Actually, the government does a LOT more than roads, schools, and police. I think if it were that simple, we wouldn't all be up in arms about the government and what they are doing.
I think, perhaps, its time you grow up and start thinking about the real role of government nowadays and quit taking notes from your 7th grade civics class. The role of government in ordinary lives is FAR larger than it has been at any point in our country (sans WWI and WWII). I got news for you kid, it ain't just roads, schools, and police they are getting into....
This is a great example of how the free market works best. Years and years ago, we used to sit on/. and bitch about the Tier-1 carriers and their business practices. Fast-forward many moons and lo-and-behold, we find that the Tier-1 customers felt the same way. Imagine that!
So what do the content providers do? They simply route around the problem and do it themselves. Do they go complain to the government and ask for subsidies? No. Do they ask for new laws (that benefit them to the detriment of everyone else)? No.
This is exactly what should have happened in a capitalist economy.
For a bunch of internet geeks, I am surprised at how many anti-capitalists we have on this site. Capitalism is just like the internet in that it "routes around" damage. It used to be ruthlessly efficient back when we allowed companies to go bankrupt and customers to look elsewhere. Now that the government is into so many industries, I am not sure if that is the case anymore...but that is another discussion.
I, for one, welcome our new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers. They are shining example of what happens when a heavily regulated industry stops innovating and serving it's customers. Eventually, another solution will be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be. That's the free market at work.
You know, I have been a Dell customer for a LONG time. I typically buy about 5-10 PC's each year for my small company. Up until 2008, they have all been Dells.
This past year, during Vista, Dell quit selling Windows XP. I can't remember how long this went on before the market forced them to sell XP again but it was several months. During that time, it was impossible to get XP on any machine that Dell sold. No exceptions.
I remember talking to our account exec about XP and flat telling her that we could no longer do business if they only sold Vista. So we parted ways and I bought from another vendor. I have never, and will never, forget that conversation or these circumstances. Dell decided to "play the Vista game" and now they are paying the price. Plenty of business customers told Dell the exact same thing I told them but they continued to force Vista on people despite our calls for XP.
Sorry Michael. I went to school down there in Austin so I hold Dell close to my heart (even worked there for a few years during Win 95/Win98). But I can not buy from you after Vista. You chose not to give your customers what they wanted and now that they have revolted on you, you come back to beg. You should have had the guts to stand up back then and perhaps you could have helped your customers. Instead, you chose the party line and that's a shame.
It is no surprise to this observer that numbers are way down. That is what tends to happen when you stop serving your customers and instead, only serve your suppliers.
Businesses will go volume license
I see statements like this all the time on/.
I would just like to point out that most of the companies in this country are not big enough to bother with a volume license. If you have 25 ppl or less, it doesn't make a lot of sense unless you are a heavy MSFT shop or a development house or something. For the average sales business, copier business, dry cleaners, mechanics, or whatever.....they are not buying volume licensing from MSFT.
All of this to say: the retail prices matter. LOTS of business have no other choice than to pay retail. They just aren't big enough to do otherwise. And I can speak from experience when I say MSFT is losing MAJOR ground on this front. Over the years, they have managed to make it harder to do business with them. So lots of small companies are switching to free solutions. The same is just now beginning to happen with MS Office and I expect that trend to continue.
Let me get this right, for almost 39 weeks now, we've been seeing an additional 500,000 people unemployed every two weeks. I can't pick up a paper without reading about more layoffs...
Rather than answer the question, I'd like to pose another one: Why are headhunters even needed?
I am an employer. I can't imagine using a headhunter right now. Why? Because there are millions of people to choose from. I don't need help finding people at all. There are more jobs than people. Call me when there are more people than jobs. That's when I need (and will pay for) a headhunter. I am 100% certain I am not alone.
Methinks the headhunters are duping people into thinking there are more opportunities than there really are. I mean just stop for a second and think about the entire headhunting business: the employer pays a recruiter to go find him qualified candidates. Note, the employer pays for this service (usually 1 months salary, ymmv)
Who the hell is doing that right now? Answer: nobody.
It just an industry that is currently unnecessary. Surely, it will be needed again. But not for a while. Anyone using one to currently find a job is probably doing worse than they could do on their own. So the answer to TFA is: fire them now.
