True to a point, precious metals have worth because they are attractive and rare, so it's far less likely that people will stop believing in silver than it is that they will stop believing in the "Full faith and credit of the US Federal Govt".
I always thought the smart model would be to charge per tax return. That way users could still use the software wherever they wanted, and print wherever they wanted, (the main complaints), but they wouldn't be able to do everyone in the family for the same $39.95 or give it away to friends, unless they paid for another license to do another return.
I guess the downside to this would be that it would have to be keyed on SSN, and that would make many people nervous.
Under the model Intuit did use, users could still do many tax returns from one copy as long as it was done on the same computer. Put for many people, the computer that they wanted to work from was not necessarily the one they wanted to print from.
and no, I did not take the time to pinpoint exactly how this happened
That was your first mistake. You shouldn't blindly use these Tax tools and expect that you are getting the right results. You need to double check the results yourself. If you don't know what to look for, then you probably should be using a professional rather than software.
A few years ago, when I was doing taxes by hand, my wife insisted that we hand it over to a family member who she thought was a tax expert. Turns out he was just inputing everything into TurboTax. When I got the return back from him, it was completly wrong. I had to redo it by hand at the last minute. It wasn't that TurboTax did the taxes wrong, it was that he didn't answer the questions correctly.
business isn't touchy-feely like that. It sends a much more effective message to still go elsewhere. This sends the message "Don't piss your customers off."
If people accept the apology, and give Intuit another chance, this sends the message that it's ok to risk pissing off your customers, because you can always just apologize later.
Remeber, it's easier to ask for forgiviness than for permission.
The problem with the Union is that they tend want pay based on seniority rather than how well you perform your job, so an ace teacher makes the same as the dead wood who has been teaching just as long.
Basically any Union exists for these reasons: 1) To get Better Pay and Benefits for its members 2) Better Working conditions, including getting reduced workloads 3) Better Job Security, including protecting the jobs of incompetant boobs.
I'm not anti-union, but most of the items on the list are not really in-sync with improving the quality of education. It just annoys me when the NEA runs ads bragging about how they care about the quality of our kids education. No... you are for the teachers, not the kids, let's be honest here. Just because the NEA or other union opposes certain reforms does not mean the reform is bad for education, if the union opposes it, it's most likely because they perceive it to be increasing the workload for teachers, or weakening their (the union's) power. Which is fine, that's what they are supposed to do. I just wish more people would see that for what it is, and not some noble act of fighting FOR their kids' best educational interest.
Paying the good teachers extra would be a good start, it would give other teachers incentive to perform better. But the unions are against it, basically because it's too arbitrary for them. Unions need clearly defined workplace rules and pay scales, when the administration can start making arbitrary decisions, the Union loses some of its power.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth also. But I guess the advertisers who paid would demand this, or the scheme wouldn't work. (Why should we have to pay and they don't?)
Product placement doesn't bother me as long as it integrates well into the story. Look around you. The majority of us buy brand-name items. Why shouldn't our fictional characters enjoy the same luxuries?
What really annoys me is the opposite. When products are blurred out in TV "reality" shows, presumably because the company has not paid the producers to have it included.
Not surprising. I suspect the reason that celebrity presenters get these free, expensive "gift" baskets at award shows is to get products associated with celebrities, without having to pay for celebrity endorsement.
The depressing thing is that there's enough people not smart enough to see through this, and worse, want something just because a certain "celebrity" has somehow endorsed it.
If you get rid of commercials and product placement, the alternative is for viewers to pay for content. Frankly my cable bill is high enough as it is, I don't want to have to pay for more crap on TV (I'd do away with it altogether if it wasn't for my wife)
1. What!?!?! Mass has ridiculous taxes. On their face they may not seem that bad... I mean it's a flat 5.9% rate? Wow, a flat rate, that sounds so republican, what's the deal? Well, the deal is that everything... down to RENT is tax deductible (up to a limit). That makes it an incredibly progressive tax, as well, when all is said and done.
It's actually down to 5.3% now. Yes it's not totally flat, but it's nowhere near as progressive as the Federal tax. I usually can't deduct anything from it. (I don't rent). Some of the other outrageous rates have been eliminated, like 12% on Capital Gains and Out of state bank interest. These have been reduced to 5.3% as well.
