This is nothing compared to what I learned about Apple's Mac ads... Get this... the guy who says "I'm a mac..." he isn't actually a computer at all! Neither is PC! I couldn't believe it, but it was a pretty reliable source who told me this.
I've seen statistics like this over and over. It is *incredibly* misleading. We aren't taxed based on what we have but rather what we earn in a given year. They shouldn't be taxed for saving money.
Find me a reliable source that says that the wealthy pay zero taxes. Hint: you'll only find sources that show that the wealthy pay a higher percentage than everyone else.
Investing money is not a loophole. When that money comes out of their investments, it will be taxed.
It is certainly true. I don't know what Mr. Buffett did with his money, but I'm guessing he invested a lot of it. His money will be taxed accordingly when he takes it out of his investments. It isn't a loophole. He is just putting off "getting paid" until he decides to uninvest.
I'd rather not waste any tax money at all. I know that will never happen, but iPads? They are nowhere near as useful as netbooks, and yet they cost more. Is there really some type of program that will only run on iPads?
Ignoring what's actually happening and focusing on the arguments being presented by people in this thread (since really we are talking about something broader than what's going on at this school):
About how money will be moved around for this: there will still be money spent on these iPads. If they are able to get rid of other things, why don't they *just* get rid of those things and save a ton of money? That is, unless, they truly honestly believe that these iPads will compensate for what those other things provided beforehand (say, textbooks that will now be on the iPad). My problem is that they will be giving iPads to *everyone,* even though many will still want and use old fashioned textbooks (if other comments in this thread are telling the truth).
You mean like how the rich pay more in taxes than anyone else? (both in percentage of income and in total amount). "Taking less than before" is NOT the same as giving the rich money. Which, by the way, are the same people who create jobs.
And this is a perfect example of something that is horribly wrong with your system. Now all of the tax payers get to pay for these iPads, even though many of them won't get used.
It's amazing how much control they appear to have over the thing. I feel lucky when I can get my RC helicopter to go anywhere near the general direction that I want. And especially outdoors! The very slight breeze outside makes toy helicopter impossible to fly, but it seems like they have complete control.
I was thinking the same thing. Also the fact that more than a few have been supposedly spotted out of 100... I highly doubt they'll find more than 1 or 2 outside of (relatively) densely populated europe (assuming they went as far as they are claiming). The amount of land where any person can see at any given time is a very small percentage of the earth's surface.
As far as actually making it that far, I also highly doubt it, but then again there are currents and updrafts (as the other guy stated), and surely they would have run into condensation along the way and fallen straight down.
They are *not* taking Google's search results. They are looking at what surfers search for, and then at what pages they end up on. I'd wager that they don't even look at the search results page, just what page the user ends up at.
I'll bet if you did the same thing with Bing, but just clicked on lower links on the search results page, those search results would be pushed up closer to the top. They aren't copying algorithms. They are saying "hey, this guy was looking for a page about horses, and then they went to this page. We should promote that result." It's smart. MS is allowed to be innovative. You don't have to have a fit when they get things right.
I can't believe the number of clueless comments in this thread. Do you still not know what the original story was about? People who have opted to send information to microsoft used google (and various other search engines) to search for something. The Bing toolbar, or whatever was collecting the information, noted that person X searched for term Y, and eventually ended up at page Z. It makes perfect sense to connect Y and Z, regardless of the search engine used, or even if they asked a friend to point them to a page about the subject. That isn't nearly as blatant as you are all claiming. They aren't searching google to get their search results. They are looking at what people are actually looking for based on their searches and browsing. Certainly not cheating.
The point is that that's the only area where it makes sense to draw comparisons. Developers can already do whatever they want in both Android and iOS (I'm talking *before* tablet APIs). The new APIs may make it easier, but if you're going to draw a comparison, you need to look at the parts of the OS that aren't "apps."
Do a Google search for iPad. Look at the most common image for it (the one showing the home screen). Are you really trying to tell me that isn't nearly identical to the iPhone? The apps' UIs are the only thing different between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
This is nothing compared to what I learned about Apple's Mac ads... Get this... the guy who says "I'm a mac..." he isn't actually a computer at all! Neither is PC! I couldn't believe it, but it was a pretty reliable source who told me this.
Have you ever seen Doctor Who? I'm pretty sure film makers make their country the center of the universe more often than you think.
