No. They are offended when everyone else is eating cupcakes, they say "OMG! These are great! Have one!!!" and I go like "I want one... I really REALLY do... please stop tempting me... "
People want to share. I try to refuse. That refusal is... well? You get the idea.
I'm saying those things just don't have any serious meaning. They did up until they basically polluted their religious practices with pagan practices.
I'm just not threatened by these light-hearted holidays. Now if someone were to force me to attend church services? Yeah, I'd object. I'd break out into violence eventually.
It's not harmful. It's even healthy at times. I have concerns about the over commercialization of the holidays... because you know, it's "the holidays" now and they all begin the very second Halloween is over. You wanna talk about what's bad? Let's talk about that. Let's talk about commerce as a cultural basis and what it's doing to people.
Once again, "not religious" "am atheist" "not spiritual" or whatever. But I see a larger human spirit that is being crushed; Crushed by religion and politics and commerce and all that.
I say keep the good, let go of the bad. Fanaticism is yet another -ism.
I want Christmas to remain Christmas. I'm an atheist. I don't care for the name "saturnalia" or whatever else it may be called. There is history behind it and its practices and people respond to it with happiness and that's why I like it too. Don't change Christmas. But also, don't change Halloween. Don't change Easter. I liked the way things were. There's a lot of human heritage there.
Most "religious people" aren't really religious. I find that comforting and reassuring. Even people that claim to be devout just really aren't... they are merely selective about which rules they follow. I find that reassuring as well... knowing this keeps me comfortable in the face of even the most rabit of "religious" situations. But those situations bring out a kind of snarky pity from me... "I forgive you" is my attitude to those... it's what Jesus would do.
You're hitting a little close to home there chief. I'm sometimes a bit of a nutrition person. Problem is, I crave the bad food and resist it heartily. I think my resistence is a little off-putting to people at times. But society is unfair to people who are actually trying to lose weight. As a child, society was infair to people who wanted to breathe clean air because smoking was frikken everywhere. Fortunately smoking is becoming increasingly illegal and people are becoming increasingly more healthy. I hope for the day when so much of these bad foods also become increasingly illegal. Seriously. Salads and meats are just good. Why do I have so much grain based food everywhere?! It's cheaper... lasts on the shelf a lot longer. We know why they are everywhere without looking at the math behind it. Short expiration dates kill profit because not everything made gets sold.
So I'm reliving my horrid childhood again... but this time it's food. But at least people eating bad food doesn't affect my body, but when everyone as a majority eats bad, it's harder to eat good and that is a problem for everyone whether they realize it or not.
It's not bad behavior if you're doing the lord's work... right? right? And of course, nothing can harm me because God's got my back... right?? And if you reject me? It's the devil. No one is responsible.
Extreme -isms are things that prevent even the most similar groups of people to become separated. This causes division and discomfort.... isolation and ostracism.
In this case, the guy was preaching to the wrong crowd even if they tried to tolerate him for at least 5 long years. But then again, their tolerance was probably viewed as acceptance... that what he was doing was okay somehow. I see guilt on both sides.
Normally, I am not about Replublicans versus Democrats. I see them both as rather "bought and sold out" groups who behave at the request of big money.
That said, I find it fitting and typical of my observations and expectations of those who subscribe to Republican philosophies. If the truth gets in the way, hide it, change it, deny or it erase it. This type of behavior is known among commoners as deceitful. Others just simply call them liars and cheats.
I understand all too well how people try to cling to their beliefs even when facts and evidence is staring them right in the face. But I see it as a mental weakness or flaw and such people are ill equiped to make important decisions which affect millions of lives across the planet.
They *can* and likely *will* make it happen. Microsoft is struggling for relevance in the changing markets. But here's the thing. Their one major force is the multitudes of developers... WinTel developers. The reason alternative processor platforms failed was "lack of interest." First from developers and finally from Microsoft.
Microsoft: Seriously. Learn your lessons!
