State governments here in the US try to raise revenue by luring companies to set up shop in their states using tax incentives. The net result is a sort of tragedy of the commons - overall tax revenue is lower and even though politicians try and claim they're "creating jobs" they're really just stealing them from other states.
Lower "overall tax revenue" is hardly a tragedy. In fact, it's a triumph for everyone who works and produces anything rather than living off the work and production of others. As more governments compete in this way, there will be more opportunity to get a productive job and less opportunity to sell your vote for a cut of the loot taxed from the producers.
It's only a tragedy for those who want power over their neighbors and the ability to spend money they didn't earn.
Why should a non-obsessed person care? So what if a kid hears there are diverse, alternative world-views? Will Charles Darwin smite us? Will Al Gore send The Climate Inquisition?
Yeah, get rid of the one-size-fits-all system that Congress created. Replace it with a one-size-fits-all system from your state legislature. Or a one-size-fits-all system from your local school board.
Here's a suggestion: let's not have a "system". Let's stop treating children as a widget that can be manufactured according to a process. Let's have parents decide. Parents know more about their children than government workers.
Can we please stop the childish creationist crap in this site?
No. Bigots can't stop. They are obsessed with creationists and religious types. Anti-religious bigots see Creationists behind every bush, just like anit-Semites see the Jews hiding between the lines in every news article.
Damn trolls. Everyone knows this is not the problem.
But here's the other problem: DTV doesn't charge you for a DTV box. It's free with your monthly subscription. How can they release a box that competes with, say, a $200-400 box from Apple and give it away with a $29/month satellite TV subscription?
And why would anyone "cream themselves" when Apple releases their new Apple TV box? So far, Apple TV has been a supremely mediocre product. It's not really even competitive with Roku. The UI for the Apple TV isn't exactly insanely great either.
As for assimilating Roku-like features, check out this news story on Samsung and RVU. Samsung is building the Roku-like features into the TV directly. DTV is serving their data stream (video and GUI interaction) to the TV. DTV benefits because they have to supply one less DTV box. The customer benefits because they have one less box and one less remote, but they can still start watching a recorded show in one room and finish watching it in another.
You seem to think that a system that isn't "dumb" would produce a better result. What, exactly, should Michael White do about all the uninformed speculation about unannounced Apple TV-related products? Unlike Slashdot commenters, he doesn't have the luxury of pretending there are all sorts of cheap content deals available that would allow him to offer you exactly the channels you want at 75% off the current price.
Maybe he should say "Yeah, the mediocre UI on the Apple TV box sure is a big threat to us. We are also randomly afraid of unknown unannounced Apple products. We have several non-specific initiatives to address these unknown, potentially competitive threats."
They haven't announced a TV. Apple is probably working on lots of products they haven't announced. The ones that don't make sense get cancelled before they are announced.
I think it's possible Apple will re-invent TV somehow. But they will have to do something really big, like buying some huge content production company (such as Viacom) or creating a new video game platform to rival Xbox and Playstation. Otherwise it's just an overpriced version of the TV monitor I already have.
TV isn't fundamentally interactive. Why do I need to pay extra for a slick Apple GUI to replace about 5 button presses on my remote? And why should we believe Apple will have access to TV content on better financial terms than DirecTV? ITunes consistently has worse pricing than Amazon and Zune (XBox) marketplace.
A TV is not a tablet computer, and a TV is not a handheld computer (a.k.a. mobile phone). What does Apple really have to offer TV watchers?
Companies (and HR departments in particular) are bad at hiring someone to grow into a job. They want someone who is in the top 20% of their profession and can do the entire job starting right away, but then they base their pay scales on the 50th percentile.
Headhunters also do a bad job, at a high price.
If there were people who could actually be trusted to do a good job at filling positions, lots of people would benefit.
Evolution is a topic of interest mainly to people who would like to promote bigotry against religious people. How often does it get brought up in any other context?
Religious folks rarely (if ever) bring it up. There are widely varying opinions on the topic among religious folks, but few consider it imminently important to their day to day lives.
This is the key to transitioning to IPv6. People will transition to IPv6 as costs increase for IPv4. When transitioning to IPv6 is cheaper than buying IPv4 addresses, the change will come quickly.
Hopefully people will observe this and learn how change happens. It doesn't happen because you wish it would. It doesn't happen because you know The Right Way for everyone to manage their lives or their businesses or their operations. It is driven by tangible benefits, not ideology.
(Magically, this results in people seeing tangible benefits from their decisions rather than absorbing "unexpected" costs related to idealistic or mandatory early adoption.)
