I find it far more likely that Dell will also source parts of its operations in India. They've been using India for software/phone support for a long time, it's possible that there's some back-room backscratching to get India into hardware & assembly, in exchange for more cheap labor and a lever to pull against china.
"Moving out of China" sounds insanely difficult to do for hardware companies, it's taken decades to build that up.
Increased premiums Reduced payouts (more charged to me as not covered) Increased haggling with provider & insurer Insurance company stock price has skyrocketed
So no, I don't trust private any more than I trust public. I trust competition, but I'm not sure we're getting that either.
Fox has done almost nothing to illustrate what is wrong with health care in terms that a non-conservative can understand. All I hear is paid abortions, socialism, and "really really expensive" without justification or careful explanation of costs.
Yes, that's still not the same as being WRONG, they could be correct and just verbally incompetent. But it's also not convincing.
I've heard many researchers say they get plenty of students (from here and overseas) that are good at knowing lots of facts/techniques/methods/etc., but fall on their face when you try to move them into original research.
Thus the definition of intelligence re-emerges. In fact very intelligent people are rare both in the West and China. This shouldn't surprise us.
The first step is to realize we have a problem. We keep living in this denial dreamland where the Western world is somehow smarter and we're just giving off our "low end" jobs that are mere rote, and keeping the "smart stuff" for ourselves. We're not any smarter, and those low end jobs are what built us.
Hell, we even had sex like every other teenager does
No, a lot of teenagers don't have sex even in this day and age. Not for religious reasons, not because they're ugly or deformed. There's just not much time for such things until you have your high paying job and no longer have achievement hurdles to jump. In HS it's rush rush rush to get into a good college, college is rush rush rush to get a good job. Then you get the good job and you can slack a bit (at least as an engineer who doesn't want to be CEO of anything). I know a number of people who were in those modes well into their 30s, I'm not sure if they were still virgins but I'm pretty sure if they're not it's only because they either paid for it or just did the one-night-stand "let's see what this is all about" deal. It's more than slightly distracting to be barraged with sexual content 24/7, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to restrict senseless sex to forums that require conscious choice to attend.
It always struck me that teenagers who were busy questioning whether oral or anal is really sex, were teenagers who didn't have enough to do or who had almost no ambition. Cheap one night stands aside, how do you form a relationship with someone if your top priority is your education, your career path or your coding hobby? These are the attitudes that many parents want of their children and that's why the taboo exists outside of the bible belt. Whether you think this is realistic or not is up to you, but it was achievable for many of us. From a government standpoint I can understand the desire to want to encourage this attitude, as the people who lack ambition are likely not producing the most results.
Regardless, the issue is not hypocrisy, it's application of law as it stands. An adult is allowed to "sext" another adult. The issue is that these people are under the age of consent, and due to child pornography laws, theoretically not allowed to be doing this. Those laws exist to prevent the exploitation of "children" which teenagers are. Granted teenagers, particularly girls, are generally physically adults, but the laws were constructed to protect this particular group as well. The laws definitely do not exist to promote some puritanical view on sex, or someones religious view on sex, or the general concept that sex is "dirty". In this case the letter of the law is being broken, but probably not the spirit of the law. It seems obvious that the law needs to change, and it seems like this is escalating in randomly stupid directions rather than getting resolved in some logical way. Certainly some squirrel noises will be made by various groups as the courts decide this is crapola, but thems the breaks in a free country founded by religious outcasts.
No he's right to a degree. I've been modded down countless times for expressing or at least addressing unpopular views. As an AC the more vindictive mods will just ignore you as not being worth the points. Slashdot is not terribly tolerant of diverse viewpoints, even if they are well argued and not just idle trolling. AC is often the way to go if you have something to say that's intelligent but contrary.
Not entirely crazy bullshit, there is fact mixed in there....with a lot of crazy bullshit.
US copyright/IP laws seem to be enforced everywhere, one way or another. Our ISPs do install back doors for the government. One could argue that terrorists are a rebellion fighting for the rights of the muslim man. It is true a US soldier has at some point raped some civilian somewhere, in fact it's happened many times in many countries, not necessarily in times of war. Soldiering tends to have a selection bias towards questionable individuals. This is true of all countries with a volunteer military, not just the US.