If you want to enter a new market, FORGET WINDOWS!!! Build something new or use what everyone else is using. It's an oportunity to spend money on something entirely new and can get rid of the old stuff! The legacy stuff! The backward-bug-compatibility! Stop trying to turn DOS->Windows->NT->2000->XP->Vista->7->8 into the next tablet OS. It's a crappy idea. (Yes, I know they aren't doing it exactly like that, but what they are using are the same old ideas and holding onto the same old stale mentality) Your old stuff is old. People are ready for something new. They actually still want their old-old stuff (on PCs) but you keep taking that away from them. Then you're taking the same new stuff (on PCs) which they don't want and putting it onto smaller devices like handhelds. Mistake #1 -- offering to the public something they already decided they don't like.
Galaxy Tab 2 came out before Nexus 7. Nexus 7 has only 1 camera... the front camera. It's only good for self portraits and video calls. Galaxy Tab 2 does more. But that said, I expect GT2 will drop in price... unless, of course, they continue to sell well at the current price, in which case your argument is inappropriate.
The biggest problem for android phone makers is the carriers because they insist on screwing up good devices with bloatware and removed features.
1. They help the selected manufacturer of the devices in a huge way. Each maker of each Nexus device has profited nicely from it. And I get the feeling each quality maker will have a chance to put out a Google Nexus device. 2. By changing the market with their free[dom] and open devices, they are changing the market in ways that favor device makers over carriers.
There will always be room for variety out there. Just because IBM also made PCs didn't prevent PC compatible makers from making them at prices higher and lower than IBMs. The reason? Differentiation of features and style.
That WOULD be an interesting idea. After all, while they certainly make money by selling phones... they REALLY make money using their iTunes and related services. They have an established base of users... rather like AOL users. Apple has always been rather happy with their niche customers. Why, I wonder, are they so rabid about this particular major market?
Google needs to keep any threat to Android down. They have an operating environment that has grown into a wildly popular platform. While it would have been happy to coexist with Apple, Apple has other ideas. Apple has been attacking phone makers and not so much Google. This makes makers wary. Oracle tried to sue Google and failed miserably. Apple, so far has sued all over the planet and has done an overall deceitful thing in representing and presenting evidence of all sorts.
Google stands to make lots of money through its Android OS. It has little choice but to defend it. But to sit back and only defend while Apple runs around on the offensive is too slow a means of draining their cauffers. And besides that, if Google didn't go on the offensive, not only would they lose device makers, the public would believe Google is in the wrong. Also, without bringing these cases to courts, they will never reach the supreme courts where some of the more important issues get truly addressed.
Call it fanboyism if you like. I favor what Google is doing... for now... in this particilar instance. I will take the good and opt out of what I don't want. And when Google leaves me no option to opt out whilte taking to good, then I will cut ties with Google. Just. Like. That.
That's using one market where Google has dominance and using it to affect another market. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble because of that. Google isn't likely to do that.
I predict Google will let it get dragged out and will make it as painful as possible for Apple.
Meanwhile, Google will continue its assault on Carriers' Customer Expectations by offering great prices on non-subsidized, unlocked devices. Google is changing some games. They won't need to fight too hard to defeat Apple. They just need to wear them out... and they can. There is an Army of Android device makers just WAITING for the opportunity to make the next Google Nexus devices. As we just saw, ASUS was having some trouble until it made the Nexus 7. Will HTC who is on the brink of death receive the next breath of life from Google? Possibly.
The point is that "open" and "free" (as in freedom) devices will quickly win the people over. They KNOW they are being tethered to Apple's way. They will soon lose out.
Apple's a big powerful badass. But Google is like a giant zen buddhist statue. It ain't going anywhere.
It comes as little surprise. I think as we begin to get a more full grasp on how we develop as children into adults, we can make more progress to improve our species and our societies. It probably won't stop black men from leaving their families, or white trash from beating their wives right away, but perhaps in a generation or two, some real progress of understanding can be had.