Also, as Foxconn showed us, providing an incentive for people to commit suicide is counterproductive unless you want them to commit suicide. If you give people the power to have their enemies locked up for 10 years by committing suicide, you can look forward to such suicides happening more and more often.
But the problem in California, is that we require a super-majority just to pass a budget, even if that budget is restrained and balanced.
What year is it there? Here in the year 2012, we remember Prop 25 passed in Nov 2010 and there's no longer a super-majority requirement to pass a budget.
The people who always want increased funding every time schools are discussed are effectively arguing for unlimited funding. They have no clue whether it actually helps or how much. They just always want more. And they always will, regardless of anything.
This is mostly because other people are paying. So who cares how much it helps? It might help. And other people are paying. So throw another $billion on the fire.
Whether there's "no benefit" isn't a relevant question. The relevant questions are:
- Is the benefit worth the cost? - How much cost is the benefit worth? - Do the people who benefit pay? - Do the people who pay benefit?
Government education is an inefficient use of money compared to non-government alternatives. The only time government education makes sense at all is when you're freeloading off of others. When it's someone else's money, who cares whether it's spent efficiently?
So your answer is to pour an unlimited amount of money into schools that are failing to teach 78% of students. And if they keep failing to teach, just keep giving them more and more money. Because rewarding failure is wise.
Slashdot Mirror
Gas taxes are a tiny fraction of the cost of infrastructure for automobiles.
False.
They benefited from the system all their lives but when it's their turn to pay in, they leave.
Can you prove they benefited? And even if they did, they've undoubtedly paid back the cost of the benefits they've received many times over.
Why are you complaining that they've only repaid Finland 10 times over rather than 20 or 50 or 100 times? Why can't it ever, ever be enough?
Finland's taxes are high, but then again by most measures it is a country that uses those taxes to fund a very comprehensive social benefits system.
I'm sure that's great for the people receiving money they didn't earn. Why is that worthwhile to Rovio? Or for anyone who actually earns his paycheck?
State governments here in the US try to raise revenue by luring companies to set up shop in their states using tax incentives. The net result is a sort of tragedy of the commons - overall tax revenue is lower and even though politicians try and claim they're "creating jobs" they're really just stealing them from other states.
Lower "overall tax revenue" is hardly a tragedy. In fact, it's a triumph for everyone who works and produces anything rather than living off the work and production of others. As more governments compete in this way, there will be more opportunity to get a productive job and less opportunity to sell your vote for a cut of the loot taxed from the producers.
It's only a tragedy for those who want power over their neighbors and the ability to spend money they didn't earn.
Why should a non-obsessed person care? So what if a kid hears there are diverse, alternative world-views? Will Charles Darwin smite us? Will Al Gore send The Climate Inquisition?
Yeah, get rid of the one-size-fits-all system that Congress created. Replace it with a one-size-fits-all system from your state legislature. Or a one-size-fits-all system from your local school board.
Here's a suggestion: let's not have a "system". Let's stop treating children as a widget that can be manufactured according to a process. Let's have parents decide. Parents know more about their children than government workers.
Can we please stop the childish creationist crap in this site?
No. Bigots can't stop. They are obsessed with creationists and religious types. Anti-religious bigots see Creationists behind every bush, just like anit-Semites see the Jews hiding between the lines in every news article.
Damn trolls. Everyone knows this is not the problem.
It's the only "problem" that matters to them.
But here's the other problem: DTV doesn't charge you for a DTV box. It's free with your monthly subscription. How can they release a box that competes with, say, a $200-400 box from Apple and give it away with a $29/month satellite TV subscription?
And why would anyone "cream themselves" when Apple releases their new Apple TV box? So far, Apple TV has been a supremely mediocre product. It's not really even competitive with Roku. The UI for the Apple TV isn't exactly insanely great either.
As for assimilating Roku-like features, check out this news story on Samsung and RVU. Samsung is building the Roku-like features into the TV directly. DTV is serving their data stream (video and GUI interaction) to the TV. DTV benefits because they have to supply one less DTV box. The customer benefits because they have one less box and one less remote, but they can still start watching a recorded show in one room and finish watching it in another.
You seem to think that a system that isn't "dumb" would produce a better result. What, exactly, should Michael White do about all the uninformed speculation about unannounced Apple TV-related products? Unlike Slashdot commenters, he doesn't have the luxury of pretending there are all sorts of cheap content deals available that would allow him to offer you exactly the channels you want at 75% off the current price.
