compared to how they just copy (in many cases poorly) from other nations and peoples?
While your view of China sounds grandiose and wonderful the fact remains, they don't innovate nearly as much as a society that protects the physical and intellectual property rights of individuals. While the idea of working for the common good is appealing human nature shows we are more likely to work harder for the common good when the individual rewards are considered worth while.
who do the actual damage. Unions also hire protestors as well, usually not paying them but a little over minimum wage and never extending them benefits.
Sorry, btdt, have many relatives who have been or still are in unions and the shit they talk about (a few boast) would make you wonder if they ever graduated high school.
You caught part of it , but even positioning of the flat array versus his "tree" skewed the results. There were times he shows where the tree was not in shade but the flat panel was fully in shade. The claims of increased efficiency ignore using panels that have mechanisms to allow them to track the sun. Plus he isn't measuring the right output of photo cells, he should have measured energy production.
really, the global warming scare factory blew right past hyperactive speed and went straight to plaid.
It is crap like this that makes it hard for many to believe there are is any seriousness in the global warming let alone man causing it or making it worse. I cringed while reading this article. I am not sure if its more of a creepy cringe or just offensive to real thinking
Its time to get the zealots out of the lead roles, they are no more than Bible thumping tent preachers, whats next, snakes?
and other companies trying to compete in this area.
Government contractors usually get to hide behind the same government. So when they screw up they get paid more to do it right the next time. Private contractors cannot afford the screw ups. Oh I am sure they will screw up but when your trying to make a buck in a high risk area you do your damned best to eliminate all those risks, especially ones that will end your business like losing a life.
The biggest change in Cataclysm was the healing model. Once a character passes level 80, the highest of the previous expansion, their costs to use healing spells increases to where by the time they are level 85; the new top level; their mana to healing cost has gone up four times. It is never a good idea in any game to make a player feel less effective as they progress. This one change alone had a very detrimental effect on players with many guilds report losses of people playing healers if playing at all; for some this was the only role they wanted and they when they stopped feeling effective they could not play.
The problem Blizzard had with PvP and especially Arenas which they put so much effort into is that it was all a burst affair. Those who could unload the fastest and most coordinated won. So what did Blizzard do? They jacked up the hit points of characters. When an average mage had 20k health at level 80 in the previous release they now have 100k health. This caused a new problem, healers would just make PvP (specifically Arenas) play drag on and on. So they eliminate the effects of burst attacks with immense health pools and in turn keep the games from going on forever by nerfing the healers so strongly they cannot afford to heal effectively for any period of time.
Blizzard causes all these problems through gear inflation. Its a common joke that your gear is better than your character, hell a mage's staff can double if not triple or more their ability. People used to make jokes in the previous release about how it was bound to happen when caster weapons would offer +999 spell power - well they do and actually do triple that.
So Blizzard balances a game around X, then they monty hall it to death and wonder why the model no longer works. To fix the problem they create the nerf players all under the guise of providing a challenge. When one side of their development team does not operate within limits how do they expect to balance a game. Worse, they lied to their players. They claimed for months leading up to Cata they wanted to give healers a more challenging and rewarding play style. They didn't bother to ask and when people complained they merely deleted threads.
What Blizzard forgot is that the majority of their players play to have fun. Having fun means being able to be a hero, saving the day, pulling it out under incredible odds. When they turned the healing model upside down they stripped that feeling from a large amount of their player base. Now I here they want to do the same to tanking as its "not engaging enough". Random groups already make DPS players wait nearly 30 minutes to get in (standard five man mechanics and needless to say more people play dps) so I can only imagine the pain coming forth.
we will IM others to call us just so we have an excuse to hang up on someone else, it is even good for getting rid of people who come to your desk and won't leave.
because just like with motorcycles... one day its too hot, then its too cold, oh I am late, its raining or will, snow?!?!, rabid weasel alert, and so on.
People make all sorts of wonderful justifications but most never stick with it. Many also don't have the opportunity to ride to work. We usually settle down and work where we can especially in a market like this. Let alone having a job where riding to work and being able to clean up is a possibility.
CAFE standards are "gamed" A car which is flex fuel gets credit for mileage than it can ever do on gasoline alone. A 12 to 16 mile per gallon truck might count for over 20 when it comes to CAFE standards, hell it could count as more.