But also in terms of how we deal with criminal behavior? We always want to say "bad person! punish them!" or "creepy person! put them away!" These are instictive reactions and not wholly suitable I think. Are many of these formerly neglected and abused children entirely responsible for their lives once they are grown? And their mental capacity and capability? Is that their fault? I know it gets into some pretty society-burdening areas when we start removing the fault and guilt from criminal behavior but I feel a bit bad for these children even after they have grown.
Ah... on second thought... forget everything I just said. Let's just keep on the way we are and throw people away. It's easier.
I knew there was a reason I didn't buy the Samsung Galaxy S3. Among the reasons:
1. To get it 'affordably' I would have to buy it from a wireless carrier... oh yeah and extend or buy a new contract with expensive data plan. 2. To get it otherwise, I would have to pay about $500... that's an expensive toy. 3. The darkest color I could get is blue...blue?! Really? Something wrong with black or grey? White is for chicks and Apple users. 4. When you get a phone through a carrier which is carrier branded, unless it's an iPhone, then the carrier is responsible for firmware updates. In cases like that, you will either never get one or it will be extremely late in coming and will contain even more bloatware than before.
Something told me that if I were to just hold off a little longer, I could get my next phone without all the trouble, And there we have it... A new Nexus 4 heading to my pocket in the near future.
As for the new tablet?? Well... that's kinda pricy. I've got a Nexus 7 and I'm pretty happy with it. But then again, the price was extremely reasonable. $500?? That's well within my "balk" range... the $200-$250 range is well within my "I'll strongly consider it" window. And a phone without obligations at $299? And likely to support high speed data options (which I will not likely use or pay for)? It's a no-brainer.
Don't get confused. I get that you're trying to say "republicans vs. democrats" or are you saying "republicrats va libertarians"?
We spend trillions on war/defense. We spent loads on "foreign aid" which is little more than "we give you money, you support our interests" money. We also give away loads to Israel. It requires big government to keep that flow going. And flow is an important word when we're talking about government spending.
When government spends money, it's not entirely "just gone." Government spends money by paying suppliers, contractors and employees to do things. That is money going out of the government to the community and/or the world. The rest is what leaves the country and we'll just call that "foreign aid" for convenience sake. The money coming in for this flow? Taxes collected and loans from the federal reserve bank.
I think by now we know why we have increasing debt. It's because the Taxes don't cover the spending by itself. And the needlessly spent money on foreign aid and war/defense? It's all about furthering the political aims of a few individuals. I'm willing to bet less than 1% of the general population of the US wants to project our strength overseas and to give money away to foreigners. We pretty much all want to keep it here where we can use it.
We can pay off the debt to the FRB in a VERY short time if we stop doing the things that put and keep us in debt. And after that, the tax burden can be reduced significantly.
Why aren't we doing it? Follow the money and look to who is spending it.
And why is it "political suicide" to want to cut off or reduce foreign aid? Once in a while we hear a politician 'gaff' by suggesting the idea and they are quickly labelled "anti-semite" before they can even finish their statements. I think we have our answers... Someone with power and influence shouts anti-semite when that gifted cashflow is threatened. And it is gifted to them. What do they return to the US for the trillions sent there?
When we can answer that question "who is driving this?" then we can address the problem.
What we have is "socialized risk" and "privatized gains." I have recognized this fact ever since we saw the bailouts. But it has been going on a lot longer with government encouragement of programs like 401K.
Thanks for that link. The thing about the markets stated in there neatly packages many of the obvious conclusions I have made on my own. But I hadn't really put it together as a whole picture like this and it makes it all clear. And I didn't quite put it together that by nearly forcing people into putting their money into 401K we were unknowingly contributing to the craziness of the market.
It shows how incredible powerless we are against the 5% which is the revolving door partnership between business and government.
What I don't get is that here in this land of North America, we've got it pretty good. Why are so many trying to kill the goose which has been laying all these golden eggs? This prosperous society, far removed from places which are simply less fortunate and certainly less civilized, seems to be collapsing down from its enviable position.
