Yep after Obama spent more in 2 years than any other President in history in 4 years he wants to freeze the budget. He has absolutely no intention of doing that. They haven't even figured out how they are going to pay for Obamacare. You think he really will freeze the budget when they can't pay for Obamacare? Think again. You think given all the other social programs that they want that Obama or the Democrats will freeze the budget now? There is no way in hell. It makes for a good PR spin but there is no way in hell Obama will actually do it. He will find some way to weasle out it just like he did with lobbyists in his White House and every other promise he as made. The guy go back so often on his promises we should just call him Go-Back-Obama or Flippy-Obama or maybe just simply liar.
Great let's all support subverting the legal system and the Constitution and just let the President do anything he wants and screw dealing with Congress. It's after just a hassle to deal with Congress and so much more efficient to just do what you want. That is exactly what ruling by Executive Order is that you are talking about. Obama has already started to do that since it became clear he lost Congress. You sir and your ideas are why America is so screwed up these days. America has always been about protecting the minority against the majority and following the rule of law. If we don't do that then we might as well raise the Communist China flag and get it over with.
The questions answer thing is a total PR gimmick. It going to be a complete cream puff PR answer and question. There won't be a single hard or difficult question in any of the questions the post and respond to. That is just a given. This White House doesn't respond well at all to well thought out factual criticism.
Name calling to the Tea Party is your best to refute what they have to say and what the American public did on November 2? I feel really sorry for your political party which ever that is, since it is clear your not interested in actually discussing idea, but instead just want to resort to name calling. Way to promote open debate of American politics.
You have to be joking. Given the way the Democrats have been attacking Republican Paul Ryan the last day or so? They are not civil, it's once again do as I say, not as I do. They have been saying he wants to get rid of Medicare and destroy Social Security and wants to see all the old people die on the streets. Which is a total lie. He has never said anything even close to that. No one has ever talked about getting rid of Medicare or Social Security. So much for being civil, and so much for no violent rhetoric. That is the real face of the Democratic party.
Your best response to the Tea Party is name calling? If that is the best the Democrats or the Republicans have then both parties really have become a joke. Deal with the actual issues leave the childish name calling at home kids.
You might actually want to check and see who is actually sending in more money to the government. I am betting you think it is the poor or middle class. You would be wrong according to the reported government numbers. The bottom 50% earners are only paying 2.7% of the total income tax received. This is actual money sent in to the government. Where is the myth that the poor are paying more than others coming from?
If the bottom 50% of the earners are only paying 2.7% of the income tax that ends up to be even less of the total amount of revenue that the federal government actually gets. How do people say the "rich" are getting off scott-free and the middle class and the poor are actually paying for everything? The actual revenue numbers being reported by the federal government don't seem to support that statement.
Top 1% Pay 38% of all income tax Top 5% Pay 59% of all income tax Top 10% Pay 70% of all income tax Bottom 50% Pay 2.7% of all income tax 47% of American Households didn't pay any income tax for 2009.
45% of all the revenues of the government in 2009 and 2010 were from income tax. Corporate tax revenue was 13% in 2009 and 9% in 2010 of total revenues. The federal government revenues from largest to smallest are Income Tax, Social Security and other payroll taxes, Corporate Tax. All the other taxes don't even add up to the Corporate Tax amounts.
So if you added corporate taxes to the top 5% then you are talking 71.7% of revenues in 2009. It would 67.7% of revenues in 2010. So it would appear to me that the "rich" in this country are paying significantly more than half of the cash needed/used for the government to run.
So exactly who are the "rich" that we are talking about? It is just the fat cats on Wall Street and the CEOs? I don't think so.
If you look at who the corporations are in this country you might be surprised. 99% of all corporations/firms in this country have under 100 employees. They make up 30% of the revenue of all US companies. If you move up to companies with under 500 employees now you are talking about 46% of all the revenue of US companies. So small businesses are paying roughly 30% of the corporate taxes and small-medium companies are paying roughly 46% of all the corporate taxes. I suspect that most of the people who own these businesses would be considered "rich" by most people, but they are not the wall street fat cats and typical CEOs that people think of as the "rich". I make that comment because I hear people saying the middle class is disappearing. If that is the case then I would assume that those who own their own business are considered "rich".
Please explain to me how this is suppose to work where the "rich" supposedly are not paying their fair share. I am not saying the distribution of earnings in the US is a good/perfect thing. I do think everyone still has a chance to make more money and own their own business today, if they are willing to work hard and take the risks required.
If Microsoft doesn't explain what is going on or fix the problem people are having of random unexplained large data transfers, then WP7 will end up a has been. People are reporting 50MB transfers during calls, and 500MB transfers each night. I would never own a phone that randomly or without my knowledge started sending large amounts of data out.
