I stopped donating to both NPR and PBS because their coverage has gone down the toilet just like the rest of the media.
NPR and PBS have fallen into the same trap, or jumped in, depending upon your perspective, of going out of their way to provide "balance" to every single story. If George Bush makes a whopper of a "mis-statement", like, let's say, "I never said I wasn't concerned about Osama bin Ladin", the press can't just report the facts, show the appropriate footage and move on, they will "balance the coverage" with a foible from Kerry like saying we've lost a million jobs, when the real number is 900K. The biggest disservice to US Citizens is that these are presented as equivalent when they are not. Back to PBS. The Newshour is the worst when it comes to this type of journalist ic BS and NPR's "All Things Considered" comes in a close second.
I've seen it posted around, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the following headline in the likes of the NYT because the media is afraid present the facts on anything.
This could be a huge boon to professional photographers who have moved to digital.
I can see every pro using the vPod as a giant portable depot for photos they take in the field. Even with the largest flash memory you only get a modest number of images before you must download them.
Having the ability to transfer to a vPod in the field would be great. Plus, the ability to view them on a high-res, 2 inch scree would be another huge hit. Organizing them by roll would be another big benefit.
No need to carry a computer around with you just to for storing your pictures and/or pre-screening your shots.
What do real pro photographers think (I'm not one)?
There would be no uproar if i. O'Reilly had previosuly worked on a Republican Presidential campaign ii. The reason for hiring him was i. above iii. He hosted a political "debate-style" show which pits known R's vs D's.
O'reilly working for Bush is like Scarborough working for Bush, which he basically is. And guess what? No uproar.
On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being Noam Chomsky and 10 being Grover Norquist/Limbaugh/Coulter psychos.
Brit Hume (8) So partisan it is not even funny. I guess if they put Rush in his spot it might be a little more right wing and a lot more shrill.
Shepard Smith. (7) May no be a blatantly partisan as Hume, but I've never heard him say anything remotely Liberal in a good tone.
Bill O'Reilly. (7.5) This guy is entertainment and he know's who his audience is...right wing Republicans. He has the audacity to call himself a "traditionalist" whatever that means. He might have 1 or 2 "liberal" points of view, but 2 out of 1000 isn't very liberal. Plus he's a fucking asshole.
Hannity (9). He's almost in the Rush/Coulter psycho league...he just needs a little more practice.
Colmes (5). He wants to be a Liberal, but he's too much of a pussy and alwasy acquiesces. He's basically a doormat that Hannity wipes his shoes on and an excuse for the Fox slogan.
Greta (6). She was definitely more liberal when she was on CNN, but her right turn has been slow and deliberate. And who cares about Scott Peterson.
So in my estimation the Fox hosts you mentioned have an average rating of 7.08 which is pretty damn conservative. Add in all the other jingoistic crap they spew and round it up to an 8 which pretty close to the psycho 9-10 level.
I would be willing to bet anything that the "vast majority" (let's say 75%) of PCs users have ever played Doom3 or any other high end game.
If you can show me any statistic demonstrating that even a bare majority of PCs users use Doom3 (or any equivalent) then my point still stands. The new iMac will work perfectly well for the "vast majority" of PC users. And my metric is true. Where I work we have a host of macs that are 2-5 generations old and everybody gets their stuff done efficiently. In fact people still use our old beige boxes just as often as our newer G4 towers.
Your point re: game driving hardware developement may be true, but that doesn't mean the vast majority of PC user's need those machines.
That's me and I'm thinking of getting the 20" model.
I think most people who read Slashdot, and have a propensity to post in online forums in general, forget that the vast majority of the PC using populus could not care less about playing Doom3, or the hardcore game du jour. If the damn thing can play Solitaire and Minesweeper it is good for about 90% of users. If it can play Majhongg it is good for an additional 5%. For those 95% of us, we just want a machine that allows us to get stuff done efficiently.
Their supposed anti-HIV sounds a lot like a "defective interfering virus", however, given it is a wired article it is really impossible to tell anything about the details.