I guess they never got the memo talking about balance in society and knowing when you have enough wealth and power. Having too much wealth and power creates and unstable situation which invariably results in the masses seeking to restore stability.
We're okay with insanely rich people... just so long as the majority of us aren't suffering because of it. Turns out, majorities are suffering... and becoming motivated.
Amazon's Appstore *IS* malware. Since I gave Amazon's Appstore a try, I quickly discovered that every game or app or utility acquired through it becomes tainted by it. If you uninstall the Amazon Appstore, you will find that ALL of the apps you paid for are useless. That is *NOT* what I paid for. On top of that, odd instability began to occur in my phone when I had Amazon's Appstore loaded. It went away with all the apps I had to remove along with the Amazon thing.
Amazon is a shining example of taking and open environment and OS and trying to lock people in with it. Already been burned by them. No need to look back now.
No. That's not true. It takes brain power. There's a wealth of information out there because pretty much, it has all been done before in one form or another.
It seems cheaper in the short run to buy something off the shelf and put it up. But when you keep paying for it over and over and over again, you might begin to realize that people are cheaper in the long run.
Besides that, do you think the likes of Google STARTED out with billions of dollars? How about Facebook and the others like them? They started with some pretty smart people which turned out to be a far better investment than paying for licensed off-the-shelf stuff.
That's a fact. It moves data in a highly standardized way. Sure, there are some proprietary Cisco protocols here and there, but for the most part, it's all the same everywhere. Whatever Cisco does, anyone can do.
People somehow believe there's magic moving data over wires. There just isn't. And there's nothing special about Cisco's. Now, compare Cisco to Microsoft. Now *There* is some vendor lock-in. One thing depends on another thing and another thing and another. To move off of Microsoft is mind-numbingly ridiculous to imagine. But Cisco? Nah. You can replace this and that here and there and you'll be just fine. Sure, you might have to migrate away from the use of anything Cisco proprietary here and there, but for the most part? You can take your time and move bits and pieces here and there.
That doesn't quite count if you're talking about Cisco phones... that's kind of an all or nothing scenario there... within limits. One thing is certain though -- Cisco needs to be humbled.
You built Windows starting with DOS and slapped Windows on top. With each release, it was a new evolution which mixed in the result of Microsoft's collaboration with IBM's OS/2 to create NT.
The Apache web server got its name because of how it was built and developed. But if any one product deserves the name, it's Windows. It is simply far too patchy to be secure.
No. I disagree. The landscape for the internet was damaged horribly by Microsoft's defacto dominance and their tying the browser with the operating system. In fact, Microsoft has even managed to harm MS Windows by taking this route. (By tying the browser to the OS, they have made having multiple versions of MSIE impossible as far as I can tell.. please link me to proof if I am wrong.) And by tying the browser to the OS, a vulnerability in the browser is a vulnerability in the OS and everything hosted by and accessible to the OS. Additionally, they used their OS dominance to affect other markets via their browser and its Microsoft-only compliance. It threatened the very framework of the web at large.
As a result of all the suits against Microsoft, the landscape has changed to favor a standards compliant direction. This is a huge improvement which would never have happened unless Microsoft was discouraged from their intended path.
I don't have an opinion about Google's tactics as to whether or not they are unfair. Users have never been locked into Google. Users choose which search engine they want to use. Bing is the default for "most default desktops" out there anyway. Google doesn't force users to decide which search engine they will use or lock them into anything. Their level of lock-in with Android is a little disturbing but even that's quite a bit of a choice... I could go without access to the Play store... there are alternatives but I can't imagine trusting any of them just yet. Or I could simply go without using any of those services at all.
I don't think what Google does even compares with what Microsoft has done. Google has created a very popular service. I see it as rather similar to TV channels. We all know, for example, that the news on Fox is slanted in a particular way and favors particular parties over others. If Google should be sued for not being 100% neutral, then perhaps Fox should be sued under the same requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
No. They are offended when everyone else is eating cupcakes, they say "OMG! These are great! Have one!!!" and I go like "I want one... I really REALLY do... please stop tempting me... "
People want to share. I try to refuse. That refusal is... well? You get the idea.