Until this is addressed I would say Microsoft has a major issue. It is either a PR, such as it needs to be explained, or a software issue and it needs to be fixed. Either way the longer Microsoft doesn't address the issue the more it hurts them.
iPhone is a single device? That's really strange I thought I could buy 3 different versions at my local AT&T store. The iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 (16 gig) and the iPhone 4 (32 gig). Not to mention all the older iPhones out there that count as marketshare since they haven't been upgraded/updated yet. The iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4 series are very different from each other in features and horsepower. So no there is not just 1 model of iPhone no matter how you look at it.
There are many iPhone apps that tell you to do the same exact thing. If they won't run properly then reboot your phone and try again. I don't know what the percentage of the marketplace is like that but I have seen a few dozen or so that say that. These are apps that passed Apple's Q&A/review and got in their marketplace. So honestly I don't see much of a difference. If I don't reboot the iPhone 4 every so often it will get strange too. It's not surprising since most smart-phones are just computers that happen to be small, and are way more complex than other phones. There is also the variety of software/apps that run on smart-phones rather than a limited 2-4 apps of most regular phones. It doesn't surprise me that they aren't perfect and sometimes need to be rebooted. You even said your BlackBerry could be set to reboot every night, clearly it needs to be rebooted almost daily, otherwise why put in that option.
So it is clear that all of the top 3 smart-phone groups need to be rebooted from time to time so they function properly. So it's not really a liability since they all need it.
That is correct. Anytime you are not free to leave and the police officer detains you, then by law you are under arrest. It doesn't matter why the police officer won't let you leave, because he won't let you leave by law you are under arrest. He does not have to immediately charge you with a crime to arrest you. If you are in a traffic stop for speeding, you are under arrest. You are not able to leave at any time, thus you are under arrest. If you flee the scene, then the charge will be fleeing arrest.
Don't believe me ask any lawyer if you are technically and legally under arrest when you are not free to leave.
Here is how to know, and police don't like it, because they want people to be ignorant of the law so they can do whatever they want. Ask the police officer if you are free to leave. If he says no, then say since I am under arrest I would like to know what I am being charged with. If he says no your not under arrest, then say ok then I am free to leave, and I am going to do so. You can see the issue here. If you are not under arrest the police can't keep you from leaving, that is your legal right. If you are under arrest then you can't leave, and you should be told what your being arrested for.
If you are serious I might have an answer for you. It might have something to do with the issue of people feeling like the government should take care of them and offer them all kinds of free services that they don't pay for. It might also have to do with the idea being promoted of redistribution of wealth. It is my opinion, and I could be wrong, that when you teach/tell people that everyone should be the same, and those who make more money than others are somehow bad. That type of thinking will/might end up being applied in all kinds of different areas that were not originally intended and bring all kinds of unintended consequences. If you give things away to people without them having to do a thing, and they start to expect that they somehow have a right to these free things, don't be surprised when the same kind of thinking shows up in other areas. What is the political system teaching kids these days in schools, and is that effecting how they see the market place and companies in general? Some things to think about.
It reminds me of the comment/idea that the rich make too much and that isn't right, so they should be taxed more to pay for those who don't have much money and so we have more services. If people see the media companies as the big bad wealthy company then given the political thoughts of the day, it wouldn't be a stretch to say the same exact thought process is/might be being applied to the markets. I could see the same idea expressed as screw companies they make too much money and rip people off/abuse them to make all that money, so I deserve to have stuff for free. I'm not saying that I am correct, nor am I saying that makes it ethically right. The political system and thoughts of the day do effect how people think, and how they react/operate and spend in the marketplace. The question is how much effect? What effect is the idea of a nanny state having on people and it's relation to the marketplace? I don't know the answers for sure, but I suspect it is a lot more than we realize or even think about normally. I do think it is something to think about.
Sounds like you don't understand why libraries were created originally, but I could be wrong. Libraries were originally created because the cost of owning books and a decent amount was too costly for the average person. Then libraries became a resource for those of lesser income to freely get information, such as books, newspapers and magazines. As time went on more and more services were offered by libraries to keep up with all the different forms of information, records, tapes, CD, etc. There are still a number of communities where large numbers of people get their internet access from the library. I have walked in to libraries after school hours and seen them over run with school kids on the computers, doing homework, and reading the latest books and manga that the library offered.
It sounds like the libraries you are familiar with are not actually serving the community the way the community wants. I have seen libraries that only do what the librarian wants, and they are dead. I have seen community driven libraries that are packed and you have a hard time getting the popular things from them when you might want them, and instead are put on a long wait list. Where every computer is in use and there is a waiting list for them. Libraries that offer after school tutoring for anyone who wants/needs it. Libraries that offer movie parties of the latest movies released on DVD. It very much depends on how your library is run, and how responsive they are to the public around them. There is no one way to run a library. Each should be run according to the needs and wants of the public who support them. There are libraries with streaming videos, download audio books, and a raft of other cool modern options. Not all libraries are dead, just the poorly run ones in my opinion.
