No one is prevented from building another phone network? Really?
It is my understanding that in order to be a "utility" in most locales one must be granted that status through local/state governments. I don't think they will just let you run wire (or pipe/whatever) over large tracts of public and private land.
Thus a local/geographic government-granted monolopy mustc be secured.
Let's take a monopoly that we all here at/. love to hate; Microsoft. Technically they are a monopoly having over 80% of marketshare. And some of their practices are preditorial (meaning they use their powers anti-competitively). However, the barriers to entry into the OS market are practically NIL! ZERO! ANYONE can write an OS, even a good one, perhaps even a better one that MS puts out. Hell, Linux is a prime example.
So the point is that natural monopolies really don't tend to be a big deal even though they are pretty rare, the government-granted monopolies on the other hand are problimatic. Remember big business likes big government because the gov has the power to regulate in their favor. Small government has no such power thus the government can't pander to big business.
The asshats at my CC company did something similar.
I travel every month or every couple of months at least and they apparently decided that I had "suspicious" activity on my credit card thus blocked it until I called their number.
Being away from home and on business I was PISSED! I called them up and yelled at full volume for a good 5 miuntes telling them to NEVER turn off my card again, and if they thought it was stolen they should call and verify it with me BEFORE killing my card. I then told them that if this ever happened again I would do a balence transfer and then cancel my card because I refuse to put up with a denial of service because of their overzealous algorithms which cause too many false-positives.
It's been almost a year and haven't had a problem from these clowns to date so I think it worked. On a positive note, my CC company all speaks very good English on the other end of the phone, so I can't complain about that!
Granted the majority of my studies were based upon audio engineering, I was required to take a lot of music biz courses to get a firm grasp on things.
Essentially, labels have been and currently are writing in these contracts a clause that goes something like "and the right to distribute, or reproduce under any medium, current or future, forseen or unforseen, usurping any technology invented or not yet invented".
It is a CYA clause of course, but they Industry isn't (completely) stupid. They knew that technology would change, even though they tended to underestimate when, and how, but they wanted to ensure that they could have the mechanical rights for any of their catalog on any medium that would come about.
Has anyone ever noticed that the majority of the current monopolies in the US are a result of the government?
Natural monopolies don't usually last very long because in a true free market, it is almost impossible to limit barriers to entry without governmental help.
The government should stay away from the market and allow the markets to run their course.
You forget that each individual state is essentially its own country. And now most people don't think of it like that, but crossing a state line is really like going into another country. Europeans do it all the time on a very similar but different scale.
Therefore, if someone violated NY law, then why should PA care? Even if they flee to PA? It doesn't matter because the person did not violate PA law. Now the states often have reciprocal agreements in order to assist with this type of activity, which often leads to extradition.
If it is federal law however that was broken, that is an entirely different situation because then the feds have jurisdiction.
If you break US law and go to Costa Rica, do you think the Costa Rican's will care? NO! Vice versa. It's the same with the states.
And having a government issued ID from ANY level of government isn't part of a libertarian philosophy.
The problem is that the government has granted itself more and more power to legislate and regulate where it doesn't belong as defined by the US Constitution.
This is why big business likes big government. Might seem counterintuitive at first but think about it. If big business can buy influence and legislative bills, then they can stifle their competition.
For example, one has to jump through many many hoops to open a small business in this country. Why? Because the government has over legislated and regulated to ensure that every single rule is followed for business. Big business has the capital and resources to be able to handle all of these hoops because they have legal departments, paper pushers, accountants, etc etc. The sole businessman doesn't have all of these methods to be in compliance with the nessecary laws. Therefore they have to spend an inordinate amount of time, effort, and money to keep up.
If the government would stick to its original definition as set forth in the US Constitution and Declreation of Independence, then we wouldn't have any special interests, buying of influence, over legislation, draconion regulation, etc because the government wouldn't have the power to affect such things.
If the government doesn't have the power to regulate the markets, then no one will pay money for the government to regulate the markets because it would be futile. We should stop governmental creep and bloat NOW!
Can we all grow up and quit calling it "identity theft" ???
