get ahead can. Sure, it's harder if people make bad decisions along the way. Drop out of high school, take drugs, have a run-in with police, etc. But that special kid in the inner city that studies instead of hanging out with friends, ignores peer pressure, and gets a scholarship and makes a life for him or herself is evidence that the *opportunity* is out there. What's lacking is the personal ambition and dedication of many in society--and not just the poor.
I seem to remember a lot of crying from the Republican house about the balanced budget. Why were thay crying? Because they had to pay up. Like the rest of us.
Wait, are you saying the "rich" had to pay like the "rest of us?" I trust you aren't because that wouldn't make any sense. Check your tax law, or even just your 1040 tax book that I assume you get in the mail. Check your income tax rate compared to someone making, say, a million a year. Guess what, they pay a greater percentage than you. Guess what, they also pay a great AMOUNT than you. What you're really mad about is that the "rest of us" can't stick it to the rich any worse than we already are.
They could no longer stuff the pork. They could no longer increase the military budgets to astronomical proportions in order to appease corporate interests.
Right. Believe me, the Democrats are just as efficient as "stuffing the pork" as the Republicans. While the Republicans might tend to invest money in the military to defend our nation while appeasing some corporate interests, at least we have a strong military to show for it. Perhaps that's no big deal, but the pork that the Democrats stuff is social programs pork--so we still spend money, but instead of a strong military to show for it we just have dependent poor people drawing welfare checks.
Pick your pork, but don't act like the Democrats don't pander to their own set of interests.
Your song and dance no longer works.
Wrongo, yours doesn't. No-one's buying the class warfare and envy that Clinton sold. It's funny it worked in the 90's, but it just looks downright silly now.
Look at the poles, and I think that you will agree that everyone is waking up from the Tuesday morning hangover that brought us this mess.
What does Poland or the North and South Poles have to do with this?
If you refer to polls, who cares? Our ex-president lived by polls and that's not always in the best interest of public policy. A president's career, perhaps, but not good public policy. What's popular isn't always right.
You are completely correct about a corporation being a collection of individuals. Now do the right thing and tell your congressman that you are not seeing enough action on the Enron case. That you no longer believe that a corporation can no longer be treated as a person in the eyes of the law. You can't have it both ways.
I never asked for it both ways. Most of us don't. I fully agree that those involved in the recent corporate scandals (more properly "accounting scandals," accounting is a shady industry) should be punished.
Question: If this is the new pledge of allegience due to public reaction and changing times, why is it so theistic?
It's not THAT theistic. It's not saying, that we're one Catholic nation. It's not saying we're one Muslim nation or Christian nation. Just that we're one nation under God. On the "theistic" scale, that's pretty mild.
It seems like a strong step backwards, to the old days when you were ruled by Monarchy, to start including religion (and, more than that, specific sets of religions -- not all have only one God) in the pledge.
That also seems a bit extreme. I do understand why some people complain about the line, it is a touch of religion. But that's it. It's a *touch*. Hardly like when the Monarchy's dictated religion.
Also, it's not as if the Pledge is dictating a religion. Even if "one nation under God" implies that there is a single God, there is no law that requires people to believe that or participate in that religion. That's a far cry from the "old days" and what the founding fathers were really concerned about.
Here is the original Pledge of Allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" Where did you get your extra bits?
Off-topic, but what the hell. I have karma to burn.
I am well aware of the original pledge. I'm also aware that the original United States only consisted of 13--does that invalidate the other 37? I.e., it doesn't matter that there used to be only 13 states, now there are 50, and the new states are every bit as important and valid as the original 13.
Likewise, I realize that the Pledge used to be as you cited. Times changes and things change. The Pledge is *now* how I cited it, and based on the court's ruling and public reaction, it seems that's the way it'll be staying for awhile.
If the other way around, states with a large technical-savvy population such as California will suck all the Internet tax revenue from a smaller state that may have some good Internet stores.
California does suck, so that wouldn't be too surprising...
Actually, this is the result of people who mistakenly fear all taxes as a result of the inefficienty of a bloated federal tax structure kept in place by republicans hell bent on defecit spending and a huge defense budget.
Oh, please. Let's get facts straight: We got a balanced budget near the end of the 90's because of the dot-com bubble. Literally. It had nothing to do with Clinton; in fact, it happened in spite of him.