I have seen libraries who are carrying Manga that the high-school and junior high-school kids find popular at the moment. Many libraries are carrying TV series on DVD, huge collections of them. I have seen libraries that loan out video games. There are libraries that offer free income tax preparation from January to April. Libraries that offer to help you develop a resume, and even send them out on the computers. The more responsive a library is to the community wants and needs, the more likely it is to be used, and at times very busy.
Corporations do exactly what their shareholders tell them they want. If the shareholders say we want as much money as you can get for us, then that is what the company does. Shareholders can and do control the company. There are many many real world examples of this. Shareholders who sue the company for creating products that get the company sued for millions of dollars and forcing the firing of everyone involved. Shareholders suing for significantly devaluing the company. Shareholders who sue to stop the sale of the company. You want to change how a company operates, then get shares and start talking with the other shareholders at the shareholders meetings. Anyone with shares can go to them, and make their voice heard.
A restaurant is not required by law to serve anyone. No private business is required by law to do business with anyone. They can pick and choose who they want to serve legally and there is nothing anyone can do about it. A restaurant can say only those over 21 can eat here, or a family can't bring anyone under 10 to eat here. A movie theater can absolutely say no kids under 10 after 8pm, and many already do. A movie theater could say we won't admit anyone under 21, and I have seen a few that did that and served beer. Night clubs all the time say no one under 21, even though they only have to make sure no one under-age is served alcohol. There are teen night clubs that say no one over 21 is allowed. I have seen businesses that will only sell to locals. Any private business has the legal right to say who they do and don't want to do business with.
Actually you would be 100% legally wrong about the authorities doing anything about it. A business is not required by law to do business with anyone. I can as a business owner refuse to do business with anyone who is left handed, and there is nothing anyone can do about it legally. I can refuse to serve people who don't live in my town if I own a restaurant. Things like this are done all the time. If you don't think so let me give you a few examples.
How about anyone joining the AFLCIO union? How about anyone joining a teachers union? How about anyone joining a teachers credit union? How about anyone joining a specific local town only credit union? How about anyone joining the VFW halls? How about churches who make rules about who can rent the church to get married in? How about companies who make rules about who can rent their heavy equipment machines? Privately held companies control who stock of the company can be sold to, and can require you to get approval of the sale.
There are tons of examples of groups who discriminate against just anyone being part of their group. There tons of companies/organizations who discriminate against who they do business with.
You can't do employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disabilities, age, or genetic information for employment. Also men and women must be paid the same amount for the same work/job. That is the only area legally where you can't discriminate and only for those listed things. It isn't smart, but you can discriminate based on weight, how good/bad looking a person is, if the person fits the company culture and sexual preference for hiring. Those things are not currently protected by law.
Here are some examples of job discrimination. You think Hooters restaurants hire ugly women with flat chests? You think airlines hire overweight people to be stewardesses? I'm not sure how they get away with it, but strip joints don't hire men to strip or ugly women. I have never seen a male server in Hooters or similar restaurants, not sure how they get away with that. That is just a short list of things off the top of my head. I am sure there are even more examples out there.
The Bilski case could in theory get rid of all software patents, but I somehow doubt that. I can see the case if it goes against the company, limiting software patents more than anything. I somehow don't see the Supreme Court making that wide of a ruling to destroy all software patents. It seem to me to be a very broad and sweeping reform, that usually they don't do. It might face Constitutional issues if they ruled that way. The Supreme Court might be seen by some as creating law, which only the Congress is allowed to do by the Constitution. This could be an issue faced, and the Supreme Court might not want to open that can of worms. If they did it could set up the Supreme Court to be attacked for a whole host of rulings in the past, at least in theory. The more the Supreme Court comes closer to making law, the higher the risk becomes to the court to have many different rulings of the past undone.
If you really wanted to destroy software patents, you could use a two prong attack. First would be getting more and more cases bumped up to the Supreme Court to chip away at software patents. The second would be a hard core grassroots campaign by the public to Representatives and Senators to pass some kind of a law that changed the rules of patents or the patent office, to not allow any software patents, basically to revoke that whole class of patents and ban them from the future.
Both would be a serious uphill battle against, I would bet, a number of very large companies who don't mind things staying the way they are. It is possible, in theory, though to effect the kind of change you want, but would take time and a lot of very hard work.
You would still want shareholders of some kind and some bylaws to keep things sane. They shareholders would have the ability to reign in the company/organization when it got out of control. The bylaws would keep other companies from buying up all the shares and changing how things operate. By having shareholders you don't have to think of every possible thing that might happen in the future. You just let the shareholders decide when major issues come up that weren't foreseen. This is how corporations actually work. If there is a major corporate changing decision/event then the shareholders are contacted, they meet to talk about it, and then vote on the action to take.