I realize you didn't specifically do that, but if you are a victim of someone using your name without your permission, then that is called FRAUD! THEFT =| FRAUD
And yes this stems from the "stealing music" vs "copyright infringement" argument because correct usage of these phrases is IMPORTANT for describing what actually took place. Otherwise we can just willy nilly choose words to mean anything and live in linguistic chaos which makes us susceptible to FUD and propaganda!
This is a good explanation of how our tax system really works.
Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact.
But what does that really mean?
Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere might be somewhat friendlier.
When I was in college I was looking to go into the USAF and was taking ROTC.
Well, we had some time to kill before class, and in the USAF they don't believe in just letting people stand around, so the Major decided that we should all play a mind game. There were only about 5 of us standing in the hall.
Anyway, he said I am going to say a word, and then you have to talk about that word as long as you can without repeating yourself.
The guy before me got "Arizona" and only lasted about a minute or so. I was next and got "trees".
Well fortunately I had been camping a lot, and enjoyed biology and life sciences coming up in school so I was relatively well informed on the subject. I spoke for about 7 minutes before the Major finally cut me off as I was going into cellular functions of plants vs animals, chloroplast, photosynthesis etc etc.
This was also the day that we had our semester briefings due to present to the class. After he cut me off he said I was exempt and that I had earned an automatic "A" for it simply by my handling of his 'game'. Of course being a showoff I begged him to allow me to do my presentation anyway (kissing ass is a good thing in the military).
Anyway, the point is that being very well rounded can be beneficial at the most random of circumstances. Thus it will eventually pay in the long run to learn as much as one can about everything. That's one reason I read/. (among other sites) on a frequent basis.
Well, Perot forced the other two parties to discuss fiscal policy using hard numbers and figures. Otherwise they would've just done what they normally do and that is quick emotional soundbites which lack depth or logic which are simply emotional feel-good statements. Compare those campaigns to the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.
Our two-party collusive system fallacy in this country is really a shame and a detrement to our democratic-republic.
This is from my 24 year old cousin who is a computer tech for the DoD working in Iraq and Afghanistan. His dad was special forces and my cousin was raised in Germany because that is where they were stationed.
His job is to see that AAFES (Army supply stores) network and POS terminals are installed and work correctly.
When he sent me this e-mail this morning he said "I do not want you to wonder why I may be in federal prison." Talk about a way to wake up to one's morning e-mail!
________________________________________ Subject: An issue needing rectification. From: "Henderson, Zachary D." Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:27:03 +0100 To:
Mr.. President,
My name is Zachary Henderson, and I am faced with an inequity I can no longer stand.
That, after serving as a Department of Defense civilian for almost sixteen months in support of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, I am required to pay federal and state income taxes.
As you may be unfamiliar with the present tax laws, please allow me to elucidate. Military members serving in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan are not required to pay taxes. I do not begrudge them that at all; they have taken an oath to serve. A contractor, working for more than 330 days outside the United States, fall under the Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit, and their first 80,000 is tax free. As a Department of Defense Employee working for the Army and Air Force Exchange service, I am not entitled to that exemption..
I am fully aware of my responsibilities as a citizen. As an Eagle Scout, I am well versed in civic duties and the requirements of the individual in the role of the state. However, this inequality between Department of Defense civilian employees and contractors is not rational. As a man of principal, this dilemma is now intolerable, and I can no longer stomach it.
I face the same mortar attacks as soldiers and contractors while on bases, and I have. I face the same risk of getting shot at while traveling and I have. Yet all the others out here sharing the dangers that I face enjoy a benefit that I do not.
I submit to you that this is wrong, and I will countenance it no more. Therefore, I am notifying you in writing that I am refusing to file my taxes for the year 2005, and will not file them for 2006, either.
I am fully aware of all the consequences of my actions. I implore you to do all in you power to resolve this issue. Allow those to serve in equal danger to receive equal benefits.
This letter is being sent to you, Vice-President Cheney, Mississippi Senators Lott and Cochran, Representative for the State Of Mississippi Rodger Wicker I.R.S. Commissioner Everson, and the Stars And Stripes newspaper, to draw attention to this plight, and to ask for a speedy resolution for the almost 500 in the same crux that I am in.