You then continue babbling, saying that the Republicans are the ones that are trying to keep a "tax structure in place." Haven't been keeping up on current events for, say, the last 22 years, have you? Republicans reduce taxes because we feel that taxes are a drag on the economy. Are some taxes necessary? Yes. But they DO drag the economy, the question is how much and whether the tax you propose is worth the negative trade-off. Some are, most aren't.
As for complicating the tax code, that's as much the fault of Democrats as Republicans--combined with the inefficiency with the IRS, which really doesn't have anything to do with either party.
These people think all taxes are bad, even the ones that are used to keep their parks open, teachers paid, and roads fixed.
Again, it's not that Republicans don't want parks, happy teachers, and good roads. It's a matter of evaluating costs and the drag on the economy, as well as an honest evaluation of how much we can afford. Virtually everyone wants more than we can afford and each of us must pass on certain things to be able to afford others. This happens at the national level, too.
They vote down every tax, levy or other way for states to make up for the missing tax dollars that Republican governments have told corporations they don't have to pay, shifting the responsibility to the individual while the corporations make out like bandits.
Oh, that's really hosed. What are you smoking, because I want some.:)
First, states are free to tax themselves however they want. You won't see any Republicans (or Democrats) at the national level telling California they can or can't charge 30% sales tax. If California wants to do it, go for it. I believe they just increased their sales tax by 1%, I think they're at 9% now? That's a state issue and has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats at the federal level.
As opposed to making individuals pay while corporations "make out like bandits," guess what? That makes sense. Corporations don't make money, INDIVIDUALS do. Corporations are just a collection of people working together to make a living when you get right down to it. The fact that corporations pay ANY tax amounts to double-taxation on those that work at the corporation.
I hate taxes as much as the next guy (I'm a Republican, I might hate them MORE than the next guy), but I think I should pay the taxes, not an imaginary group of people that just happens to do business on my behalf, and whose members get taxed again when they receive their salary from the corporation.
The states end up with massive budget shortfalls, and have to look elsewhere to make up the difference.
Except for unfunded federal mandates (mostly the work of Democrats in Congress), the states budget deficits have absolutely NOTHING to do with anything being done by Republicans (or Democrats) at the national level. If your state has a budget deficit, blame your local politicians--be they Republicans or Democrats.
... That, and blame the economy which has been sour since the end of the Clinton administration. Believe it or not, tax revenue falls and government spending rises whenever there's a recession. This is not difficult to understand.
I know I've been trolled, but outright political hogwash is just too annoying to let go by without a response.
The more taxes we pay, the more Iraqi we can eradicate. Thanks Mr. Bush.
Yeah, uh huh. You know how much sales tax is used to "eradicate Iraqis?" Let me give you a guess. It's less than a penny, which is exactly how much we will award you for your complete understanding of the difference between "federal" taxes and "state" taxes. But your anti-Bush joke is duly noted and promptly discarded.
Tip: For anything to be humorous, it must be at least vaguely based on truth. Otherwise you're just flapping your gums again.
And unless you work at McDonalds and earn less than, what, $400 in interest or dividends you CAN'T use the 1040EZ.
I agree with parent. The fact that there are dozens--if not hundreds--of different possible forms to chose from when doing your taxes is absurd. It's not enough that I have to give a pretty penny to the government, I have to spend a couple evenings per year doing the paperwork, hoping that I didn't miss any paperwork and that I handled the existing paperwork correctly.
Ideally the income tax should be abolished and a national sales tax implemented, period. But if there is to be an income tax, it should basically be: a) How much did you earn last year? b) What valid deductions did you have (investments in own business, education)? c) Subtract the B from A, subtract another $10,000, and multiply whatever is left by 15%. That's your tax for the year.
Of course, there is the shortened IRS form that can be used instead of even the 1040EZ. "How much did you make last year? Send it in!"
Tell me about it. Intuit is awful. I think the first and last thing they did right was Quicken back in the early- to mid-90's. Later versions of Quicken, all versions of Quickbooks, and apparently TurboTax all suck.
I still use an older version of Quicken. I think Quicken99 which I eventually upgraded to from an earlier version. I was expecting some cool new features. Nothing new, just a slightly more awkward interface--although tolerable.
