Apple tries to prevent people from using OS X on other hardware at any price. So even if this "Mac Tax" were real, Microsoft would still be treating people far better than Apple does.
Their plan mitigates the regressive nature of a sales tax, but it does not make it progressive. At best, it's a flat tax. Assuming everyone above the poverty level spend a similar percentage of their income on taxable goods, it would be a flat tax (everyone pays the same percentage of their income in tax). However, people tend to spend less of their income on taxable goods as their income rises because they have the basics covered. Higher income earners direct a larger percentage of their income into investments which would not be taxable under this scheme.
If this plan were implemented, the middle and lower middle class would end up bearing a far heavier tax burden.
Various bittorrent clients implemented encryption because of ISPs trying to tell their customers what they could use the bandwidth they had purchased for.
If we had strong network neutrality legislation, it wouldn't have been necessary.
Wouldn't it make *much* more sense to standardize on mobi.domain.tld? I don't see any reason for a separate tld for this, other than to make registrars money?
Wikipedia is not a good source for settling disagreements. It's frankly awful at handling any controversial topic, as my experience with it's editing process leads me to believe it uses a "survival of the most persistent" model.
I wasn't arguing that command economies were particularly successfully, just that they were more successful than unregulated economies. Pre New Deal America is one example, which caused the Great Depression.
Unregulated markets are not free markets, because free markets do not exist.
You don't know very much about economic history. Unregulated markets have been demonstrated as a complete failure, more so than even command economies.
When regulating an economy, you shouldn't concern yourself with how lax or restrictive you are to business. You should consider the costs and outcomes of an action, and act accordingly.
In this case, are we better off allowing manufacturers to set retail prices? I would say no; it inflates cost and adds no value..
A "free" market is one without external controls, governmental or otherwise. It's can be useful in a thought experiment, but has no more bearing on the real world than frictionless surfaces.
Free markets are not very good at achieving wealth for anyone except whoever wrestles control of it. Even full on Soviet style command economies can do better. The best method we've tried, and what every developed nation uses, is a regulated market.
Don't worry, "free" market thinking is full of them. A "free" market cannot remain "free" without intervention, otherwise various groups will collude and cajole the market under their control.
Free markets are a fiction economists have cooked up. They don't, and can't, exist in the real world.
Further, the October Crisis also supports my position, as the FLQ not only failed in all their goals, but led the Quebec sovereignty movement to universally renounce the use of violence.
Canada, along with most other stable democracies, changes gradually and peacefully. Violent civic upheaval leads to long stagnant periods without change, segmented by another violent upheaval. Revolutionary societies such as the USSR and the USA are neither healthy nor stable.
The availability of music, movies, and TV shows has been around as long as computers have been capable of displaying them, though the technologies used have changed many times. Software much longer.
The margin on computer gear isn't large enough to bear shipping costs. Non speciality gear can be had for much lower than online prices in any major city.
Online banking isn't much younger than the web, but that might be a Canadian/US difference. Usian banking technology has always lagged way, way behind.
Google was a university project. It would almost certainly still have happened, though it wouldn't have become a profitable corporation aiding Chinese government censorship.
Don't take this to mean that I don't think the September that never ended wasn't good overall. We'd almost certainly not have cheap broadband, or the beginning of universal wireless coverage, among other things. It was not, however, "a primitive, dark place" in any sense.
Having the internet available to everyone is great, but I don't think it's all that big of a deal that the last 1/3 aren't interested. If anything, it's encouraging that it's that low. These numbers would be more useful compared with others, such as the percentage who choose not to read.
As you're still responding, trying to sooth your bruised ego. If you don't see yourself being frequently mocked, you either avoid intelligent people, or it just goes over your head.
I don't have a superiority complex. There are many people more intelligent and educated than me. You're just not one of them. That's ok. The world needs ditch diggers too. Just don't pretend you're anything more until you're willing to earn it.
You don't know what reading comprehension level is, do you?
You've made it quite clear that you don't wish to absorb knowledge. At this point, I'm making fun of you, and have been for some time. If you look carefully, I imagine you'll find this a common theme in your life.
You have a 10th grade reading comprehension. Anything more than that, you haven't absorbed. Secondary schools won't fail anyone who attends any more, so you most likely graduated from one. Beyond that, anything you have you purchased, and it was a waste of your time and money.
I can know for sure based on your responses here. Raw intelligence can be difficult to determine, but level of education isn't. That you're unable to distinguish between the two is telling. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, everyone starts out that way. Wilfully rebuking knowledge is another thing. As is flinging your own feces.
I've given you several pushes in the right direction to educate yourself, and you've scoffed at them. I'm not going to force feed you, if you don't want to educate yourself, so be it. I appear arrogant to you because we are not peers, and I don't particularly care about you. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through basic understanding.
Again, take a basic class on the philosophy of science, or ask a librarian to help you find literature suited to your level of understanding. Be warned that you'll have to be humble and show initiative in either case, as librarians are educated people who won't listen to your blathering, and will expect you to do your own reading.
MSNBC is not a reputable scientific journal. You did not read or understand that study, you relied on a lay abstract prepared by a non specialist. It doesn't claim what you think it does, in fact it is almost diametrically opposed to your point.
What I've run out of is patience for an uneducated buffoon who shows no interest in improving himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple tries to prevent people from using OS X on other hardware at any price. So even if this "Mac Tax" were real, Microsoft would still be treating people far better than Apple does.
Most programming languages are designed by and for English speakers. Most comments in public code are in English.
What's the "Dell penalty" that Apple charges for running OS X on an Inspiron?
If anything, this only shows how Microsoft is far less predatory and monopolistic than Apple.
