Obviously, it was a comment on the high rate of taxation talking point, obviously. If you don't like people responding to parts of something you say in an open forum then I suggest you avoid conversations with other humans (and the internet in general), Captain Petulant Pedantic Pants.
And meanwhile, the "workaround" could be as simple as using Chrome instead of Safari until the fix is available. Most reasonable people would understand.
Yes, but Apple is involved, so reason flies out the window. If this were a bug with Chrome on Chromebooks, nobody's hair would be on fire if they had to use Firefox for a few weeks while Google figured out what the problem is and released a fix. But since it's Apple, it's time to burn the witch.
Thus implying that Apple is untrusthworthy. So when was Apple busted for cheating, ATI style? Or is this just one of those Hatorade-based tautologies, like holding it wrong or Bendghazi?
They did not send a crack team of engineer to review the devices or to assess the issue, they had their marketing guy say that the results don't match their in-house tests.
Aside from Hatorade and apparent shock that a spokesman for a company would make a company announcement, what gives you the idea that engineers aren't looking over the CR tests?
Wow, that's remarkably bad, if true. They should be saving a lot more.
There's that Libertarian Magic Dust again. The ability to save money is directly proportional to how much money one makes. If you don't make much money, you can't save much money.
Money not spent on new goods is wasted in a consumer society therefore the top brackets need to be taxed heavily to compensate for their lack of spending
Dumb idea. A consumer society is a terrible thing to encourage. Just think about the consequences of having those high incomes above with virtually no savings. What happens when that person loses their job or wants to do something ambitious? Sorry, they consumed it instead.
That....doesn't make any sense. Take the money held by the leisure class and move it into infrastructure and consumer spending, and you have....a strong economy with hire wages and more jobs.
The corporations don't eat those costs out of their profit margins
But that is what happens.
Taxes applied universally get passed on, because if everybody has to raise prices, competition can't keep the prices down.
Corporatist tautology....but all prices are always set to maximize revenue. If an industry could randomly raise prices 5%, 20%, 50% without losing money from driving away customers, they wouldn't wait for an increase in the minimum wage, new regulations or corporate taxes to have an excuse.
One question: what, exactly, did you vote for? It seems that even after all this time nobody knows, least of all the government. If that isn't the definition of stupidity, then what is?
Wow. No, I would say the definition of stupidity is pretending that someone who just explained to you what he voted for didn't know what he was voting for, and asking him why. Just can't get off that hobby horse, can you?
And you guys do know that entire line of chicken-fucking could be applied to Remain, right? You think if you talked to 50 random Remain voters that you couldn't find some who didn't know what they were actually voting for?
So let's see if I've got this straight: Three million MORE Americans voted for Clinton than Trump.
You can get this straight too: that's completely irrelevant.
Trump didn't bother to campaign in New York and California because he had no chance of winning those states - same reason that Hillary didn't bother campaigning in South Carolina. If the EC had been repealed by a constitutional amendment, it would have been a completely different race, so it is completely pointless to talk about the popular vote.
Then there's the hypocrisy of it all, as the Democratic Party spent months telling independents and lefty Dems to STFU if they didn't like the party being front-loaded with conservative southern states or closed primaries, because the rules weren't a secret going in. Well, guess what assholes - neither was the Electoral College.
I'm going to translate "play the race card" into English. It means, "point out that a bunch of vicious old racists banded together in a bloc to vote for another vicious old racist...one who was actually caught engaging in racism and forced by a court of law to admit it".
This is the Democratic equivalent of the Birther movement after Obama won in '08 - hysterically throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks, even if it's divorced from reality.
Trump won by getting votes from people who voted for Obama twice in the Rust Belt.
The Electoral College was a concession to the less populous states to get them to join the Union, along with the bicameral legislature with the equal representation in the Senate. This was so that the states with larger populations couldn't dominate the political landscape as easily.
Yes, people keep saying that, and it keeps being bullshit. It's the Senate that balances powers to small states, and nothing else. In no race have a handful of small states made a different in a presidential election. It also completely ignores the fact that the founders never envisioned the House being capped at 435 seats while the population kept growing. To start, districts were between 30,000 and 40,000 constituents in size. If that were still the case today, rather than the average district containing over 700,000 people, the House would have thousands of members, and the mathematical "advantage" of small states wouldn't exist.
Meaning that "advantage" is a fluke, not by design.
No, the Electoral College was an elitist institution from day one, and just like the House, it amplified the power of slave states by counting their slaves (who couldn't vote) as 3/5th of a person when calculating House seats.
Tip for free: The Dutch have very high taxes 52% bracket kicks in at like 50000 EUR
Living has high costs associated with it (education, health care, social services) whether your taxes are 0% or 90%. But government does a far better job of supplying those areas than businesses do, for less money.
One part of the US government supports fossil fuel production and use, while another part hypes up fear about climate change, and yet another hands vast amount of money in subsidies to "alternative energy" companies.
You mean scientists got funding to do research, and after doing said research, they drew some conclusions based on the facts gathered. Same process by which scientists concluded that smoking & asbestos cause cancer, and lead paint causes birth defects.