The Euro standard always shows higher numbers than can be achieved under US standards, same for Japan. So yeah, they might just claim they have higher mileage cars, up until they are measured by the same standards.
they are the cool kids, the trash talking telling their boss to take a hike, how they pulled one over on "that cop", got Best Buy/Wal-Mart to take stuff back they broke on purpose, rage against the machine, stand up to the man, going to vote for so and so, am so into that, and so on.
In the end they never leave their keyboard because, well its late, its raining, its cold, its too hot, my tummy hurts, have to be at work in fifteen minutes, mom will get mad, etc.
Since some of these social networks are trying to hide behind freedom of expression and the like (which I am not sure how similar Britain's laws are) it does not protect them from private parties.
While I am not a fan of the government trying to shut down some of these services, I do expect these services to have a process in place to shut down users who they are informed about using their sites for organizing willful destruction of other people's property, let alone their lives.
Freedom does not excuse one from responsibility and freedoms are great until you trample someone else in the process.
Sorry, but quite a few wacko Democrats are in Congress, the difference is that the PRESS chooses to ignore them whereas they relish in finding the wacko conservatives. The Tea Party is anything but a bunch of wackos. Oh I am quite sure there are some daffy duck types in there, all groups get them, but their core belief around smaller government is anything but wacko. It would probably only take a few minutes to get a list using google of the lefts wackos who are in Congress, or consistently on TV.
The real wackos are the ones who want to spend us into a ditch and attempt to tax their way out of it. There simply is not sufficient money to be taxed to pay for all the promises made.
and my Macs maybe close behind. I am not going to support a bunch of assholes like what Apple has become. I have used a friends Galaxy and found it a bit slow but Android does have features iOs sorely lacks. While I don't think the current tablet implementations are all that wonderful I believe they are good for getting people to rethink how to write and use applications. Apple apparently thinks they invented all of this and considering how the patent office works they could probably buy history to be on their side.
Very disappointing to see this. Spend your money innovating not suing Apple. Be an ideas company, not one that stifles anyone else having them.
My friend works for a major internet provider and his job is cleaning up e-mail issues usually caused by jackasses; sometimes its the programmers where he works; but mostly its groups who decide to they are going "Show someone whats what".
I don't care if its a union or not, slamming someone's mailbox is not a proper method to demonstrate your position. One e-mail from each union member is one thing, organizing outside groups is another. Which brings me to one item I have experience with, when unions want to protest an organization they not only rely on their own they pay for help. That help usually is non-union minimum wage people with no benefits to carry signs and the like. I am quite sure they also pay outside organizations in this day and age for "mailing assistance"
If you follow the articles you will see this union hired an outside company to spam the voice mail boxes of the company. They also asked their members to do the same to the e-mail system. If this is not hostile action then I don't know what is. The company asked the union to put a stop to it and they would not. So what is an "Evil corporation" supposed to do? Just accept it as a cost of doing business? Even if it prevents you from doing business? How big of mailboxes should the have for voice mail or e-mail before it meets some artificial limit?
Really, if someone is acting like an asshole and you ask them to stop then why not take them to court?
PS: If you think unions are all flowers and bunnies you obviously never worked under one or with people under one. BTW, I suppose that the union in Verizon's current case is really trying hard to stop the damage being caused by its members? Far too many of these groups are thugs. They intimidate both workers and businesses all the time. Seeing one gets its balls busted for it is a good thing. We should promote proper and lawful solutions, not intimidation and depriving another of their livelihood.
Congress loves to claim savings but Congress uses Base Line Budgeting which allows the appearance of savings when in fact no cuts are made. Essentially they state this is what it will cost in the future so if we say we will spend less than that we have made a cut yet spending can still and usually does increase.
So when you see a Congressmen bemoaning about harsh/absurd/severe cuts to their favorite program (defense/social/etc) you need to understand the numbers they are using. The closest to real cuts that has been offered up is the Ryan plan and Obama went out of his way (childish immature method too) to lambast this to Ryan's face in a speech!