But of course the way it's presented is crazy bullshit and there's no parallel. Any of us in the US are free to read the rantings and ravings of our muslim brothers, and we may even join them if we see the wisdom of their methods. I'm free to turn this post into a rant against Obamanomics, question his US citizenship, ask if he and Tiger Woods go to the same golf clubs and even post my plans for world domination. The governor of my beloved state is allowed to make off the cuff remarks about seceding from the US, and he's unprisoned. Short of threatening people, and selling government secrets, my government will do nothing but watch. You can't argue that China isn't wholly further towards the dark side when it comes to civil rights.
China is doing well economically, it could stand to eliminate the censorship and heavy handed laws that it's had to have in place while they weathered the cold war. The citizens are, on the whole, satisfied with their government and are not interested in seeing it overthrown. I don't think having some public dissent is going to harm the stability of their country. The only value I see in it is that the Chinese government, at this date in history, has a plan that isn't wholly evil, is significantly superior in execution than any western country and is making huge positive change for its citizens. I suspect they don't want to change the formula that they have in place now, but the downside is that if they do not, as it falls apart (and it inevitably will) they will be reluctant to liberalize their civil rights due to the pressures of unrest.
I find it entertaining, and given the amount of money people spend on violence containing entertainment, I'm in good company. But I'm not going to let a young child around it.
Nudity and sex may not bother you, but I'd rather my child not be exposed to the usual treatment of the subject you'll get in video games. It is every bit as crass as their treatment of violence, which is also another basic element of nature.
Either way, these distinctions are up to us individually to use on our children. It should not be the subject of public policy.
As a gamer you should be educated enough to know which games are appropriate for a child, and as a parent you should be aware of what he/she is up to and police them yourself. As a parent I understand children are willful and disobedient at times, but once he's old enough to sneak one by me, he's probably old enough to handle some nudity and violence without turning into a serial killer.
And your attitude ensures that the general public will not. Some of us, including myself, are willing to discuss the legalization of marijuana from the standpoint that it may reduce our tax burden. Time spent chasing down every degenerate who smokes or sells pot is time and money wasted. From a cost-benefit analysis, I personally see legalizing marijuana as a potential winner.
However, if you argue principle and ideals, recreational drug use is bad. I don't even think it's an arguable point, although I know many do. Alcoholism is the only example required, here is a non-addictive substance which in reasonable quantities has no significant negative long term effects. It has created a significant problem in society. You can't argue any other drug wouldn't also be bad. People want to relieve themselves from reality, and pot is just another way of doing so. The greatest fear I have with legalizing drugs are that it will increase their use, that I'll be sitting on the couch watching TV and ads for pot will be on making it seem perfectly acceptable, and I will have to explain long and hard about drug use and what is and is not allowed under my roof. That in spite of that I will be competing against a culture that increasingly thinks "doing what feels right" is an intelligent and responsible decision making process, and my kids will be sucked in to that, at least for a while. It's a sad but true fact that you have the most power to totally ruin your life when you are about 15, all it takes is for one bad decision, and some terrible luck. The net impact to society may end up costing more in the long run, and once you let this particular cat out of the bag, you will never be able to put it back in.
If you really want to be taken seriously on this, confront the economics and be willing to make concessions on principle. Drugs will continue to be villified, and drug use will continue to be viewed as a contemptible habit. No commercials/ads, restricted and heavily taxed sale, continued anti-drug propaganda, and the general feeling that by using it you are being punished. Certainly the business model will be regulated to the point where it's just profitable enough to keep the black market supressed...but it would be legal and the police won't chase you down. If you broadcast a message of this nature, you'll have a much higher chance of getting some converts, particularly on the right side of the aisle where "reduced tax burden" sounds like a patriotic obligation.
Quantization. 30% of any given district or state may favor legalization of marijuana, and this is true in 100% of districts. Thus it's a loser for any politician to get behind. You vote for a representative, not for an agenda.
This is exactly the same problem the PC has. We all know how miserably that failed.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Most of us pay our 1040s and that's that. Many of us can't understand why paying taxes is complicated, because we file a 1040 take the standard deduction and move on with life. Obviously if you're a contractor, self-employed or a small business owner, you know better.