You could do exactly the same thing here. A good corporate attorney could set this up easily once you explained exactly what you wanted to do, and exactly what type of things you want to prevent from happening. It isn't hard, it just takes time to think about all the issues and then time for the lawyers to figure out how to legally make what you want happen.
Actually they can only do this if a majority of the shareholders agree to it. Companies with shareholders can't do whatever they want. They legally are charged with at a bare minimum maintaining the value of the company. They can not do anything that would significantly reduce the value of the company or they risk lawsuits from the shareholders. Companies are 100% responsible to their shareholders. If a majority of shareholders decide and vote to drop a lawsuit, then the company by law must drop the lawsuit.
If a company were to try and sell off a majority of their assets to another holding company making the original company worthless the shareholders could sue and would without a doubt win and block such a move. While the trial was going on the judge would halt all sales/decisions until he ruled in the case. This has been done several times in the past by shareholders who have blocked a company being sold to another because they didn't feel the price was right and they (shareholders) were getting ripped off.
If a family run business has private shares and 500 or even 10 people own various numbers of shares, they have the same issues. If the majority of the shareholders don't want the company sold or some other issue, then legally the company can't do it. Even though it isn't a publicly traded company, and the number shareholders is small. It doesn't legally matter. This is why start-ups always try and have the founders keep 51% of the shares, so they still control the company, rather than the investors or anyone else who owns shares.
So no, companies with shareholders (private or public) can not just do whatever they want. They have to do what is best for the shareholders.
It's easy to make that happen. Just write into the by laws of the company/organization that the company is not allowed to start/file a lawsuit with anyone or any company over the enforcement of patents that the company holds, and that this company by-law can never be changed even by a vote of the shareholders. It would be perfectly legal and perfectly binding and no one would be able to over-ride it because it is part of the unchangeable company charter. You could even add something so they could protect the patents from profit companies, but not any company project or project that uses an OSI approved open source license or whatever. There are many ways to do this legally, the only question is exactly what you want and what your trying to prevent.
There is a reason that companies have charters and by-laws. They are to make sure that no matter what happens that a company is run a certain way as the creators/founders of the company wants. This is the whole idea behind a poison pill clause in a company's by-laws, a legal structure to prevent by-outs or hostile takeovers of the company. If you can poison pill a company, you could do what you are talking about.
You want companies to care about what you have to say, buy stocks, and organize stockholders. Get more people who think like you to buy stocks. Then you will be able to make real changes to a company. Until then you actually don't care to be bothered since there is a method to make companies listen, but you can't be bothered to use those channels. It only takes one share and attending shareholder meetings to make your voice heard to the other shareholders. By law companies must do what the majority of the shareholders want.
Companies have loyalty, but not just anyone. They have loyalty to their shareholders and are required to try and not completely crater the company or give away the store to the detriment of the shareholders. How many of you out there own Novell shares? If you owned shares then you could tell Novell that you don't want them to do this. You could try and get other shareholders to say that they shouldn't do this. Instead people just post on message boards online, which is basically screaming in the dark. It doesn't add anything useful to the conversation and won't change a thing. You want to change things, buy Novell stock shares.
Buying shares in a company and banding like minded shareholders together will change how a company operates. The shareholders control the company and can make changes to the direction of the company. The great thing is anyone can buy shares and if you go to the shareholders meetings, anyone with shares can get up and speak to be heard.
Actually if they shoot someone with explosives on them or them catching themselves on fire as has happened the last two times, there won't be an issue. Are you seriously suggesting that all 100+ people on a plane or even the 20+ around the guy would lie to get someone off? What about the stewardesses? That's an awful lot of people lying. Besides install a few cameras with microphones and you don't have any issues at all. Someone gets killed check the cameras to see exactly what happened. All you would have to do is put a few fish-eyes in the ceiling of the isles and you could see and hear everything in a plane.
Your making it more of a problem than it would be and you know it. Besides I didn't say it was the best idea out there. In fact I said the opposite.
The odds of dying in a car accident within one year 1 in 18,585. The odds of simply being in a car accident within one year are 1 in 5,889. The odds of dying by an assault within one year are 1 in 16,421. http://www.nsc.org/
I think, if I am not mistaken, I have a better chance to win a state lottery than die in an terrorist attack on an airplane. I am so much more likely to die from an assault than a terrorist, it is an order of magnitude that is just plain silly. So as you can see the odds are pretty slim to die by a terrorist attack of any kind. I think I can risk it, and have far less security at airport with no groping or radiation. If I get a choice, I choose my Constitutional freedoms, over being safe. If a terrorist kills me so be it. At least I died with all my freedoms, rather than beaten down by my own government.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep after Obama spent more in 2 years than any other President in history in 4 years he wants to freeze the budget. He has absolutely no intention of doing that. They haven't even figured out how they are going to pay for Obamacare. You think he really will freeze the budget when they can't pay for Obamacare? Think again. You think given all the other social programs that they want that Obama or the Democrats will freeze the budget now? There is no way in hell. It makes for a good PR spin but there is no way in hell Obama will actually do it. He will find some way to weasle out it just like he did with lobbyists in his White House and every other promise he as made. The guy go back so often on his promises we should just call him Go-Back-Obama or Flippy-Obama or maybe just simply liar.