Honestly, following this marketing effort from MSFT is a bit like watching Nascar. I couldn't care less about the drivers or the cars but damn....there are some fine wipeouts to see.
It boggles the mind how something like this got out of the door. Seriously. Many of us here on/. work in corp environments and as much as we detest marketing-droids, at the end of the day, we realize their usefulness on some level.
I don't see that anywhere in this effort. It is so laughably bad, that I almost can't believe it's real. Puzzles? Cards? A party for an operating system? WTF is going on here? Is this serious? Or am I being punk'd? Where's Ashton?
Re:Extra! Extra! Read here for the scoop!
on
Why Games Cost $60
·
· Score: 1
The article asked why games cost $60. It did not ask "what considerations do publishers go through to arrive at the $60 price point?". At the end of the day, when you cut through all the marketing BS, ALL pricing is established by the market. There are no exceptions, even for monopolies, because people always have the right NOT to buy a product. So even monopolies have to be responsive to the market when they set their prices.
I do, however, find it hilarious that the marketing droids of the world have somehow convinced everyone that it is more complicated than supply and demand. I understand that companies want to try to affect the price point - and they can (through quality or other criteria) - but at the end of the day, the fair market value of their widget (ie: the price) is established when you have a willing buyer and a willing seller. Everything else is 100% superficial and nothing more than an emotional attempt to sway the price at which you are willing to buy.
Here, let me quickly run down your list:
market research -- yep, everyone does it. It is surely a factor.
Trial and error -- yes, a little bit of trial and error too. It is surely a factor.
Deviations? -- yes, there is a "grey" market and the publishers don't like it. They are surely a factor.
Sony/MSFT -- they play a large factor because they are large suppliers in this industry
Price/quality -- ok, this is legit. This would be a good study and worthy of further effort. Perhaps this is what the article should have been about
Historical pricing -- doesn't really matter. Past history is no indication, etc, etc
Again, the article asked, "Why are games priced at $60?". Answer: because that is all the market will pay for games. If the market was willing to pay more, then publishers would surely increase prices. And if there were more games at $70 than people wanted/needed...then the price would come back down to $60. Supply and demand.
Extra! Extra! Read here for the scoop!
on
Why Games Cost $60
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why do games cost $60? Because that is what the market will pay.
Does this even need to be discussed? Are we really that retarded with our understanding of economics? Do we not understand the very simple concept of supply and demand?
First, morphing into a shit-soaked riot zone would be a vast improvement for New York City....
(I kid, I kid. I couldn't resist.)
But more seriously, what makes you think there is a "we" to pay for toilets, police, or whatever else you think is necessary. What if it's just a bunch of people who want change? Look around the world. It used to happen all the time. Who paid for the orange revolution over in Ukraine?
Nobody, that's who. But keep following those rules and filing for permits...
I don't understand how you can be for free speech and then in the same breath, recommend that one would need a "permit" to assemble, regardless of the reason. Have you ever read the bill of rights? Hint: check out the first one. There is no requirement to reimburse the state or any other agency for "services used". That excuse is a simpletons attempt to control what is happening. It gives them the excuse they need to say No - and that's just what it is...an excuse.
You are advocating, in some instances, to request a permit from the very people you are protesting against. Does that not seem contradictory to you?
Sorry but I don't care. We need cars where I live.
This is one of those irrational areas that I mentioned in my previous post. You think it's possible to "go without cars", yet, you know nothing about where I live. Lots and lots of places are structured so that it really isn't feasible to do what you mention.
Go ahead and try to live in McKinney, Texas without a car. I give you 2 weeks at most before you go nuts. Either that or you will become a shut-in because you can't get anywhere.
Yea, ok, the metric is wonky but the point still stands. This kind of performance changes the economic value game. And just so you know....GM estimates about $.03/mile as a cost going forward.
It's stunning enough that many people (not just me) are sitting here thinking "Do I want to spend $25K on a car and then buy all the gas, etc? Or do I want to spend $40k on a Volt and have orders of magnitude less costs going forward?"