In your world: Say goodbye to investments. Say goodbye to loans. Say goodbye to retirement. It isn't just my opinion. It's common sense.
the top 5% also have about 60% of the total wealt
I've seen statistics like this over and over. It is *incredibly* misleading. We aren't taxed based on what we have but rather what we earn in a given year. They shouldn't be taxed for saving money.
Find me a reliable source that says that the wealthy pay zero taxes. Hint: you'll only find sources that show that the wealthy pay a higher percentage than everyone else.
Investing money is not a loophole. When that money comes out of their investments, it will be taxed.
Tell Michael Moore hi for me.
It is certainly true. I don't know what Mr. Buffett did with his money, but I'm guessing he invested a lot of it. His money will be taxed accordingly when he takes it out of his investments. It isn't a loophole. He is just putting off "getting paid" until he decides to uninvest.
I'd rather not waste any tax money at all. I know that will never happen, but iPads? They are nowhere near as useful as netbooks, and yet they cost more. Is there really some type of program that will only run on iPads?
Ignoring what's actually happening and focusing on the arguments being presented by people in this thread (since really we are talking about something broader than what's going on at this school):
About how money will be moved around for this: there will still be money spent on these iPads. If they are able to get rid of other things, why don't they *just* get rid of those things and save a ton of money? That is, unless, they truly honestly believe that these iPads will compensate for what those other things provided beforehand (say, textbooks that will now be on the iPad). My problem is that they will be giving iPads to *everyone,* even though many will still want and use old fashioned textbooks (if other comments in this thread are telling the truth).
"Tax breaks for the rich"
You mean like how the rich pay more in taxes than anyone else? (both in percentage of income and in total amount). "Taking less than before" is NOT the same as giving the rich money. Which, by the way, are the same people who create jobs.
You are comparing free iPads with free health care?
Sounds good to me.
I love your mentality. It is, unfortunately, being adopted by those on the left in the US. Has been adopted, I should say.
"Money from the government is free! Yay!"
And this is a perfect example of something that is horribly wrong with your system. Now all of the tax payers get to pay for these iPads, even though many of them won't get used.
How old is this news? Honestly, this happened multiple months ago. I'm also pretty sure it was covered on slashdot.
It's chunky, but not obese.
It's amazing how much control they appear to have over the thing. I feel lucky when I can get my RC helicopter to go anywhere near the general direction that I want. And especially outdoors! The very slight breeze outside makes toy helicopter impossible to fly, but it seems like they have complete control.
I was thinking the same thing. Also the fact that more than a few have been supposedly spotted out of 100... I highly doubt they'll find more than 1 or 2 outside of (relatively) densely populated europe (assuming they went as far as they are claiming). The amount of land where any person can see at any given time is a very small percentage of the earth's surface.
As far as actually making it that far, I also highly doubt it, but then again there are currents and updrafts (as the other guy stated), and surely they would have run into condensation along the way and fallen straight down.
They are *not* taking Google's search results. They are looking at what surfers search for, and then at what pages they end up on. I'd wager that they don't even look at the search results page, just what page the user ends up at.
I'll bet if you did the same thing with Bing, but just clicked on lower links on the search results page, those search results would be pushed up closer to the top. They aren't copying algorithms. They are saying "hey, this guy was looking for a page about horses, and then they went to this page. We should promote that result." It's smart. MS is allowed to be innovative. You don't have to have a fit when they get things right.
I can't believe the number of clueless comments in this thread. Do you still not know what the original story was about? People who have opted to send information to microsoft used google (and various other search engines) to search for something. The Bing toolbar, or whatever was collecting the information, noted that person X searched for term Y, and eventually ended up at page Z. It makes perfect sense to connect Y and Z, regardless of the search engine used, or even if they asked a friend to point them to a page about the subject. That isn't nearly as blatant as you are all claiming. They aren't searching google to get their search results. They are looking at what people are actually looking for based on their searches and browsing. Certainly not cheating.
The point is that that's the only area where it makes sense to draw comparisons. Developers can already do whatever they want in both Android and iOS (I'm talking *before* tablet APIs). The new APIs may make it easier, but if you're going to draw a comparison, you need to look at the parts of the OS that aren't "apps."
Not sure if you posted that link before or after the update was issued. If before, look at the update.
Do a Google search for iPad. Look at the most common image for it (the one showing the home screen). Are you really trying to tell me that isn't nearly identical to the iPhone? The apps' UIs are the only thing different between the two.
Not sure why you find it funny.
Just like the computer market. All screens are the same size and all have the same resolution. Otherwise apps wouldn't run on all of them!
Oh wait...
56 000/8 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 30 = 18 144 000 000