I know, some say, raise taxes. Well even if we did raise taxes like Obama and some in Congress wants we would not make up a hundred billion this year and stand to make up even less going forward. We could make taxes confiscatory about a certain limit and still not balance even this years budget. The simple problem is, they promised more money than other people even have. Top it off with the Affordable Healthcare Act (or whatever it is called, know that the names assigned to bills usually results in the opposite) is chock full of increases to taxes in 2013 and beyond.
Entitlements need to be changed completely. We simply give too many people money they don't deserve and we don't even try to prosecute real fraud (estimated at over 100b a year in Medicare alone). We need to raise retirement ages for everyone over under 50 by a year, under 40 by 2, 30 by 3 and 20 by 4. We also need to make it harder to qualify for social security. We need to chop a carrier group or two, get our bases out of countries rich enough to defend themselves, and end the war on drugs. Also, remove the taxation of profits earned overseas. Bring that money home.
Obama is wrong, it is all about spending. He is up over 25% from Bush alone. When tax revenue goes down is not the time for the government to ramp up spending, Keynesian spending (think government spending money to boost economies) has been shown to not work here nor in Europe yet they still persist in trying and when it fails they come up with hundreds of excuses). Increasing taxes only works if you can hope that those who have the money keep using as they are, but they won't. They will simply use their money where it is not taxed which means revenues go down. It happens time and time again.
now it would be more accurate to say, most employers of people who frequent this site assume those employees have access the the internet.
There still are a good number of people who won't use the net even if you hand it them for free. It took our family years before our grandmother consented to even having a computer! We only convinced her that with a computer and internet she could get pictures of her grandkids daily, let alone e-mail from them. She didn't care to talk to her children all the time, she did want to write to her grandkids though.
Two industries I worked in we could care less if people had internet, both were service industries. I did contract work for one and the only requirement I saw at both was, you must have a phone. Now in certain states, PA is one, phones are considered a right and beyond that people have of certain income levels have a right to a free wireless phone and 250 minutes a month usage. (which explains the extra cost you pay to use your own cell phones)
I am all for giving people a cheaper means to get to the internet but don't assume that just because you and your friends use it that everyone does or will. I know many who are quite happy without it today and are just as productive as they ever were. I have friends with families where the kids are the primary users, the parents might use it for pictures and such. It all comes down to, do you use it at work daily? If not, then you might not have a reason to use it at home. I can list dozens of industries where the employees never need access to the net and many might not even care. Its getting more universal, especially with cell phones having web access but there are still people without cell phones and how long have those been around?
by those contributing articles, sort of like the the karma system here. You can't vote if your karma is bad.
I would not recommend real names, in this day and age that is like handing someone a gun and hoping they don't shoot. There are too many crazies out there that would only be cowed by a crowd but have one person "do them wrong" and you could end up with admins needing to go to the police for protection.
My problem Wikipedia is that is seems the words repository for current culture, meaning music videos, if not single songs, are bound to have full pages dedicated to them without question but things older than the editors rarely do, and if the page does come in existence it might not live long. The notability/annotation/etc requirements work hard against tech that has literally fallen off the net.
Sorry, but my mother is type 1 as well and Hypoglycemia is the biggest danger she faces on a daily basis. Why? Because it can occur without her recognizing it. Sure we all know the symptoms, she certainly does, but one problem with low blood sugar is that your not always thinking clearly and you don't always arrive at low blood sugar at the same rate. Worse, depending on many other issues one day's low blood sugar can have different results than another.
The real threat here is for those type 1s who are not in constant contact with other people, like a spouse or children in the same home. I made a trip to my parents one day to drop some boxes off, I was under the impression they were not going to be home. I saw my mom's car in their garage but still was under the assumption that she was with my dad. Well low and behold she was in the house and barely conscious. When I was able to recover her (that wonderful rescue shot plus tabs/juice) we went over what happened. She knew she was low and was going to fix it... but.. but... and there she went. She sat down started to check her pump and passed out. Her blood sugar fell. Now imagine, your asleep. I know the pump vibrates, well it falls to the side, it the needle comes out, or any other many problems that can occur... and if your alone or not checked for how many hours - well you get the picture.
Now contrast this with hyperglycemia (too much), she has never gone unconscious in this state. She has had throw up fits and such, but she was always able to try and fix it. She could even get herself to the hospital. She has been well past 600+, she knows people who went higher. She spent days over 400 with the hospital unable to explain it. She was fully functional. You cannot same the same for low blood sugar.