Their plan mitigates the regressive nature of a sales tax, but it does not make it progressive. At best, it's a flat tax. Assuming everyone above the poverty level spend a similar percentage of their income on taxable goods, it would be a flat tax (everyone pays the same percentage of their income in tax). However, people tend to spend less of their income on taxable goods as their income rises because they have the basics covered. Higher income earners direct a larger percentage of their income into investments which would not be taxable under this scheme.
If this plan were implemented, the middle and lower middle class would end up bearing a far heavier tax burden.
Various bittorrent clients implemented encryption because of ISPs trying to tell their customers what they could use the bandwidth they had purchased for.
If we had strong network neutrality legislation, it wouldn't have been necessary.
Is written specifically and deliberately to block inclusion in GPL works, why should the GPL community make any concessions for the BSD community?
Wouldn't it make *much* more sense to standardize on mobi.domain.tld? I don't see any reason for a separate tld for this, other than to make registrars money?
-1 Spam.
Neutral fish dog squat salt the beer.
Most combinations of words have no meaning.
Wikipedia is not a good source for settling disagreements. It's frankly awful at handling any controversial topic, as my experience with it's editing process leads me to believe it uses a "survival of the most persistent" model.
I wasn't arguing that command economies were particularly successfully, just that they were more successful than unregulated economies. Pre New Deal America is one example, which caused the Great Depression.
Unregulated markets are not free markets, because free markets do not exist.
Do not cite it.
You don't know very much about economic history. Unregulated markets have been demonstrated as a complete failure, more so than even command economies.
When regulating an economy, you shouldn't concern yourself with how lax or restrictive you are to business. You should consider the costs and outcomes of an action, and act accordingly.
In this case, are we better off allowing manufacturers to set retail prices? I would say no; it inflates cost and adds no value..
You don't seem to have a coherent point in there.
A "free" market is one without external controls, governmental or otherwise. It's can be useful in a thought experiment, but has no more bearing on the real world than frictionless surfaces.
Free markets are not very good at achieving wealth for anyone except whoever wrestles control of it. Even full on Soviet style command economies can do better. The best method we've tried, and what every developed nation uses, is a regulated market.
Don't worry, "free" market thinking is full of them. A "free" market cannot remain "free" without intervention, otherwise various groups will collude and cajole the market under their control.
Free markets are a fiction economists have cooked up. They don't, and can't, exist in the real world.
All those little demos and advertisements pay into Dell. So, yes, Dell is being paid to load windows.
The Quiet Revolution preceded the October Crisis.
Further, the October Crisis also supports my position, as the FLQ not only failed in all their goals, but led the Quebec sovereignty movement to universally renounce the use of violence.
There's a reason it was called the quiet revolution.
Canada, along with most other stable democracies, changes gradually and peacefully. Violent civic upheaval leads to long stagnant periods without change, segmented by another violent upheaval. Revolutionary societies such as the USSR and the USA are neither healthy nor stable.
Cell phones can be turned off, you know.
The availability of music, movies, and TV shows has been around as long as computers have been capable of displaying them, though the technologies used have changed many times. Software much longer.
The margin on computer gear isn't large enough to bear shipping costs. Non speciality gear can be had for much lower than online prices in any major city.
Online banking isn't much younger than the web, but that might be a Canadian/US difference. Usian banking technology has always lagged way, way behind.
Google was a university project. It would almost certainly still have happened, though it wouldn't have become a profitable corporation aiding Chinese government censorship.
Don't take this to mean that I don't think the September that never ended wasn't good overall. We'd almost certainly not have cheap broadband, or the beginning of universal wireless coverage, among other things. It was not, however, "a primitive, dark place" in any sense.
Having the internet available to everyone is great, but I don't think it's all that big of a deal that the last 1/3 aren't interested. If anything, it's encouraging that it's that low. These numbers would be more useful compared with others, such as the percentage who choose not to read.
As you're still responding, trying to sooth your bruised ego. If you don't see yourself being frequently mocked, you either avoid intelligent people, or it just goes over your head.
I don't have a superiority complex. There are many people more intelligent and educated than me. You're just not one of them. That's ok. The world needs ditch diggers too. Just don't pretend you're anything more until you're willing to earn it.
You don't know what reading comprehension level is, do you?
You've made it quite clear that you don't wish to absorb knowledge. At this point, I'm making fun of you, and have been for some time. If you look carefully, I imagine you'll find this a common theme in your life.
You have a 10th grade reading comprehension. Anything more than that, you haven't absorbed. Secondary schools won't fail anyone who attends any more, so you most likely graduated from one. Beyond that, anything you have you purchased, and it was a waste of your time and money.
I can know for sure based on your responses here. Raw intelligence can be difficult to determine, but level of education isn't. That you're unable to distinguish between the two is telling. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, everyone starts out that way. Wilfully rebuking knowledge is another thing. As is flinging your own feces.
I've given you several pushes in the right direction to educate yourself, and you've scoffed at them. I'm not going to force feed you, if you don't want to educate yourself, so be it. I appear arrogant to you because we are not peers, and I don't particularly care about you. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through basic understanding.
Again, take a basic class on the philosophy of science, or ask a librarian to help you find literature suited to your level of understanding. Be warned that you'll have to be humble and show initiative in either case, as librarians are educated people who won't listen to your blathering, and will expect you to do your own reading.
MSNBC is not a reputable scientific journal. You did not read or understand that study, you relied on a lay abstract prepared by a non specialist. It doesn't claim what you think it does, in fact it is almost diametrically opposed to your point.
What I've run out of is patience for an uneducated buffoon who shows no interest in improving himself.