Many state governments have freedom of information or "right to know" laws that make any submission to RFIs or RFPs discoverable by request from anyone, including competing vendors.
Sounds like a great idea, except all it does is keep vendors from putting any confidential information in those RFIs or RFPs, sometimes including things like screenshots of proprietary systems.
All it does is downgrade the quality of responses that particular state government gets to its requests.
How do biofuels starve the third world when we are currently paying landowners not to farm in order to prop up the prices of agricultural products? We are intentionally under-producing.
Your point is valid, but the only alternative is to force people to participate in the studies. You always have a possibility for a confound if participants are self-selecting/volunteering. You could make this comment on any live human study.
I had the same question. Additionally, there are plenty of people driving in Chicago who are from out of state, perhaps a state where insurance agencies are not "compelled" to divulge your private data on your behalf.
You are probably right in this case, because I don't think he has made any real changes with regard to transparency in this particular process. But I guess one thing to keep in mind going forward is that if you shine a light on the floor, you're going to see some roaches. But that doesn't mean the roaches weren't always there.
but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right. This is the guy we're trusting to fix the banking mess?
Uh, you missed the boat on that one. The reason you should have no confidence is that he heads the IRS, because the IRS is an agency within the Treasury.
Jerry: [referring to George's stuffed wallet] Your friend is morbidly obese. George: Well, at least I'm not carrying a purse. Jerry: It's not a purse! It's European!
It has nothing to do with whether they display the logo. They are not allowed to set a minimum charge if they accept the credit cards. Think about it; why would a credit card allow a business to essentially tax the usage of their card, sometimes at rates as high as 100%?
You can give a cash discount, but you CANNOT charge more for paying with a credit card.
Sir, you are talking about whether we should do this. Increasing the cost of cigs and alcohol DOES decrease their use. Whether that should be a function of government is another story. In my opinion, it shouldn't be, but that's because the government shouldn't be in the business of providing things like health care with taxpayer dollars. And the reason it should stay out of that business is because as soon as it gets into that business, people will have a say in the health decisions of recipients of that health care.
You should have the freedom to do whatever you want to your body, because it doesn't affect me and I have no say in what you do with your body... unless it DOES affect me.
But it is not the same argument as the weapon situation. There is no doubt that there is a societal cost to the freedom to own a gun. You must pay to fight this crime one way or another, and for those who choose not to own a gun, I don't think it is right to impose upon them the cost to society incurred by you owning a gun.
I think it is very much a freedom argument. It is not government attempting to dissuade you from owning a gun or a knife. It is the acknowledgment that there is an additional marginal cost to society for you to own that gun or knife.
You are only considering the scenario where you, the consumer, wins out. What if they target a sale on Monty Python crap to people who aren't obsessed with Monty Python, and based on your web history they determine you do not get offered the sale price?
Um, yes, why not do that? If the sale of knives creates some danger in society, than it should be taxed equal to that danger and the funds should go toward extra police or similar.
Raising taxes can indeed be a way of fighting crime.
Managers don't set prices, either. Your suggestion that you can only express your anger to the person responsible for setting prices is kind of ridiculous. It is not my job to understand the internal mechanisms and business processes within Circuit City. When you do shitty things to customers, they will get angry. It's pretty simple, and if you work for a company like this, you can either take it or quit. It is not the customers' fault for acting rationally.
Slashdot Mirror
> So dial back the anti-religious bigotry a tad and maybe we can make some
> progress against the real problem.
That sounds like collectivism, which suffers from most of the same problems as statism.
Many state governments have freedom of information or "right to know" laws that make any submission to RFIs or RFPs discoverable by request from anyone, including competing vendors.
Sounds like a great idea, except all it does is keep vendors from putting any confidential information in those RFIs or RFPs, sometimes including things like screenshots of proprietary systems.
All it does is downgrade the quality of responses that particular state government gets to its requests.
How do biofuels starve the third world when we are currently paying landowners not to farm in order to prop up the prices of agricultural products? We are intentionally under-producing.