I just wanted to reply so that people don't get the idea it rarely is fatal which implies its not dangerous. Its very much going to be fatal if someone is not around to help you and honestly, if your type 1 I would make sure people know that if your not where you should be then there might be a problem.
didn't influence those decisions to yank all those products. He seems to be pushing the company more towards the end user across all of their product lines.
As to whom he expects to make the content and with what tools I am not so sure.
Far too many report problems when the Mac wakes from sleep where it either does not reconnect to the WiFi it knows about or connects for only a short while and loses connection after. Fix is quite simple, turn the airport off and on but it is so annoying.
You boast some impressive numbers and they disclaim any opposing views as being cherry picked yet you do not provide any citations to back your claims.
Your talking about an organization (the US government) which is consuming nearly 25% of the GDP of the richest country on Earth that cannot balance its books. Yet you claim that it is efficient beyond the hopes of any corporation? It does not take much work to come up with your "cherry picked" counter points, government projects are notorious for over spending, F35 and Big Dig are two great examples of recent boondoggles. There over 1.6 million civilian federal employees, the average cost of each is just slightly over 100k.
So ya, most workers I know in private industry are also under pressure to get it in under budget and cut costs where possible. I haven't heard of a private business who wants their employees to not cut costs...
Regardless, no real cost savings are going to come from paring down the number of employees the Federal Government has. We have to knock down whole agencies and we have to tackle the real problem : Entitlements. They eat nearly two trillion dollars a year and when Obama Care rolls in around 2013 it will only get worse.
We are spending too much and there really isn't sufficient revenue to be gained through taxation. Historically we take in between 18 and 20% of the GDP with the spending close to that, yet now we are at less than 19% because of the weak economy and nearly 25% out because of reckless spending (keynesian fixes that don't work). We peaked at near 21% GDP for taxes during boom years (internet boom) yet even Clinton did not produce a balanced budget - go look it up, not one year did the deficit not increase.
So, citations if you make bold claims about government efficiency. Its hard to find favorable stories even in left leaning print (NYTimes and such) so I would love to see it.
Even reading the stories on this change it is very evident, they are out of ideas.
What they are doing wrong is dismissing the large number of minority superheros that already exist but simply do not get much attention. So instead they have to repackage and existing character and hope to get away with it. It reminds me of the New Coke debacle.
I have no problem with them having a new hero with similar powers, someone who takes up the mantle but it obviously not the original nor ever claims to be such. Still for all the politically correct points being spent in just one character makes the whole thing a farce.
Why tax cuts work, I know it sounds wrong
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Please bear with me. One thing the Democratic party; and yes I will call them out on this; and they supporters on various blogs and the media won't tell you is this.
Raising taxes does not always generate revenue, in many cases it lowers revenue. Why? Because government projects which involve tax rates assume behavior does not change.This have been demonstrated as being false. When you make it expensive to make more money people tend to do less of it. A great example involving Reagan was during his acting days (yeah, before he was in office) there was a limit to how much they made before the government took 90%. His view was, why would he bother to work when every dollar over that amount was taxed so high?
The "bad" side effect of lower taxes is that the rich get richer because they do more of what makes them rich. They end up paying more in taxes because they don't cap their income. They don't feel a need to because they don't have an artificial barrier to success.
The real problem current isn't one of income, it is one of unrestrained spending. It is failed Keynesian policies that the supporters of such don't want to acknowledge but simply come up with excuse after excuse as to why this spending didn't work.
So if you want more income for government then GUARANTEE the tax rates and keep them low. The US taxes foreign income which also explains why many companies either get bought out by foreign firms or try their best to keep profits overseas. We have a President who vilifies business and the rich, that is the actions of a twelve year old - it is the actions of someone on the campaign trail not someone ALREADY IN THE OFFICE.
So, again, behavior is key. If you want a certain behavior you set your policies to that. This means, that yes, the rich will need to get richer because frankly they need the incentive. This will in turn mean more money for government to spend.
Slashdot Mirror
compared to how they just copy (in many cases poorly) from other nations and peoples?