Defective interfering viruses occur in nature and have been studied for decades. The key points are that they are "defective", i.e. they cannot replicate on their own because they lack something required for replication. Second, they "interfere" with the replication of the fit virus.
Their idea is not novel within virology and it is not novel with respect to HIV. These guys sound like some pompous guys who don't realize they aren't as smart as they think they are.
Go to Pubmed and do a search for "defective interfering virus" to learn more about this. You can also search for '"defective interfering" AND HIV' (search for what's between the ' ') to see that people have thought of this with respect to HIV.
Finally, we can cure just about anything in a dish, most everything in mice, but not very much in humans.
My prediction. This will go absolutely nowhere. Just like the rhabdovirus study mentioned up-page that selectively kills HIV infected cells. Worked great in the dish, never to be heard of again. This study was presented in one of the most prestigious journals, yet it is now just a memory.
I agree wholeheartedly that the parent post is one of the stupidest, least thoughtout statements I've read in well, the last 5 minutes.
The parent seems to be invoking the Orwellian, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about argument. The invocation of this line of logic is more terrifying to me than having some tool tie up 21 phone lines over a period of days.
Fear! It's what's for Breakfast...and lunch...and dinner...and...
Unless your trout stream is in the middle of a flat city, then I can't imagine that you have Cingular. Perhaps you have Verizon and don't know it!
I have Craptacular in San Francisco. In both apartments I have lived in, I get no service. I'm one of those people stading outside in the rain talking on my phone...if you see me have pity.
I mean c'mon I live in the MIDDLE of San Francisco and my phone doesn't work when I walk through a glass door. I see all the Verizon and Sprint people happily chatting away in BART stations, in buildings, just about wherever they want. Me, I walk down 5 steps into the subway and the carrier is gone.
Their customer service is atrocious.
Their coverage is worse.
Free Nationwide roaming on any GSM network.....right. If you count "Searching" as a carrier, then I guess they have 100% coverage.
92 days until I smash my Cingular phone and throw the detritus off the Golden Gate Bridge.
One more point about large format film cameras. If you spend 4K, you are getting a *really* nice setup. I'm new to the format, but I got a 4x5 camera, two good lenses (orders of magnitude better than most digital cameras) film holders, etc for about $800.00.
It is also important to remember that a large format camera is nothing but two flat surfaces held together by a flexible bellows. The more expensive ones have smoother, more refined movements, but at the end of the day it's a flexible box and you can get amazing photos from a $800.00 camera and horrible photos from a $4000.00 camera.
I'll stick with my 4MP digital for holiday snapshots to be emailed around, but will pull out the 4x5 when I want to take a picture that is worth hanging on the wall.
I was a supporter of term limits, in theory, until I moved to wonderfully wacky California. Here there are term limits for the State Legislature and guess what gets done. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
It seems that terms limits had the unintended consequence that instead of "getting work done" the pols simply became gridlocked. Now instead of compromise, we just get a big "Stuff it up your A**" by both sides.
The issue is best highlighted by a couple of recent examples. Dems voted overwhelmingly for Drivers' Licenses for undocumented workers and repubs against. Arnold says he doesn't like the law and the Dems fold like a card house and repeal the law that was signed into law weeks earlier. On the other side, the Repubs were hell bent on "cutting the waste" to balance the budget and were appalled at the idea of floating a 10 billion dollar bond that would balance the budget on paper, but would end up costing billions more in future debt payments. Arnie boy comes to town and proposes an even larger bond sale, 15 BiLLION, and the repubs can't sign on fast enough, while the Dems are now unsure about passing such a huge debt on to future generations.
Now the point of those two examples is that these term limited pols flip-flopped like fish outta water when it suited their interests. Someone worried about their reelection might have considered the ramifications of making their previous stance so blatantly transparent. With term limits, you just do or oppose whatever the hell you want because you know it's not your neck on the chopping block if you screw up.
Agreed 100%. I went to the midnight showing with my GF (who also lusts after Legolas btw) and I almost fell asleep during the Helm's Deep battle. The first 2 minutes were cool, but after about 5 it's like "Seen that. Move on."