What exactly is "compulsory insurance"? Call it what it is: a monthly driving fee.
> Some information your kids just need to be largely innocent of until they become adults
As a recent college grad, I'd like to thank you and all dads like you.
Your point is valid, but the only alternative is to force people to participate in the studies. You always have a possibility for a confound if participants are self-selecting/volunteering. You could make this comment on any live human study.
I had the same question. Additionally, there are plenty of people driving in Chicago who are from out of state, perhaps a state where insurance agencies are not "compelled" to divulge your private data on your behalf.
If you're right, then companies who adopt this approach will quickly fail. I wouldn't be too worried.
You are probably right in this case, because I don't think he has made any real changes with regard to transparency in this particular process. But I guess one thing to keep in mind going forward is that if you shine a light on the floor, you're going to see some roaches. But that doesn't mean the roaches weren't always there.
but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right. This is the guy we're trusting to fix the banking mess?
Uh, you missed the boat on that one. The reason you should have no confidence is that he heads the IRS, because the IRS is an agency within the Treasury.
If anyone feels the need to build a super-quiet box, they really should shop around and look into these type of issue, or suffer sever disappointment.
I can't figure out if this is a typo or not!!1
Jerry: [referring to George's stuffed wallet] Your friend is morbidly obese.
George: Well, at least I'm not carrying a purse.
Jerry: It's not a purse! It's European!
Yikes, you had beaten me to it by many hours. Please forgive the redundancy, but glad someone else was thinking like I was!
It has nothing to do with whether they display the logo. They are not allowed to set a minimum charge if they accept the credit cards. Think about it; why would a credit card allow a business to essentially tax the usage of their card, sometimes at rates as high as 100%?
You can give a cash discount, but you CANNOT charge more for paying with a credit card.
He is a paid adviser for the TSA
LOL!!!!!!11 Or how about a tax cheat as head of the Treasury Department
> Last time I bought Ramen noodles it came to be less than $5, and most
> small places don't allow charges under that to be put on plastic.
Please report them. This violates their cardmember agreement with the credit cards. Same with bars that have a minimum.
Apples cost about the same as oranges, too.
Sir, you are talking about whether we should do this. Increasing the cost of cigs and alcohol DOES decrease their use. Whether that should be a function of government is another story. In my opinion, it shouldn't be, but that's because the government shouldn't be in the business of providing things like health care with taxpayer dollars. And the reason it should stay out of that business is because as soon as it gets into that business, people will have a say in the health decisions of recipients of that health care.
You should have the freedom to do whatever you want to your body, because it doesn't affect me and I have no say in what you do with your body... unless it DOES affect me.
But it is not the same argument as the weapon situation. There is no doubt that there is a societal cost to the freedom to own a gun. You must pay to fight this crime one way or another, and for those who choose not to own a gun, I don't think it is right to impose upon them the cost to society incurred by you owning a gun.
I think it is very much a freedom argument. It is not government attempting to dissuade you from owning a gun or a knife. It is the acknowledgment that there is an additional marginal cost to society for you to own that gun or knife.
I'm not being sarcastic. Do you have a counterpoint, or are you sticking with the approach of simply acting like my comment is absurd?
Taxes increase the price of the knife, regardless of whether the knife is sold on the open or black market.
You are only considering the scenario where you, the consumer, wins out. What if they target a sale on Monty Python crap to people who aren't obsessed with Monty Python, and based on your web history they determine you do not get offered the sale price?
Um, yes, why not do that? If the sale of knives creates some danger in society, than it should be taxed equal to that danger and the funds should go toward extra police or similar.
Raising taxes can indeed be a way of fighting crime.
Tell that to the TSA.
Managers don't set prices, either. Your suggestion that you can only express your anger to the person responsible for setting prices is kind of ridiculous. It is not my job to understand the internal mechanisms and business processes within Circuit City. When you do shitty things to customers, they will get angry. It's pretty simple, and if you work for a company like this, you can either take it or quit. It is not the customers' fault for acting rationally.