There are plenty of people working with 4K video nowadays. Even "just" HD video. A lot of folks move a LOT of data with "just their laptop". It's a trend. "Specialized workstations" we only know because we're here, but the truth is, most people just don't want a PC anymore.
Want a shocker? A LOT of people are just not replacing their broken PC anymore. They're happy with what their phone or tablet can do. And if they do get a PC, it's almost always a laptop.
You can enter www.yahoo.com any time and use yahoo instead of google. For a while now. Since Yahoo Search used to be powered by Google. But anyway. You could also download and install ANY OTHER BROWSER, even using IE. Microsoft DID NOT force you to use IE to browse the web. And Google is in a dominant position, and, while it doesn't force anyone to use their products or services, they showcase them in a very special way. Go to www.google.com. Do you see any ads? YES, ONE: An ad for CHROME, which, guess what? Is the dominant browser now. Fine. Let's say I'm the Mozilla Foundation: google, how much would it cost to put the Firefox ad in google's home? Google: "we don't sell ads for the google home".
First you claim the EU wants to be competitive, then you say it wants to be self sufficient and basically "block everyone out".
Yes. I know this. I live in Argentina, and we're constantly being hostigated by EU and USA. Americans want "free trade agreements" (where they reserve to refuse products from us selectively), and EU demands we "allow importing of their products" (while agreeing they won't be doing the same in return). At least the EU is a bit more honest about it.
I don't mind countries (or "economic zones") protecting their industries and jobs. I just hate being sanctioned for doing the same (Argentina constantly gets sued, even for subsidizing things. And of course, the courts are in the USA or EU, so we get no chance of winning. When we sue back, our disputes are ignored)
You can't call yourself "competitive" if you rely on a closed, subsidized market.
And yet, we didn't learn a single thing about the IE "incident". Chrome is the "dominant" browser now, and many websites are designing around chrome ("ugh, no one uses that SlowFox anymore!").
I had a security camera application (Ubiquiti's AirVision) running fine. It kept nagging me for an update. The update now only works with Chrome. Fuck me, right?
Where I live the telephone company contracts another company to do the "shitty job" of hooking new customers: laying (or hanging) wires, drilling walls, etc. They also have access to junction boxes. Guess what? It's a mess. Installs are crap. They don't even bother putting junction boxes lids back on (gotta love the sound of rain in your phone line). So they have to send out their crew of actually trained phone company employees to fix the mess left by the hired installers. Very fucking efficient.
Yes. We do some warranty stuff for LG. Their website is IE6-only (older versions on compatibility mode). It uses a SHITLOAD of ActiveX components for really, really dumb things. Like: Grid Views, Drop Down Views, etc. It's the typical "I'm used to a desktop app so I expect a web app to behave exactly like a desktop app, with pop-up windows and all other controls". This is endemic with MS developers.
Have we forgotten the whole MS Antitrust fiasco? You remember that Microsoft WAS FINED because they bundled a fucking WEB BROWSER with their OS and made it the default, right? MS didn't force anyone to use it.
And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.
Does Mr. Rich CEO NOT invest if he's taxed? Don't be ridiculous. Mr Rich WILL be taxed, and millions of Average Joes WILL be able to afford MORE. Probably even making up for the difference.
And if debt is such a good thing as an asset, then why the fuck do banks need "bailouts"? Oh yes, because DEBT is DEBT and not REAL MONEY.
So if we tax Mr Rich he won't invest? Is that really what you're saying? You're implying the government should confiscate *everything* Mr Rich makes and make him get the same salary as Average Joe? NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT.
And Mr Rich *WILL* invest anywhere that will make him money. The USA has, actually, very high taxes compared to many other countries. But their market is HUGE, and their population wealthy.
Or you could invest in, say, 0% tax Fantasyland, population 300. 3000. 3 million, even. Where will Mr. Rich make more money? in 400M USA or in 3M Fantasyland?