A partner used to handle the accounting in our partnership. A year ago I took over that function and first started using the latest version of QuickBooks. What a piece of crap. It's got to be the most unfriendly piece of software I remember using. So much so that I ended up just using the checking account ledger; everything regarding invoices and checks, etc. is too convoluted. Since I'm really just using the ledger I've thought about eventually moving the entire partnership accounting to Quicken--it's easier to use and, as far as I can tell, its reporting tools are far better than Quicken.
It's all moot, though. Since I'm in the process of migrating to Linux I've already found an open-source accounting package available for Linux (name escapes me right now). Haven't had time to deal with it yet, but its feature list includes a ton of stuff that I don't have in Quicken.
As for TurboTax, I've never bothered. My taxes have gotten more complicated, but I wouldn't trust a piece of software to know the intricacies of my tax situation. I just download the fill-in form PDF files from the IRS, fill them in by hand, print them, and call it done.
like maybe you sign up for micro payments with your isp and then have an "account" that you can add money to whenever you want or need to.
I think this is the best solution to micropayments. Make it optional, perhaps via a webpage at the ISP site itself. When the user enters their "account", the vendor website sends a message to the ISP indicating the account #, who they are, and how much they want to charge the account. The ISP website then asks the user to confirm the transaction. If the user confirms it, the transaction is completed and fraud is avoided (assuming decent security at the ISP's control website).
Of course, ISPs would have to have policies in place for this--or perhaps even make the micropayments "prepaid." Otherwise someone might generate a ton of micropayments and then just not pay the bill, leaving the ISP with the costs. But if it's prepaid then that wouldn't be a problem.
I have to agree. I read the story header and all was well and then there was that stupid sentence about the environment? Who gives a f*ck? It's kind of like whenever an article doesn't have enough "meat" to make it interesting, throw in an environmental angle to see if THAT will generate some discussion.
There were three tornados in some town in Idaho instead of two, are we destroying the environment? A piece of ice fell off the south pole, is it global warming? Oh my God, people are buying new computers, are we contaminating China with our old ones?
Fake concern for enviroment = lack of any other real argument. Throwing in an environmental angle is just Slashdot's way of being in the "in crowd." It's silly.
Well, that's one heck of a cable to tie it into place at 19k. I suspect the cable itself may weight too much for the blimp to keep flying.
That's ignoring, of course, the risk of having a virtually invisible cable dangling from 19k to the ground. I'm a private pilot and believe me that it's sometimes hard to spot entire airplanes that you KNOW are there. It would be impossible to see a cable dangling from 19k--so it would just be a matter of time until you had airplanes running into those cables.
Perhaps,but I think you miss the point. The point is the source you cite may be incorrectly cited itself. So what good does it do to cite another source that may itself be flawed with invalid citations?
I personally think that what needs to be cited are simply ideas that are controversial or provide specific data that should be sourced. If you say 1 in 10 Americans is a terrotist, I want to see your source. If you say that pi is 3.14159 or that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, I don't need or want a reference, it just adds clutter to the citations section.
No kidding. "Universal Business Adapter." "Does it work in Europe?" "It needs an adapter!"
My wife and I were just commenting on that last night when we, too, were watching Taken. A humerous or interesting advertisement isn't nearly as annoying. Heck, I wouldn't mind watching Tampax commercials during a football game if they could make me laugh. The Visa commercial with Martin and Charlie Sheen is also pretty funny.
As for Taken, IBM got it right. They have about three or four different related ads that they are rotating (Pixie Dust, Universal Business Adapter, Business Binoculars, and one other--heck I can even remember them!) to keep it interesting and each ad is relatively funny.
Then there's the KIA commercials with some monotone idiot saying that Kias are so good they don't need silly gimmicks to get people to buy them--could've fooled me with their silly commercial. I won't be buying a Kia regardless of how much they advertise, unless they change the name Kia to something that SOUNDS reliable.
And I'm sick and tired of watching the commercial about some chick that loves her man because he gave her a rock (they play the same damn commercial each time which I am sick of). There is also one other advertisement that they keep repeating during Taken which I can't remember right now, but that commercial and the diamond commercial are getting annoying as hell.