It's an interesting question for those of us who are looking at green from an economic rationality point of view. That's a breath of fresh air because most of the other green crap can't be made to payback. Instead, they rely on your heartstrings and "civic duty". Hint: when you have to justify things with emotional arguments, then you usually have no argument. It's like matching wits with an unarmed man.
I'll say it again...if this is the real deal, then it truly is a game changer.
At 230 MPG, this changes the economic formula for "value". At those energy consumption rates, perhaps a higher initial cost will be more than offset by the much lower fuel costs.
That is, if the 230 MPG is accurate. If it is, however, it's a game changer. Nobody expected this kind of performance when the Volt was initially announced. I say congrats to GM.
...but it does make me wonder how they were able to accomplish such a feat in so little time. What else are they hiding in that R&D lab?
I can access WAY more controls via my keyboard/nostromo and my multi-button gaming mouse. This allows me to be more effective at the games I am playing. Anyone who has played a FPS on a console vs PC will know exactly what I mean. It is not even close.
There will always be a place for PC gaming because of this fact.
...or, perhaps last week was a short trading week which cut into the already-low trading volume. Did you by chance compare the overall volume levels when you came up with your theory?
I am betting you didn't because if you had, you'd see that the volume last week was way lower than the norm.
More likely, lots of GS traders just took the week off and went on vacation.
My first suggestion would be to make working out a priority. By that, I mean get into a mindframe where you will do whatever it takes to get a workout in each day. To the point that it is unacceptable to you if you don't. It has to be at least the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most important thing to you each and every day. No exceptions.
Once that happens, you will start getting creative about when and where you can work out. You'll be surprised how much time you can actually find once you put serious thought and effort to it.
I travel a lot and I face many of the same problems you do. The first step to getting any kind of normal pattern going is to work out whenever and wherever you can and be flexible about how you work out. If it's a high priority, then it will pre-empt many many other things. That's OK. In fact, it's kind of the point. It's precisely what I mean by making it a priority -- it has to be important enough that you can't imagine not doing it.
If it's a "choice" each day, then you won't be consistent and most likely, you won't make it a month. But if it's a non-optional thing for you, then I think you'll FIND a way to make it happen. Whether that means you jog to work each day or not....you'll find a way.
Corporate taxes are bullshit, plain and simple. They are nothing more than a ruse to get the gullible public to go along with MORE taxes.
Corporations are owned by people. They are just like a bike or a house. They are an asset. And when you sell them -- you must pay taxes on your capital gain (if applicable). You also have to pay taxes on any dividend the corporation pays you as the owner (taxes are paid as part of your income tax). All of this is already part of the US tax code.
Someone please explain how ANY kind of tax on corporate profits IS NOT double taxation? I don't pay a "use" tax on my bike once I have bought and paid for it. Yet, we demand a tax from corporate profits, even though all monies will eventually get to the owners and they will be taxed on that money.
For some reason, we act like corporations are somekind of special entities. They are not. ALL of them are owned by someone(s). No exceptions. All of the money, value, and assets of a corporation are already accounted for inside of an individual's personal finances.
the option of letting people purchase out of state and duck paying sales tax
I'd just like to point out that the premise of your comment is incorrect. People doing mail order are still liable for state sales tax. It's just most of them choose to break the law and not report the sales tax since it is a self policing system.
Your contention that sales tax can be avoided is incorrect. Legally, it can not be avoided and you are supposed to claim it on your state tax returns.
What do you bet TPB puts up geographic walls in the near future? As in, "sorry, this product is not available in your country".
That seems to be the authorities response to the internet's "route around censorship" philosophy. And it appears to be fairly effective, thus far - as evidenced by many foreign posts on slashdot of users having problems with iTunes, Hulu, or whatever.
Let's see some evidence of that, please. It is not a forgone conclusion that inflation will happen. While it's fun and easy to soundbite the problem, the subject is much more complicated than just saying "the money supply increased by a lot, therefore we will have inflation".
It is a careful balancing act the Fed is trying to do. They want to keep enough money "out there" to recover, but they are planning to "remove" it as soon as things recover so we can avoid inflation. Again, it's a balancing act they are attempting...
Time will tell whether or not they are successful. For now, we see no signs of inflation at all and that should hold true for 2009/2010 at least. Longer if they get it right. And possibly no inflation at all if they pull off a miracle.
