If someone has a novel invention that is a great help to people in emergencies, by all means, let them get rich off the invention.
If someone is just using an emergency to gouge desperate people around them and make a quick buck, fuck them.
Actually, I'll propose a compromise: allow price gouging, but remove all other protections that the law provides to price gougers. If they don't want to behave in a civilized manner, they shouldn't be afforded the benefits of civilization.
Something I always found interesting, and this may just be confirmation bias, but I've noticed that people who played as Alliance characters really didn't give a shit, but people who played as Horde seemed to take their faction choice seriously and even wore it as a point of pride.
I'm always amused at Atheists who say they won't vote for a guy because of religion, then vote for another guy, ignoring his admitted religion. I find no logical consistency to this position.
It's entirely logical, actually; I'll even describe how using a cliched phrase with small words so you might understand: sometimes you vote for the lesser evil.
do you believe Romney is not capable of helping the middle class and improving the economy solely because has always been rich?
No, I don't believe he wouldn't have been capable. However, I do believe that he has absolutely no perspective to appreciate what experiences the vast majority of Americans have gone through. When your solution to financial difficulties is "borrow money from your parents," you clearly have no idea what reality is for most people.
We can't keep up with that we're trying to fund today and you want to throw more on the pile?
Here's the thing, though -- we're already funding it, just in a horribly inefficient manner where students have to assume mountains of debt just to get a certification that lets them enter the workforce. It's just like health care: we're already paying for it. Trying to find a more efficient way to pay for it should be one of our top goals.
If they ran (Fed level) on strictly economic / fiscal platform, they would win, and big.
Possibly, unless their big idea for fiscal responsibility is cutting funding for public television and giving trillions of dollars to already obscenely rich people.
'Skill of the design' is something that amortizes quite nicely over millions of devices. Not so much for a barber's skill.
That, and believe it or not, there are some of us who don't even think Apple's designs are all that special. They certainly aren't bad, but they aren't some mythical apex achievement that many of their buyers seem to rationalize that they are.
Apple having to make concessions so Google could continue to expand on the location of personalized geo-based data does not seem like a good idea to me.
Rationalization. Also could be worded, "Apple preventing users from making this decision on their own is a good thing."
users of iOS products were better off with Apple saying no
Rationalization again.
In around a year the two maps will be equivalent for searches and iOS users will have a more readable map with less user tracking that Apple abandoning Google brought them.
Speculation.
I have used the navigation feature quite often and never had an issue, in fact when going to my house it chooses a route that is one I have been using for years, instead of a somewhat more roundabout path Google Maps always chose.
Anecdote.
What it boils down to is that Apple users have less functionality and more restrictions. End of story. You can rationalize it however you want, but reading your spin day in and day out is pretty pathetic.
And Grandma won't fill up what's left of the original 32GB anyway so she won't give a shit. The idea that things "fill up" and that you might need to have an extra container to put stuff in isn't exactly difficult to grasp or something that's unique to technology; if Grandma can't figure that out she's probably a moron.
Obama's also been willing to throw the middle class a bone every once in a while. Romney and his ilk seem to think that millionaires need all the help.
including cable HDTV, broadband internet, two cars, smart phones, closets overflowing with name brand clothing, and a 2,000 sq ft house
... and a second house, and a large bank account and retirement fund, and brand new cars instead of older used ones, and no car or mortgage payments because they can afford to pay cash. Sure, they have the exact same "stuff" as long as you define "stuff" very, very loosely.
Therefore, since you were the most successful, he was reducing your commission to 3% so that he could raise everyone else's to 10%? This is what a progressive tax does.
No it doesn't. And you're using a dishonest example anyway; very, very few salespeople are in the category of "rich" that progressive taxes would affect. Very, very few people in general are that rich. You are not that rich, and you will never be that rich, so just get over it.
The kinds of people that progressive taxes affect are the ones that own everything, and then engage in rent-seeking behavior to make sure they keep getting paid by everybody because they already own everything, and make sure that everything is just cheap enough that the non-owners can afford to keep renting it, but never cheap enough that they can save up to buy anything themselves.