Advertisements can be helpful or they can be destructive. X10's campaign might have generated sales, but in the long-term it was destructive because it has also created an almost anti-X10 cult. The trick is generating sales without creating any "badwill." IBM is doing that during Taken--I might not buy anything from them, but at least I enjoyed their commercial and don't hate them. The diamond commercial, however, annoys the hell out of me because they are repeating it so much and I resent the suggestion that my wife is only going to love me if I buy her a rock. Could they possibly be any more materialistic and shallow? If you only get that kind of response from your wife because you give her a rock, you've got bigger problems than a rock is going to fix.
The most interesting thing about "marketing firms" is to see the occasional jewel (the IBM commercials), but also see just how many supposed "marketing experts" are totally out of touch with reality and the world. The diamond commercial is offensive. The Kia commercial is boring, annoying and gives me no reason to watch the commercial rather than taking a dump. You'd think someone at those marketing firms would have realized this and made the necessary changes to the commercials.
Now cars are safer, more energy efficient (except for SUVs) and it doesn't occur to you to worry about whether they'll last.
While I agree they are safer, "more reliable" is a big question mark. I think it still depends on what make you buy and some amount of luck.
I bought a 1989 Mazda 323 in 1989. Worked great and I eventually gave it to my mom and she eventually gave it to my sister. Last I heard, it had about 170,000 miles on it and still running great.
I bought a 1991 Geo Storm in 1991. It now has 183,000 miles on it--it needs some suspension work and new tires, that's it. Never had any warranty work required and haven't had to do anything other than change the oil, tires, and struts (wear and tear). I can't complain about that. In terms of purchase price, that car has cost me 5 cents per mile and is still ticking.
In 2000 I bought a 2000 Dodge Stratus. I should have known better (it being a Dodge/Stratus) but I figured the Chrysler quality issues would be resolved. Wrong. The car was delivered with bad breaks that they never fully repaired (although they tried three times). It also required warranty work on the suspension 3 months after delivery--yes, it was delivered with broken suspension. The ABS sensors have gone out twice and been replaced. The car now has 23,000 miles. We're selling it ASAP and getting a Honda CR-V. But this Dodge Stratus will have cost us about 74 cents per mile in pure purchase cost by the time we sell it.
Cars still come out bad. Perhaps it's gotten better, but I certainly don't have any proof of that. My personal experience is to the contrary. Again, I may have been foolish buying a Dodge/Chrysler. I've read others that have had similar problems with Dodge/Chrysler. It's amazing they're still in business.
True. But re-read my post. I was commenting on the Democratically imposed 5-cent "tax" on bottles, not the computer disposal fee. The 5-cent bottle tax affects poor people more than rich people because it makes up a larger percentage of their income.
You might as well say that cigarette taxes effect the poor more than the rich--when they really target SMOKERS, and not the rich or the poor.
Yes, but assuming that rich and poor smoke in equal percentages, it affects the poor more than the rich because, again, a tax that doubles the price of cigarettes is going to represent a larger percentage of the poor person's available income. This is especially true with products such as cigarettes that, due to being addictive, can pretty much be taxed at almost any level--and both rich and poor will find the money to supply their addiction--but it hurts the poor more because they have less disposal income to "absorb" the tax. We're talking Econ-101 here...
But first step: Re-read the original thread and my original post so you understand I was commenting on the bottle tax, not computer disposal tax.
Kind of like deep down Hilary Rosen KNOWS that it's wrong to hack into private citizens computers for sake of corporate profit.
Maybe, maybe not.
I'm not sure which is worse: 1) The possibility that Hilary Rosen knows that her message is BS, yet has no problems doing it as a day job. 2) The possibility that Hilary actually believes in the crap she spews.
Both are possible and I'm not sure one is necessarily more likely than the other...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I've never used SMS for the same reason. 10 cents per message? What? Given what a minute of cell time costs (often zero!), where in the world does 10 cents a message come from? A brief "conversation" is going to cost me a buck and I'm going to waste a lot of time "typing" it. With few exceptions it's going to save time AND money by just calling them.
Basically, a minute of cell time at 9600bps amounts to 57,600 bytes of bandwidth. A 160-character SMS is 160 bytes. That's 360 times more bandwidth so if SMS costs 10 cents per message it seems to me cell time should cost $36 per minute.
