Truth be told, I have already implemented this for my companies as well - I was going after the "funny" crowd with this post...
The problem you get with forwarding is that server A gets an email from fred, checks SPF and fred is OK. Then it forwards the email to fred's blackberry account on server B (possibly in a different company). Server B checks SPF on fred, and finds that server A (the originator) is not allowed to send mail for fred, so it drops the transaction.
To fix this, you have to mangle fred's email address as you bounce the message. But that introduces other problems...
It is not as simple as it seems. Email is really a huge mess!
1. Hotmail starts requiring Sender-ID. 2. Hotmail usership drops slightly. 3. Microsoft employees start calling customer service of your company complaining about not getting email (even if they are not your customers) 4. The word gets to your management. 5. Your management requires you to implement Sender-ID. 6. ??? (You have to buy an Exchange server to comply) 7. Profit! (For Microsoft...)
Very true, but an investor is primarily interested in the 5% number, because that is money coming in the door. The 16% number is the people most likely to be translated into the 5%.
An interesting (pointless) fact: the 16% means that most people probably own their mac 3 years before purchasing a new one.
The reason the market value dropped is pretty straight-forward. Standard MBA thought is that Apple's value proposition is to offer a very different, high priced computer system. Changing to a commodity CPU hurts that value proposition.
I tend to agree - if Apple is to survive this, they better have a VERY different architecture under the hood than your standard PC. People buy Macs to be different, because they see themselves elevated above others by the purchase (and for other reasons too, of course). Going to commodity hardware puts their market at serious risk.
Of course, 5% isn't that big a change - in general investors believe that Jobs knows what he is doing...
People (well, slashdot people) really underestimate the value of brand recognition. Red Hat will make money because for a large class of people when they think Linux the first two names are Red Hat and IBM. Most people do not go looking for all the variants to find the best one (or the cheapest), they choose based on name recognition - because that is easier, and there is an underlying assumption that if everyone else is using it, they must be doing something right.
Red Hat and IBM own this space. (Of course, the sell to VERY different clients) Breaking in to an existing market is very difficult - and competing on price is a very bad idea, in general. (Among other things, it means that the clients you attract care only about price, which is the most difficult advantage to maintain!)
The immigrants will stop having kids just like the nonimigrants did - you are just pushing the problem out a few years, while giving power to a third party.
As for the USA and Rome - nothing lasts forever. I would have agreed more before 9/11 - that event extended the USA "empire" for another century or so, probably. Though honestly, I don't think Rome is the most recent model - probably the fall of France is more applicable. (Although the US is a military power, most people don't want to overcome the US militarily - the want to overcome it technologically and socially). I guess we're doomed to become arrogant bastards!
I do understand that such people exist - the primary problem is that leaders (people that can create jobs for other people that end up with a net gain to the economy) are very rare, and such leaders that are primarily motivated by non-money are even rarer! (As another poster put it, we do not pay for things with cows anymore - the same is true of leaders, it is normally more efficient to pay them money than rely on fringe benefits such as prestige, as it opens a wider base).
I know personally several CEOs that fit into the non-money category. But if we limited the leadership positions to those people, we would have to close 90% of the current businesses, so there would be no jobs.
An argument could be made that such people make better CEOs (I personally believe that), but such people are too rare.
The tax rates you quoted do not include Social Security (that is a TAX, you and I both know we will get nothing back), State taxes, and self-employment taxes (which are probably applicable, though that would raise the rate beyond 40%)
For the rest, I never said that the government didn't provide nice things - I said that if you don't want rich guys to run the government, don't fund the government almost exclusively by rich guys!
I think that a society such as you describe, where income is capped at 50X the average wage, would be stable and enjoyable for all. No such society exists, of course, and I hope you don't think that taxing the rich makes the system more like what you are suggesting.
On the other hand, any limits on income WILL limit what people will aspire to. That means that Bill Gates will not try to improve Windows so much - it is good enough (and he sees added risk with no compensatory benefit). Of course, you can counter by saying that 50X will allow society and the economy to grow "fast enough" - but that is just an opinoin, not a fact. (I would probably agree with you, but that doesn't make it a fact)
Oh, one more thing - I just wanted to point out that Europe is a big place (just like the US, for that matter), and my comments do not apply to all of it. My comments mostly apply to Germany and France, and probably least apply to the United Kingdom (still a large place).