I thank you for you time and attention to this matter.
Zachary D. Henderson Presently in Bagram, Afghanistan
About a month or two ago Road Runner decided to do a block on all mail originating from the servers of my registrar. www.DirectNIC.com one of the larger ones out there.
Unfortunately all of my e-mail, and all the e-mails for all of the business partners I have are routed through their respecitve domains with DirectNIC as the mail fwd.
I did their whitelist process but they could not do anything manually. It took 24-48 hours. The registrar didn't even have a way to contact these asshats.
The dipshits in tech support had NO WAY to get ahold of the network engineers to let them know they had created a major mistake. It was pathetic.
Let's explore here how the income tax and societal wealth really affects us...
"Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact.
But what does that really mean?
Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere might be somewhat friendlier."
These guys are very sly. They sold a paperback book with a serial number. All of our quizzes (not tests, just quizzes) were online and through the publisher's website. We could only log on to the website using an unique serial number as provided with the text.
The book was complete, but there were extra notes, points, presentations, flashes, diagrams, animations etc on the website that were helpful but not 100% needed.
Point of the matter is that these guys enticed the professor to use this book/web hybrid model so that grading of quizzes was easy for her. In exchange, EVERYONE had to buy the book just to get the serial number so that they could take the online quizzes. This forced an absolute monopoly and effectively nulled and voided the resell market for this course.
It's a very shitty thing to do but a very intelligent example of services marketing.
While I agree with you, there is a bit more to it that what you presented.
First off, even though you pay for it, doesn't give you the right to share it. Why? Because you have nulled that right in a contract by way of a Terms of Service/user agreement. So if anything, "sharing" the service would be considered a breach of contract between two parties (you and provider), not theft.
Either way, the government should stay the hell out and let the markets work it out!
The first step to "fix" any problem is usually to get the government out of it. While education is always beneficial, governmental education is a large part (and even cause) of the US's "social problems".
This is a PRIME example of why we need LIMITED government!
If the government has the power to legislate and regulate in favor of you when your buddies are in power, then when your enemies (or competition, etc) are in power, they can also do the same.
And not just for business. This can apply to religion, free speech, etc etc.
The US government should stick to its original principals as set forth in the Constitution of limited government, free markets, free trade, non-entangling alliances, individual liberties, and personal responsibility.
If they say no, then simply say that we have evolved over the Earth and are at the top of the food chain based upon our intellectual capability. Thus we have the ability and the predatorial right to do what we want.
If they say yes, then simply respond with the fact that in the Bible it says that humans have dominion over the animals and can do with them what we wish.
It confuses the hell out of them and is fun to watch them try to talk themselves out of their anti-logic.:-)
I am from Florida and have spent some time in Miami.
Damn that movie was hilarious. Not the typical Tim Allen humor, but funny nontheless. Good writing in how everything was tied together.
And it was funny, even partly in a sexual way, but not so much that it was perverse. I would like to se a sequal or something in a similar vein of humor.
"if this is Miami, they can keep it... We've spent enough time in this garden spot...Weirdsville, USA...Miami isn't that great, but the cops are kind of nice!"
While I do agree that the function of the record companies is diminishing, it hasn't been nulled.
Record companies do things that individual artists/bands cannot do. They provide hundreds of thousands of dollars (think venture capital) in marketing the album. They also have publicists on staff to arrange media interviews. They also promote the work on the radio and other places and provide tour support.
So while yes most small and independent artists can freely give their music away on MySpace, or P2P or on their own websites or whatever, those seeking to grow and expand their fanbase usually cannot. While they might not make anything directly on the sale of their albums, the labels give them to opportunity to get a national fan base and have a large entity invest in their art.
Things have changed greately in the last 10 years. Their propritary distribution method has become secondary. And the way people find new music has also changed as well; it used to be radio. There are a lot of things a well funded and well organized band can do on their own these days. However, a record label can often times be very beneficial.