But my premise holds: it is not a forgone conclusion that we will have inflation simply because the money supply grew. Anyone saying otherwise is being hopelessly simplistic about it.
LOL...no, I don't have my own personal garden. It's an old home (1946) and I have a lot of PC's/elect equipment in there. So many that I trip my ancient breakers from time to time if a vacuum cleaner is plugged into the wrong port.
I am a bit surprised at the reaction to my numbers. They aren't at all unusual for where I live and yes, I have asked around and compared. I guess California is more expensive for the same amount of power. Color me unsurprised since they haven't built a power plant in that state for over 20+ years....
We have plenty of power and plenty of power plants where I am. Power, just isn't an issue at the moment. It's extremely cheap...
While I am impressed at this project, all it proves to me is that solar is a LONG way off from a practical, cost effective implementation. Take a look at how much electricity was generated out of his system each month. He says numbers anywhere from 258 KWh (Dec) up to around 1100 KWh (July).
Last month (May), I used about 2500 KWh in my 2000 sq ft home. Yes, I am sure I can be more energy conscious but as you can see, the solar panels would hardly make a dent in my electricity bill compared to the initial investment cost. And what if it's cloudy like the recent 25 straight days of rain we had in May? Heck, 2500 KWh is not even my worst month. We still have July and August coming up. I can easily hit 3500 KWh during those months.
What that tells me is this: No matter how you slice it, the electric company in my area produces cheap electricity a LOT easier than I can on my rooftop.
The other two things I noticed are: 1) he consumes an unusually low amount of energy and 2) PG&E is screwing it's customers with those rates he lists. Wow. Go build some power plants, people. Your NIMBY attitude is making it more expensive.
I looked at the Clear Pass program. It's a waste of money as far as I can tell. Basically, as I understand it, you get to pay $200/yr for....wait for it.....a special line where you can go through the exact same security procedures as the other non clear pass lines.
It begs the question: why bother? Which is why I am sure they are having trouble attracting customers.
I travel enough that an expedited security procedure would be helpful. However I can't see *any* value in this program. Apparently, I am not alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the government does a LOT more than roads, schools, and police. I think if it were that simple, we wouldn't all be up in arms about the government and what they are doing.
I think, perhaps, its time you grow up and start thinking about the real role of government nowadays and quit taking notes from your 7th grade civics class. The role of government in ordinary lives is FAR larger than it has been at any point in our country (sans WWI and WWII). I got news for you kid, it ain't just roads, schools, and police they are getting into....
This is a great example of how the free market works best. Years and years ago, we used to sit on /. and bitch about the Tier-1 carriers and their business practices. Fast-forward many moons and lo-and-behold, we find that the Tier-1 customers felt the same way. Imagine that!
So what do the content providers do? They simply route around the problem and do it themselves. Do they go complain to the government and ask for subsidies? No. Do they ask for new laws (that benefit them to the detriment of everyone else)? No.
This is exactly what should have happened in a capitalist economy.
For a bunch of internet geeks, I am surprised at how many anti-capitalists we have on this site. Capitalism is just like the internet in that it "routes around" damage. It used to be ruthlessly efficient back when we allowed companies to go bankrupt and customers to look elsewhere. Now that the government is into so many industries, I am not sure if that is the case anymore...but that is another discussion.
I, for one, welcome our new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers. They are shining example of what happens when a heavily regulated industry stops innovating and serving it's customers. Eventually, another solution will be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be. That's the free market at work.
You know, I have been a Dell customer for a LONG time. I typically buy about 5-10 PC's each year for my small company. Up until 2008, they have all been Dells.
This past year, during Vista, Dell quit selling Windows XP. I can't remember how long this went on before the market forced them to sell XP again but it was several months. During that time, it was impossible to get XP on any machine that Dell sold. No exceptions.
I remember talking to our account exec about XP and flat telling her that we could no longer do business if they only sold Vista. So we parted ways and I bought from another vendor. I have never, and will never, forget that conversation or these circumstances. Dell decided to "play the Vista game" and now they are paying the price. Plenty of business customers told Dell the exact same thing I told them but they continued to force Vista on people despite our calls for XP.
