I thought the issue with Microsoft was that they made everyone buy certified gasoline whether they planned to use it or not. Apple is the one that wants to drive your car for you, down Apple certified highways.
I'm now tempted to try to become a software inspector.
People don't know what a house is supposed to look like (beyond the generalities), so when they purchase one, they hire a home inspector to make sure that it isn't shit. It seems like there is room to fill a similar function in the software universe (and it really isn't that hard to go way past what the typical person would evaluate when checking out software, dependency trees, installation behavior, openness of data formats (or completeness of conversion), etc.).
Well ranty, I really don't know (that's why I said 'apparently). I imagine the census has posted lots of information on it, but you wouldn't believe that either, so I'm not going to bother trying to find it.
Apparently, intent is taken into account, so making a trinket out of a coin in order to sell it as a trinket is treated differently than harvesting metal for sale.
I don't really see your point. Vesting into the government health care plan in 5 years is a huge amount of compensation (you might call it a notable part of their total compensation), the fact that it is a dole or whatever is immaterial to that.
The big advantage trans fats have over other fats is shelf life. Recipe changes should be able to compensate for any issues with texture (notice that Crisco still sells vegetable shortening, they just stopped using partially hydrogenated oils in it, so they can market it as having no trans fat in it).
And I'm pretty sure the occasional bad idea is repealed. There was a big one back in the 30s.
I'm not saying the numbers are comparable, I'm saying that I don't see how the $1.4 trillion dollars in accumulated wealth can possibly be said to be the (primary) reason that the other people don't have any (when they are, in aggregate, spending hundreds of times more over their lifetimes).
Another way to put it: If the economy, by way of magic, were made perfectly fair, the wealth in question would make peoples lives a little better, not make them fantastic.
I'm arguing that it doesn't say much about the economy. 100 million people with $20,000 each represents $2 trillion, and they spend it on consumption each year. So over 20 years, if the wealthy people had not captured any of their money, the 100 million each would have had an extra $650 each year.
So it is a nice chunk of dollars, and it probably, at least to some extent, results from unfairness, but it is fairly obvious (in my eyes) that it is not a primary factor.
Yes, things are obviously distributed unevenly, but that doesn't have much bearing on the fact that the majority of economic energy is expended on consumption rather than wealth (total U.S. wealth is estimated, according to Wikipedia, at $60 trillion; even if that is off by a factor of 2 or 4, we are still talking about 10 or 20 years of consumption).
(Which to me makes ranting about the evils of wealth...absurd. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look for ways to make life better for everybody, but it probably means we shouldn't do it in anger.)
Well, it does quickly get down to what 'feeling it' means. I bet most of the 80% will continue to live in nice shelters and eat each meal (both of which I consider significant contributors to quality of life).
So I could probably make a go of showing that the impacts were inconveniences rather than hardships (it becomes a little silly to talk of suffering through cooking one's own food and basic cable). But certainly, in pure economic terms, they would see a decline.
Oh, I understand, I was just conceding that the guy with $5,000 invested in an S&P 500 index fund had a better year than the guy with $5,000 invested in Metro PCS.
Slashdot Mirror
You could probably track down the code to some obsolete system and install it on your own computer.
The unlimited is going to be a tough sell on open devices, but there are plans close enough to the $15/250MB available right now:
http://www.virginmobileusa.com/mobile-broadband
(Virgin Mobile is owned and operated by Sprint, they bought Virgin out last year and licensed the name)
Sometimes they get sued for having insurance.
I thought the issue with Microsoft was that they made everyone buy certified gasoline whether they planned to use it or not. Apple is the one that wants to drive your car for you, down Apple certified highways.
You mean that they aren't supposed to own the country.
I'm now tempted to try to become a software inspector.
People don't know what a house is supposed to look like (beyond the generalities), so when they purchase one, they hire a home inspector to make sure that it isn't shit. It seems like there is room to fill a similar function in the software universe (and it really isn't that hard to go way past what the typical person would evaluate when checking out software, dependency trees, installation behavior, openness of data formats (or completeness of conversion), etc.).