Of course, Canada has got to go;-}
(Why does is seem like everyone in Canada has the worlds biggest Canadian flag out in front?;-} )
I happen to like European model more, but that's because I'm the one getting the bribes here;).
That really says it all;-}
Really, the reason I like the US system better is that the European system moves toward stagnation, while the US leans toward advancement. That way, although the rich have more stuff - if you wait 20 years, the poor have that stuff too! (For example: cars, computers, airplane trips, etc.) I'm afraid that if the European government was the only one on the planet, advancement would stop. As it is, most advancement happens in the US, Japan, and soon China - and the Europeans seem to only get the trickle downs.
Immigrants, being mostly escapees fleeing from tyrannies, cost money, not contribute it.
That may be what your media tells you, but it is not what the government says it is doing. (Please read this report, or at least my excerp in an above post) They really are bringing in immigrants to pay for the welfare or pensions of everyone else. How long do you think the immigrants will do that, once they figure out that there won't be anyone to pay for their retirement?
Does Disneyland have a Europe thingy? I guess I should visit more often...
You don't see a revolution in Europes future? Please read this report on the problems Europe is facing. An excerp:...Germany, similar to France, faces major transitions in the nation's demographic structure and its workforce demands and, therefore, started to consider new concepts expected to alleviate negative effects of aging and workforce decline through liberalized, labor-based immigration provisions.
Read closely - Germany and France do not have enough money to pay the current retirement benefits, so they are getting immigrant labor to support them (mostly muslims, I understand). How long would you work under those conditions, before you revolted?
This took me only seconds to find - just look around!
That doesn't matter - what I said still stands. And that is not true, by the way - if you make $200K in an honest job you pay 40% taxes - so you hire someone specifically to represent you for your taxes. This person (your accountant) earns his money by lowering your taxes. By common sense, you would pay up to $80K to lower your tax bill - but the only way to do that is to take control of the government.
If you do not want the rich guys to control the government, don't have the government take their money preferentially to yours. (I'm not arguing morals, I'm arguing engineering cause and effect. It would be nice if we lived in a world where rich people happily gave up their power and influence [money], but it makes more sense to base policies on the world we live in instead.)
2 things - first, 60% of the taxes come from the 2% most wealthy. Don't you think if the wealthy were really in charge it would make more sense to eliminate the middleman, and just keep that money and tax only the poor?
Second, if you don't want the wealthy to have most of the power, don't have them pay most of the taxes! "He who pays the bills makes the final decision." Additionally, by taxing the rich so heavily it incentivizes the rich to meddle in politics - even if they would leave it alone under normal circumstances.
So why don't you move there? (Not as in "get out of my country, ya rat", but as in "what makes the US better in spite of those effects?") Having lived in the US, Europe, and the Far East I have to say that I think the US has the propper priorities, for the most part.
For one thing, a lot of what happens in Europe is not sustainable. It is quite obvious to the most casual observer;-} that Europe is still run by aristocrats - except now they say that they are not aristocrats, and they give everyone money to keep them happy. Thing is, they get that money from somewhere - and a lot of it comes from the US and immigrants.
Very soon Europe is going to have a revolution (probably a muslim revolution looks like) where those that have to work for their livelihood will rebel against the governments that redistribute their income. That one will be nasty - and I recommend we stay out of it... because the imigrants will win.
Just as an aside - the only thing that has been conclusively proven in the "god" / "no god" debate is that belief makes you happier and better adjusted (on average) than unbelief.
Since you are trying to inform believers, so that they can no longer believe - you must be a sadist!
Kinda makes you wonder the benefits of democracy, now doesn't it?
No, the point of democracy is not to arrive at the best decision (that is best done by a well-advised dictator). Democracy is used to make a decision that will keep the current government in power - as in enough people agree with the decision that the dissenting minority will not be able to revolt.
Of course, there are no true democracies either - and that is a very good thing!
Slashdot Mirror
Truth be told, I have already implemented this for my companies as well - I was going after the "funny" crowd with this post...
The problem you get with forwarding is that server A gets an email from fred, checks SPF and fred is OK. Then it forwards the email to fred's blackberry account on server B (possibly in a different company). Server B checks SPF on fred, and finds that server A (the originator) is not allowed to send mail for fred, so it drops the transaction.