For me, the story is the pull of the books and the movies, not some super-duper, whiz-bang, computer animated battle. Yawn. I will undoubtedly fast forward through that scene in the DVD (or go make some popcorn).
The rich are taxed by paying only a miniscule fraction of their wealth? You do remember that I was responding to your proposal to abolish the income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. Under such scenarios, the "rich" or "ultra-rich" or whatever you want to call them would indeed pay a miniscule amount of their income as taxes.
Check this document, which another slashdotter graciously provided from the US Treasury. Current tax statistics bear no relevance to your argument for abolishing the income tax.
The "rich". It's a convenient label to give someone. It all comes down to being jealous of someone else's wealth. They have it. You want it. The poor can't steal it legally, so they get the government to do it for them. So presumptuous of you. Contrary to your belief, not everyone lusts for wealth, thus the entire tenet of your pathetic class warfare argument doesn't hold water...or even my tax cut.
Just because those wealthy people don't "deserve" all that money. "They must have killed countless poor people to get that money! It's rightfully ours!" Did you hear that one on Rush Limbaugh? Even the Faux News hosts don't spew that much vitriolic rhetoric in response to something that was never said. Again, your being presumptuous and presenting your own strawmen and trying to knock them down. Might work on Rush boy's audience, but not for me.
People that complain that the rich aren't taxed enough piss the hell out of me. There are lots of programs for people to increase their lot in life. Either people don't use the resources because they are lazy, or because they would rather keep on milking the system. Again, responding to an argument that was never made....a favorite approach of your ilk. You see, you presume to know someone's position, then argue against that position, even though the person you are arguing against never took the position you're presuming the would take. If you can't make a cogent argument against what's been said, then argue something completely different.
Let's break down the above presumptions.
1. "People that complain that the rich aren't taxed enough piss the hell out of me." Did I ever complain that the rich weren't taxed enough? No. I complained that under a comsuption tax system, the rich would pay an miniscule fraction of their income as taxes compared to those with lower income jobs.
2. "There are lots of programs for people to increase their lot in life. Either people don't use the resources because they are lazy, or because they would rather keep on milking the system." Did I speak of entitlements, or "programs" in any way? No. You presume that because of my position on abolishing the income tax, that I think we need more "programs" and that I think people don't take advantage of those programs to the fullest, and that people don't milk those programs. In fact, you'd be wrong on all counts, but that's not what we were arguing about.
Tell you what - let's burden the people with the most money even further. Who's going to pay the tab when they leave? What are you talking about? Where are the people going to go? You think they're gonna all move to the cayman islands because they only had 1B in disposable income comapre to 2B? Gimme a break. And when it comes to corporations....they're already gone. They have PO Boxes in the Caymans, but the upper management all live in the Hamptons.
Oh, okay. So you want to soak the middle class and those who make a little more than the working poor, while the rich get richer by paying miniscule fractions of their wealth as taxes.
Thanks for clearing that up, it makes it much more palatable.
Want to jumpstart the economy? Cut taxes for those that make the money (and jobs) in the first place.
Huh? Last time I checked, I (who doesn't make a whole lotta money) spend just about ALL of my income and if I got a tax cut, I would spend (more likely donate to a program cut by BUSHco) it as well.
Now contrast me to my father. He makes loads more money, will benefit in every way by the tax cut (lower capital gains, lower bracket, dividend tax cut), but won't spend a single dime of his newly found wealth. He'll just sock it away in some retirement account somewhere, and I'll probably end up spending it after he dies.
And getting rid of the income tax would be one of the best ways to burden those with the least. Think about it for just two seconds. Poor people spend all of their money buying stuff. If stuff is the only thing that is taxed, and we want to generate the same amount of revenue as a society, then stuff will have to be taxed at much higher rates. For arguments sake, if the stuff tax is 25%, then poor Bob who makes 20K/year pays 5K in taxes (25%). Now for rich Bob who makes 2M/year. Let's say rich Bob spends 500K of his dough buying stuff (which is highly unlikely...that's why he's rich). He pays 125K in taxes, but his tax burden is only 6.25%. So if you think it is best to burden those with the least the most, and those with the most the least, then push for repeal of the income tax. The widening of the gulf between the haves and have nots will be a very dangerous thing for our so-called democracy.