While your view of China sounds grandiose and wonderful the fact remains, they don't innovate nearly as much as a society that protects the physical and intellectual property rights of individuals. While the idea of working for the common good is appealing human nature shows we are more likely to work harder for the common good when the individual rewards are considered worth while.
who do the actual damage. Unions also hire protestors as well, usually not paying them but a little over minimum wage and never extending them benefits.
Sorry, btdt, have many relatives who have been or still are in unions and the shit they talk about (a few boast) would make you wonder if they ever graduated high school.
You caught part of it , but even positioning of the flat array versus his "tree" skewed the results. There were times he shows where the tree was not in shade but the flat panel was fully in shade. The claims of increased efficiency ignore using panels that have mechanisms to allow them to track the sun. Plus he isn't measuring the right output of photo cells, he should have measured energy production.
As for his idea of trees, btdt http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2807030740_25f3f2fa53.jpg
really, the global warming scare factory blew right past hyperactive speed and went straight to plaid.
It is crap like this that makes it hard for many to believe there are is any seriousness in the global warming let alone man causing it or making it worse. I cringed while reading this article. I am not sure if its more of a creepy cringe or just offensive to real thinking
Its time to get the zealots out of the lead roles, they are no more than Bible thumping tent preachers, whats next, snakes?
and other companies trying to compete in this area.
Government contractors usually get to hide behind the same government. So when they screw up they get paid more to do it right the next time. Private contractors cannot afford the screw ups. Oh I am sure they will screw up but when your trying to make a buck in a high risk area you do your damned best to eliminate all those risks, especially ones that will end your business like losing a life.
The biggest change in Cataclysm was the healing model. Once a character passes level 80, the highest of the previous expansion, their costs to use healing spells increases to where by the time they are level 85; the new top level; their mana to healing cost has gone up four times. It is never a good idea in any game to make a player feel less effective as they progress. This one change alone had a very detrimental effect on players with many guilds report losses of people playing healers if playing at all; for some this was the only role they wanted and they when they stopped feeling effective they could not play.
The problem Blizzard had with PvP and especially Arenas which they put so much effort into is that it was all a burst affair. Those who could unload the fastest and most coordinated won. So what did Blizzard do? They jacked up the hit points of characters. When an average mage had 20k health at level 80 in the previous release they now have 100k health. This caused a new problem, healers would just make PvP (specifically Arenas) play drag on and on. So they eliminate the effects of burst attacks with immense health pools and in turn keep the games from going on forever by nerfing the healers so strongly they cannot afford to heal effectively for any period of time.
Blizzard causes all these problems through gear inflation. Its a common joke that your gear is better than your character, hell a mage's staff can double if not triple or more their ability. People used to make jokes in the previous release about how it was bound to happen when caster weapons would offer +999 spell power - well they do and actually do triple that.
So Blizzard balances a game around X, then they monty hall it to death and wonder why the model no longer works. To fix the problem they create the nerf players all under the guise of providing a challenge. When one side of their development team does not operate within limits how do they expect to balance a game. Worse, they lied to their players. They claimed for months leading up to Cata they wanted to give healers a more challenging and rewarding play style. They didn't bother to ask and when people complained they merely deleted threads.
What Blizzard forgot is that the majority of their players play to have fun. Having fun means being able to be a hero, saving the day, pulling it out under incredible odds. When they turned the healing model upside down they stripped that feeling from a large amount of their player base. Now I here they want to do the same to tanking as its "not engaging enough". Random groups already make DPS players wait nearly 30 minutes to get in (standard five man mechanics and needless to say more people play dps) so I can only imagine the pain coming forth.
we will IM others to call us just so we have an excuse to hang up on someone else, it is even good for getting rid of people who come to your desk and won't leave.
and keep iPads off the shelf for six months or more.
That would fix idiocy like this real quick
because just like with motorcycles... one day its too hot, then its too cold, oh I am late, its raining or will, snow?!?!, rabid weasel alert, and so on.
People make all sorts of wonderful justifications but most never stick with it. Many also don't have the opportunity to ride to work. We usually settle down and work where we can especially in a market like this. Let alone having a job where riding to work and being able to clean up is a possibility.
who are we to assume is right?
