I would in general agree with your assessment BUT! there was this site called myspace that everyone was on at one point and then everyone seemed to switch to facebook. So it can and does happen. I think a couple of factors are involved. Myspace I think suffered for three reasons. 1. Too open. It allowed people to express creativity on their page but also allowed the world to see how bad people were at being creative. 2. Changes to mimic other social networks. As twitter and facebook gained some popularity they tried to copy it which allowed an easy transition to the other network and lest reason to stay. 3. Friendship paradigm shift. I think people add "friends" really fast for one reason or another and then time passes. They stop being friends or interesting and people instead of "un-friending" them just move to another network and build new friends leaving old ones behind and bring to ones they are still interested in with them.
I think Google was trying to wedge into the social scene because a few of these indicators were kind of showing on facebook. Facebook had a user decline more or less showing that the paradigm shift may be on the verge of happening. Facebook has a history of making changes which are not exactly popular but then people get used to them. I think Google came out a little early and didn't have the platform attraction to convince people to switch over immediately (no apps, slightly high learning curve, more complicated asynchronous "friending" scheme, not-as-rich feature-set to the well established facebook). If Google is smart, they will keep developing it and make it more attractive to common users and in the future when people are ready to leave facebook (it will happen), google can position themselves as the new place "to be" like facebook did during Myspace's day.
I actually think the opposite should happen. I feel that sales tax should be the only tax we have. No income, property, use, or any other tax. My reasoning behind this is It will push the government who wants to make money to keep running itself, into a position where they want people to have jobs and spend money. Right now it seems that they make money off of any transaction and sometimes simply ownership creating a problem of the need for real problem solving.
Problem with straight income tax is that a few people can make a lot of money and the masses can make next to nothing and the government still gets a paycheck. So why should they fight to help the masses or make sure the system is fair for all?
Problem with Property tax is more of a fairness issue. I own the property why do I need to continue to pay taxes on it as if I'm re-buying it every year. As a system on exclusive taxing it *might* be alright. People with enough money and the desire to purchase land would pay the taxes while people that choose not to can rent. The more property you choose to own the more you get taxed. Secondary problem would possible be the land owners *may* gouge renters creating an unfair top-bottom system. Since taxes still get paid why should the government fight to fix the unfairness in the system.
Problem with sales tax is the tax rate would sky rocket but would be partially offset by the increase of tax free income. Necessities would still continue to need to be tax free but on luxuries, if you dont need it then to get it you have to earn for it somehow. There is a *possibility* that top income earners might buy lots of expensive items and pay enough to keep the system going themselves but the second they stop buying for any reason the government would notice and so the government would probably rather have the masses with money spending more regularly.
Right now it seems to me that the government has no real desire to fix problem but instead find another way to hide taking money from people creatively and hope we don't notice how they are taking it this time or how unfair it might be. People talk about getting double taxed, we are more than double taxed all the time. I want to own a house (from scratch). I hire a building crew (taxed) that buys materials (taxed) which transports the materials (taxed) after I bought the land (taxed) with money I earned from a job (taxed) but since I don't have all of it I pull out a loan (taxed) so I am required to have insurance (taxed) and while the property is owned I have to pay tax repeatedly on the value of it (taxed). I understand that not all these steps are necessary. I could save money and not pull a loan. I understand that without the loan I *probably* don't need to have insurance. I understand that there is a slight difference between a service rendered and an item being tax but since it is all part of one larger picture I figure it is worth mentioning as part of the taxing process.
Eventually, every system gets broken somehow (in my opinion usually greed is the root cause for failure). It would seem to me though that a sales tax can "do" only one thing better, create an environment where there would be the most incentive for the government to truly fix it when it gets broken.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
If you look into their timetables, Black Hole creation is scheduled for December 21st, 2012.
Upper management has a new idea.... They are going to call it the "Ring" Idea. This "Ring" idea will merge all of our Developer Tools/Languages/Frameworks into one sustainable object. This one "Ring" idea can be rolled out into all companies and rule all IT departments. You might be able to say it will allow companies to bind all their IT departments. I mean what evil can there be in that? Ok, I'm done.....
One possible problem I can see, what happens if it fails. With a near 50% split down the party lines, what are the true chances of getting 2/3's majority for impeachment. Even as a form of documentation it could backfire if the attempt to be impeached fails. Wouldn't that end up documenting (to most Americans) that the Bush Administration has done no wrong?
I wonder what the legalities, of assuming you are on the shoulder of the road, would be of putting tacks/nails on the the shoulder in front and in back of your car and say an orange cone in front of them. when they come to tow your car they either would have to clear the tacks/nails or drive past the cones and run over them giving them a flat that then THEY would need a tow as well. This would at least buy you more time and possibly hit them with a bit of irony if they don't heed the warning cone? Knowing my luck I'd probably still be the one that gets in trouble some how but curious on thoughts...
I'm not a fan of Taft at all but I can say I have not seen anything on him being the worst Governor... even did a quick search and found nothing do ytou have a link or source?
He was wrong about three the answer is One, two, or all.
if one is marked every one sees that he is marked and they don't leave and that person leaves.
The next day if one more person is marked. every one sees but he may not know since one left. either he chooses to leave because he thinks that there is another one and it is him but if there is not another marked then everyone applies this logic and leaves or stays.
If more than 2 are marked on the first day then they stay thinking it's another. The next day everyone leaves.
This happens when unmarked people see two marked people and assume there is a third them with all unmarked using this logic everyone unmarked leaves
The two marked people assume that since the other didn't leave that they are marked too and leave.