Great let's all support subverting the legal system and the Constitution and just let the President do anything he wants and screw dealing with Congress. It's after just a hassle to deal with Congress and so much more efficient to just do what you want. That is exactly what ruling by Executive Order is that you are talking about. Obama has already started to do that since it became clear he lost Congress. You sir and your ideas are why America is so screwed up these days. America has always been about protecting the minority against the majority and following the rule of law. If we don't do that then we might as well raise the Communist China flag and get it over with.
The questions answer thing is a total PR gimmick. It going to be a complete cream puff PR answer and question. There won't be a single hard or difficult question in any of the questions the post and respond to. That is just a given. This White House doesn't respond well at all to well thought out factual criticism.
Name calling to the Tea Party is your best to refute what they have to say and what the American public did on November 2? I feel really sorry for your political party which ever that is, since it is clear your not interested in actually discussing idea, but instead just want to resort to name calling. Way to promote open debate of American politics.
You have to be joking. Given the way the Democrats have been attacking Republican Paul Ryan the last day or so? They are not civil, it's once again do as I say, not as I do. They have been saying he wants to get rid of Medicare and destroy Social Security and wants to see all the old people die on the streets. Which is a total lie. He has never said anything even close to that. No one has ever talked about getting rid of Medicare or Social Security. So much for being civil, and so much for no violent rhetoric. That is the real face of the Democratic party.
Your best response to the Tea Party is name calling? If that is the best the Democrats or the Republicans have then both parties really have become a joke. Deal with the actual issues leave the childish name calling at home kids.
You might actually want to check and see who is actually sending in more money to the government. I am betting you think it is the poor or middle class. You would be wrong according to the reported government numbers. The bottom 50% earners are only paying 2.7% of the total income tax received. This is actual money sent in to the government. Where is the myth that the poor are paying more than others coming from?
If the bottom 50% of the earners are only paying 2.7% of the income tax that ends up to be even less of the total amount of revenue that the federal government actually gets. How do people say the "rich" are getting off scott-free and the middle class and the poor are actually paying for everything? The actual revenue numbers being reported by the federal government don't seem to support that statement.
Top 1% Pay 38% of all income tax
Top 5% Pay 59% of all income tax
Top 10% Pay 70% of all income tax
Bottom 50% Pay 2.7% of all income tax
47% of American Households didn't pay any income tax for 2009.
45% of all the revenues of the government in 2009 and 2010 were from income tax. Corporate tax revenue was 13% in 2009 and 9% in 2010 of total revenues. The federal government revenues from largest to smallest are Income Tax, Social Security and other payroll taxes, Corporate Tax. All the other taxes don't even add up to the Corporate Tax amounts.
So if you added corporate taxes to the top 5% then you are talking 71.7% of revenues in 2009. It would 67.7% of revenues in 2010. So it would appear to me that the "rich" in this country are paying significantly more than half of the cash needed/used for the government to run.
So exactly who are the "rich" that we are talking about? It is just the fat cats on Wall Street and the CEOs? I don't think so.
If you look at who the corporations are in this country you might be surprised. 99% of all corporations/firms in this country have under 100 employees. They make up 30% of the revenue of all US companies. If you move up to companies with under 500 employees now you are talking about 46% of all the revenue of US companies. So small businesses are paying roughly 30% of the corporate taxes and small-medium companies are paying roughly 46% of all the corporate taxes. I suspect that most of the people who own these businesses would be considered "rich" by most people, but they are not the wall street fat cats and typical CEOs that people think of as the "rich". I make that comment because I hear people saying the middle class is disappearing. If that is the case then I would assume that those who own their own business are considered "rich".
Please explain to me how this is suppose to work where the "rich" supposedly are not paying their fair share. I am not saying the distribution of earnings in the US is a good/perfect thing. I do think everyone still has a chance to make more money and own their own business today, if they are willing to work hard and take the risks required.
http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
http://budget.house.gov/
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-revenue
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/income-tax-47-of-american_n_529059.html
If Microsoft doesn't explain what is going on or fix the problem people are having of random unexplained large data transfers, then WP7 will end up a has been. People are reporting 50MB transfers during calls, and 500MB transfers each night. I would never own a phone that randomly or without my knowledge started sending large amounts of data out.
http://windowsphonemix.com/news/unusual-usage-of-data/
Until this is addressed I would say Microsoft has a major issue. It is either a PR, such as it needs to be explained, or a software issue and it needs to be fixed. Either way the longer Microsoft doesn't address the issue the more it hurts them.
iPhone is a single device? That's really strange I thought I could buy 3 different versions at my local AT&T store. The iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 (16 gig) and the iPhone 4 (32 gig). Not to mention all the older iPhones out there that count as marketshare since they haven't been upgraded/updated yet. The iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4 series are very different from each other in features and horsepower. So no there is not just 1 model of iPhone no matter how you look at it.