Sorry Michael. I went to school down there in Austin so I hold Dell close to my heart (even worked there for a few years during Win 95/Win98). But I can not buy from you after Vista. You chose not to give your customers what they wanted and now that they have revolted on you, you come back to beg. You should have had the guts to stand up back then and perhaps you could have helped your customers. Instead, you chose the party line and that's a shame.
It is no surprise to this observer that numbers are way down. That is what tends to happen when you stop serving your customers and instead, only serve your suppliers.
Businesses will go volume license /.
I see statements like this all the time on
I would just like to point out that most of the companies in this country are not big enough to bother with a volume license. If you have 25 ppl or less, it doesn't make a lot of sense unless you are a heavy MSFT shop or a development house or something. For the average sales business, copier business, dry cleaners, mechanics, or whatever.....they are not buying volume licensing from MSFT.
All of this to say: the retail prices matter. LOTS of business have no other choice than to pay retail. They just aren't big enough to do otherwise. And I can speak from experience when I say MSFT is losing MAJOR ground on this front. Over the years, they have managed to make it harder to do business with them. So lots of small companies are switching to free solutions. The same is just now beginning to happen with MS Office and I expect that trend to continue.
d'oh...got it backwards. That's what I get for posting late on Fridays
Let me get this right, for almost 39 weeks now, we've been seeing an additional 500,000 people unemployed every two weeks. I can't pick up a paper without reading about more layoffs...
Rather than answer the question, I'd like to pose another one: Why are headhunters even needed?
I am an employer. I can't imagine using a headhunter right now. Why? Because there are millions of people to choose from. I don't need help finding people at all. There are more jobs than people. Call me when there are more people than jobs. That's when I need (and will pay for) a headhunter. I am 100% certain I am not alone.
Methinks the headhunters are duping people into thinking there are more opportunities than there really are. I mean just stop for a second and think about the entire headhunting business: the employer pays a recruiter to go find him qualified candidates. Note, the employer pays for this service (usually 1 months salary, ymmv)
Who the hell is doing that right now? Answer: nobody.
It just an industry that is currently unnecessary. Surely, it will be needed again. But not for a while. Anyone using one to currently find a job is probably doing worse than they could do on their own. So the answer to TFA is: fire them now.
Honestly, following this marketing effort from MSFT is a bit like watching Nascar. I couldn't care less about the drivers or the cars but damn....there are some fine wipeouts to see.
/. work in corp environments and as much as we detest marketing-droids, at the end of the day, we realize their usefulness on some level.
It boggles the mind how something like this got out of the door. Seriously. Many of us here on
I don't see that anywhere in this effort. It is so laughably bad, that I almost can't believe it's real. Puzzles? Cards? A party for an operating system? WTF is going on here? Is this serious? Or am I being punk'd? Where's Ashton?
The article asked why games cost $60. It did not ask "what considerations do publishers go through to arrive at the $60 price point?". At the end of the day, when you cut through all the marketing BS, ALL pricing is established by the market. There are no exceptions, even for monopolies, because people always have the right NOT to buy a product. So even monopolies have to be responsive to the market when they set their prices.
I do, however, find it hilarious that the marketing droids of the world have somehow convinced everyone that it is more complicated than supply and demand. I understand that companies want to try to affect the price point - and they can (through quality or other criteria) - but at the end of the day, the fair market value of their widget (ie: the price) is established when you have a willing buyer and a willing seller. Everything else is 100% superficial and nothing more than an emotional attempt to sway the price at which you are willing to buy.
Here, let me quickly run down your list:
market research -- yep, everyone does it. It is surely a factor.
Trial and error -- yes, a little bit of trial and error too. It is surely a factor.
Deviations? -- yes, there is a "grey" market and the publishers don't like it. They are surely a factor.
Sony/MSFT -- they play a large factor because they are large suppliers in this industry
Price/quality -- ok, this is legit. This would be a good study and worthy of further effort. Perhaps this is what the article should have been about
Historical pricing -- doesn't really matter. Past history is no indication, etc, etc
Again, the article asked, "Why are games priced at $60?". Answer: because that is all the market will pay for games. If the market was willing to pay more, then publishers would surely increase prices. And if there were more games at $70 than people wanted/needed...then the price would come back down to $60. Supply and demand.