It is no secret he is a libertarian. In fact I suspect that's WHY he got elected because of his libertarian views (he is from Texas). Ballot access and campaign funds are very hard to do if you are a third party
You are right, we need a standing army to protect our southern border from the current illegal immigration invasion.
Other than that, we don't really need a full-time army for much of anything than to protect our borders. At least not according to the Constitution. We should NOT be spread out all over the world like we are now. We are the British Empire of the 18th and 19th centuries.
And you are ignorant about libertarianism however and your posts makes this obvious. Libertarians actually WANT more personal responsibility and less governmental oversight. And I am not cheap. I am in business and spend great amounts of personal money if I feel can get a return on it. That isn't cheap, it's intelligent.
No it wasn't a coincidence. Nor was the "Internet/Information" revolution a coincidence that the Net wasn't regulated much at all. Regulation tends to stifle growth and innovation as well as investment and risk.
You're right. They don't have to pay minimum wage, health care, etc etc. But they are also not a free-market economy either. If they were, then the work force could unionize and collectively bargain for better wages/conditions. It's all about supply and demand, free markets and allowing the natural economic forces to run their course.
Well, you are correct. The US didn't have a large standing military, many social handouts, or an interefering presence in the market place.
In other words they were sticking to the Constitution and original ideas of the founding fathers of the US. It should also noted that the greatest prosparity and transformation of this nation took place druing the Industrial Revolution, a period when government was minimal.
Ron is only a member of the Reps because he wouldn't be able to get elected as a Libertarian.
One reason it is so cheap to produce things in other countries and then import them to the US is because of the high amount of regulation here in the US. In other words, producers are able to produce things cheaper elsewhere because there are less regulations to contend with. But to make the same product in the US requires larger capital and thus less profit. One way to combat this is to eliminate most, if not all, regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is prevented from building another phone network? Really?
/. love to hate; Microsoft. Technically they are a monopoly having over 80% of marketshare. And some of their practices are preditorial (meaning they use their powers anti-competitively). However, the barriers to entry into the OS market are practically NIL! ZERO! ANYONE can write an OS, even a good one, perhaps even a better one that MS puts out. Hell, Linux is a prime example.
It is my understanding that in order to be a "utility" in most locales one must be granted that status through local/state governments. I don't think they will just let you run wire (or pipe/whatever) over large tracts of public and private land.
Thus a local/geographic government-granted monolopy mustc be secured.
Let's take a monopoly that we all here at
So the point is that natural monopolies really don't tend to be a big deal even though they are pretty rare, the government-granted monopolies on the other hand are problimatic. Remember big business likes big government because the gov has the power to regulate in their favor. Small government has no such power thus the government can't pander to big business.
The asshats at my CC company did something similar.
I travel every month or every couple of months at least and they apparently decided that I had "suspicious" activity on my credit card thus blocked it until I called their number.
Being away from home and on business I was PISSED! I called them up and yelled at full volume for a good 5 miuntes telling them to NEVER turn off my card again, and if they thought it was stolen they should call and verify it with me BEFORE killing my card. I then told them that if this ever happened again I would do a balence transfer and then cancel my card because I refuse to put up with a denial of service because of their overzealous algorithms which cause too many false-positives.
It's been almost a year and haven't had a problem from these clowns to date so I think it worked. On a positive note, my CC company all speaks very good English on the other end of the phone, so I can't complain about that!
Granted the majority of my studies were based upon audio engineering, I was required to take a lot of music biz courses to get a firm grasp on things.
Essentially, labels have been and currently are writing in these contracts a clause that goes something like "and the right to distribute, or reproduce under any medium, current or future, forseen or unforseen, usurping any technology invented or not yet invented".
It is a CYA clause of course, but they Industry isn't (completely) stupid. They knew that technology would change, even though they tended to underestimate when, and how, but they wanted to ensure that they could have the mechanical rights for any of their catalog on any medium that would come about.
Has anyone ever noticed that the majority of the current monopolies in the US are a result of the government?
Natural monopolies don't usually last very long because in a true free market, it is almost impossible to limit barriers to entry without governmental help.