CAFE standards are "gamed" A car which is flex fuel gets credit for mileage than it can ever do on gasoline alone. A 12 to 16 mile per gallon truck might count for over 20 when it comes to CAFE standards, hell it could count as more.
The Euro standard always shows higher numbers than can be achieved under US standards, same for Japan. So yeah, they might just claim they have higher mileage cars, up until they are measured by the same standards.
and give it a good marketing campaign.
I am sure they could package it as anything they want, shades of "Retsin".
they are the cool kids, the trash talking telling their boss to take a hike, how they pulled one over on "that cop", got Best Buy/Wal-Mart to take stuff back they broke on purpose, rage against the machine, stand up to the man, going to vote for so and so, am so into that, and so on.
In the end they never leave their keyboard because, well its late, its raining, its cold, its too hot, my tummy hurts, have to be at work in fifteen minutes, mom will get mad, etc.
Since some of these social networks are trying to hide behind freedom of expression and the like (which I am not sure how similar Britain's laws are) it does not protect them from private parties.
While I am not a fan of the government trying to shut down some of these services, I do expect these services to have a process in place to shut down users who they are informed about using their sites for organizing willful destruction of other people's property, let alone their lives.
Freedom does not excuse one from responsibility and freedoms are great until you trample someone else in the process.
Sorry, but quite a few wacko Democrats are in Congress, the difference is that the PRESS chooses to ignore them whereas they relish in finding the wacko conservatives. The Tea Party is anything but a bunch of wackos. Oh I am quite sure there are some daffy duck types in there, all groups get them, but their core belief around smaller government is anything but wacko. It would probably only take a few minutes to get a list using google of the lefts wackos who are in Congress, or consistently on TV.
The real wackos are the ones who want to spend us into a ditch and attempt to tax their way out of it. There simply is not sufficient money to be taxed to pay for all the promises made.
and my Macs maybe close behind. I am not going to support a bunch of assholes like what Apple has become. I have used a friends Galaxy and found it a bit slow but Android does have features iOs sorely lacks. While I don't think the current tablet implementations are all that wonderful I believe they are good for getting people to rethink how to write and use applications. Apple apparently thinks they invented all of this and considering how the patent office works they could probably buy history to be on their side.
Very disappointing to see this. Spend your money innovating not suing Apple. Be an ideas company, not one that stifles anyone else having them.
My friend works for a major internet provider and his job is cleaning up e-mail issues usually caused by jackasses; sometimes its the programmers where he works; but mostly its groups who decide to they are going "Show someone whats what".
I don't care if its a union or not, slamming someone's mailbox is not a proper method to demonstrate your position. One e-mail from each union member is one thing, organizing outside groups is another. Which brings me to one item I have experience with, when unions want to protest an organization they not only rely on their own they pay for help. That help usually is non-union minimum wage people with no benefits to carry signs and the like. I am quite sure they also pay outside organizations in this day and age for "mailing assistance"
If you follow the articles you will see this union hired an outside company to spam the voice mail boxes of the company. They also asked their members to do the same to the e-mail system. If this is not hostile action then I don't know what is. The company asked the union to put a stop to it and they would not. So what is an "Evil corporation" supposed to do? Just accept it as a cost of doing business? Even if it prevents you from doing business? How big of mailboxes should the have for voice mail or e-mail before it meets some artificial limit?
Really, if someone is acting like an asshole and you ask them to stop then why not take them to court?
PS: If you think unions are all flowers and bunnies you obviously never worked under one or with people under one. BTW, I suppose that the union in Verizon's current case is really trying hard to stop the damage being caused by its members? Far too many of these groups are thugs. They intimidate both workers and businesses all the time. Seeing one gets its balls busted for it is a good thing. We should promote proper and lawful solutions, not intimidation and depriving another of their livelihood.
Congress loves to claim savings but Congress uses Base Line Budgeting which allows the appearance of savings when in fact no cuts are made. Essentially they state this is what it will cost in the future so if we say we will spend less than that we have made a cut yet spending can still and usually does increase.
So when you see a Congressmen bemoaning about harsh/absurd/severe cuts to their favorite program (defense/social/etc) you need to understand the numbers they are using. The closest to real cuts that has been offered up is the Ryan plan and Obama went out of his way (childish immature method too) to lambast this to Ryan's face in a speech!