There are many iPhone apps that tell you to do the same exact thing. If they won't run properly then reboot your phone and try again. I don't know what the percentage of the marketplace is like that but I have seen a few dozen or so that say that. These are apps that passed Apple's Q&A/review and got in their marketplace. So honestly I don't see much of a difference. If I don't reboot the iPhone 4 every so often it will get strange too. It's not surprising since most smart-phones are just computers that happen to be small, and are way more complex than other phones. There is also the variety of software/apps that run on smart-phones rather than a limited 2-4 apps of most regular phones. It doesn't surprise me that they aren't perfect and sometimes need to be rebooted. You even said your BlackBerry could be set to reboot every night, clearly it needs to be rebooted almost daily, otherwise why put in that option.
So it is clear that all of the top 3 smart-phone groups need to be rebooted from time to time so they function properly. So it's not really a liability since they all need it.
That is correct. Anytime you are not free to leave and the police officer detains you, then by law you are under arrest. It doesn't matter why the police officer won't let you leave, because he won't let you leave by law you are under arrest. He does not have to immediately charge you with a crime to arrest you. If you are in a traffic stop for speeding, you are under arrest. You are not able to leave at any time, thus you are under arrest. If you flee the scene, then the charge will be fleeing arrest.
Don't believe me ask any lawyer if you are technically and legally under arrest when you are not free to leave.
Here is how to know, and police don't like it, because they want people to be ignorant of the law so they can do whatever they want. Ask the police officer if you are free to leave. If he says no, then say since I am under arrest I would like to know what I am being charged with. If he says no your not under arrest, then say ok then I am free to leave, and I am going to do so. You can see the issue here. If you are not under arrest the police can't keep you from leaving, that is your legal right. If you are under arrest then you can't leave, and you should be told what your being arrested for.
That is the law.
If you are serious I might have an answer for you. It might have something to do with the issue of people feeling like the government should take care of them and offer them all kinds of free services that they don't pay for. It might also have to do with the idea being promoted of redistribution of wealth. It is my opinion, and I could be wrong, that when you teach/tell people that everyone should be the same, and those who make more money than others are somehow bad. That type of thinking will/might end up being applied in all kinds of different areas that were not originally intended and bring all kinds of unintended consequences. If you give things away to people without them having to do a thing, and they start to expect that they somehow have a right to these free things, don't be surprised when the same kind of thinking shows up in other areas. What is the political system teaching kids these days in schools, and is that effecting how they see the market place and companies in general? Some things to think about.
It reminds me of the comment/idea that the rich make too much and that isn't right, so they should be taxed more to pay for those who don't have much money and so we have more services. If people see the media companies as the big bad wealthy company then given the political thoughts of the day, it wouldn't be a stretch to say the same exact thought process is/might be being applied to the markets. I could see the same idea expressed as screw companies they make too much money and rip people off/abuse them to make all that money, so I deserve to have stuff for free. I'm not saying that I am correct, nor am I saying that makes it ethically right. The political system and thoughts of the day do effect how people think, and how they react/operate and spend in the marketplace. The question is how much effect? What effect is the idea of a nanny state having on people and it's relation to the marketplace? I don't know the answers for sure, but I suspect it is a lot more than we realize or even think about normally. I do think it is something to think about.
Sounds like you don't understand why libraries were created originally, but I could be wrong. Libraries were originally created because the cost of owning books and a decent amount was too costly for the average person. Then libraries became a resource for those of lesser income to freely get information, such as books, newspapers and magazines. As time went on more and more services were offered by libraries to keep up with all the different forms of information, records, tapes, CD, etc. There are still a number of communities where large numbers of people get their internet access from the library. I have walked in to libraries after school hours and seen them over run with school kids on the computers, doing homework, and reading the latest books and manga that the library offered.
It sounds like the libraries you are familiar with are not actually serving the community the way the community wants. I have seen libraries that only do what the librarian wants, and they are dead. I have seen community driven libraries that are packed and you have a hard time getting the popular things from them when you might want them, and instead are put on a long wait list. Where every computer is in use and there is a waiting list for them. Libraries that offer after school tutoring for anyone who wants/needs it. Libraries that offer movie parties of the latest movies released on DVD. It very much depends on how your library is run, and how responsive they are to the public around them. There is no one way to run a library. Each should be run according to the needs and wants of the public who support them. There are libraries with streaming videos, download audio books, and a raft of other cool modern options. Not all libraries are dead, just the poorly run ones in my opinion.