So, ooloorie, do you hand your two year old a Camel while dressing her in asbestos pajamas, before putting her to bed in her lead-painted crib? Just to stick it to those librul scientists with an agenda, before you give her a glass of arsenic-laden drinking water in the morning.
If not, why not? What's the substantive difference between you and Jenny McCarthy?
You haven't even shown there is a problem. Buzz off.
Not a problem? Does the Fairy Rand Grandmother come down and sprinkle Libertarian Magic Dust to ensure that people flying to a hearing/wedding/concert/meeting/operation do not get bumped from flights?
Lose the arrogance and learn before you continue making a fool of yourself. Others in this thread know better than you. Deal.
Were you typing this when you were looking in the mirror?
Yes, but this (airline economics) is taught in a later class. One which you have apparently not taken or you simply failed it. Not every economic system is simple. This is one of those which are not.
That's a lot of handwaiving, snobbery and pedantry wrapped up into three sentences. But that's all it is.
Yes, deciding to raise prices when your inventory sells out every time is that simple. You can make deciding how much to raise prices a complicated subject - psychology, data mining, ad campaigns, predictive models, opposition research - but that does nothing whatsoever to change the Econ 101 subject of raising prices to increase revenue.
How do you manage the cognitive dissonance of nodding sagely at the practice of overbooking while at the same time dismissing the fact that you can raise prices if you're selling out all of your inventory, all of the time? But then, I didn't get my degree from I Want To Get Fired for Incompetence U.
Firstly, "click to accept" has been upheld many times
By idiots, by corporatist hacks, and idiotic corporatist hacks. There is simply no way to square the circle of trying to enforce contractual terms after money has changed hands. Can't be done. You might as well try and justify child labor and indentured servitude - two other things that were once immutable and in-evita-bull as well.
And it's a farce that's proven every time a consumer tries to use an EULA to their advantage - remember Windows Refund Day? They're no different from those "employee handbooks" that have a little notice at the end saying that the handbook is not an employment contract. Which, translated, means that the company can use any clause against you, but you cannot use any clause against them.
But if you missed your flight, you wouldn't be able to get a refund or rebook. The airline would say tough - by law that was your seat and only your seat.
Which is....exactly what happens unless you pay yet another fee for flexibility. Your bus breaks down on the way to the airport - airline DGAF.
Nope. Not even close. All prices are set to maximize revenue - if a company can sell out every single widget in stock (tickets in this case) of course it is a sign they can raise the price and will take it as such. Econ 101.
The airline industry has long been doing this, they can't simply raise prices or add extra flights because that means they become less competitive against others flying the route, and they can't just add extra flights because it can sometimes be impossible to get hold of extra capacity on a route.
Riiiight. Just like the first airline to implement baggage fees was immediately driven out of business because the other airlines swooped in and grabbed their customers.
I travel for business and I don't think I've ever heard of this happening. Is it a low quality hotel thing ?
It's a corporate greed thing. I still remember the glazed look on the clerks face as we asked WTF they gave our room to someone else, when we had paid in advance and called twice to confirm the reservation. We were given the same bullshit that airlines do - 'just because you paid for a room (seat) doesn't mean you'll get one'. Except we paid in advance, assholes - should have been our room if we showed up or not.
Nah, he's just a corporate jihadist, much like yourself. You guys having a wake for the TPP, since companies wont be able to sue for "lost" profits from consumer protection, the way these airlines don't want to "lose" revenue from not being able to overbook - even though each and every seat was paid for in advance?
Slashdot Mirror
Where are the mobs, gangs and cartels based around running cigarettes and alcohol...oh wait there aren't any.
Prohibition alone makes a bad liar out of you. Why are you even attempting to fuck this chicken?
Obviously, it was a comment on the high rate of taxation talking point, obviously. If you don't like people responding to parts of something you say in an open forum then I suggest you avoid conversations with other humans (and the internet in general), Captain Petulant Pedantic Pants.
Keep fucking that chicken, chicken-fuckers. FIVE Samsung devices on the first page alone.
Yes, but Apple is involved, so reason flies out the window. If this were a bug with Chrome on Chromebooks, nobody's hair would be on fire if they had to use Firefox for a few weeks while Google figured out what the problem is and released a fix. But since it's Apple, it's time to burn the witch.
Another person shocked that the PR department of a company would make a PR announcement, rather than Dilbert on the engineering team.
Thus implying that Apple is untrusthworthy. So when was Apple busted for cheating, ATI style? Or is this just one of those Hatorade-based tautologies, like holding it wrong or Bendghazi?
Aside from Hatorade and apparent shock that a spokesman for a company would make a company announcement, what gives you the idea that engineers aren't looking over the CR tests?
Pssst. Maybe the response might have something to do with the part that was quoted?
There's that Libertarian Magic Dust again. The ability to save money is directly proportional to how much money one makes. If you don't make much money, you can't save much money.
That....doesn't make any sense. Take the money held by the leisure class and move it into infrastructure and consumer spending, and you have....a strong economy with hire wages and more jobs.
But that is what happens.