To fix this, you have to mangle fred's email address as you bounce the message. But that introduces other problems...
It is not as simple as it seems. Email is really a huge mess!
True, but here's how it will play out:
1. Hotmail starts requiring Sender-ID.
2. Hotmail usership drops slightly.
3. Microsoft employees start calling customer service of your company complaining about not getting email (even if they are not your customers)
4. The word gets to your management.
5. Your management requires you to implement Sender-ID.
6. ??? (You have to buy an Exchange server to comply)
7. Profit! (For Microsoft...)
So..... you're suggesting nueturing them? ;-}
True adult content: you know, people pay taxes, going to work, etc.
Very true, but an investor is primarily interested in the 5% number, because that is money coming in the door. The 16% number is the people most likely to be translated into the 5%.
An interesting (pointless) fact: the 16% means that most people probably own their mac 3 years before purchasing a new one.
The reason the market value dropped is pretty straight-forward. Standard MBA thought is that Apple's value proposition is to offer a very different, high priced computer system. Changing to a commodity CPU hurts that value proposition.
I tend to agree - if Apple is to survive this, they better have a VERY different architecture under the hood than your standard PC. People buy Macs to be different, because they see themselves elevated above others by the purchase (and for other reasons too, of course). Going to commodity hardware puts their market at serious risk.
Of course, 5% isn't that big a change - in general investors believe that Jobs knows what he is doing...
People (well, slashdot people) really underestimate the value of brand recognition. Red Hat will make money because for a large class of people when they think Linux the first two names are Red Hat and IBM. Most people do not go looking for all the variants to find the best one (or the cheapest), they choose based on name recognition - because that is easier, and there is an underlying assumption that if everyone else is using it, they must be doing something right.
Red Hat and IBM own this space. (Of course, the sell to VERY different clients) Breaking in to an existing market is very difficult - and competing on price is a very bad idea, in general. (Among other things, it means that the clients you attract care only about price, which is the most difficult advantage to maintain!)
Additionally, I think RPGs are just better on PCs...
POKE 53280,0
POKE 53281,0
Ah, those were the days!
loop:
inc [53280]
inc [53281]
jmp loop
The immigrants will stop having kids just like the nonimigrants did - you are just pushing the problem out a few years, while giving power to a third party.
As for the USA and Rome - nothing lasts forever. I would have agreed more before 9/11 - that event extended the USA "empire" for another century or so, probably. Though honestly, I don't think Rome is the most recent model - probably the fall of France is more applicable. (Although the US is a military power, most people don't want to overcome the US militarily - the want to overcome it technologically and socially). I guess we're doomed to become arrogant bastards!
Agreed - either way, it is a problem. My main point is that the situation is unstable - so pinning your hopes there is a bad idea.
I do understand that such people exist - the primary problem is that leaders (people that can create jobs for other people that end up with a net gain to the economy) are very rare, and such leaders that are primarily motivated by non-money are even rarer! (As another poster put it, we do not pay for things with cows anymore - the same is true of leaders, it is normally more efficient to pay them money than rely on fringe benefits such as prestige, as it opens a wider base).
I know personally several CEOs that fit into the non-money category. But if we limited the leadership positions to those people, we would have to close 90% of the current businesses, so there would be no jobs.
An argument could be made that such people make better CEOs (I personally believe that), but such people are too rare.
The tax rates you quoted do not include Social Security (that is a TAX, you and I both know we will get nothing back), State taxes, and self-employment taxes (which are probably applicable, though that would raise the rate beyond 40%)
For the rest, I never said that the government didn't provide nice things - I said that if you don't want rich guys to run the government, don't fund the government almost exclusively by rich guys!
I both agree and disagree with you...
I think that a society such as you describe, where income is capped at 50X the average wage, would be stable and enjoyable for all. No such society exists, of course, and I hope you don't think that taxing the rich makes the system more like what you are suggesting.
On the other hand, any limits on income WILL limit what people will aspire to. That means that Bill Gates will not try to improve Windows so much - it is good enough (and he sees added risk with no compensatory benefit). Of course, you can counter by saying that 50X will allow society and the economy to grow "fast enough" - but that is just an opinoin, not a fact. (I would probably agree with you, but that doesn't make it a fact)
Oh, one more thing - I just wanted to point out that Europe is a big place (just like the US, for that matter), and my comments do not apply to all of it. My comments mostly apply to Germany and France, and probably least apply to the United Kingdom (still a large place).