...how 'bout they install airbags
Well ranty, I really don't know (that's why I said 'apparently). I imagine the census has posted lots of information on it, but you wouldn't believe that either, so I'm not going to bother trying to find it.
It seems broader than that:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=426715
Apparently, intent is taken into account, so making a trinket out of a coin in order to sell it as a trinket is treated differently than harvesting metal for sale.
Apparently, the increase in response rates cuts down on the number of home visits required, saving money.
That's a huge upside for linking up video devices though. No interference from the neighbors, no interference from the other room.
I don't really see your point. Vesting into the government health care plan in 5 years is a huge amount of compensation (you might call it a notable part of their total compensation), the fact that it is a dole or whatever is immaterial to that.
Pay me $170,000 a year and give me access to good health care and you can call me any name you like.
(Members of the U.S. House of Representatives make $170,000, members of the New York state assembly seem to make something closer to $90-100,000)
Are you serious? $100,000 certainly isn't the top of the heap, but I'm sure there are lots of New Yorkers who could find a way to get by on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/nyregion/18retire.html
(never mind that the story is about members that are collecting their retirement pensions and salary)
The worst of it is that most rock salt was deposited by a sea.
There is no need to look further than moronic.
The big advantage trans fats have over other fats is shelf life. Recipe changes should be able to compensate for any issues with texture (notice that Crisco still sells vegetable shortening, they just stopped using partially hydrogenated oils in it, so they can market it as having no trans fat in it).
And I'm pretty sure the occasional bad idea is repealed. There was a big one back in the 30s.
You obviously haven't looked at how much they get paid.
I'm not saying the numbers are comparable, I'm saying that I don't see how the $1.4 trillion dollars in accumulated wealth can possibly be said to be the (primary) reason that the other people don't have any (when they are, in aggregate, spending hundreds of times more over their lifetimes).
Another way to put it: If the economy, by way of magic, were made perfectly fair, the wealth in question would make peoples lives a little better, not make them fantastic.
I'm arguing that it doesn't say much about the economy. 100 million people with $20,000 each represents $2 trillion, and they spend it on consumption each year. So over 20 years, if the wealthy people had not captured any of their money, the 100 million each would have had an extra $650 each year.
So it is a nice chunk of dollars, and it probably, at least to some extent, results from unfairness, but it is fairly obvious (in my eyes) that it is not a primary factor.
Yes, things are obviously distributed unevenly, but that doesn't have much bearing on the fact that the majority of economic energy is expended on consumption rather than wealth (total U.S. wealth is estimated, according to Wikipedia, at $60 trillion; even if that is off by a factor of 2 or 4, we are still talking about 10 or 20 years of consumption).
(Which to me makes ranting about the evils of wealth...absurd. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look for ways to make life better for everybody, but it probably means we shouldn't do it in anger.)
Well, it does quickly get down to what 'feeling it' means. I bet most of the 80% will continue to live in nice shelters and eat each meal (both of which I consider significant contributors to quality of life).
So I could probably make a go of showing that the impacts were inconveniences rather than hardships (it becomes a little silly to talk of suffering through cooking one's own food and basic cable). But certainly, in pure economic terms, they would see a decline.
Well, obviously you are part of the wealthy political elite. You bastard!
I made up a number to illustrate a situation in which an economy could be untidy while still having the majority of people doing fine.
I'm not surprised that it would not align with reality. But it sort of does. Here is a site that says real unemployment in California is about 18%:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/114210-real-unemployment-closer-to-18-watch-those-long-positions
That source probably leans a bit corporate, but I would be sort of surprised if you could find a super-left blog claiming much higher than 20%.
Oh, I understand, I was just conceding that the guy with $5,000 invested in an S&P 500 index fund had a better year than the guy with $5,000 invested in Metro PCS.