With that said I don't agree completely that avoiding taxes should be encouraged and is perfectly acceptable. The courts have decreed that avoiding taxes is not illegal, not that its should become a national past-time. Firstly, on principle, anything that is not illegal is not necessarily OK. Many things are legal that are not OK, including flipping off passengers in traffic and jumping in front of the line at the grocery store. Second, by finding loopholes in the tax law, you are finding was to avoid carrying your burden. It should not be on individuals to be deciding for themselves how much they should pay in taxes. A lot of confusing debate goes on about who is carrying the tax burden, and no one really knows since we're all not really paying taxes the same way. The government still needs the money, so the result will be increased taxes on everyone else. Finally, by putting it on individuals (particularly those with large accounting staffs that still represent less than 1% of their corporate revenue) to find loopholes you encourage the complicated tax code we have today.
So I agree that our tax code is bizarre and complicated, and I can understand that taxes are not straightforward for very many, that for small businesses it is a crippling overhead, I can't justify avoiding taxes as an upstanding activity. The tax code should be short and sweet, with a minimum of exceptions. But I think it will continue on as-is, because those benefitting from finding loopholes would not appreciate what happened to them if they had to pay the full burden the general public has agreed to (although I suspect we could then get away with lowering the tax rate if we did so).
I find it challenging to let someone else work out how much money they think I owe them. I find that they tend to make more mistakes in their favor than in mine. Further, as it happens for many of us in the tech industry, the occasional opportunity to work "off the books" for some cash on the side presents itself. If you are altruistic and honorable about your tax burden you are obligated to report it at the end of the year, which often results in you owing the government more than they think you owe.
The only reason I've ever thought a "no tax return" policy made sense was to elicit what the government knew about your income, versus what you reported. It seems like some people get bitten by the government seeing more of their income than they knew the government could see. In that sense filing a return felt a bit like entrapment. (and for a few people, it felt like reporting more of their income than they could get away with)
He already said he lives on $8k/yr and doesn't file tax returns. It sounds like an academic problem to him.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There is no such thing as financial security short of having a trust fund in your name. The main difference between self employment and general employment is how many tax forms you fill out.
Otherwise freedom is an illusion. In a job your boss tells you when to wake up and what to work on. If you're self-employed, your customers do.
The irony being rich. People who are willing to obey the law, are going to have to pay good money and endure moderate inconvenience to do the right thing to be able to continue paying good money. People who break the law, well they will continue to break the law. Why I even think this irony was on penny-arcade today.
As an owner of an 8 year old DLP HDTV that only has component video, I do feel unjustly targeted.
I disagree, I think this is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. These are kids who clearly are maximizing the investment of tax dollars their community is giving for them to have free education. For whatever reason, you give them a subject to learn, and they learn it. I'd say these kids should be given free education through their undergrad degree, if anything, not booted out to fend for themselves in community colleges (which vary wildly in quality) or sent off to full universities where they will face the usual distraction of sex, drugs, and booze (assuming their parents could afford this to begin with!). These are people we want to invest in, get them to learn as much as they can, as young as they can, because they will be our top academic performers. If that's more Advanced Placement programs, visiting professors, whatever, these people are making good use of what is given.
We should be taking that bottom rung, taking them out of academia at 10th grade, and putting them in trade schools. Raise some technicians, mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, etc. They're clearly not benefiting much from the academics, and they need to be converted to at least self-sufficient producers, rather than have more money thrown at them for something they're really not benefiting from.
True story, a friend liked to take his muscle car out to race on a deserted road in the country. One particular day there was some dead something on the side of the road with a bunch of buzzards doing their thing. Long story short, it turns out the fender of a Pontiac Firebird is a Buzzard Collector.
Down here in Texas we don't use no high falutin' government assemblage, we use horse sense. The horses tell us it's cold out, so there can't be no climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it far more likely that Dell will also source parts of its operations in India. They've been using India for software/phone support for a long time, it's possible that there's some back-room backscratching to get India into hardware & assembly, in exchange for more cheap labor and a lever to pull against china.