Of course, cell time doesn't cost that much. Looking at AT&T Wireless, after you've used up your airtime they charge 40 centts per minute. Based on that, an SMS message should cost about 1/10th of a cent.
SMS is overpriced by about two orders of magnitude. Then again, people pay for ringtones, so I guess they'll pay for anything.
Well, you increase military spending due to a perceived deficiency in our state of readiness and in preparation for a probable war with Iraq (whether the war is necessary is not the point right now). The goal is the defense of the country and is one of the two main issues facing our country.
Tax cuts is meant to address the other main isue facing our country, the economy. By cutting taxes you stimulate the economy now--which we definitely need.
Do both cost money? Sure.
If we are not at a balanced budget now, with Republicans we will never have a chance at doing so. Does a balanced budget mean nothing to Republicans?
We don't have a balanced budget now because we're in a recession and because we're at war. Check your statistics for previous wars and recessions and see how the federal budget did. This has nothing to do with the Republicans being in power right now--you'd see virtually the same deficit if Clinton were still running the show.
Like I said (I believe?), I do understand your point of view. In fact, had I been alive when the "under God" clause was added, I would have been uncomfortable with the addition. I'm surprised the addition wasn't argued in courts back then and, if it was, I'm surprised the challenge wasn't successful.
However, it's now been in the Pledge for, what, about 40 or 50 years? It's tradition at this point. Just like Christmas which is celebrated throughout the country, is a national holiday, and many people--including atheists--join in, but you don't see challenges trying to make Christmas NOT a national holiday.
Again, I think the addition should have been challenged when it was added. Not half a century later. At this point any such challenge is just a cry-baby pissing and moaning with too much time on his hands.
The problem is: How do you give the people at the bottom a chance to "climb" while leaving the rich to their own devices? In reality, everyone is left to their own devices--but the rich have to pay for more of the poor's "devices."
Unfortunately, what that really means is that the rich need to pay more in taxes so that the government can spend/give more to the poor with the hope that that will actually lift them up the economic ladder, despite the fact that there is little evidence that doing so does little more than maintain them at the very bottom--and quite a bit of evidence that the system does not work efficiently enough to achieve its stated goals.
It all comes down to personal responsibility. There are success stories where some of the poorest strike it rich and join the millionaire's club. There are also stories of rich people losing everything. Sure, most of us fall somewhere in between because, unfortunately, most people AREN'T exceptional--or at the very least most people don't make the dedicated effort it takes to truly excel in this world. And that's not the "rich's" fault.
The truth is, this IS the land of opportunity. Anyone that truly wants to get ahead can. Sure, it's harder if people make bad decisions along the way. Drop out of high school, take drugs, have a run-in with police, etc. But that special kid in the inner city that studies instead of hanging out with friends, ignores peer pressure, and gets a scholarship and makes a life for him or herself is evidence that the *opportunity* is out there. What's lacking is the personal ambition and dedication of many in society--and not just the poor.
Wait, are you saying the "rich" had to pay like the "rest of us?" I trust you aren't because that wouldn't make any sense. Check your tax law, or even just your 1040 tax book that I assume you get in the mail. Check your income tax rate compared to someone making, say, a million a year. Guess what, they pay a greater percentage than you. Guess what, they also pay a great AMOUNT than you. What you're really mad about is that the "rest of us" can't stick it to the rich any worse than we already are.
They could no longer stuff the pork. They could no longer increase the military budgets to astronomical proportions in order to appease corporate interests.
Right. Believe me, the Democrats are just as efficient as "stuffing the pork" as the Republicans. While the Republicans might tend to invest money in the military to defend our nation while appeasing some corporate interests, at least we have a strong military to show for it. Perhaps that's no big deal, but the pork that the Democrats stuff is social programs pork--so we still spend money, but instead of a strong military to show for it we just have dependent poor people drawing welfare checks.
Pick your pork, but don't act like the Democrats don't pander to their own set of interests.
Your song and dance no longer works.
Wrongo, yours doesn't. No-one's buying the class warfare and envy that Clinton sold. It's funny it worked in the 90's, but it just looks downright silly now.
Look at the poles, and I think that you will agree that everyone is waking up from the Tuesday morning hangover that brought us this mess.
What does Poland or the North and South Poles have to do with this?
If you refer to polls, who cares? Our ex-president lived by polls and that's not always in the best interest of public policy. A president's career, perhaps, but not good public policy. What's popular isn't always right.