Maybe he should say "Yeah, the mediocre UI on the Apple TV box sure is a big threat to us. We are also randomly afraid of unknown unannounced Apple products. We have several non-specific initiatives to address these unknown, potentially competitive threats."
... that you somehow meaningfully interact with from 8 feet away.
My TV "interface" is an ON button. It also functions as an OFF button.
I hope I get the chance to pay Apple $2000 to revolutionize this interface.
They haven't announced a TV. Apple is probably working on lots of products they haven't announced. The ones that don't make sense get cancelled before they are announced.
I think it's possible Apple will re-invent TV somehow. But they will have to do something really big, like buying some huge content production company (such as Viacom) or creating a new video game platform to rival Xbox and Playstation. Otherwise it's just an overpriced version of the TV monitor I already have.
Wikipedia says:
Year Subscribers
1994 320,000
1995 1,200,000
1996 2,300,000
1997 3,301,000
1998 4,458,000
1999 6,679,000
2000 9,554,000
2001 10,218,000
2002 11,181,000
2003 12,290,000
2004 13,000,000
2005 15,000,000
2006 15,950,000
2007 16,830,000
2008 17,620,000
2009 18,081,000
2010 19,200,000
2011 19,890,000 (DTV was hurt by the NFL lockout in 2011)
And they are expanding their service into Latin America.
TV isn't fundamentally interactive. Why do I need to pay extra for a slick Apple GUI to replace about 5 button presses on my remote?
And why should we believe Apple will have access to TV content on better financial terms than DirecTV? ITunes consistently has worse pricing than Amazon and Zune (XBox) marketplace.
A TV is not a tablet computer, and a TV is not a handheld computer (a.k.a. mobile phone). What does Apple really have to offer TV watchers?
Companies (and HR departments in particular) are bad at hiring someone to grow into a job. They want someone who is in the top 20% of their profession and can do the entire job starting right away, but then they base their pay scales on the 50th percentile.
Headhunters also do a bad job, at a high price.
If there were people who could actually be trusted to do a good job at filling positions, lots of people would benefit.
Evolution is a topic of interest mainly to people who would like to promote bigotry against religious people. How often does it get brought up in any other context?
Religious folks rarely (if ever) bring it up. There are widely varying opinions on the topic among religious folks, but few consider it imminently important to their day to day lives.
This is the key to transitioning to IPv6. People will transition to IPv6 as costs increase for IPv4. When transitioning to IPv6 is cheaper than buying IPv4 addresses, the change will come quickly.
Hopefully people will observe this and learn how change happens. It doesn't happen because you wish it would. It doesn't happen because you know The Right Way for everyone to manage their lives or their businesses or their operations. It is driven by tangible benefits, not ideology.
(Magically, this results in people seeing tangible benefits from their decisions rather than absorbing "unexpected" costs related to idealistic or mandatory early adoption.)
I wonder if depression is correlated with an entitlement mentality and ego-centrism. It is definitely correlated with a lack of exercise.
Also, as Foxconn showed us, providing an incentive for people to commit suicide is counterproductive unless you want them to commit suicide. If you give people the power to have their enemies locked up for 10 years by committing suicide, you can look forward to such suicides happening more and more often.
But the problem in California, is that we require a super-majority just to pass a budget, even if that budget is restrained and balanced.
What year is it there? Here in the year 2012, we remember Prop 25 passed in Nov 2010 and there's no longer a super-majority requirement to pass a budget.
The people who always want increased funding every time schools are discussed are effectively arguing for unlimited funding. They have no clue whether it actually helps or how much. They just always want more. And they always will, regardless of anything.
This is mostly because other people are paying. So who cares how much it helps? It might help. And other people are paying. So throw another $billion on the fire.
You keep saying unlimited. No one else is.
What's the limit then? Please answer with a number.
Why pay an unlimited price for a tiny benefit?
Whether there's "no benefit" isn't a relevant question. The relevant questions are:
- Is the benefit worth the cost?
- How much cost is the benefit worth?
- Do the people who benefit pay?
- Do the people who pay benefit?
Government education is an inefficient use of money compared to non-government alternatives. The only time government education makes sense at all is when you're freeloading off of others. When it's someone else's money, who cares whether it's spent efficiently?
So your answer is to pour an unlimited amount of money into schools that are failing to teach 78% of students. And if they keep failing to teach, just keep giving them more and more money. Because rewarding failure is wise.
They told me this would happen if I voted for John McCain for President. And they were right!