I'm saying those things just don't have any serious meaning. They did up until they basically polluted their religious practices with pagan practices.
I'm just not threatened by these light-hearted holidays. Now if someone were to force me to attend church services? Yeah, I'd object. I'd break out into violence eventually.
It's not harmful. It's even healthy at times. I have concerns about the over commercialization of the holidays... because you know, it's "the holidays" now and they all begin the very second Halloween is over. You wanna talk about what's bad? Let's talk about that. Let's talk about commerce as a cultural basis and what it's doing to people.
Once again, "not religious" "am atheist" "not spiritual" or whatever. But I see a larger human spirit that is being crushed; Crushed by religion and politics and commerce and all that.
I say keep the good, let go of the bad. Fanaticism is yet another -ism.
Oh... I know... but every time I differentiate myself from the crowd by refusing or bowing out, I feel it... you know what I'm talking about.
I want Christmas to remain Christmas. I'm an atheist. I don't care for the name "saturnalia" or whatever else it may be called. There is history behind it and its practices and people respond to it with happiness and that's why I like it too. Don't change Christmas. But also, don't change Halloween. Don't change Easter. I liked the way things were. There's a lot of human heritage there.
Most "religious people" aren't really religious. I find that comforting and reassuring. Even people that claim to be devout just really aren't... they are merely selective about which rules they follow. I find that reassuring as well... knowing this keeps me comfortable in the face of even the most rabit of "religious" situations. But those situations bring out a kind of snarky pity from me... "I forgive you" is my attitude to those... it's what Jesus would do.
You're hitting a little close to home there chief. I'm sometimes a bit of a nutrition person. Problem is, I crave the bad food and resist it heartily. I think my resistence is a little off-putting to people at times. But society is unfair to people who are actually trying to lose weight. As a child, society was infair to people who wanted to breathe clean air because smoking was frikken everywhere. Fortunately smoking is becoming increasingly illegal and people are becoming increasingly more healthy. I hope for the day when so much of these bad foods also become increasingly illegal. Seriously. Salads and meats are just good. Why do I have so much grain based food everywhere?! It's cheaper... lasts on the shelf a lot longer. We know why they are everywhere without looking at the math behind it. Short expiration dates kill profit because not everything made gets sold.
So I'm reliving my horrid childhood again... but this time it's food. But at least people eating bad food doesn't affect my body, but when everyone as a majority eats bad, it's harder to eat good and that is a problem for everyone whether they realize it or not.
It's not bad behavior if you're doing the lord's work... right? right? And of course, nothing can harm me because God's got my back... right?? And if you reject me? It's the devil. No one is responsible.
Extreme -isms are things that prevent even the most similar groups of people to become separated. This causes division and discomfort.... isolation and ostracism.
In this case, the guy was preaching to the wrong crowd even if they tried to tolerate him for at least 5 long years. But then again, their tolerance was probably viewed as acceptance... that what he was doing was okay somehow. I see guilt on both sides.
Normally, I am not about Replublicans versus Democrats. I see them both as rather "bought and sold out" groups who behave at the request of big money.
That said, I find it fitting and typical of my observations and expectations of those who subscribe to Republican philosophies. If the truth gets in the way, hide it, change it, deny or it erase it. This type of behavior is known among commoners as deceitful. Others just simply call them liars and cheats.
I understand all too well how people try to cling to their beliefs even when facts and evidence is staring them right in the face. But I see it as a mental weakness or flaw and such people are ill equiped to make important decisions which affect millions of lives across the planet.
They *can* and likely *will* make it happen. Microsoft is struggling for relevance in the changing markets. But here's the thing. Their one major force is the multitudes of developers ... WinTel developers. The reason alternative processor platforms failed was "lack of interest." First from developers and finally from Microsoft.
Microsoft: Seriously. Learn your lessons!