Slippery slope is nice for online arguments. But, you know, in real life (for example, in courts), slippery slope is not allowed. Everything is judged in a case-by-case basis. With, you know, the "spirit of the law" (and not the literal text of it) and "common sense".
For a more graphic example: What makes the economy "move" more?
1 million Average Joes buying a six pack? or 1 Rich CEO buying a $50K Rolex?
Consider how many people you need to produce 6 million cans of beer, distribute them across the country, put them in shelves, sell them, etc. And how many people are involved in IMPORTING one watch from England and putting it in a shelve, and selling it? Are there more walmarts, or boutique stores that sell Rolexes?
Again, as I said, Mr. Rich CEO will, most likely, invest his money. The bulk of that money just goes into the ridiculous "full circle" financial system that allows DEBT to be considered an ASSET.
Again, the point of my original comment still stands: Slashdot Libertarians are defending the ultra-rich, as if they have any remote chance of becoming that rich.
It's just amazing.
Hey dude, wake up... the day you'll be as rich as Buffet you'll be able to skew laws in your favor anyway. Don't worry about that.
I don't know what's up with people defending the likes of Warren Buffet or any other guy who got rich by pure financial speculation. I'm not a marxist, and I have some money in investment funds. I just don't believe people who are that disgustingly rich should be given any mercy when it comes to taxing. They have all sorts of schemes NOT to pay taxes (like, precisely what this article says: sending their money abroad).
Simple: there are MILLIONS of each Average Joe for every Mr. Rich CEO out there. And, combined, they will SPEND more money.
Is that a difficult concept to grasp? Give Average Joe more money to spend, and HE WILL SPEND IT. And look! It will end up in Mr. Rich CEO's bank account anyway! Because he'll be selling more.
The rest of your comment is just stupid rambling I won't bother addressing, because you're so incredibly dense, obtuse and unwilling to accept any idea other than your own.
Nazis and commies experimented. NASA money put the experiments to good use.
And yes, car emissions will float from Montana to LA and cause smog, acid rain, etc. Just like now they're produced in China. And "float over" to the US.
Too many quotes to keep quoting you. Here are your answers:
1. People would choose "i dont want to pay no taxes and dont want no vaccines on my kids" and then complain the roads are bad, and private education is expensive. 2. GPS. (And before you go all fucking retarded and tell me "hurr durr nasa didn't invent this, the military did" let me ask you WHO DEVELOPED THE LAUNCH TECHNOLOGY FOR SATELLITES?) 3. Because air doesn't stay in one place. Are you fucking retarded? 4. Cars will be replaced anyway.
Here, my friends, is one of the/. libetarians I was talking about at my original post.
OK, I'll try to put this in simple terms and math for ya.
Let's assume you're making $1000/mo and you need $900 to live. If you pay a 10% tax, you're left with just $900, which means: * barely affording enough to live, and most important: * no money left for "consumption"
Which is bad, because that extra money is what drives tourism, hobbies, and all other sorts of activities you do to "enjoy your life". "Barely affording enough to live" is basically the same as communism.
Now let's take Mr. CEO making $1M/mo and needing $100K/mo to live. Take 10% off him and he still has $800K at the end of the month. Which he will, most likely, put in the bank (or stock market) for even more money (probably money they will loan to Average Joe who can't afford a new car).
You see: not everyone is equal. A wealthy person has *more* spending at the end of the month (bigger house, more power, employees), but still has money to spend. Barely Living Joe has much less spending, has to sacrifice a lot of luxuries. And yet, they both are paying "10% tax".
In other words: a flat tax "hurts" the poor much more than it hurts the rich.
Now, again, why do you want Average Joe to have more cash in hand at the end of the month? Because Average Joe is much more likely to *spend* that money, which drives the economy, rather that putting it in a bank.
Meh, everyone loves to put nice labels on themselves and then try to dissociate from the bad aspects from them. Just like the "communists" who claim no country on earth is really communist. What China, Cuba and NK do is "just the opposite".