I have seen libraries who are carrying Manga that the high-school and junior high-school kids find popular at the moment. Many libraries are carrying TV series on DVD, huge collections of them. I have seen libraries that loan out video games. There are libraries that offer free income tax preparation from January to April. Libraries that offer to help you develop a resume, and even send them out on the computers. The more responsive a library is to the community wants and needs, the more likely it is to be used, and at times very busy.
Corporations do exactly what their shareholders tell them they want. If the shareholders say we want as much money as you can get for us, then that is what the company does. Shareholders can and do control the company. There are many many real world examples of this. Shareholders who sue the company for creating products that get the company sued for millions of dollars and forcing the firing of everyone involved. Shareholders suing for significantly devaluing the company. Shareholders who sue to stop the sale of the company. You want to change how a company operates, then get shares and start talking with the other shareholders at the shareholders meetings. Anyone with shares can go to them, and make their voice heard.
A restaurant is not required by law to serve anyone. No private business is required by law to do business with anyone. They can pick and choose who they want to serve legally and there is nothing anyone can do about it. A restaurant can say only those over 21 can eat here, or a family can't bring anyone under 10 to eat here. A movie theater can absolutely say no kids under 10 after 8pm, and many already do. A movie theater could say we won't admit anyone under 21, and I have seen a few that did that and served beer. Night clubs all the time say no one under 21, even though they only have to make sure no one under-age is served alcohol. There are teen night clubs that say no one over 21 is allowed. I have seen businesses that will only sell to locals. Any private business has the legal right to say who they do and don't want to do business with.
Actually you would be 100% legally wrong about the authorities doing anything about it. A business is not required by law to do business with anyone. I can as a business owner refuse to do business with anyone who is left handed, and there is nothing anyone can do about it legally. I can refuse to serve people who don't live in my town if I own a restaurant. Things like this are done all the time. If you don't think so let me give you a few examples.
How about anyone joining the AFLCIO union?
How about anyone joining a teachers union?
How about anyone joining a teachers credit union?
How about anyone joining a specific local town only credit union?
How about anyone joining the VFW halls?
How about churches who make rules about who can rent the church to get married in?
How about companies who make rules about who can rent their heavy equipment machines?
Privately held companies control who stock of the company can be sold to, and can require you to get approval of the sale.
There are tons of examples of groups who discriminate against just anyone being part of their group. There tons of companies/organizations who discriminate against who they do business with.
You can't do employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disabilities, age, or genetic information for employment. Also men and women must be paid the same amount for the same work/job. That is the only area legally where you can't discriminate and only for those listed things. It isn't smart, but you can discriminate based on weight, how good/bad looking a person is, if the person fits the company culture and sexual preference for hiring. Those things are not currently protected by law.
Here are some examples of job discrimination. You think Hooters restaurants hire ugly women with flat chests? You think airlines hire overweight people to be stewardesses? I'm not sure how they get away with it, but strip joints don't hire men to strip or ugly women. I have never seen a male server in Hooters or similar restaurants, not sure how they get away with that. That is just a short list of things off the top of my head. I am sure there are even more examples out there.
The Bilski case could in theory get rid of all software patents, but I somehow doubt that. I can see the case if it goes against the company, limiting software patents more than anything. I somehow don't see the Supreme Court making that wide of a ruling to destroy all software patents. It seem to me to be a very broad and sweeping reform, that usually they don't do. It might face Constitutional issues if they ruled that way. The Supreme Court might be seen by some as creating law, which only the Congress is allowed to do by the Constitution. This could be an issue faced, and the Supreme Court might not want to open that can of worms. If they did it could set up the Supreme Court to be attacked for a whole host of rulings in the past, at least in theory. The more the Supreme Court comes closer to making law, the higher the risk becomes to the court to have many different rulings of the past undone.
If you really wanted to destroy software patents, you could use a two prong attack. First would be getting more and more cases bumped up to the Supreme Court to chip away at software patents. The second would be a hard core grassroots campaign by the public to Representatives and Senators to pass some kind of a law that changed the rules of patents or the patent office, to not allow any software patents, basically to revoke that whole class of patents and ban them from the future.
Both would be a serious uphill battle against, I would bet, a number of very large companies who don't mind things staying the way they are. It is possible, in theory, though to effect the kind of change you want, but would take time and a lot of very hard work.
You would still want shareholders of some kind and some bylaws to keep things sane. They shareholders would have the ability to reign in the company/organization when it got out of control. The bylaws would keep other companies from buying up all the shares and changing how things operate. By having shareholders you don't have to think of every possible thing that might happen in the future. You just let the shareholders decide when major issues come up that weren't foreseen. This is how corporations actually work. If there is a major corporate changing decision/event then the shareholders are contacted, they meet to talk about it, and then vote on the action to take.
You could do exactly the same thing here. A good corporate attorney could set this up easily once you explained exactly what you wanted to do, and exactly what type of things you want to prevent from happening. It isn't hard, it just takes time to think about all the issues and then time for the lawyers to figure out how to legally make what you want happen.