The government should stay away from the market and allow the markets to run their course.
You forget that each individual state is essentially its own country. And now most people don't think of it like that, but crossing a state line is really like going into another country. Europeans do it all the time on a very similar but different scale.
Therefore, if someone violated NY law, then why should PA care? Even if they flee to PA? It doesn't matter because the person did not violate PA law. Now the states often have reciprocal agreements in order to assist with this type of activity, which often leads to extradition.
If it is federal law however that was broken, that is an entirely different situation because then the feds have jurisdiction.
If you break US law and go to Costa Rica, do you think the Costa Rican's will care? NO! Vice versa. It's the same with the states.
And having a government issued ID from ANY level of government isn't part of a libertarian philosophy.
Perhaps you had better study libertarianism a bit more by reading these two pages first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml
The problem is that the government has granted itself more and more power to legislate and regulate where it doesn't belong as defined by the US Constitution.
This is why big business likes big government. Might seem counterintuitive at first but think about it. If big business can buy influence and legislative bills, then they can stifle their competition.
For example, one has to jump through many many hoops to open a small business in this country. Why? Because the government has over legislated and regulated to ensure that every single rule is followed for business. Big business has the capital and resources to be able to handle all of these hoops because they have legal departments, paper pushers, accountants, etc etc. The sole businessman doesn't have all of these methods to be in compliance with the nessecary laws. Therefore they have to spend an inordinate amount of time, effort, and money to keep up.
If the government would stick to its original definition as set forth in the US Constitution and Declreation of Independence, then we wouldn't have any special interests, buying of influence, over legislation, draconion regulation, etc because the government wouldn't have the power to affect such things.
If the government doesn't have the power to regulate the markets, then no one will pay money for the government to regulate the markets because it would be futile. We should stop governmental creep and bloat NOW!
Can we all grow up and quit calling it "identity theft" ???
I realize you didn't specifically do that, but if you are a victim of someone using your name without your permission, then that is called FRAUD!
THEFT =| FRAUD
And yes this stems from the "stealing music" vs "copyright infringement" argument because correct usage of these phrases is IMPORTANT for describing what actually took place. Otherwise we can just willy nilly choose words to mean anything and live in linguistic chaos which makes us susceptible to FUD and propaganda!
This is a good explanation of how our tax system really works.
Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact.
But what does that really mean?
Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere might be somewhat friendlier.
When I was in college I was looking to go into the USAF and was taking ROTC.
/. (among other sites) on a frequent basis.
Well, we had some time to kill before class, and in the USAF they don't believe in just letting people stand around, so the Major decided that we should all play a mind game. There were only about 5 of us standing in the hall.
Anyway, he said I am going to say a word, and then you have to talk about that word as long as you can without repeating yourself.
The guy before me got "Arizona" and only lasted about a minute or so. I was next and got "trees".
Well fortunately I had been camping a lot, and enjoyed biology and life sciences coming up in school so I was relatively well informed on the subject. I spoke for about 7 minutes before the Major finally cut me off as I was going into cellular functions of plants vs animals, chloroplast, photosynthesis etc etc.
This was also the day that we had our semester briefings due to present to the class. After he cut me off he said I was exempt and that I had earned an automatic "A" for it simply by my handling of his 'game'. Of course being a showoff I begged him to allow me to do my presentation anyway (kissing ass is a good thing in the military).
Anyway, the point is that being very well rounded can be beneficial at the most random of circumstances. Thus it will eventually pay in the long run to learn as much as one can about everything. That's one reason I read
Well, Perot forced the other two parties to discuss fiscal policy using hard numbers and figures. Otherwise they would've just done what they normally do and that is quick emotional soundbites which lack depth or logic which are simply emotional feel-good statements. Compare those campaigns to the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.
Our two-party collusive system fallacy in this country is really a shame and a detrement to our democratic-republic.
This is from my 24 year old cousin who is a computer tech for the DoD working in Iraq and Afghanistan. His dad was special forces and my cousin was raised in Germany because that is where they were stationed.
His job is to see that AAFES (Army supply stores) network and POS terminals are installed and work correctly.