I never asked for it both ways. Most of us don't. I fully agree that those involved in the recent corporate scandals (more properly "accounting scandals," accounting is a shady industry) should be punished.
It's not THAT theistic. It's not saying, that we're one Catholic nation. It's not saying we're one Muslim nation or Christian nation. Just that we're one nation under God. On the "theistic" scale, that's pretty mild.
It seems like a strong step backwards, to the old days when you were ruled by Monarchy, to start including religion (and, more than that, specific sets of religions -- not all have only one God) in the pledge.
That also seems a bit extreme. I do understand why some people complain about the line, it is a touch of religion. But that's it. It's a *touch*. Hardly like when the Monarchy's dictated religion.
Also, it's not as if the Pledge is dictating a religion. Even if "one nation under God" implies that there is a single God, there is no law that requires people to believe that or participate in that religion. That's a far cry from the "old days" and what the founding fathers were really concerned about.
Off-topic, but what the hell. I have karma to burn.
I am well aware of the original pledge. I'm also aware that the original United States only consisted of 13--does that invalidate the other 37? I.e., it doesn't matter that there used to be only 13 states, now there are 50, and the new states are every bit as important and valid as the original 13.
Likewise, I realize that the Pledge used to be as you cited. Times changes and things change. The Pledge is *now* how I cited it, and based on the court's ruling and public reaction, it seems that's the way it'll be staying for awhile.
California does suck, so that wouldn't be too surprising...
Actually, this is the result of people who mistakenly fear all taxes as a result of the inefficienty of a bloated federal tax structure kept in place by republicans hell bent on defecit spending and a huge defense budget.
Oh, please. Let's get facts straight: We got a balanced budget near the end of the 90's because of the dot-com bubble. Literally. It had nothing to do with Clinton; in fact, it happened in spite of him.
You then continue babbling, saying that the Republicans are the ones that are trying to keep a "tax structure in place." Haven't been keeping up on current events for, say, the last 22 years, have you? Republicans reduce taxes because we feel that taxes are a drag on the economy. Are some taxes necessary? Yes. But they DO drag the economy, the question is how much and whether the tax you propose is worth the negative trade-off. Some are, most aren't.
As for complicating the tax code, that's as much the fault of Democrats as Republicans--combined with the inefficiency with the IRS, which really doesn't have anything to do with either party.
These people think all taxes are bad, even the ones that are used to keep their parks open, teachers paid, and roads fixed.
Again, it's not that Republicans don't want parks, happy teachers, and good roads. It's a matter of evaluating costs and the drag on the economy, as well as an honest evaluation of how much we can afford. Virtually everyone wants more than we can afford and each of us must pass on certain things to be able to afford others. This happens at the national level, too.
They vote down every tax, levy or other way for states to make up for the missing tax dollars that Republican governments have told corporations they don't have to pay, shifting the responsibility to the individual while the corporations make out like bandits.
Oh, that's really hosed. What are you smoking, because I want some. :)
First, states are free to tax themselves however they want. You won't see any Republicans (or Democrats) at the national level telling California they can or can't charge 30% sales tax. If California wants to do it, go for it. I believe they just increased their sales tax by 1%, I think they're at 9% now? That's a state issue and has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats at the federal level.
As opposed to making individuals pay while corporations "make out like bandits," guess what? That makes sense. Corporations don't make money, INDIVIDUALS do. Corporations are just a collection of people working together to make a living when you get right down to it. The fact that corporations pay ANY tax amounts to double-taxation on those that work at the corporation.
I hate taxes as much as the next guy (I'm a Republican, I might hate them MORE than the next guy), but I think I should pay the taxes, not an imaginary group of people that just happens to do business on my behalf, and whose members get taxed again when they receive their salary from the corporation.
The states end up with massive budget shortfalls, and have to look elsewhere to make up the difference.
Except for unfunded federal mandates (mostly the work of Democrats in Congress), the states budget deficits have absolutely NOTHING to do with anything being done by Republicans (or Democrats) at the national level. If your state has a budget deficit, blame your local politicians--be they Republicans or Democrats.
I know I've been trolled, but outright political hogwash is just too annoying to let go by without a response.