Corporatist tautology....but all prices are always set to maximize revenue. If an industry could randomly raise prices 5%, 20%, 50% without losing money from driving away customers, they wouldn't wait for an increase in the minimum wage, new regulations or corporate taxes to have an excuse.
They would just do it and pocket the difference.
Wow. No, I would say the definition of stupidity is pretending that someone who just explained to you what he voted for didn't know what he was voting for, and asking him why. Just can't get off that hobby horse, can you?
And you guys do know that entire line of chicken-fucking could be applied to Remain, right? You think if you talked to 50 random Remain voters that you couldn't find some who didn't know what they were actually voting for?
You can get this straight too: that's completely irrelevant.
Trump didn't bother to campaign in New York and California because he had no chance of winning those states - same reason that Hillary didn't bother campaigning in South Carolina. If the EC had been repealed by a constitutional amendment, it would have been a completely different race, so it is completely pointless to talk about the popular vote.
Then there's the hypocrisy of it all, as the Democratic Party spent months telling independents and lefty Dems to STFU if they didn't like the party being front-loaded with conservative southern states or closed primaries, because the rules weren't a secret going in. Well, guess what assholes - neither was the Electoral College.
This is the Democratic equivalent of the Birther movement after Obama won in '08 - hysterically throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks, even if it's divorced from reality.
Trump won by getting votes from people who voted for Obama twice in the Rust Belt.
Yes, people keep saying that, and it keeps being bullshit. It's the Senate that balances powers to small states, and nothing else. In no race have a handful of small states made a different in a presidential election. It also completely ignores the fact that the founders never envisioned the House being capped at 435 seats while the population kept growing. To start, districts were between 30,000 and 40,000 constituents in size. If that were still the case today, rather than the average district containing over 700,000 people, the House would have thousands of members, and the mathematical "advantage" of small states wouldn't exist.
Meaning that "advantage" is a fluke, not by design.
No, the Electoral College was an elitist institution from day one, and just like the House, it amplified the power of slave states by counting their slaves (who couldn't vote) as 3/5th of a person when calculating House seats.
Living has high costs associated with it (education, health care, social services) whether your taxes are 0% or 90%. But government does a far better job of supplying those areas than businesses do, for less money.
You're saying that like she's wrong. Transgender rights are today where gay rights were....40 years ago.
You mean scientists got funding to do research, and after doing said research, they drew some conclusions based on the facts gathered. Same process by which scientists concluded that smoking & asbestos cause cancer, and lead paint causes birth defects.
So, ooloorie, do you hand your two year old a Camel while dressing her in asbestos pajamas, before putting her to bed in her lead-painted crib? Just to stick it to those librul scientists with an agenda, before you give her a glass of arsenic-laden drinking water in the morning.
If not, why not? What's the substantive difference between you and Jenny McCarthy?
Not a problem? Does the Fairy Rand Grandmother come down and sprinkle Libertarian Magic Dust to ensure that people flying to a hearing/wedding/concert/meeting/operation do not get bumped from flights?
Were you typing this when you were looking in the mirror?
That's a lot of handwaiving, snobbery and pedantry wrapped up into three sentences. But that's all it is.
Yes, deciding to raise prices when your inventory sells out every time is that simple. You can make deciding how much to raise prices a complicated subject - psychology, data mining, ad campaigns, predictive models, opposition research - but that does nothing whatsoever to change the Econ 101 subject of raising prices to increase revenue.
How do you manage the cognitive dissonance of nodding sagely at the practice of overbooking while at the same time dismissing the fact that you can raise prices if you're selling out all of your inventory, all of the time? But then, I didn't get my degree from I Want To Get Fired for Incompetence U.
By idiots, by corporatist hacks, and idiotic corporatist hacks. There is simply no way to square the circle of trying to enforce contractual terms after money has changed hands. Can't be done. You might as well try and justify child labor and indentured servitude - two other things that were once immutable and in-evita-bull as well.
And it's a farce that's proven every time a consumer tries to use an EULA to their advantage - remember Windows Refund Day? They're no different from those "employee handbooks" that have a little notice at the end saying that the handbook is not an employment contract. Which, translated, means that the company can use any clause against you, but you cannot use any clause against them.
Which is....exactly what happens unless you pay yet another fee for flexibility. Your bus breaks down on the way to the airport - airline DGAF.
Nope. Not even close. All prices are set to maximize revenue - if a company can sell out every single widget in stock (tickets in this case) of course it is a sign they can raise the price and will take it as such. Econ 101.
Riiiight. Just like the first airline to implement baggage fees was immediately driven out of business because the other airlines swooped in and grabbed their customers.
It's a corporate greed thing. I still remember the glazed look on the clerks face as we asked WTF they gave our room to someone else, when we had paid in advance and called twice to confirm the reservation. We were given the same bullshit that airlines do - 'just because you paid for a room (seat) doesn't mean you'll get one'. Except we paid in advance, assholes - should have been our room if we showed up or not.
Nah, he's just a corporate jihadist, much like yourself. You guys having a wake for the TPP, since companies wont be able to sue for "lost" profits from consumer protection, the way these airlines don't want to "lose" revenue from not being able to overbook - even though each and every seat was paid for in advance?
My corporatist-BS sense is tingling....