When he sent me this e-mail this morning he said "I do not want you to wonder why I may be in federal prison." Talk about a way to wake up to one's morning e-mail!
________________________________________
Subject: An issue needing rectification.
From: "Henderson, Zachary D."
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:27:03 +0100
To:
Mr.. President,
My name is Zachary Henderson, and I am faced with an inequity I can no longer stand.
That, after serving as a Department of Defense civilian for almost sixteen months in support of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, I am required to pay federal and state income taxes.
As you may be unfamiliar with the present tax laws, please allow me to elucidate. Military members serving in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan are not required to pay taxes. I do not begrudge them that at all; they have taken an oath to serve. A contractor, working for more than 330 days outside the United States, fall under the Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit, and their first 80,000 is tax free. As a Department of Defense Employee working for the Army and Air Force Exchange service, I am not entitled to that exemption..
I am fully aware of my responsibilities as a citizen. As an Eagle Scout, I am well versed in civic duties and the requirements of the individual in the role of the state. However, this inequality between Department of Defense civilian employees and contractors is not rational. As a man of principal, this dilemma is now intolerable, and I can no longer stomach it.
I face the same mortar attacks as soldiers and contractors while on bases, and I have. I face the same risk of getting shot at while traveling and I have. Yet all the others out here sharing the dangers that I face enjoy a benefit that I do not.
I submit to you that this is wrong, and I will countenance it no more. Therefore, I am notifying you in writing that I am refusing to file my taxes for the year 2005, and will not file them for 2006, either.
I am fully aware of all the consequences of my actions. I implore you to do all in you power to resolve this issue. Allow those to serve in equal danger to receive equal benefits.
This letter is being sent to you, Vice-President Cheney, Mississippi Senators Lott and Cochran, Representative for the State Of Mississippi Rodger Wicker I.R.S. Commissioner Everson, and the Stars And Stripes newspaper, to draw attention to this plight, and to ask for a speedy resolution for the almost 500 in the same crux that I am in.
I thank you for you time and attention to this matter.
Zachary D. Henderson
Presently in Bagram, Afghanistan
About a month or two ago Road Runner decided to do a block on all mail originating from the servers of my registrar. www.DirectNIC.com one of the larger ones out there.
Unfortunately all of my e-mail, and all the e-mails for all of the business partners I have are routed through their respecitve domains with DirectNIC as the mail fwd.
I did their whitelist process but they could not do anything manually. It took 24-48 hours. The registrar didn't even have a way to contact these asshats.
The dipshits in tech support had NO WAY to get ahold of the network engineers to let them know they had created a major mistake. It was pathetic.
Let's explore here how the income tax and societal wealth really affects us...
"Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact.
But what does that really mean?
Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere might be somewhat friendlier."
When I was getting my marketing minor, I took a services marketing class.
Well my prof had decided to go with this specific company http://www.atomicdogpublishing.com/
These guys are very sly. They sold a paperback book with a serial number. All of our quizzes (not tests, just quizzes) were online and through the publisher's website. We could only log on to the website using an unique serial number as provided with the text.
The book was complete, but there were extra notes, points, presentations, flashes, diagrams, animations etc on the website that were helpful but not 100% needed.
Point of the matter is that these guys enticed the professor to use this book/web hybrid model so that grading of quizzes was easy for her. In exchange, EVERYONE had to buy the book just to get the serial number so that they could take the online quizzes. This forced an absolute monopoly and effectively nulled and voided the resell market for this course.
It's a very shitty thing to do but a very intelligent example of services marketing.
But the real question is, can you still reproduce or has cycling reduced bloodflow to your testicular area? ;-)
While I agree with you, there is a bit more to it that what you presented.
First off, even though you pay for it, doesn't give you the right to share it. Why? Because you have nulled that right in a contract by way of a Terms of Service/user agreement. So if anything, "sharing" the service would be considered a breach of contract between two parties (you and provider), not theft.
Either way, the government should stay the hell out and let the markets work it out!
The first step to "fix" any problem is usually to get the government out of it. While education is always beneficial, governmental education is a large part (and even cause) of the US's "social problems".