Yeah, uh huh. You know how much sales tax is used to "eradicate Iraqis?" Let me give you a guess. It's less than a penny, which is exactly how much we will award you for your complete understanding of the difference between "federal" taxes and "state" taxes. But your anti-Bush joke is duly noted and promptly discarded.
Tip: For anything to be humorous, it must be at least vaguely based on truth. Otherwise you're just flapping your gums again.
And unless you work at McDonalds and earn less than, what, $400 in interest or dividends you CAN'T use the 1040EZ.
I agree with parent. The fact that there are dozens--if not hundreds--of different possible forms to chose from when doing your taxes is absurd. It's not enough that I have to give a pretty penny to the government, I have to spend a couple evenings per year doing the paperwork, hoping that I didn't miss any paperwork and that I handled the existing paperwork correctly.
Ideally the income tax should be abolished and a national sales tax implemented, period. But if there is to be an income tax, it should basically be: a) How much did you earn last year? b) What valid deductions did you have (investments in own business, education)? c) Subtract the B from A, subtract another $10,000, and multiply whatever is left by 15%. That's your tax for the year.
Of course, there is the shortened IRS form that can be used instead of even the 1040EZ. "How much did you make last year? Send it in!"
I still use an older version of Quicken. I think Quicken99 which I eventually upgraded to from an earlier version. I was expecting some cool new features. Nothing new, just a slightly more awkward interface--although tolerable.
A partner used to handle the accounting in our partnership. A year ago I took over that function and first started using the latest version of QuickBooks. What a piece of crap. It's got to be the most unfriendly piece of software I remember using. So much so that I ended up just using the checking account ledger; everything regarding invoices and checks, etc. is too convoluted. Since I'm really just using the ledger I've thought about eventually moving the entire partnership accounting to Quicken--it's easier to use and, as far as I can tell, its reporting tools are far better than Quicken.
It's all moot, though. Since I'm in the process of migrating to Linux I've already found an open-source accounting package available for Linux (name escapes me right now). Haven't had time to deal with it yet, but its feature list includes a ton of stuff that I don't have in Quicken.
As for TurboTax, I've never bothered. My taxes have gotten more complicated, but I wouldn't trust a piece of software to know the intricacies of my tax situation. I just download the fill-in form PDF files from the IRS, fill them in by hand, print them, and call it done.
Intuit has outlived its useful life, I think.
I think this is the best solution to micropayments. Make it optional, perhaps via a webpage at the ISP site itself. When the user enters their "account", the vendor website sends a message to the ISP indicating the account #, who they are, and how much they want to charge the account. The ISP website then asks the user to confirm the transaction. If the user confirms it, the transaction is completed and fraud is avoided (assuming decent security at the ISP's control website).
Of course, ISPs would have to have policies in place for this--or perhaps even make the micropayments "prepaid." Otherwise someone might generate a ton of micropayments and then just not pay the bill, leaving the ISP with the costs. But if it's prepaid then that wouldn't be a problem.
What, are you a drug dealer or something?
There were three tornados in some town in Idaho instead of two, are we destroying the environment? A piece of ice fell off the south pole, is it global warming? Oh my God, people are buying new computers, are we contaminating China with our old ones?
Fake concern for enviroment = lack of any other real argument. Throwing in an environmental angle is just Slashdot's way of being in the "in crowd." It's silly.
That's ignoring, of course, the risk of having a virtually invisible cable dangling from 19k to the ground. I'm a private pilot and believe me that it's sometimes hard to spot entire airplanes that you KNOW are there. It would be impossible to see a cable dangling from 19k--so it would just be a matter of time until you had airplanes running into those cables.
I personally think that what needs to be cited are simply ideas that are controversial or provide specific data that should be sourced. If you say 1 in 10 Americans is a terrotist, I want to see your source. If you say that pi is 3.14159 or that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, I don't need or want a reference, it just adds clutter to the citations section.
My wife and I were just commenting on that last night when we, too, were watching Taken. A humerous or interesting advertisement isn't nearly as annoying. Heck, I wouldn't mind watching Tampax commercials during a football game if they could make me laugh. The Visa commercial with Martin and Charlie Sheen is also pretty funny.
As for Taken, IBM got it right. They have about three or four different related ads that they are rotating (Pixie Dust, Universal Business Adapter, Business Binoculars, and one other--heck I can even remember them!) to keep it interesting and each ad is relatively funny.