Kiss it goodbye and place a call for a cable modem.
And get ready to spend, spend, spend for that cable modem. I just found out yesterday that my Cable Modem prices will be going up $15.00/Month since Comcast bought ATT Cable. The new price will be $60.00 USD/month. And get this, I found out about the increase because a Comcast telemarketer called me up and said that the cable modem would increase by only $5.00 if I signed up for their crappy cable TV service as well.
Time to start paying my upstairs neighbor to share his SBC DSL connection via wireless. Although I'm sure it won't be long before the monopoly factor sets in and his DSL prices shoot through the roof as well.
I haven't used PS extensively since I installed the altivec core update, but I did notice one area where the speed increase was mind-boggling.
On my Ti550, when doing a "save for web" it used to be excruciating to wait for the optimized images to show up. Now it is almost instant. I used to dread the final steps of making a suitable web image, but now it's a breeze.
I'm sure that you use the roads a lot more than I do in order to do your job, thus put more wear and tear on the roads, thus have to pay more money so that the roads will be in decent shape for all of us. Or maybe you would prefer that the state just stop doing road maintenance (because you fucktard republicans don't like taxes) and in a few years you will *really* need an 8000lb Ford Explosion just to navigate all the potholes and you'll be making some great time at 10MPH (a fringe benefit would be that all those SUVs would at least be used for something more than taking Johnny to soccer practice). Since you wouldn't be able to drive more than 10MPH, then you wouldn't fix as many copiers, thus you wouldn't make as much money and hence you wouldn't be taxed as much. Just imagine the tax savings man!
Oh yeah. I'm not a CPA, or a tax lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you get some vehicle-related write-offs as a traveling salesperson.
Slashdot Mirror
I stopped donating to both NPR and PBS because their coverage has gone down the toilet just like the rest of the media.
NPR and PBS have fallen into the same trap, or jumped in, depending upon your perspective, of going out of their way to provide "balance" to every single story. If George Bush makes a whopper of a "mis-statement", like, let's say, "I never said I wasn't concerned about Osama bin Ladin", the press can't just report the facts, show the appropriate footage and move on, they will "balance the coverage" with a foible from Kerry like saying we've lost a million jobs, when the real number is 900K. The biggest disservice to US Citizens is that these are presented as equivalent when they are not. Back to PBS. The Newshour is the worst when it comes to this type of journalist ic BS and NPR's "All Things Considered" comes in a close second.
I've seen it posted around, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the following headline in the likes of the NYT because the media is afraid present the facts on anything.
"Report says Earth is flat: accounts differ."
This could be a huge boon to professional photographers who have moved to digital.
I can see every pro using the vPod as a giant portable depot for photos they take in the field. Even with the largest flash memory you only get a modest number of images before you must download them.
Having the ability to transfer to a vPod in the field would be great. Plus, the ability to view them on a high-res, 2 inch scree would be another huge hit. Organizing them by roll would be another big benefit.
No need to carry a computer around with you just to for storing your pictures and/or pre-screening your shots.
What do real pro photographers think (I'm not one)?
There would be no uproar if
i. O'Reilly had previosuly worked on a Republican Presidential campaign
ii. The reason for hiring him was i. above
iii. He hosted a political "debate-style" show which pits known R's vs D's.
O'reilly working for Bush is like Scarborough working for Bush, which he basically is. And guess what? No uproar.
On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being Noam Chomsky and 10 being Grover Norquist/Limbaugh/Coulter psychos.
Brit Hume (8) So partisan it is not even funny. I guess if they put Rush in his spot it might be a little more right wing and a lot more shrill.
Shepard Smith. (7) May no be a blatantly partisan as Hume, but I've never heard him say anything remotely Liberal in a good tone.