"Moving out of China" sounds insanely difficult to do for hardware companies, it's taken decades to build that up.
do private insurers have better resume?
Increased premiums
Reduced payouts (more charged to me as not covered)
Increased haggling with provider & insurer
Insurance company stock price has skyrocketed
So no, I don't trust private any more than I trust public. I trust competition, but I'm not sure we're getting that either.
Fox has done almost nothing to illustrate what is wrong with health care in terms that a non-conservative can understand. All I hear is paid abortions, socialism, and "really really expensive" without justification or careful explanation of costs.
Yes, that's still not the same as being WRONG, they could be correct and just verbally incompetent. But it's also not convincing.
I've heard many researchers say they get plenty of students (from here and overseas) that are good at knowing lots of facts/techniques/methods/etc., but fall on their face when you try to move them into original research.
Thus the definition of intelligence re-emerges. In fact very intelligent people are rare both in the West and China. This shouldn't surprise us.
The first step is to realize we have a problem. We keep living in this denial dreamland where the Western world is somehow smarter and we're just giving off our "low end" jobs that are mere rote, and keeping the "smart stuff" for ourselves. We're not any smarter, and those low end jobs are what built us.
Hell, we even had sex like every other teenager does
No, a lot of teenagers don't have sex even in this day and age. Not for religious reasons, not because they're ugly or deformed. There's just not much time for such things until you have your high paying job and no longer have achievement hurdles to jump. In HS it's rush rush rush to get into a good college, college is rush rush rush to get a good job. Then you get the good job and you can slack a bit (at least as an engineer who doesn't want to be CEO of anything). I know a number of people who were in those modes well into their 30s, I'm not sure if they were still virgins but I'm pretty sure if they're not it's only because they either paid for it or just did the one-night-stand "let's see what this is all about" deal. It's more than slightly distracting to be barraged with sexual content 24/7, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to restrict senseless sex to forums that require conscious choice to attend.
It always struck me that teenagers who were busy questioning whether oral or anal is really sex, were teenagers who didn't have enough to do or who had almost no ambition. Cheap one night stands aside, how do you form a relationship with someone if your top priority is your education, your career path or your coding hobby? These are the attitudes that many parents want of their children and that's why the taboo exists outside of the bible belt. Whether you think this is realistic or not is up to you, but it was achievable for many of us. From a government standpoint I can understand the desire to want to encourage this attitude, as the people who lack ambition are likely not producing the most results.
Regardless, the issue is not hypocrisy, it's application of law as it stands. An adult is allowed to "sext" another adult. The issue is that these people are under the age of consent, and due to child pornography laws, theoretically not allowed to be doing this. Those laws exist to prevent the exploitation of "children" which teenagers are. Granted teenagers, particularly girls, are generally physically adults, but the laws were constructed to protect this particular group as well. The laws definitely do not exist to promote some puritanical view on sex, or someones religious view on sex, or the general concept that sex is "dirty". In this case the letter of the law is being broken, but probably not the spirit of the law. It seems obvious that the law needs to change, and it seems like this is escalating in randomly stupid directions rather than getting resolved in some logical way. Certainly some squirrel noises will be made by various groups as the courts decide this is crapola, but thems the breaks in a free country founded by religious outcasts.
No he's right to a degree. I've been modded down countless times for expressing or at least addressing unpopular views. As an AC the more vindictive mods will just ignore you as not being worth the points. Slashdot is not terribly tolerant of diverse viewpoints, even if they are well argued and not just idle trolling. AC is often the way to go if you have something to say that's intelligent but contrary.
Not entirely crazy bullshit, there is fact mixed in there....with a lot of crazy bullshit.
US copyright/IP laws seem to be enforced everywhere, one way or another. Our ISPs do install back doors for the government. One could argue that terrorists are a rebellion fighting for the rights of the muslim man. It is true a US soldier has at some point raped some civilian somewhere, in fact it's happened many times in many countries, not necessarily in times of war. Soldiering tends to have a selection bias towards questionable individuals. This is true of all countries with a volunteer military, not just the US.