If you want to enter a new market, FORGET WINDOWS!!! Build something new or use what everyone else is using. It's an oportunity to spend money on something entirely new and can get rid of the old stuff! The legacy stuff! The backward-bug-compatibility! Stop trying to turn DOS->Windows->NT->2000->XP->Vista->7->8 into the next tablet OS. It's a crappy idea. (Yes, I know they aren't doing it exactly like that, but what they are using are the same old ideas and holding onto the same old stale mentality) Your old stuff is old. People are ready for something new. They actually still want their old-old stuff (on PCs) but you keep taking that away from them. Then you're taking the same new stuff (on PCs) which they don't want and putting it onto smaller devices like handhelds. Mistake #1 -- offering to the public something they already decided they don't like.
Galaxy Tab 2 came out before Nexus 7. Nexus 7 has only 1 camera... the front camera. It's only good for self portraits and video calls. Galaxy Tab 2 does more. But that said, I expect GT2 will drop in price... unless, of course, they continue to sell well at the current price, in which case your argument is inappropriate.
The biggest problem for android phone makers is the carriers because they insist on screwing up good devices with bloatware and removed features.
1. They help the selected manufacturer of the devices in a huge way. Each maker of each Nexus device has profited nicely from it. And I get the feeling each quality maker will have a chance to put out a Google Nexus device.
2. By changing the market with their free[dom] and open devices, they are changing the market in ways that favor device makers over carriers.
There will always be room for variety out there. Just because IBM also made PCs didn't prevent PC compatible makers from making them at prices higher and lower than IBMs. The reason? Differentiation of features and style.
That WOULD be an interesting idea. After all, while they certainly make money by selling phones... they REALLY make money using their iTunes and related services. They have an established base of users... rather like AOL users. Apple has always been rather happy with their niche customers. Why, I wonder, are they so rabid about this particular major market?
Google needs to keep any threat to Android down. They have an operating environment that has grown into a wildly popular platform. While it would have been happy to coexist with Apple, Apple has other ideas. Apple has been attacking phone makers and not so much Google. This makes makers wary. Oracle tried to sue Google and failed miserably. Apple, so far has sued all over the planet and has done an overall deceitful thing in representing and presenting evidence of all sorts.
Google stands to make lots of money through its Android OS. It has little choice but to defend it. But to sit back and only defend while Apple runs around on the offensive is too slow a means of draining their cauffers. And besides that, if Google didn't go on the offensive, not only would they lose device makers, the public would believe Google is in the wrong. Also, without bringing these cases to courts, they will never reach the supreme courts where some of the more important issues get truly addressed.
Call it fanboyism if you like. I favor what Google is doing... for now... in this particilar instance. I will take the good and opt out of what I don't want. And when Google leaves me no option to opt out whilte taking to good, then I will cut ties with Google. Just. Like. That.
That's using one market where Google has dominance and using it to affect another market. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble because of that. Google isn't likely to do that.
I predict Google will let it get dragged out and will make it as painful as possible for Apple.
Meanwhile, Google will continue its assault on Carriers' Customer Expectations by offering great prices on non-subsidized, unlocked devices. Google is changing some games. They won't need to fight too hard to defeat Apple. They just need to wear them out... and they can. There is an Army of Android device makers just WAITING for the opportunity to make the next Google Nexus devices. As we just saw, ASUS was having some trouble until it made the Nexus 7. Will HTC who is on the brink of death receive the next breath of life from Google? Possibly.
The point is that "open" and "free" (as in freedom) devices will quickly win the people over. They KNOW they are being tethered to Apple's way. They will soon lose out.
Apple's a big powerful badass. But Google is like a giant zen buddhist statue. It ain't going anywhere.
It comes as little surprise. I think as we begin to get a more full grasp on how we develop as children into adults, we can make more progress to improve our species and our societies. It probably won't stop black men from leaving their families, or white trash from beating their wives right away, but perhaps in a generation or two, some real progress of understanding can be had.