Bill O'Reilly. (7.5) This guy is entertainment and he know's who his audience is...right wing Republicans. He has the audacity to call himself a "traditionalist" whatever that means. He might have 1 or 2 "liberal" points of view, but 2 out of 1000 isn't very liberal. Plus he's a fucking asshole.
Hannity (9). He's almost in the Rush/Coulter psycho league...he just needs a little more practice.
Colmes (5). He wants to be a Liberal, but he's too much of a pussy and alwasy acquiesces. He's basically a doormat that Hannity wipes his shoes on and an excuse for the Fox slogan.
Greta (6). She was definitely more liberal when she was on CNN, but her right turn has been slow and deliberate. And who cares about Scott Peterson.
So in my estimation the Fox hosts you mentioned have an average rating of 7.08 which is pretty damn conservative. Add in all the other jingoistic crap they spew and round it up to an 8 which pretty close to the psycho 9-10 level.
I would be willing to bet anything that the "vast majority" (let's say 75%) of PCs users have ever played Doom3 or any other high end game.
If you can show me any statistic demonstrating that even a bare majority of PCs users use Doom3 (or any equivalent) then my point still stands. The new iMac will work perfectly well for the "vast majority" of PC users. And my metric is true. Where I work we have a host of macs that are 2-5 generations old and everybody gets their stuff done efficiently. In fact people still use our old beige boxes just as often as our newer G4 towers.
Your point re: game driving hardware developement may be true, but that doesn't mean the vast majority of PC user's need those machines.
That's me and I'm thinking of getting the 20" model.
I think most people who read Slashdot, and have a propensity to post in online forums in general, forget that the vast majority of the PC using populus could not care less about playing Doom3, or the hardcore game du jour. If the damn thing can play Solitaire and Minesweeper it is good for about 90% of users. If it can play Majhongg it is good for an additional 5%. For those 95% of us, we just want a machine that allows us to get stuff done efficiently.
Next question.
Their supposed anti-HIV sounds a lot like a "defective interfering virus", however, given it is a wired article it is really impossible to tell anything about the details.
Defective interfering viruses occur in nature and have been studied for decades. The key points are that they are "defective", i.e. they cannot replicate on their own because they lack something required for replication. Second, they "interfere" with the replication of the fit virus.
Their idea is not novel within virology and it is not novel with respect to HIV. These guys sound like some pompous guys who don't realize they aren't as smart as they think they are.
Go to Pubmed and do a search for "defective interfering virus" to learn more about this. You can also search for '"defective interfering" AND HIV' (search for what's between the ' ') to see that people have thought of this with respect to HIV.
Finally, we can cure just about anything in a dish, most everything in mice, but not very much in humans.
My prediction. This will go absolutely nowhere. Just like the rhabdovirus study mentioned up-page that selectively kills HIV infected cells. Worked great in the dish, never to be heard of again. This study was presented in one of the most prestigious journals, yet it is now just a memory.
I agree wholeheartedly that the parent post is one of the stupidest, least thoughtout statements I've read in well, the last 5 minutes.
The parent seems to be invoking the Orwellian, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about argument. The invocation of this line of logic is more terrifying to me than having some tool tie up 21 phone lines over a period of days.
Fear! It's what's for Breakfast...and lunch...and dinner...and...
Wow! Do you really live in such a state of constant fear?
Too much Faux News perhaps?
The search for Bin Laden is already over.
Get ready for "October Surprise v2.0 (R)"
Unless your trout stream is in the middle of a flat city, then I can't imagine that you have Cingular. Perhaps you have Verizon and don't know it!
I have Craptacular in San Francisco. In both apartments I have lived in, I get no service. I'm one of those people stading outside in the rain talking on my phone...if you see me have pity.
I mean c'mon I live in the MIDDLE of San Francisco and my phone doesn't work when I walk through a glass door. I see all the Verizon and Sprint people happily chatting away in BART stations, in buildings, just about wherever they want. Me, I walk down 5 steps into the subway and the carrier is gone.
Their customer service is atrocious.
Their coverage is worse.
Free Nationwide roaming on any GSM network.....right. If you count "Searching" as a carrier, then I guess they have 100% coverage.