Pfft, I know, right? Next they'll be trying to explain to us how a couple mL of scorpion venom can somehow affect our body when it's diluted by liters of blood. Absurd!
On Android, an application can ask for access to GPS, but you don't have to turn it on. (Obviously it would be better to deny it to that app specifically) Similarly you can disable bluetooth, though that's not one that many malicious apps have much use for. (It's all about the data; photos and bluetooth don't really get you much useful data.)
And even though there's a generic permission for allowing access to accounts (for calendar, etc), upon first request you have to specifically grant access to the account that the app wants. They don't just get free run over all of your accounts simply by being installed.
It certainly isn't perfect, but iOS doesn't have anywhere *near* the advantage that you claim it does in this area -- particularly since most of those features you list are brand new and were completely lacking up 'til iOS 6.
Slashdot Mirror
The sad thing is that you probably honestly believe the "everybody's out to get me" conspiracy bullshit you routinely post.
--Jeremy
If someone has a novel invention that is a great help to people in emergencies, by all means, let them get rich off the invention.
If someone is just using an emergency to gouge desperate people around them and make a quick buck, fuck them.
Actually, I'll propose a compromise: allow price gouging, but remove all other protections that the law provides to price gougers. If they don't want to behave in a civilized manner, they shouldn't be afforded the benefits of civilization.
--Jeremy
So, because Republicans constrain their choices before they attempt to benefit themselves, they're better?
Or is it because of how they constrain their choices? (presumably, by using the Bible)
The former just makes no sense, the latter is called "begging the question".
--Jeremy
Something I always found interesting, and this may just be confirmation bias, but I've noticed that people who played as Alliance characters really didn't give a shit, but people who played as Horde seemed to take their faction choice seriously and even wore it as a point of pride.
--Jeremy
I'm always amused at Atheists who say they won't vote for a guy because of religion, then vote for another guy, ignoring his admitted religion. I find no logical consistency to this position.
It's entirely logical, actually; I'll even describe how using a cliched phrase with small words so you might understand: sometimes you vote for the lesser evil.
--Jeremy
Electoral college is fine. Just get rid of the winner-takes-all aspect.
--Jeremy
do you believe Romney is not capable of helping the middle class and improving the economy solely because has always been rich?
No, I don't believe he wouldn't have been capable. However, I do believe that he has absolutely no perspective to appreciate what experiences the vast majority of Americans have gone through. When your solution to financial difficulties is "borrow money from your parents," you clearly have no idea what reality is for most people.
--Jeremy
We can't keep up with that we're trying to fund today and you want to throw more on the pile?
Here's the thing, though -- we're already funding it, just in a horribly inefficient manner where students have to assume mountains of debt just to get a certification that lets them enter the workforce. It's just like health care: we're already paying for it. Trying to find a more efficient way to pay for it should be one of our top goals.
--Jeremy
If they ran (Fed level) on strictly economic / fiscal platform, they would win, and big.
Possibly, unless their big idea for fiscal responsibility is cutting funding for public television and giving trillions of dollars to already obscenely rich people.
--Jeremy
Abortion, however, is about killing humans.
So says you. I'll go with the definition found in the Bible, where life begins at first breath.
--Jeremy
That being said, I paid my blood and my first born, thank you very much, and I don't support the next generation getting the free ride
So, essentially, "since I went through a shitty system, I want everyone else to have to go through that shitty system."
Going through college and working your ass off to get a degree in one of the hard sciences is hardly a "free ride."
--Jeremy
'Skill of the design' is something that amortizes quite nicely over millions of devices. Not so much for a barber's skill.
That, and believe it or not, there are some of us who don't even think Apple's designs are all that special. They certainly aren't bad, but they aren't some mythical apex achievement that many of their buyers seem to rationalize that they are.
--Jeremy
Apple having to make concessions so Google could continue to expand on the location of personalized geo-based data does not seem like a good idea to me.