Also sales tax is 5%, lower than many states. Property tax rates are lower than many states also, of course property values are so high, it doesn't matter. Then there's the much hated Auto excise tax, but there's no local (town) income tax. I used to live in a state with a 1% local income tax, the excise tax is a bargain compared to that, (unless you own a really spiffy car)
2. The big dig is mostly being paid for by tolls on the Mass Pike (I-90), as opposed to taxes. Even though the original levy that built it and its toll booths explicitly stated that the tolls would end when the project was paid for. However, through some wonderful P.R.T. (that's The People's Republic of Taxachusetts) democrats-only politics, they've decided that the big dig is part of the Mass Pike (which is total B.S.). The big dig is primarily on I-93, not I-90, and is entirely in downtown Boston, not the 150 or so miles west of Boston where the majority of these tolls are collected).
It's true that masspike users are getting a raw deal, but the problem is you're not allowed to erect toll booths on an interstate (unless it was a toll road before it became an interstate), so I guess that's why they can't hit up the users of I-93. (As a frequent I-93 user, I'm disappointed that I'm not allowed to pay my fair share...NOT;-) ). Anyway, tolls only pay for part of the Big Dig, alot of it comes from Federal pork $$$, I think road projects in other parts of the state are hurting because of it as well.
Maybe I haven't watched O'Reilly enough then, from what I've seen, anyone who didn't agree with his conservative viewpoint would get blasted by him, and I'd usually get disgusted and flip the channel.
I enjoy the way he endeavors to eliminate the hype of rhetoric of both sides and wish more reporters, conservative and liberal alike, would follow his example.
I would like to see more of that as well. We need more balanced, intelligent discussion of the issues, and less venom-spewing demagouges, whether it be Michael Savage or Michael Moore. Unfortunately, it's these types of people who bring in the ratings, sell books and documentaries.
Accordingly I would expect a new series to appear on SCI-FI way before PBS.
With Sci-fi's penchant for showing stuff like "Crossing Over", I'd expect it to be on PBS first. Dr. Who has often been a good for bringing in pledges.
The thing that sucks though is PBS stations never seem to schedule it reliably. Not the same time every week, they skip a week or more or they decide to put two episodes on instead of one. I can't tell you how disappointing it is when you think you're taping episode four, and you play it back, only to find a Peter Paul and Mary concert instead. The show having been pushed back 20 minutes, so you missed most of it.
There is no documented slant at the places you mention, other than that perceived by, yes, the audience of Fox News.
There certainly is. Former insiders have complained of the liberal orthodoxy at network news. Example, read "Bias" by Bernie Goldberg.
Let me use a anecdotal example, a form very popular on the far right. I was talking with a Foxite friend of mine, who was going on about the liberal this and that person and how they should be killed, etc.
Yes some right wingers will attack anything they don't fully agree with as liberal, you don't have to look further than how they now attack "Arnold", as a liberal, for instance. I don't fall into this category. I consider myself moderate who leans slightly to the right, but can't stand the far-left or far-right
Notice that I didn't include CNN on my list, since IMO they seem to try to balance themselves between the extremes (Fox on one side, and the 3 networks on the other)
In other words, if CBS doesn't slander Clinton at every turn, it's slanted. If a story's conclusion doesn't agree with Bush's view of the world, it's slanted. If it's not Republican, it's slanted.
The 3 networks tend to not adequatly cover all sides of important issues. Very little background information is given on the topic, just partisan soundbites. They usually favor a conclusion that the government needs to spend more money on every problem, (an approach which conservatives and Libertarians usually don't favor), hence the bias. Then they'll slam the Republicans on the deficeit, (even though they aren't spending enough according to their other reports).
In addition, the ABC, CBS and NBC newscasts are extremely gloomy in their reporting. They present every problem as huge and unsolvable. I watched these newscasts growing up, and ended up without much hope for the future because everything seemed to always be going wrong. Of course the future turned out not even close to as badly as I was lead to believe by the nightly news. The reporting is still just as negative as ever, but now I just see through it.
Anyway, the way I see it NBC, CBS and ABC are not far-left, but definately left of center. The news content of Fox News is right of center, not far-right, but many of their show hosts on Fox are far-right (Bill O'Reilly, Ollie North, etc). CNN tries to balance between the two. But having access to different points of view in the News is a good thing, as long as you know where they are coming from. I read multiple articles from different sources before I make up my mind on anything.
I don't think we'll need to worry whether we will get to see it in the US, since the original series has a pretty well established following. Maybe BBC America will actually start showing something other than "Changing Rooms" or "Ground Forces" repeats, if not, there's always PBS, and SCI-FI
Why use Fox News has a hypothetical example, when that did happen... to Bob Zelnick of ABC News, for writing a book about (then) Vice President Al Gore.