92 days until I smash my Cingular phone and throw the detritus off the Golden Gate Bridge.
Can you tell that I absolutely hate Cingular?
Tom Tomorrow joke for the unintiated.
Linkage
One more point about large format film cameras. If you spend 4K, you are getting a *really* nice setup. I'm new to the format, but I got a 4x5 camera, two good lenses (orders of magnitude better than most digital cameras) film holders, etc for about $800.00.
It is also important to remember that a large format camera is nothing but two flat surfaces held together by a flexible bellows. The more expensive ones have smoother, more refined movements, but at the end of the day it's a flexible box and you can get amazing photos from a $800.00 camera and horrible photos from a $4000.00 camera.
I'll stick with my 4MP digital for holiday snapshots to be emailed around, but will pull out the 4x5 when I want to take a picture that is worth hanging on the wall.
I was a supporter of term limits, in theory, until I moved to wonderfully wacky California. Here there are term limits for the State Legislature and guess what gets done. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
It seems that terms limits had the unintended consequence that instead of "getting work done" the pols simply became gridlocked. Now instead of compromise, we just get a big "Stuff it up your A**" by both sides.
The issue is best highlighted by a couple of recent examples. Dems voted overwhelmingly for Drivers' Licenses for undocumented workers and repubs against. Arnold says he doesn't like the law and the Dems fold like a card house and repeal the law that was signed into law weeks earlier. On the other side, the Repubs were hell bent on "cutting the waste" to balance the budget and were appalled at the idea of floating a 10 billion dollar bond that would balance the budget on paper, but would end up costing billions more in future debt payments. Arnie boy comes to town and proposes an even larger bond sale, 15 BiLLION, and the repubs can't sign on fast enough, while the Dems are now unsure about passing such a huge debt on to future generations.
Now the point of those two examples is that these term limited pols flip-flopped like fish outta water when it suited their interests. Someone worried about their reelection might have considered the ramifications of making their previous stance so blatantly transparent. With term limits, you just do or oppose whatever the hell you want because you know it's not your neck on the chopping block if you screw up.
Amen Brother on your speech, but Kucinich is a little too wacky for the "mainstream".
I think Congresswoman Barbara Lee voted against the act.
Agreed 100%. I went to the midnight showing with my GF (who also lusts after Legolas btw) and I almost fell asleep during the Helm's Deep battle. The first 2 minutes were cool, but after about 5 it's like "Seen that. Move on."
For me, the story is the pull of the books and the movies, not some super-duper, whiz-bang, computer animated battle. Yawn. I will undoubtedly fast forward through that scene in the DVD (or go make some popcorn).
You do remember that I was responding to your proposal to abolish the income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. Under such scenarios, the "rich" or "ultra-rich" or whatever you want to call them would indeed pay a miniscule amount of their income as taxes. Check this document, which another slashdotter graciously provided from the US Treasury.
Current tax statistics bear no relevance to your argument for abolishing the income tax. The "rich". It's a convenient label to give someone. It all comes down to being jealous of someone else's wealth. They have it. You want it. The poor can't steal it legally, so they get the government to do it for them.
So presumptuous of you. Contrary to your belief, not everyone lusts for wealth, thus the entire tenet of your pathetic class warfare argument doesn't hold water...or even my tax cut. Just because those wealthy people don't "deserve" all that money. "They must have killed countless poor people to get that money! It's rightfully ours!"
Did you hear that one on Rush Limbaugh? Even the Faux News hosts don't spew that much vitriolic rhetoric in response to something that was never said. Again, your being presumptuous and presenting your own strawmen and trying to knock them down. Might work on Rush boy's audience, but not for me. People that complain that the rich aren't taxed enough piss the hell out of me. There are lots of programs for people to increase their lot in life. Either people don't use the resources because they are lazy, or because they would rather keep on milking the system.
Again, responding to an argument that was never made....a favorite approach of your ilk. You see, you presume to know someone's position, then argue against that position, even though the person you are arguing against never took the position you're presuming the would take. If you can't make a cogent argument against what's been said, then argue something completely different.
Let's break down the above presumptions.