I know, some say, raise taxes. Well even if we did raise taxes like Obama and some in Congress wants we would not make up a hundred billion this year and stand to make up even less going forward. We could make taxes confiscatory about a certain limit and still not balance even this years budget. The simple problem is, they promised more money than other people even have. Top it off with the Affordable Healthcare Act (or whatever it is called, know that the names assigned to bills usually results in the opposite) is chock full of increases to taxes in 2013 and beyond.
Entitlements need to be changed completely. We simply give too many people money they don't deserve and we don't even try to prosecute real fraud (estimated at over 100b a year in Medicare alone). We need to raise retirement ages for everyone over under 50 by a year, under 40 by 2, 30 by 3 and 20 by 4. We also need to make it harder to qualify for social security. We need to chop a carrier group or two, get our bases out of countries rich enough to defend themselves, and end the war on drugs. Also, remove the taxation of profits earned overseas. Bring that money home.
Obama is wrong, it is all about spending. He is up over 25% from Bush alone. When tax revenue goes down is not the time for the government to ramp up spending, Keynesian spending (think government spending money to boost economies) has been shown to not work here nor in Europe yet they still persist in trying and when it fails they come up with hundreds of excuses). Increasing taxes only works if you can hope that those who have the money keep using as they are, but they won't. They will simply use their money where it is not taxed which means revenues go down. It happens time and time again.
now it would be more accurate to say, most employers of people who frequent this site assume those employees have access the the internet.
There still are a good number of people who won't use the net even if you hand it them for free. It took our family years before our grandmother consented to even having a computer! We only convinced her that with a computer and internet she could get pictures of her grandkids daily, let alone e-mail from them. She didn't care to talk to her children all the time, she did want to write to her grandkids though.
Two industries I worked in we could care less if people had internet, both were service industries. I did contract work for one and the only requirement I saw at both was, you must have a phone. Now in certain states, PA is one, phones are considered a right and beyond that people have of certain income levels have a right to a free wireless phone and 250 minutes a month usage. (which explains the extra cost you pay to use your own cell phones)
I am all for giving people a cheaper means to get to the internet but don't assume that just because you and your friends use it that everyone does or will. I know many who are quite happy without it today and are just as productive as they ever were. I have friends with families where the kids are the primary users, the parents might use it for pictures and such. It all comes down to, do you use it at work daily? If not, then you might not have a reason to use it at home. I can list dozens of industries where the employees never need access to the net and many might not even care. Its getting more universal, especially with cell phones having web access but there are still people without cell phones and how long have those been around?
by those contributing articles, sort of like the the karma system here. You can't vote if your karma is bad.
I would not recommend real names, in this day and age that is like handing someone a gun and hoping they don't shoot. There are too many crazies out there that would only be cowed by a crowd but have one person "do them wrong" and you could end up with admins needing to go to the police for protection.
My problem Wikipedia is that is seems the words repository for current culture, meaning music videos, if not single songs, are bound to have full pages dedicated to them without question but things older than the editors rarely do, and if the page does come in existence it might not live long. The notability/annotation/etc requirements work hard against tech that has literally fallen off the net.
Sorry, but my mother is type 1 as well and Hypoglycemia is the biggest danger she faces on a daily basis. Why? Because it can occur without her recognizing it. Sure we all know the symptoms, she certainly does, but one problem with low blood sugar is that your not always thinking clearly and you don't always arrive at low blood sugar at the same rate. Worse, depending on many other issues one day's low blood sugar can have different results than another.
The real threat here is for those type 1s who are not in constant contact with other people, like a spouse or children in the same home. I made a trip to my parents one day to drop some boxes off, I was under the impression they were not going to be home. I saw my mom's car in their garage but still was under the assumption that she was with my dad. Well low and behold she was in the house and barely conscious. When I was able to recover her (that wonderful rescue shot plus tabs/juice) we went over what happened. She knew she was low and was going to fix it... but.. but... and there she went. She sat down started to check her pump and passed out. Her blood sugar fell. Now imagine, your asleep. I know the pump vibrates, well it falls to the side, it the needle comes out, or any other many problems that can occur... and if your alone or not checked for how many hours - well you get the picture.