I guess it's just that some people can't stand the fact that Fox News exists and is so popular. Yes it's slanted, but it serves to balance out the well-documented slant of CBS, ABC and NBC news. How can different perspectives on news stories be a bad thing?
I would rather have a judge make an unfortunate ruling based on the reading of a law than a judge make a ruling based on personal conviction-- That's not his/her job, it's to uphold the law, not to make law.
Telemarketing will die because the telemarkers finally managed to make themselves obsolete by increasing their most annoying habits (pre-recorded autodialers, calling during dinner every night) that people had finally just had enough. This will be bad for the economy in the short term in some places where this business thrives, but it's not as devastating as some would have you believe.
I wouldn't claim that it wouldn't be much of an economic loss. Since they are basically selling people things that they don't want to begin with. They are taking advantage of certain types of people, the weak-willed, the elderly, and the gullible. Sure it provides jobs, but not very good ones. Who wants to sit connected to a headset all evening reciting the same script over and over to irate people who take their anger out on you?
The truth though, is there is enough loopholes in the law that the telemarketing industry won't exactly whither away. I'll bet we'll be getting a lot of "survey" calls that are just thinly disguised attempts to sell us something real soon:
Phone Call: Good Evening Sir, I'm taking a survey about telephone service. How would you rate your current phone carrier. A) You're so happy with it that you write love sonnets to the CEO. or B) You don't do that.
You: B
Phone: Since you've indicated that you are not at all happy with your phone service, would you be interested in...
The judge isn't saying that do-not-call list itself is illegal, just that the FTC doesn't have the power to create such a list. Sure it's a technicality, but someone's got to keep these Federal agencies from overstepping their bounds.
Since this is a politically popular item, I'm sure Congress will fix the problems with the legislation, and the do-not-call list will see the light of day, maybe after a delay, or if the judge did make the wrong decision (he may have, I don't know much about the FTC) it could be overturned by a higher court.
I was just in Canada last week, and I can tell you it's nothing like Hoth! I did not see a Tauntaun anywhere, nor was I captured by a single Wampa during the time I was there. Please try to be more sensitive in the future!
Thank You,
P.S. The Probots in Canada are the friendly sort, nothing like shown in the movie.
Slashdot Mirror
True to a point, precious metals have worth because they are attractive and rare, so it's far less likely that people will stop believing in silver than it is that they will stop believing in the "Full faith and credit of the US Federal Govt".
I always thought the smart model would be to charge per tax return. That way users could still use the software wherever they wanted, and print wherever they wanted, (the main complaints), but they wouldn't be able to do everyone in the family for the same $39.95 or give it away to friends, unless they paid for another license to do another return.
I guess the downside to this would be that it would have to be keyed on SSN, and that would make many people nervous.
Under the model Intuit did use, users could still do many tax returns from one copy as long as it was done on the same computer. Put for many people, the computer that they wanted to work from was not necessarily the one they wanted to print from.
That was your first mistake. You shouldn't blindly use these Tax tools and expect that you are getting the right results. You need to double check the results yourself. If you don't know what to look for, then you probably should be using a professional rather than software.
A few years ago, when I was doing taxes by hand, my wife insisted that we hand it over to a family member who she thought was a tax expert. Turns out he was just inputing everything into TurboTax. When I got the return back from him, it was completly wrong. I had to redo it by hand at the last minute. It wasn't that TurboTax did the taxes wrong, it was that he didn't answer the questions correctly.
business isn't touchy-feely like that. It sends a much more effective message to still go elsewhere. This sends the message "Don't piss your customers off."
If people accept the apology, and give Intuit another chance, this sends the message that it's ok to risk pissing off your customers, because you can always just apologize later.
Remeber, it's easier to ask for forgiviness than for permission.
Simple, the ones that say "Silver Certificate" ARE the real money.
The ones that say "Federal Reserve Note" are only accepted as money because everyone believes it's money.
They pushed the gold for what? Two months? Then stopped pushing it and wonder why no one is using it?
They need to push it harder and announce a phase-out of the $1 note if they really want it to succeed.
The problem with the Union is that they tend want pay based on seniority rather than how well you perform your job, so an ace teacher makes the same as the dead wood who has been teaching just as long.
Basically any Union exists for these reasons:
1) To get Better Pay and Benefits for its members
2) Better Working conditions, including getting reduced workloads
3) Better Job Security, including protecting the jobs of incompetant boobs.