1. "People that complain that the rich aren't taxed enough piss the hell out of me."
Did I ever complain that the rich weren't taxed enough? No. I complained that under a comsuption tax system, the rich would pay an miniscule fraction of their income as taxes compared to those with lower income jobs.
2. "There are lots of programs for people to increase their lot in life. Either people don't use the resources because they are lazy, or because they would rather keep on milking the system."
Did I speak of entitlements, or "programs" in any way? No. You presume that because of my position on abolishing the income tax, that I think we need more "programs" and that I think people don't take advantage of those programs to the fullest, and that people don't milk those programs. In fact, you'd be wrong on all counts, but that's not what we were arguing about.
Tell you what - let's burden the people with the most money even further. Who's going to pay the tab when they leave? What are you talking about? Where are the people going to go? You think they're gonna all move to the cayman islands because they only had 1B in disposable income comapre to 2B? Gimme a break. And when it comes to corporations....they're already gone. They have PO Boxes in the Caymans, but the upper management all live in the Hamptons.
Thanks for clearing that up, it makes it much more palatable.
Huh? Last time I checked, I (who doesn't make a whole lotta money) spend just about ALL of my income and if I got a tax cut, I would spend (more likely donate to a program cut by BUSHco) it as well.
Now contrast me to my father. He makes loads more money, will benefit in every way by the tax cut (lower capital gains, lower bracket, dividend tax cut), but won't spend a single dime of his newly found wealth. He'll just sock it away in some retirement account somewhere, and I'll probably end up spending it after he dies.
And getting rid of the income tax would be one of the best ways to burden those with the least. Think about it for just two seconds. Poor people spend all of their money buying stuff. If stuff is the only thing that is taxed, and we want to generate the same amount of revenue as a society, then stuff will have to be taxed at much higher rates. For arguments sake, if the stuff tax is 25%, then poor Bob who makes 20K/year pays 5K in taxes (25%). Now for rich Bob who makes 2M/year. Let's say rich Bob spends 500K of his dough buying stuff (which is highly unlikely...that's why he's rich). He pays 125K in taxes, but his tax burden is only 6.25%. So if you think it is best to burden those with the least the most, and those with the most the least, then push for repeal of the income tax. The widening of the gulf between the haves and have nots will be a very dangerous thing for our so-called democracy.
Must be a Faux News Anchor who doesn't want to be fingered.
Oooh. Maybe it's Matt Drudge. Or Rush himself!
And get ready to spend, spend, spend for that cable modem. I just found out yesterday that my Cable Modem prices will be going up $15.00/Month since Comcast bought ATT Cable. The new price will be $60.00 USD/month. And get this, I found out about the increase because a Comcast telemarketer called me up and said that the cable modem would increase by only $5.00 if I signed up for their crappy cable TV service as well.
Time to start paying my upstairs neighbor to share his SBC DSL connection via wireless. Although I'm sure it won't be long before the monopoly factor sets in and his DSL prices shoot through the roof as well.
I haven't used PS extensively since I installed the altivec core update, but I did notice one area where the speed increase was mind-boggling.
On my Ti550, when doing a "save for web" it used to be excruciating to wait for the optimized images to show up. Now it is almost instant. I used to dread the final steps of making a suitable web image, but now it's a breeze.
I'm sure that you use the roads a lot more than I do in order to do your job, thus put more wear and tear on the roads, thus have to pay more money so that the roads will be in decent shape for all of us. Or maybe you would prefer that the state just stop doing road maintenance (because you fucktard republicans don't like taxes) and in a few years you will *really* need an 8000lb Ford Explosion just to navigate all the potholes and you'll be making some great time at 10MPH (a fringe benefit would be that all those SUVs would at least be used for something more than taking Johnny to soccer practice). Since you wouldn't be able to drive more than 10MPH, then you wouldn't fix as many copiers, thus you wouldn't make as much money and hence you wouldn't be taxed as much. Just imagine the tax savings man!
Oh yeah. I'm not a CPA, or a tax lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you get some vehicle-related write-offs as a traveling salesperson.