Now contrast this with hyperglycemia (too much), she has never gone unconscious in this state. She has had throw up fits and such, but she was always able to try and fix it. She could even get herself to the hospital. She has been well past 600+, she knows people who went higher. She spent days over 400 with the hospital unable to explain it. She was fully functional. You cannot same the same for low blood sugar.
I just wanted to reply so that people don't get the idea it rarely is fatal which implies its not dangerous. Its very much going to be fatal if someone is not around to help you and honestly, if your type 1 I would make sure people know that if your not where you should be then there might be a problem.
didn't influence those decisions to yank all those products. He seems to be pushing the company more towards the end user across all of their product lines.
As to whom he expects to make the content and with what tools I am not so sure.
Far too many report problems when the Mac wakes from sleep where it either does not reconnect to the WiFi it knows about or connects for only a short while and loses connection after. Fix is quite simple, turn the airport off and on but it is so annoying.
You boast some impressive numbers and they disclaim any opposing views as being cherry picked yet you do not provide any citations to back your claims.
Your talking about an organization (the US government) which is consuming nearly 25% of the GDP of the richest country on Earth that cannot balance its books. Yet you claim that it is efficient beyond the hopes of any corporation? It does not take much work to come up with your "cherry picked" counter points, government projects are notorious for over spending, F35 and Big Dig are two great examples of recent boondoggles. There over 1.6 million civilian federal employees, the average cost of each is just slightly over 100k.
So ya, most workers I know in private industry are also under pressure to get it in under budget and cut costs where possible. I haven't heard of a private business who wants their employees to not cut costs...
Regardless, no real cost savings are going to come from paring down the number of employees the Federal Government has. We have to knock down whole agencies and we have to tackle the real problem : Entitlements. They eat nearly two trillion dollars a year and when Obama Care rolls in around 2013 it will only get worse.
We are spending too much and there really isn't sufficient revenue to be gained through taxation. Historically we take in between 18 and 20% of the GDP with the spending close to that, yet now we are at less than 19% because of the weak economy and nearly 25% out because of reckless spending (keynesian fixes that don't work). We peaked at near 21% GDP for taxes during boom years (internet boom) yet even Clinton did not produce a balanced budget - go look it up, not one year did the deficit not increase.
So, citations if you make bold claims about government efficiency. Its hard to find favorable stories even in left leaning print (NYTimes and such) so I would love to see it.
Even reading the stories on this change it is very evident, they are out of ideas.
What they are doing wrong is dismissing the large number of minority superheros that already exist but simply do not get much attention. So instead they have to repackage and existing character and hope to get away with it. It reminds me of the New Coke debacle.
I have no problem with them having a new hero with similar powers, someone who takes up the mantle but it obviously not the original nor ever claims to be such. Still for all the politically correct points being spent in just one character makes the whole thing a farce.
Please bear with me. One thing the Democratic party; and yes I will call them out on this; and they supporters on various blogs and the media won't tell you is this.
Raising taxes does not always generate revenue, in many cases it lowers revenue. Why? Because government projects which involve tax rates assume behavior does not change.This have been demonstrated as being false. When you make it expensive to make more money people tend to do less of it. A great example involving Reagan was during his acting days (yeah, before he was in office) there was a limit to how much they made before the government took 90%. His view was, why would he bother to work when every dollar over that amount was taxed so high?
The "bad" side effect of lower taxes is that the rich get richer because they do more of what makes them rich. They end up paying more in taxes because they don't cap their income. They don't feel a need to because they don't have an artificial barrier to success.
The real problem current isn't one of income, it is one of unrestrained spending. It is failed Keynesian policies that the supporters of such don't want to acknowledge but simply come up with excuse after excuse as to why this spending didn't work.
So if you want more income for government then GUARANTEE the tax rates and keep them low. The US taxes foreign income which also explains why many companies either get bought out by foreign firms or try their best to keep profits overseas. We have a President who vilifies business and the rich, that is the actions of a twelve year old - it is the actions of someone on the campaign trail not someone ALREADY IN THE OFFICE.
So, again, behavior is key. If you want a certain behavior you set your policies to that. This means, that yes, the rich will need to get richer because frankly they need the incentive. This will in turn mean more money for government to spend.