I'm not anti-union, but most of the items on the list are not really in-sync with improving the quality of education. It just annoys me when the NEA runs ads bragging about how they care about the quality of our kids education. No... you are for the teachers, not the kids, let's be honest here. Just because the NEA or other union opposes certain reforms does not mean the reform is bad for education, if the union opposes it, it's most likely because they perceive it to be increasing the workload for teachers, or weakening their (the union's) power. Which is fine, that's what they are supposed to do. I just wish more people would see that for what it is, and not some noble act of fighting FOR their kids' best educational interest.
Paying the good teachers extra would be a good start, it would give other teachers incentive to perform better. But the unions are against it, basically because it's too arbitrary for them. Unions need clearly defined workplace rules and pay scales, when the administration can start making arbitrary decisions, the Union loses some of its power.
I think you are right about the reason.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth also. But I guess the advertisers who paid would demand this, or the scheme wouldn't work. (Why should we have to pay and they don't?)
What really annoys me is the opposite. When products are blurred out in TV "reality" shows, presumably because the company has not paid the producers to have it included.
Not surprising. I suspect the reason that celebrity presenters get these free, expensive "gift" baskets at award shows is to get products associated with celebrities, without having to pay for celebrity endorsement.
The depressing thing is that there's enough people not smart enough to see through this, and worse, want something just because a certain "celebrity" has somehow endorsed it.
If you get rid of commercials and product placement, the alternative is for viewers to pay for content. Frankly my cable bill is high enough as it is, I don't want to have to pay for more crap on TV (I'd do away with it altogether if it wasn't for my wife)
It's actually down to 5.3% now. Yes it's not totally flat, but it's nowhere near as progressive as the Federal tax. I usually can't deduct anything from it. (I don't rent). Some of the other outrageous rates have been eliminated, like 12% on Capital Gains and Out of state bank interest. These have been reduced to 5.3% as well.
Also sales tax is 5%, lower than many states. Property tax rates are lower than many states also, of course property values are so high, it doesn't matter. Then there's the much hated Auto excise tax, but there's no local (town) income tax. I used to live in a state with a 1% local income tax, the excise tax is a bargain compared to that, (unless you own a really spiffy car)
2. The big dig is mostly being paid for by tolls on the Mass Pike (I-90), as opposed to taxes. Even though the original levy that built it and its toll booths explicitly stated that the tolls would end when the project was paid for. However, through some wonderful P.R.T. (that's The People's Republic of Taxachusetts) democrats-only politics, they've decided that the big dig is part of the Mass Pike (which is total B.S.). The big dig is primarily on I-93, not I-90, and is entirely in downtown Boston, not the 150 or so miles west of Boston where the majority of these tolls are collected).It's true that masspike users are getting a raw deal, but the problem is you're not allowed to erect toll booths on an interstate (unless it was a toll road before it became an interstate), so I guess that's why they can't hit up the users of I-93. (As a frequent I-93 user, I'm disappointed that I'm not allowed to pay my fair share...NOT ;-) ). Anyway, tolls only pay for part of the Big Dig, alot of it comes from Federal pork $$$, I think road projects in other parts of the state are hurting because of it as well.
As a Mass resident, I don't think the taxes are as bad as the state's reputation suggests.
:-)
Apart from that, there's a big hole in downtown Boston called the "Big Dig", that sucks in most of the tax revenue so that's why there's none left.
Maybe I haven't watched O'Reilly enough then, from what I've seen, anyone who didn't agree with his conservative viewpoint would get blasted by him, and I'd usually get disgusted and flip the channel.
I enjoy the way he endeavors to eliminate the hype of rhetoric of both sides and wish more reporters, conservative and liberal alike, would follow his example.I would like to see more of that as well. We need more balanced, intelligent discussion of the issues, and less venom-spewing demagouges, whether it be Michael Savage or Michael Moore. Unfortunately, it's these types of people who bring in the ratings, sell books and documentaries.
With Sci-fi's penchant for showing stuff like "Crossing Over", I'd expect it to be on PBS first. Dr. Who has often been a good for bringing in pledges.
The thing that sucks though is PBS stations never seem to schedule it reliably. Not the same time every week, they skip a week or more or they decide to put two episodes on instead of one. I can't tell you how disappointing it is when you think you're taping episode four, and you play it back, only to find a Peter Paul and Mary concert instead. The show having been pushed back 20 minutes, so you missed most of it.