Why do games cost $60? Because that is what the market will pay.
...sometimes I wonder
Does this even need to be discussed? Are we really that retarded with our understanding of economics? Do we not understand the very simple concept of supply and demand?
First, morphing into a shit-soaked riot zone would be a vast improvement for New York City....
(I kid, I kid. I couldn't resist.)
But more seriously, what makes you think there is a "we" to pay for toilets, police, or whatever else you think is necessary. What if it's just a bunch of people who want change? Look around the world. It used to happen all the time. Who paid for the orange revolution over in Ukraine?
Nobody, that's who. But keep following those rules and filing for permits...
I don't understand how you can be for free speech and then in the same breath, recommend that one would need a "permit" to assemble, regardless of the reason. Have you ever read the bill of rights? Hint: check out the first one. There is no requirement to reimburse the state or any other agency for "services used". That excuse is a simpletons attempt to control what is happening. It gives them the excuse they need to say No - and that's just what it is...an excuse.
You are advocating, in some instances, to request a permit from the very people you are protesting against. Does that not seem contradictory to you?
Sorry but I don't care. We need cars where I live.
This is one of those irrational areas that I mentioned in my previous post. You think it's possible to "go without cars", yet, you know nothing about where I live. Lots and lots of places are structured so that it really isn't feasible to do what you mention.
Go ahead and try to live in McKinney, Texas without a car. I give you 2 weeks at most before you go nuts. Either that or you will become a shut-in because you can't get anywhere.
Yea, ok, the metric is wonky but the point still stands. This kind of performance changes the economic value game. And just so you know....GM estimates about $.03/mile as a cost going forward.
It's stunning enough that many people (not just me) are sitting here thinking "Do I want to spend $25K on a car and then buy all the gas, etc? Or do I want to spend $40k on a Volt and have orders of magnitude less costs going forward?"
It's an interesting question for those of us who are looking at green from an economic rationality point of view. That's a breath of fresh air because most of the other green crap can't be made to payback. Instead, they rely on your heartstrings and "civic duty". Hint: when you have to justify things with emotional arguments, then you usually have no argument. It's like matching wits with an unarmed man.
I'll say it again...if this is the real deal, then it truly is a game changer.
At 230 MPG, this changes the economic formula for "value". At those energy consumption rates, perhaps a higher initial cost will be more than offset by the much lower fuel costs.
...but it does make me wonder how they were able to accomplish such a feat in so little time. What else are they hiding in that R&D lab?
That is, if the 230 MPG is accurate. If it is, however, it's a game changer. Nobody expected this kind of performance when the Volt was initially announced. I say congrats to GM.
Keyboards and specialized mice.
I can access WAY more controls via my keyboard/nostromo and my multi-button gaming mouse. This allows me to be more effective at the games I am playing. Anyone who has played a FPS on a console vs PC will know exactly what I mean. It is not even close.
There will always be a place for PC gaming because of this fact.
...or, perhaps last week was a short trading week which cut into the already-low trading volume. Did you by chance compare the overall volume levels when you came up with your theory?
I am betting you didn't because if you had, you'd see that the volume last week was way lower than the norm.
More likely, lots of GS traders just took the week off and went on vacation.
My first suggestion would be to make working out a priority. By that, I mean get into a mindframe where you will do whatever it takes to get a workout in each day. To the point that it is unacceptable to you if you don't. It has to be at least the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most important thing to you each and every day. No exceptions.
Once that happens, you will start getting creative about when and where you can work out. You'll be surprised how much time you can actually find once you put serious thought and effort to it.
I travel a lot and I face many of the same problems you do. The first step to getting any kind of normal pattern going is to work out whenever and wherever you can and be flexible about how you work out. If it's a high priority, then it will pre-empt many many other things. That's OK. In fact, it's kind of the point. It's precisely what I mean by making it a priority -- it has to be important enough that you can't imagine not doing it.
If it's a "choice" each day, then you won't be consistent and most likely, you won't make it a month. But if it's a non-optional thing for you, then I think you'll FIND a way to make it happen. Whether that means you jog to work each day or not....you'll find a way.
Corporate taxes are bullshit, plain and simple. They are nothing more than a ruse to get the gullible public to go along with MORE taxes.