But of course the way it's presented is crazy bullshit and there's no parallel. Any of us in the US are free to read the rantings and ravings of our muslim brothers, and we may even join them if we see the wisdom of their methods. I'm free to turn this post into a rant against Obamanomics, question his US citizenship, ask if he and Tiger Woods go to the same golf clubs and even post my plans for world domination. The governor of my beloved state is allowed to make off the cuff remarks about seceding from the US, and he's unprisoned. Short of threatening people, and selling government secrets, my government will do nothing but watch. You can't argue that China isn't wholly further towards the dark side when it comes to civil rights.
China is doing well economically, it could stand to eliminate the censorship and heavy handed laws that it's had to have in place while they weathered the cold war. The citizens are, on the whole, satisfied with their government and are not interested in seeing it overthrown. I don't think having some public dissent is going to harm the stability of their country. The only value I see in it is that the Chinese government, at this date in history, has a plan that isn't wholly evil, is significantly superior in execution than any western country and is making huge positive change for its citizens. I suspect they don't want to change the formula that they have in place now, but the downside is that if they do not, as it falls apart (and it inevitably will) they will be reluctant to liberalize their civil rights due to the pressures of unrest.
Willing to take that risk, in the name of science, yes.
I find it entertaining, and given the amount of money people spend on violence containing entertainment, I'm in good company. But I'm not going to let a young child around it.
Nudity and sex may not bother you, but I'd rather my child not be exposed to the usual treatment of the subject you'll get in video games. It is every bit as crass as their treatment of violence, which is also another basic element of nature.
Either way, these distinctions are up to us individually to use on our children. It should not be the subject of public policy.
As a gamer you should be educated enough to know which games are appropriate for a child, and as a parent you should be aware of what he/she is up to and police them yourself. As a parent I understand children are willful and disobedient at times, but once he's old enough to sneak one by me, he's probably old enough to handle some nudity and violence without turning into a serial killer.
Frequently unions require a "closed shop" aka "union shop", and contractually obligate corporations into it. It's not legal in all states.
Because two wrongs frequently make a right.
And your attitude ensures that the general public will not. Some of us, including myself, are willing to discuss the legalization of marijuana from the standpoint that it may reduce our tax burden. Time spent chasing down every degenerate who smokes or sells pot is time and money wasted. From a cost-benefit analysis, I personally see legalizing marijuana as a potential winner.
However, if you argue principle and ideals, recreational drug use is bad. I don't even think it's an arguable point, although I know many do. Alcoholism is the only example required, here is a non-addictive substance which in reasonable quantities has no significant negative long term effects. It has created a significant problem in society. You can't argue any other drug wouldn't also be bad. People want to relieve themselves from reality, and pot is just another way of doing so. The greatest fear I have with legalizing drugs are that it will increase their use, that I'll be sitting on the couch watching TV and ads for pot will be on making it seem perfectly acceptable, and I will have to explain long and hard about drug use and what is and is not allowed under my roof. That in spite of that I will be competing against a culture that increasingly thinks "doing what feels right" is an intelligent and responsible decision making process, and my kids will be sucked in to that, at least for a while. It's a sad but true fact that you have the most power to totally ruin your life when you are about 15, all it takes is for one bad decision, and some terrible luck. The net impact to society may end up costing more in the long run, and once you let this particular cat out of the bag, you will never be able to put it back in.
If you really want to be taken seriously on this, confront the economics and be willing to make concessions on principle. Drugs will continue to be villified, and drug use will continue to be viewed as a contemptible habit. No commercials/ads, restricted and heavily taxed sale, continued anti-drug propaganda, and the general feeling that by using it you are being punished. Certainly the business model will be regulated to the point where it's just profitable enough to keep the black market supressed...but it would be legal and the police won't chase you down. If you broadcast a message of this nature, you'll have a much higher chance of getting some converts, particularly on the right side of the aisle where "reduced tax burden" sounds like a patriotic obligation.
Quantization. 30% of any given district or state may favor legalization of marijuana, and this is true in 100% of districts. Thus it's a loser for any politician to get behind. You vote for a representative, not for an agenda.
Wouldn't that mean if you were an abusive moderator you'd simply mod comments as -1 Hate to prevent altruistic mod's from correcting it?
This is exactly the same problem the PC has. We all know how miserably that failed.