There certainly is. Former insiders have complained of the liberal orthodoxy at network news. Example, read "Bias" by Bernie Goldberg.
Let me use a anecdotal example, a form very popular on the far right. I was talking with a Foxite friend of mine, who was going on about the liberal this and that person and how they should be killed, etc.
Yes some right wingers will attack anything they don't fully agree with as liberal, you don't have to look further than how they now attack "Arnold", as a liberal, for instance. I don't fall into this category. I consider myself moderate who leans slightly to the right, but can't stand the far-left or far-right
Notice that I didn't include CNN on my list, since IMO they seem to try to balance themselves between the extremes (Fox on one side, and the 3 networks on the other)
In other words, if CBS doesn't slander Clinton at every turn, it's slanted. If a story's conclusion doesn't agree with Bush's view of the world, it's slanted. If it's not Republican, it's slanted.The 3 networks tend to not adequatly cover all sides of important issues. Very little background information is given on the topic, just partisan soundbites. They usually favor a conclusion that the government needs to spend more money on every problem, (an approach which conservatives and Libertarians usually don't favor), hence the bias. Then they'll slam the Republicans on the deficeit, (even though they aren't spending enough according to their other reports).
In addition, the ABC, CBS and NBC newscasts are extremely gloomy in their reporting. They present every problem as huge and unsolvable. I watched these newscasts growing up, and ended up without much hope for the future because everything seemed to always be going wrong. Of course the future turned out not even close to as badly as I was lead to believe by the nightly news. The reporting is still just as negative as ever, but now I just see through it.
Anyway, the way I see it NBC, CBS and ABC are not far-left, but definately left of center. The news content of Fox News is right of center, not far-right, but many of their show hosts on Fox are far-right (Bill O'Reilly, Ollie North, etc). CNN tries to balance between the two. But having access to different points of view in the News is a good thing, as long as you know where they are coming from. I read multiple articles from different sources before I make up my mind on anything.
I'm not knocking "Ground Force", I just don't think country would be harmed if BBC America showed it less than 12 hours every day. ;-)
On the other hand, maybe the Colin Baker outfit will never see the light of day again!
I don't think we'll need to worry whether we will get to see it in the US, since the original series has a pretty well established following. Maybe BBC America will actually start showing something other than "Changing Rooms" or "Ground Forces" repeats, if not, there's always PBS, and SCI-FI
I guess it's just that some people can't stand the fact that Fox News exists and is so popular. Yes it's slanted, but it serves to balance out the well-documented slant of CBS, ABC and NBC news. How can different perspectives on news stories be a bad thing?
I agree, I made the same point yesterday.
I would rather have a judge make an unfortunate ruling based on the reading of a law than a judge make a ruling based on personal conviction-- That's not his/her job, it's to uphold the law, not to make law.
I wouldn't claim that it wouldn't be much of an economic loss. Since they are basically selling people things that they don't want to begin with. They are taking advantage of certain types of people, the weak-willed, the elderly, and the gullible. Sure it provides jobs, but not very good ones. Who wants to sit connected to a headset all evening reciting the same script over and over to irate people who take their anger out on you?
The truth though, is there is enough loopholes in the law that the telemarketing industry won't exactly whither away. I'll bet we'll be getting a lot of "survey" calls that are just thinly disguised attempts to sell us something real soon:
Phone Call: Good Evening Sir, I'm taking a survey about telephone service. How would you rate your current phone carrier. A) You're so happy with it that you write love sonnets to the CEO. or B) You don't do that.
You: B
Phone: Since you've indicated that you are not at all happy with your phone service, would you be interested in...
According to my calculations, a story about some hackers who managed to crack this scheme should be hitting /. right. about. now...
The judge isn't saying that do-not-call list itself is illegal, just that the FTC doesn't have the power to create such a list. Sure it's a technicality, but someone's got to keep these Federal agencies from overstepping their bounds.
Since this is a politically popular item, I'm sure Congress will fix the problems with the legislation, and the do-not-call list will see the light of day, maybe after a delay, or if the judge did make the wrong decision (he may have, I don't know much about the FTC) it could be overturned by a higher court.
I was just in Canada last week, and I can tell you it's nothing like Hoth! I did not see a Tauntaun anywhere, nor was I captured by a single Wampa during the time I was there. Please try to be more sensitive in the future!
Thank You,
P.S. The Probots in Canada are the friendly sort, nothing like shown in the movie.