;-}
;-} )
Of course, Canada has got to go
(Why does is seem like everyone in Canada has the worlds biggest Canadian flag out in front?
I happen to like European model more, but that's because I'm the one getting the bribes here ;).
;-}
That really says it all
Really, the reason I like the US system better is that the European system moves toward stagnation, while the US leans toward advancement. That way, although the rich have more stuff - if you wait 20 years, the poor have that stuff too! (For example: cars, computers, airplane trips, etc.) I'm afraid that if the European government was the only one on the planet, advancement would stop. As it is, most advancement happens in the US, Japan, and soon China - and the Europeans seem to only get the trickle downs.
Immigrants, being mostly escapees fleeing from tyrannies, cost money, not contribute it.
That may be what your media tells you, but it is not what the government says it is doing. (Please read this report, or at least my excerp in an above post) They really are bringing in immigrants to pay for the welfare or pensions of everyone else. How long do you think the immigrants will do that, once they figure out that there won't be anyone to pay for their retirement?
Does Disneyland have a Europe thingy? I guess I should visit more often...
...Germany, similar to France, faces major transitions in the nation's demographic structure and its workforce demands and, therefore, started to consider new concepts expected to alleviate negative effects of aging and workforce decline through liberalized, labor-based immigration provisions.
You don't see a revolution in Europes future? Please read this report on the problems Europe is facing. An excerp:
Read closely - Germany and France do not have enough money to pay the current retirement benefits, so they are getting immigrant labor to support them (mostly muslims, I understand). How long would you work under those conditions, before you revolted?
This took me only seconds to find - just look around!
That doesn't matter - what I said still stands. And that is not true, by the way - if you make $200K in an honest job you pay 40% taxes - so you hire someone specifically to represent you for your taxes. This person (your accountant) earns his money by lowering your taxes. By common sense, you would pay up to $80K to lower your tax bill - but the only way to do that is to take control of the government.
If you do not want the rich guys to control the government, don't have the government take their money preferentially to yours. (I'm not arguing morals, I'm arguing engineering cause and effect. It would be nice if we lived in a world where rich people happily gave up their power and influence [money], but it makes more sense to base policies on the world we live in instead.)
2 things - first, 60% of the taxes come from the 2% most wealthy. Don't you think if the wealthy were really in charge it would make more sense to eliminate the middleman, and just keep that money and tax only the poor?
Second, if you don't want the wealthy to have most of the power, don't have them pay most of the taxes! "He who pays the bills makes the final decision." Additionally, by taxing the rich so heavily it incentivizes the rich to meddle in politics - even if they would leave it alone under normal circumstances.
So why don't you move there? (Not as in "get out of my country, ya rat", but as in "what makes the US better in spite of those effects?") Having lived in the US, Europe, and the Far East I have to say that I think the US has the propper priorities, for the most part.
;-} that Europe is still run by aristocrats - except now they say that they are not aristocrats, and they give everyone money to keep them happy. Thing is, they get that money from somewhere - and a lot of it comes from the US and immigrants.
For one thing, a lot of what happens in Europe is not sustainable. It is quite obvious to the most casual observer
Very soon Europe is going to have a revolution (probably a muslim revolution looks like) where those that have to work for their livelihood will rebel against the governments that redistribute their income. That one will be nasty - and I recommend we stay out of it... because the imigrants will win.
the Bible says there are no aliens out there
That's not true - read Ezekiel...
Just as an aside - the only thing that has been conclusively proven in the "god" / "no god" debate is that belief makes you happier and better adjusted (on average) than unbelief.
Since you are trying to inform believers, so that they can no longer believe - you must be a sadist!
(Laugh, its a joke!)
Kinda makes you wonder the benefits of democracy, now doesn't it?
No, the point of democracy is not to arrive at the best decision (that is best done by a well-advised dictator). Democracy is used to make a decision that will keep the current government in power - as in enough people agree with the decision that the dissenting minority will not be able to revolt.
Of course, there are no true democracies either - and that is a very good thing!
...ominvores natural advantage is he can actually eat the vegetarians...
I never thought of that! I wonder how they taste?
Apparently the possibility that we are all correct is external to your universe? This is a personal viewpoint thingy...