Most of us pay our 1040s and that's that. Many of us can't understand why paying taxes is complicated, because we file a 1040 take the standard deduction and move on with life. Obviously if you're a contractor, self-employed or a small business owner, you know better.
With that said I don't agree completely that avoiding taxes should be encouraged and is perfectly acceptable. The courts have decreed that avoiding taxes is not illegal, not that its should become a national past-time. Firstly, on principle, anything that is not illegal is not necessarily OK. Many things are legal that are not OK, including flipping off passengers in traffic and jumping in front of the line at the grocery store. Second, by finding loopholes in the tax law, you are finding was to avoid carrying your burden. It should not be on individuals to be deciding for themselves how much they should pay in taxes. A lot of confusing debate goes on about who is carrying the tax burden, and no one really knows since we're all not really paying taxes the same way. The government still needs the money, so the result will be increased taxes on everyone else. Finally, by putting it on individuals (particularly those with large accounting staffs that still represent less than 1% of their corporate revenue) to find loopholes you encourage the complicated tax code we have today.
So I agree that our tax code is bizarre and complicated, and I can understand that taxes are not straightforward for very many, that for small businesses it is a crippling overhead, I can't justify avoiding taxes as an upstanding activity. The tax code should be short and sweet, with a minimum of exceptions. But I think it will continue on as-is, because those benefitting from finding loopholes would not appreciate what happened to them if they had to pay the full burden the general public has agreed to (although I suspect we could then get away with lowering the tax rate if we did so).
I find it challenging to let someone else work out how much money they think I owe them. I find that they tend to make more mistakes in their favor than in mine. Further, as it happens for many of us in the tech industry, the occasional opportunity to work "off the books" for some cash on the side presents itself. If you are altruistic and honorable about your tax burden you are obligated to report it at the end of the year, which often results in you owing the government more than they think you owe.
The only reason I've ever thought a "no tax return" policy made sense was to elicit what the government knew about your income, versus what you reported. It seems like some people get bitten by the government seeing more of their income than they knew the government could see. In that sense filing a return felt a bit like entrapment. (and for a few people, it felt like reporting more of their income than they could get away with)
He already said he lives on $8k/yr and doesn't file tax returns. It sounds like an academic problem to him.
There is no such thing as financial security short of having a trust fund in your name. The main difference between self employment and general employment is how many tax forms you fill out.
Otherwise freedom is an illusion. In a job your boss tells you when to wake up and what to work on. If you're self-employed, your customers do.
The irony being rich. People who are willing to obey the law, are going to have to pay good money and endure moderate inconvenience to do the right thing to be able to continue paying good money. People who break the law, well they will continue to break the law. Why I even think this irony was on penny-arcade today.
As an owner of an 8 year old DLP HDTV that only has component video, I do feel unjustly targeted.
I have begun to deduct points for everyone who leaves the restroom without washing their hands.
I disagree, I think this is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. These are kids who clearly are maximizing the investment of tax dollars their community is giving for them to have free education. For whatever reason, you give them a subject to learn, and they learn it. I'd say these kids should be given free education through their undergrad degree, if anything, not booted out to fend for themselves in community colleges (which vary wildly in quality) or sent off to full universities where they will face the usual distraction of sex, drugs, and booze (assuming their parents could afford this to begin with!). These are people we want to invest in, get them to learn as much as they can, as young as they can, because they will be our top academic performers. If that's more Advanced Placement programs, visiting professors, whatever, these people are making good use of what is given.
We should be taking that bottom rung, taking them out of academia at 10th grade, and putting them in trade schools. Raise some technicians, mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, etc. They're clearly not benefiting much from the academics, and they need to be converted to at least self-sufficient producers, rather than have more money thrown at them for something they're really not benefiting from.
Or is that Buzzard Collectors?
True story, a friend liked to take his muscle car out to race on a deserted road in the country. One particular day there was some dead something on the side of the road with a bunch of buzzards doing their thing. Long story short, it turns out the fender of a Pontiac Firebird is a Buzzard Collector.
Down here in Texas we don't use no high falutin' government assemblage, we use horse sense. The horses tell us it's cold out, so there can't be no climate change.
Damn liberal elitists.