The problem is that copyright creates an artificial scarcity in the market.
When that scarcity is invalid or nulled, the price aims for zero $0.
I learned that in high school economics (non-honors).
This is a PRIME example of why we need LIMITED government!
If the government has the power to legislate and regulate in favor of you when your buddies are in power, then when your enemies (or competition, etc) are in power, they can also do the same.
And not just for business. This can apply to religion, free speech, etc etc.
The US government should stick to its original principals as set forth in the Constitution of limited government, free markets, free trade, non-entangling alliances, individual liberties, and personal responsibility.
Try asking these people of they believe in God...
:-)
If they say no, then simply say that we have evolved over the Earth and are at the top of the food chain based upon our intellectual capability. Thus we have the ability and the predatorial right to do what we want.
If they say yes, then simply respond with the fact that in the Bible it says that humans have dominion over the animals and can do with them what we wish.
It confuses the hell out of them and is fun to watch them try to talk themselves out of their anti-logic.
I am from Florida and have spent some time in Miami.
Damn that movie was hilarious. Not the typical Tim Allen humor, but funny nontheless. Good writing in how everything was tied together.
And it was funny, even partly in a sexual way, but not so much that it was perverse. I would like to se a sequal or something in a similar vein of humor.
"if this is Miami, they can keep it... We've spent enough time in this garden spot...Weirdsville, USA...Miami isn't that great, but the cops are kind of nice!"
While I do agree that the function of the record companies is diminishing, it hasn't been nulled.
Record companies do things that individual artists/bands cannot do. They provide hundreds of thousands of dollars (think venture capital) in marketing the album. They also have publicists on staff to arrange media interviews. They also promote the work on the radio and other places and provide tour support.
So while yes most small and independent artists can freely give their music away on MySpace, or P2P or on their own websites or whatever, those seeking to grow and expand their fanbase usually cannot. While they might not make anything directly on the sale of their albums, the labels give them to opportunity to get a national fan base and have a large entity invest in their art.
Things have changed greately in the last 10 years. Their propritary distribution method has become secondary. And the way people find new music has also changed as well; it used to be radio. There are a lot of things a well funded and well organized band can do on their own these days. However, a record label can often times be very beneficial.
It is no secret he is a libertarian. In fact I suspect that's WHY he got elected because of his libertarian views (he is from Texas). Ballot access and campaign funds are very hard to do if you are a third party
You are right, we need a standing army to protect our southern border from the current illegal immigration invasion.
Other than that, we don't really need a full-time army for much of anything than to protect our borders. At least not according to the Constitution. We should NOT be spread out all over the world like we are now. We are the British Empire of the 18th and 19th centuries.
And you are ignorant about libertarianism however and your posts makes this obvious. Libertarians actually WANT more personal responsibility and less governmental oversight. And I am not cheap. I am in business and spend great amounts of personal money if I feel can get a return on it. That isn't cheap, it's intelligent.
No it wasn't a coincidence. Nor was the "Internet/Information" revolution a coincidence that the Net wasn't regulated much at all. Regulation tends to stifle growth and innovation as well as investment and risk.
You're right. They don't have to pay minimum wage, health care, etc etc. But they are also not a free-market economy either. If they were, then the work force could unionize and collectively bargain for better wages/conditions. It's all about supply and demand, free markets and allowing the natural economic forces to run their course.
Well, you are correct. The US didn't have a large standing military, many social handouts, or an interefering presence in the market place.
In other words they were sticking to the Constitution and original ideas of the founding fathers of the US. It should also noted that the greatest prosparity and transformation of this nation took place druing the Industrial Revolution, a period when government was minimal.
Ron is only a member of the Reps because he wouldn't be able to get elected as a Libertarian.
One reason it is so cheap to produce things in other countries and then import them to the US is because of the high amount of regulation here in the US. In other words, producers are able to produce things cheaper elsewhere because there are less regulations to contend with. But to make the same product in the US requires larger capital and thus less profit. One way to combat this is to eliminate most, if not all, regulation.