Then there's the KIA commercials with some monotone idiot saying that Kias are so good they don't need silly gimmicks to get people to buy them--could've fooled me with their silly commercial. I won't be buying a Kia regardless of how much they advertise, unless they change the name Kia to something that SOUNDS reliable.
And I'm sick and tired of watching the commercial about some chick that loves her man because he gave her a rock (they play the same damn commercial each time which I am sick of). There is also one other advertisement that they keep repeating during Taken which I can't remember right now, but that commercial and the diamond commercial are getting annoying as hell.
Advertisements can be helpful or they can be destructive. X10's campaign might have generated sales, but in the long-term it was destructive because it has also created an almost anti-X10 cult. The trick is generating sales without creating any "badwill." IBM is doing that during Taken--I might not buy anything from them, but at least I enjoyed their commercial and don't hate them. The diamond commercial, however, annoys the hell out of me because they are repeating it so much and I resent the suggestion that my wife is only going to love me if I buy her a rock. Could they possibly be any more materialistic and shallow? If you only get that kind of response from your wife because you give her a rock, you've got bigger problems than a rock is going to fix.
The most interesting thing about "marketing firms" is to see the occasional jewel (the IBM commercials), but also see just how many supposed "marketing experts" are totally out of touch with reality and the world. The diamond commercial is offensive. The Kia commercial is boring, annoying and gives me no reason to watch the commercial rather than taking a dump. You'd think someone at those marketing firms would have realized this and made the necessary changes to the commercials.
While I agree they are safer, "more reliable" is a big question mark. I think it still depends on what make you buy and some amount of luck.
I bought a 1989 Mazda 323 in 1989. Worked great and I eventually gave it to my mom and she eventually gave it to my sister. Last I heard, it had about 170,000 miles on it and still running great.
I bought a 1991 Geo Storm in 1991. It now has 183,000 miles on it--it needs some suspension work and new tires, that's it. Never had any warranty work required and haven't had to do anything other than change the oil, tires, and struts (wear and tear). I can't complain about that. In terms of purchase price, that car has cost me 5 cents per mile and is still ticking.
In 2000 I bought a 2000 Dodge Stratus. I should have known better (it being a Dodge/Stratus) but I figured the Chrysler quality issues would be resolved. Wrong. The car was delivered with bad breaks that they never fully repaired (although they tried three times). It also required warranty work on the suspension 3 months after delivery--yes, it was delivered with broken suspension. The ABS sensors have gone out twice and been replaced. The car now has 23,000 miles. We're selling it ASAP and getting a Honda CR-V. But this Dodge Stratus will have cost us about 74 cents per mile in pure purchase cost by the time we sell it.
Cars still come out bad. Perhaps it's gotten better, but I certainly don't have any proof of that. My personal experience is to the contrary. Again, I may have been foolish buying a Dodge/Chrysler. I've read others that have had similar problems with Dodge/Chrysler. It's amazing they're still in business.
True. But re-read my post. I was commenting on the Democratically imposed 5-cent "tax" on bottles, not the computer disposal fee. The 5-cent bottle tax affects poor people more than rich people because it makes up a larger percentage of their income.
You might as well say that cigarette taxes effect the poor more than the rich--when they really target SMOKERS, and not the rich or the poor.
Yes, but assuming that rich and poor smoke in equal percentages, it affects the poor more than the rich because, again, a tax that doubles the price of cigarettes is going to represent a larger percentage of the poor person's available income. This is especially true with products such as cigarettes that, due to being addictive, can pretty much be taxed at almost any level--and both rich and poor will find the money to supply their addiction--but it hurts the poor more because they have less disposal income to "absorb" the tax. We're talking Econ-101 here...
But first step: Re-read the original thread and my original post so you understand I was commenting on the bottle tax, not computer disposal tax.
Maybe, maybe not.
I'm not sure which is worse: 1) The possibility that Hilary Rosen knows that her message is BS, yet has no problems doing it as a day job. 2) The possibility that Hilary actually believes in the crap she spews.
Both are possible and I'm not sure one is necessarily more likely than the other...
Note that this IS a tax and it DOES affect poor more than the rich. So much for the liberals being there to stand up for the poor. :)