He wan't thinking from the unmarked's perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
I would in general agree with your assessment BUT! there was this site called myspace that everyone was on at one point and then everyone seemed to switch to facebook. So it can and does happen. I think a couple of factors are involved. Myspace I think suffered for three reasons. 1. Too open. It allowed people to express creativity on their page but also allowed the world to see how bad people were at being creative. 2. Changes to mimic other social networks. As twitter and facebook gained some popularity they tried to copy it which allowed an easy transition to the other network and lest reason to stay. 3. Friendship paradigm shift. I think people add "friends" really fast for one reason or another and then time passes. They stop being friends or interesting and people instead of "un-friending" them just move to another network and build new friends leaving old ones behind and bring to ones they are still interested in with them.
I think Google was trying to wedge into the social scene because a few of these indicators were kind of showing on facebook. Facebook had a user decline more or less showing that the paradigm shift may be on the verge of happening. Facebook has a history of making changes which are not exactly popular but then people get used to them.
I think Google came out a little early and didn't have the platform attraction to convince people to switch over immediately (no apps, slightly high learning curve, more complicated asynchronous "friending" scheme, not-as-rich feature-set to the well established facebook). If Google is smart, they will keep developing it and make it more attractive to common users and in the future when people are ready to leave facebook (it will happen), google can position themselves as the new place "to be" like facebook did during Myspace's day.
I actually think the opposite should happen. I feel that sales tax should be the only tax we have. No income, property, use, or any other tax. My reasoning behind this is It will push the government who wants to make money to keep running itself, into a position where they want people to have jobs and spend money. Right now it seems that they make money off of any transaction and sometimes simply ownership creating a problem of the need for real problem solving.
Problem with straight income tax is that a few people can make a lot of money and the masses can make next to nothing and the government still gets a paycheck. So why should they fight to help the masses or make sure the system is fair for all?
Problem with Property tax is more of a fairness issue. I own the property why do I need to continue to pay taxes on it as if I'm re-buying it every year. As a system on exclusive taxing it *might* be alright. People with enough money and the desire to purchase land would pay the taxes while people that choose not to can rent. The more property you choose to own the more you get taxed. Secondary problem would possible be the land owners *may* gouge renters creating an unfair top-bottom system. Since taxes still get paid why should the government fight to fix the unfairness in the system.
Problem with sales tax is the tax rate would sky rocket but would be partially offset by the increase of tax free income. Necessities would still continue to need to be tax free but on luxuries, if you dont need it then to get it you have to earn for it somehow. There is a *possibility* that top income earners might buy lots of expensive items and pay enough to keep the system going themselves but the second they stop buying for any reason the government would notice and so the government would probably rather have the masses with money spending more regularly.
Right now it seems to me that the government has no real desire to fix problem but instead find another way to hide taking money from people creatively and hope we don't notice how they are taking it this time or how unfair it might be. People talk about getting double taxed, we are more than double taxed all the time. I want to own a house (from scratch). I hire a building crew (taxed) that buys materials (taxed) which transports the materials (taxed) after I bought the land (taxed) with money I earned from a job (taxed) but since I don't have all of it I pull out a loan (taxed) so I am required to have insurance (taxed) and while the property is owned I have to pay tax repeatedly on the value of it (taxed). I understand that not all these steps are necessary. I could save money and not pull a loan. I understand that without the loan I *probably* don't need to have insurance. I understand that there is a slight difference between a service rendered and an item being tax but since it is all part of one larger picture I figure it is worth mentioning as part of the taxing process.
Eventually, every system gets broken somehow (in my opinion usually greed is the root cause for failure). It would seem to me though that a sales tax can "do" only one thing better, create an environment where there would be the most incentive for the government to truly fix it when it gets broken.
If you look into their timetables, Black Hole creation is scheduled for December 21st, 2012.
Upper management has a new idea....
They are going to call it the "Ring" Idea.
This "Ring" idea will merge all of our Developer Tools/Languages/Frameworks into one sustainable object.
This one "Ring" idea can be rolled out into all companies and rule all IT departments.
You might be able to say it will allow companies to bind all their IT departments.
I mean what evil can there be in that?
Ok, I'm done.....
One possible problem I can see, what happens if it fails. With a near 50% split down the party lines, what are the true chances of getting 2/3's majority for impeachment. Even as a form of documentation it could backfire if the attempt to be impeached fails. Wouldn't that end up documenting (to most Americans) that the Bush Administration has done no wrong?
What are the chances of an undersea cable being cut?
I wonder what the legalities, of assuming you are on the shoulder of the road, would be of putting tacks/nails on the the shoulder in front and in back of your car and say an orange cone in front of them. when they come to tow your car they either would have to clear the tacks/nails or drive past the cones and run over them giving them a flat that then THEY would need a tow as well. This would at least buy you more time and possibly hit them with a bit of irony if they don't heed the warning cone? Knowing my luck I'd probably still be the one that gets in trouble some how but curious on thoughts...
I'm not a fan of Taft at all but I can say I have not seen anything on him being the worst Governor... even did a quick search and found nothing do ytou have a link or source?
He was wrong about three the answer is One, two, or all.
if one is marked every one sees that he is marked and they don't leave and that person leaves.
The next day if one more person is marked. every one sees but he may not know since one left. either he chooses to leave because he thinks that there is another one and it is him but if there is not another marked then everyone applies this logic and leaves or stays.
If more than 2 are marked on the first day then they stay thinking it's another. The next day everyone leaves.
This happens when unmarked people see two marked people and assume there is a third them with all unmarked using this logic everyone unmarked leaves
The two marked people assume that since the other didn't leave that they are marked too and leave.
He wan't thinking from the unmarked's perspective.