Rationalization. Also could be worded, "Apple preventing users from making this decision on their own is a good thing."
users of iOS products were better off with Apple saying no
Rationalization again.
In around a year the two maps will be equivalent for searches and iOS users will have a more readable map with less user tracking that Apple abandoning Google brought them.
Speculation.
I have used the navigation feature quite often and never had an issue, in fact when going to my house it chooses a route that is one I have been using for years, instead of a somewhat more roundabout path Google Maps always chose.
Anecdote.
What it boils down to is that Apple users have less functionality and more restrictions. End of story. You can rationalize it however you want, but reading your spin day in and day out is pretty pathetic.
--Jeremy
Logically, if Google had demanded the sacrifice of Tim Cook's first born as a condition, you'd still be claiming Apple walked away.
Logically, that's a strawman argument.
Quit white knighting for Apple. They don't give a shit about you.
--Jeremy
I would find it very hard to justify that position.
So would any reasonable person. However, the unreasonable position you described is nothing like the reality of the situation.
--Jeremy
And Grandma won't fill up what's left of the original 32GB anyway so she won't give a shit. The idea that things "fill up" and that you might need to have an extra container to put stuff in isn't exactly difficult to grasp or something that's unique to technology; if Grandma can't figure that out she's probably a moron.
--Jeremy
You didn't respond to the point, which is that you *can* attach external media. And you can't do that with the iPad.
Personally, I'm no interested in either one, but Surface wins on this functionality checkbox.
--Jeremy
Only because it's nearly impossible to tell a Poe apart from someone who actually uses the term "lefties".
--Jeremy
It's not tyranny, it's American Exceptionalism! And it's ok because the Americans are the good guys!
--Jeremy
What has Obama done that actually leads you to think that he is significantly less likely to engage in Bush-style military interventions than Romney?
I dunno, maybe the fact that he didn't start any Bush-style military interventions in his first term?
--Jeremy
The funny thing is, you call people concerned about AGW "chicken littles".
Oh, but it's ok to be an outright fearmonger because it's something that you, personally, *really* believe might happen?
Such a fucking hypocrite.
--Jeremy
Obama's also been willing to throw the middle class a bone every once in a while. Romney and his ilk seem to think that millionaires need all the help.
--Jeremy
including cable HDTV, broadband internet, two cars, smart phones, closets overflowing with name brand clothing, and a 2,000 sq ft house
... and a second house, and a large bank account and retirement fund, and brand new cars instead of older used ones, and no car or mortgage payments because they can afford to pay cash. Sure, they have the exact same "stuff" as long as you define "stuff" very, very loosely.
Therefore, since you were the most successful, he was reducing your commission to 3% so that he could raise everyone else's to 10%? This is what a progressive tax does.
No it doesn't. And you're using a dishonest example anyway; very, very few salespeople are in the category of "rich" that progressive taxes would affect. Very, very few people in general are that rich. You are not that rich, and you will never be that rich, so just get over it.
The kinds of people that progressive taxes affect are the ones that own everything, and then engage in rent-seeking behavior to make sure they keep getting paid by everybody because they already own everything, and make sure that everything is just cheap enough that the non-owners can afford to keep renting it, but never cheap enough that they can save up to buy anything themselves.
--Jeremy
Pfft, I know, right? Next they'll be trying to explain to us how a couple mL of scorpion venom can somehow affect our body when it's diluted by liters of blood. Absurd!
--Jeremy
Except that's not actually the case.
On Android, an application can ask for access to GPS, but you don't have to turn it on. (Obviously it would be better to deny it to that app specifically) Similarly you can disable bluetooth, though that's not one that many malicious apps have much use for. (It's all about the data; photos and bluetooth don't really get you much useful data.)
And even though there's a generic permission for allowing access to accounts (for calendar, etc), upon first request you have to specifically grant access to the account that the app wants. They don't just get free run over all of your accounts simply by being installed.
It certainly isn't perfect, but iOS doesn't have anywhere *near* the advantage that you claim it does in this area -- particularly since most of those features you list are brand new and were completely lacking up 'til iOS 6.
--Jeremy