Actually they can only do this if a majority of the shareholders agree to it. Companies with shareholders can't do whatever they want. They legally are charged with at a bare minimum maintaining the value of the company. They can not do anything that would significantly reduce the value of the company or they risk lawsuits from the shareholders. Companies are 100% responsible to their shareholders. If a majority of shareholders decide and vote to drop a lawsuit, then the company by law must drop the lawsuit.
If a company were to try and sell off a majority of their assets to another holding company making the original company worthless the shareholders could sue and would without a doubt win and block such a move. While the trial was going on the judge would halt all sales/decisions until he ruled in the case. This has been done several times in the past by shareholders who have blocked a company being sold to another because they didn't feel the price was right and they (shareholders) were getting ripped off.
If a family run business has private shares and 500 or even 10 people own various numbers of shares, they have the same issues. If the majority of the shareholders don't want the company sold or some other issue, then legally the company can't do it. Even though it isn't a publicly traded company, and the number shareholders is small. It doesn't legally matter. This is why start-ups always try and have the founders keep 51% of the shares, so they still control the company, rather than the investors or anyone else who owns shares.
So no, companies with shareholders (private or public) can not just do whatever they want. They have to do what is best for the shareholders.
It's easy to make that happen. Just write into the by laws of the company/organization that the company is not allowed to start/file a lawsuit with anyone or any company over the enforcement of patents that the company holds, and that this company by-law can never be changed even by a vote of the shareholders. It would be perfectly legal and perfectly binding and no one would be able to over-ride it because it is part of the unchangeable company charter. You could even add something so they could protect the patents from profit companies, but not any company project or project that uses an OSI approved open source license or whatever. There are many ways to do this legally, the only question is exactly what you want and what your trying to prevent.
There is a reason that companies have charters and by-laws. They are to make sure that no matter what happens that a company is run a certain way as the creators/founders of the company wants. This is the whole idea behind a poison pill clause in a company's by-laws, a legal structure to prevent by-outs or hostile takeovers of the company. If you can poison pill a company, you could do what you are talking about.
You want companies to care about what you have to say, buy stocks, and organize stockholders. Get more people who think like you to buy stocks. Then you will be able to make real changes to a company. Until then you actually don't care to be bothered since there is a method to make companies listen, but you can't be bothered to use those channels. It only takes one share and attending shareholder meetings to make your voice heard to the other shareholders. By law companies must do what the majority of the shareholders want.
Companies have loyalty, but not just anyone. They have loyalty to their shareholders and are required to try and not completely crater the company or give away the store to the detriment of the shareholders. How many of you out there own Novell shares? If you owned shares then you could tell Novell that you don't want them to do this. You could try and get other shareholders to say that they shouldn't do this. Instead people just post on message boards online, which is basically screaming in the dark. It doesn't add anything useful to the conversation and won't change a thing. You want to change things, buy Novell stock shares.
Buying shares in a company and banding like minded shareholders together will change how a company operates. The shareholders control the company and can make changes to the direction of the company. The great thing is anyone can buy shares and if you go to the shareholders meetings, anyone with shares can get up and speak to be heard.
Actually if they shoot someone with explosives on them or them catching themselves on fire as has happened the last two times, there won't be an issue. Are you seriously suggesting that all 100+ people on a plane or even the 20+ around the guy would lie to get someone off? What about the stewardesses? That's an awful lot of people lying. Besides install a few cameras with microphones and you don't have any issues at all. Someone gets killed check the cameras to see exactly what happened. All you would have to do is put a few fish-eyes in the ceiling of the isles and you could see and hear everything in a plane.
Your making it more of a problem than it would be and you know it. Besides I didn't say it was the best idea out there. In fact I said the opposite.
Higher odds, lower odds, how ever you say it. It's harder for that to happen. LOL
Actually that number is wrong. The odds are much much higher.
The odds of dying in a terrorist attack on a plane in a given year are 1 in 25,000,000.
The odds of a Westerner being killed by a terrorist in a given year are 1 in 3,000,000.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646963713065116.html
The odds of your dying in a 1 hour flight in a given year are less than 1 in 1,000,000.
http://planecrashinfo.com/
The odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646963713065116.html
The odds of dying in a car accident within one year 1 in 18,585.
The odds of simply being in a car accident within one year are 1 in 5,889.
The odds of dying by an assault within one year are 1 in 16,421.
http://www.nsc.org/
I think, if I am not mistaken, I have a better chance to win a state lottery than die in an terrorist attack on an airplane. I am so much more likely to die from an assault than a terrorist, it is an order of magnitude that is just plain silly. So as you can see the odds are pretty slim to die by a terrorist attack of any kind. I think I can risk it, and have far less security at airport with no groping or radiation. If I get a choice, I choose my Constitutional freedoms, over being safe. If a terrorist kills me so be it. At least I died with all my freedoms, rather than beaten down by my own government.