Corporations are owned by people. They are just like a bike or a house. They are an asset. And when you sell them -- you must pay taxes on your capital gain (if applicable). You also have to pay taxes on any dividend the corporation pays you as the owner (taxes are paid as part of your income tax). All of this is already part of the US tax code.
Someone please explain how ANY kind of tax on corporate profits IS NOT double taxation? I don't pay a "use" tax on my bike once I have bought and paid for it. Yet, we demand a tax from corporate profits, even though all monies will eventually get to the owners and they will be taxed on that money.
For some reason, we act like corporations are somekind of special entities. They are not. ALL of them are owned by someone(s). No exceptions. All of the money, value, and assets of a corporation are already accounted for inside of an individual's personal finances.
the option of letting people purchase out of state and duck paying sales tax
I'd just like to point out that the premise of your comment is incorrect. People doing mail order are still liable for state sales tax. It's just most of them choose to break the law and not report the sales tax since it is a self policing system.
Your contention that sales tax can be avoided is incorrect. Legally, it can not be avoided and you are supposed to claim it on your state tax returns.
What do you bet TPB puts up geographic walls in the near future? As in, "sorry, this product is not available in your country".
That seems to be the authorities response to the internet's "route around censorship" philosophy. And it appears to be fairly effective, thus far - as evidenced by many foreign posts on slashdot of users having problems with iTunes, Hulu, or whatever.
Let's see some evidence of that, please. It is not a forgone conclusion that inflation will happen. While it's fun and easy to soundbite the problem, the subject is much more complicated than just saying "the money supply increased by a lot, therefore we will have inflation".
It is a careful balancing act the Fed is trying to do. They want to keep enough money "out there" to recover, but they are planning to "remove" it as soon as things recover so we can avoid inflation. Again, it's a balancing act they are attempting...
Time will tell whether or not they are successful. For now, we see no signs of inflation at all and that should hold true for 2009/2010 at least. Longer if they get it right. And possibly no inflation at all if they pull off a miracle.
But my premise holds: it is not a forgone conclusion that we will have inflation simply because the money supply grew. Anyone saying otherwise is being hopelessly simplistic about it.
LOL...no, I don't have my own personal garden. It's an old home (1946) and I have a lot of PC's/elect equipment in there. So many that I trip my ancient breakers from time to time if a vacuum cleaner is plugged into the wrong port.
I am a bit surprised at the reaction to my numbers. They aren't at all unusual for where I live and yes, I have asked around and compared. I guess California is more expensive for the same amount of power. Color me unsurprised since they haven't built a power plant in that state for over 20+ years....
We have plenty of power and plenty of power plants where I am. Power, just isn't an issue at the moment. It's extremely cheap...
Tax free municipal bonds currently pay around 4-5%.
So no...taxes aren't the problem. GP post still stands. Compound interest must be considered.
While I am impressed at this project, all it proves to me is that solar is a LONG way off from a practical, cost effective implementation. Take a look at how much electricity was generated out of his system each month. He says numbers anywhere from 258 KWh (Dec) up to around 1100 KWh (July).
Last month (May), I used about 2500 KWh in my 2000 sq ft home. Yes, I am sure I can be more energy conscious but as you can see, the solar panels would hardly make a dent in my electricity bill compared to the initial investment cost. And what if it's cloudy like the recent 25 straight days of rain we had in May? Heck, 2500 KWh is not even my worst month. We still have July and August coming up. I can easily hit 3500 KWh during those months.
What that tells me is this: No matter how you slice it, the electric company in my area produces cheap electricity a LOT easier than I can on my rooftop.
The other two things I noticed are: 1) he consumes an unusually low amount of energy and 2) PG&E is screwing it's customers with those rates he lists. Wow. Go build some power plants, people. Your NIMBY attitude is making it more expensive.
I looked at the Clear Pass program. It's a waste of money as far as I can tell. Basically, as I understand it, you get to pay $200/yr for....wait for it.....a special line where you can go through the exact same security procedures as the other non clear pass lines.
It begs the question: why bother? Which is why I am sure they are having trouble attracting customers.
I travel enough that an expedited security procedure would be helpful. However I can't see *any* value in this program. Apparently, I am not alone.