But also in terms of how we deal with criminal behavior? We always want to say "bad person! punish them!" or "creepy person! put them away!" These are instictive reactions and not wholly suitable I think. Are many of these formerly neglected and abused children entirely responsible for their lives once they are grown? And their mental capacity and capability? Is that their fault? I know it gets into some pretty society-burdening areas when we start removing the fault and guilt from criminal behavior but I feel a bit bad for these children even after they have grown.
Ah... on second thought... forget everything I just said. Let's just keep on the way we are and throw people away. It's easier.
I knew there was a reason I didn't buy the Samsung Galaxy S3. Among the reasons:
1. To get it 'affordably' I would have to buy it from a wireless carrier... oh yeah and extend or buy a new contract with expensive data plan.
2. To get it otherwise, I would have to pay about $500... that's an expensive toy.
3. The darkest color I could get is blue...blue?! Really? Something wrong with black or grey? White is for chicks and Apple users.
4. When you get a phone through a carrier which is carrier branded, unless it's an iPhone, then the carrier is responsible for firmware updates. In cases like that, you will either never get one or it will be extremely late in coming and will contain even more bloatware than before.
Something told me that if I were to just hold off a little longer, I could get my next phone without all the trouble, And there we have it... A new Nexus 4 heading to my pocket in the near future.
As for the new tablet?? Well... that's kinda pricy. I've got a Nexus 7 and I'm pretty happy with it. But then again, the price was extremely reasonable. $500?? That's well within my "balk" range... the $200-$250 range is well within my "I'll strongly consider it" window. And a phone without obligations at $299? And likely to support high speed data options (which I will not likely use or pay for)? It's a no-brainer.
Don't get confused. I get that you're trying to say "republicans vs. democrats" or are you saying "republicrats va libertarians"?
We spend trillions on war/defense. We spent loads on "foreign aid" which is little more than "we give you money, you support our interests" money. We also give away loads to Israel. It requires big government to keep that flow going. And flow is an important word when we're talking about government spending.
When government spends money, it's not entirely "just gone." Government spends money by paying suppliers, contractors and employees to do things. That is money going out of the government to the community and/or the world. The rest is what leaves the country and we'll just call that "foreign aid" for convenience sake. The money coming in for this flow? Taxes collected and loans from the federal reserve bank.
So:
{ Taxes + FRLoans } -> [Government] -> { Suppliers + Contractors + Employees + ForeignAid }
I think by now we know why we have increasing debt. It's because the Taxes don't cover the spending by itself. And the needlessly spent money on foreign aid and war/defense? It's all about furthering the political aims of a few individuals. I'm willing to bet less than 1% of the general population of the US wants to project our strength overseas and to give money away to foreigners. We pretty much all want to keep it here where we can use it.
We can pay off the debt to the FRB in a VERY short time if we stop doing the things that put and keep us in debt. And after that, the tax burden can be reduced significantly.
Why aren't we doing it? Follow the money and look to who is spending it.
And why is it "political suicide" to want to cut off or reduce foreign aid? Once in a while we hear a politician 'gaff' by suggesting the idea and they are quickly labelled "anti-semite" before they can even finish their statements. I think we have our answers... Someone with power and influence shouts anti-semite when that gifted cashflow is threatened. And it is gifted to them. What do they return to the US for the trillions sent there?
When we can answer that question "who is driving this?" then we can address the problem.
What we have is "socialized risk" and "privatized gains." I have recognized this fact ever since we saw the bailouts. But it has been going on a lot longer with government encouragement of programs like 401K.
Thanks for that link. The thing about the markets stated in there neatly packages many of the obvious conclusions I have made on my own. But I hadn't really put it together as a whole picture like this and it makes it all clear. And I didn't quite put it together that by nearly forcing people into putting their money into 401K we were unknowingly contributing to the craziness of the market.
It shows how incredible powerless we are against the 5% which is the revolving door partnership between business and government.
What I don't get is that here in this land of North America, we've got it pretty good. Why are so many trying to kill the goose which has been laying all these golden eggs? This prosperous society, far removed from places which are simply less fortunate and certainly less civilized, seems to be collapsing down from its enviable position.
I guess they never got the memo talking about balance in society and knowing when you have enough wealth and power. Having too much wealth and power creates and unstable situation which invariably results in the masses seeking to restore stability.
We're okay with insanely rich people... just so long as the majority of us aren't suffering because of it. Turns out, majorities are suffering... and becoming motivated.
Amazon's Appstore *IS* malware. Since I gave Amazon's Appstore a try, I quickly discovered that every game or app or utility acquired through it becomes tainted by it. If you uninstall the Amazon Appstore, you will find that ALL of the apps you paid for are useless. That is *NOT* what I paid for. On top of that, odd instability began to occur in my phone when I had Amazon's Appstore loaded. It went away with all the apps I had to remove along with the Amazon thing.
Amazon is a shining example of taking and open environment and OS and trying to lock people in with it. Already been burned by them. No need to look back now.
No. That's not true. It takes brain power. There's a wealth of information out there because pretty much, it has all been done before in one form or another.
It seems cheaper in the short run to buy something off the shelf and put it up. But when you keep paying for it over and over and over again, you might begin to realize that people are cheaper in the long run.
Besides that, do you think the likes of Google STARTED out with billions of dollars? How about Facebook and the others like them? They started with some pretty smart people which turned out to be a far better investment than paying for licensed off-the-shelf stuff.
That's a fact. It moves data in a highly standardized way. Sure, there are some proprietary Cisco protocols here and there, but for the most part, it's all the same everywhere. Whatever Cisco does, anyone can do.
People somehow believe there's magic moving data over wires. There just isn't. And there's nothing special about Cisco's. Now, compare Cisco to Microsoft. Now *There* is some vendor lock-in. One thing depends on another thing and another thing and another. To move off of Microsoft is mind-numbingly ridiculous to imagine. But Cisco? Nah. You can replace this and that here and there and you'll be just fine. Sure, you might have to migrate away from the use of anything Cisco proprietary here and there, but for the most part? You can take your time and move bits and pieces here and there.
That doesn't quite count if you're talking about Cisco phones... that's kind of an all or nothing scenario there... within limits. One thing is certain though -- Cisco needs to be humbled.
You built Windows starting with DOS and slapped Windows on top. With each release, it was a new evolution which mixed in the result of Microsoft's collaboration with IBM's OS/2 to create NT.
The Apache web server got its name because of how it was built and developed. But if any one product deserves the name, it's Windows. It is simply far too patchy to be secure.
No. I disagree. The landscape for the internet was damaged horribly by Microsoft's defacto dominance and their tying the browser with the operating system. In fact, Microsoft has even managed to harm MS Windows by taking this route. (By tying the browser to the OS, they have made having multiple versions of MSIE impossible as far as I can tell.. please link me to proof if I am wrong.) And by tying the browser to the OS, a vulnerability in the browser is a vulnerability in the OS and everything hosted by and accessible to the OS. Additionally, they used their OS dominance to affect other markets via their browser and its Microsoft-only compliance. It threatened the very framework of the web at large.
As a result of all the suits against Microsoft, the landscape has changed to favor a standards compliant direction. This is a huge improvement which would never have happened unless Microsoft was discouraged from their intended path.
I don't have an opinion about Google's tactics as to whether or not they are unfair. Users have never been locked into Google. Users choose which search engine they want to use. Bing is the default for "most default desktops" out there anyway. Google doesn't force users to decide which search engine they will use or lock them into anything. Their level of lock-in with Android is a little disturbing but even that's quite a bit of a choice... I could go without access to the Play store... there are alternatives but I can't imagine trusting any of them just yet. Or I could simply go without using any of those services at all.
I don't think what Google does even compares with what Microsoft has done. Google has created a very popular service. I see it as rather similar to TV channels. We all know, for example, that the news on Fox is slanted in a particular way and favors particular parties over others. If Google should be sued for not being 100% neutral, then perhaps Fox should be sued under the same requirements.