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of people working with 4K video nowadays. Even "just" HD video. A lot of folks move a LOT of data with "just their laptop". It's a trend. "Specialized workstations" we only know because we're here, but the truth is, most people just don't want a PC anymore.
Want a shocker? A LOT of people are just not replacing their broken PC anymore. They're happy with what their phone or tablet can do. And if they do get a PC, it's almost always a laptop.
Only gamers care for "big rigs" nowadays.
Thunderbolt is dead. Apple was the only one to adopt it, and it was for only one generation. It's been replaced, for good or bad, for USB 3.
You can enter www.yahoo.com any time and use yahoo instead of google. For a while now. Since Yahoo Search used to be powered by Google.
But anyway. You could also download and install ANY OTHER BROWSER, even using IE. Microsoft DID NOT force you to use IE to browse the web.
And Google is in a dominant position, and, while it doesn't force anyone to use their products or services, they showcase them in a very special way. Go to www.google.com. Do you see any ads? YES, ONE: An ad for CHROME, which, guess what? Is the dominant browser now. Fine. Let's say I'm the Mozilla Foundation: google, how much would it cost to put the Firefox ad in google's home? Google: "we don't sell ads for the google home".
THAT, my friend, is abusing a position of power.
First you claim the EU wants to be competitive, then you say it wants to be self sufficient and basically "block everyone out".
Yes. I know this. I live in Argentina, and we're constantly being hostigated by EU and USA. Americans want "free trade agreements" (where they reserve to refuse products from us selectively), and EU demands we "allow importing of their products" (while agreeing they won't be doing the same in return). At least the EU is a bit more honest about it.
I don't mind countries (or "economic zones") protecting their industries and jobs. I just hate being sanctioned for doing the same (Argentina constantly gets sued, even for subsidizing things. And of course, the courts are in the USA or EU, so we get no chance of winning. When we sue back, our disputes are ignored)
You can't call yourself "competitive" if you rely on a closed, subsidized market.
And yet, we didn't learn a single thing about the IE "incident". Chrome is the "dominant" browser now, and many websites are designing around chrome ("ugh, no one uses that SlowFox anymore!").
I had a security camera application (Ubiquiti's AirVision) running fine. It kept nagging me for an update. The update now only works with Chrome. Fuck me, right?
Where I live the telephone company contracts another company to do the "shitty job" of hooking new customers: laying (or hanging) wires, drilling walls, etc. They also have access to junction boxes.
Guess what? It's a mess. Installs are crap. They don't even bother putting junction boxes lids back on (gotta love the sound of rain in your phone line).
So they have to send out their crew of actually trained phone company employees to fix the mess left by the hired installers.
Very fucking efficient.
Yes. We do some warranty stuff for LG. Their website is IE6-only (older versions on compatibility mode). It uses a SHITLOAD of ActiveX components for really, really dumb things. Like: Grid Views, Drop Down Views, etc. It's the typical "I'm used to a desktop app so I expect a web app to behave exactly like a desktop app, with pop-up windows and all other controls". This is endemic with MS developers.
That's why I never answer to AC.
If you think "no one pays for google" I have a bridge to sell you.
So, why was MS fined for bundling IE?
Have we forgotten the whole MS Antitrust fiasco? You remember that Microsoft WAS FINED because they bundled a fucking WEB BROWSER with their OS and made it the default, right? MS didn't force anyone to use it.
And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.
LOL. And Microsoft is still evil.
As a foreigner, I believe it is incumbent upon you as American citizens to OUTLAW THE FUCKING NSA.
Seriously? A WORLD CLASS COMPANY SHIPPING TO DECOY ADDRESSES to avoid ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT SPYING?
WHAT THE FUCK, AMERICA?
Why would Mr. Rich invest in a brewery, or purchase the trucks, if only a handful of people will be able to afford beer?
Does Mr. Rich CEO NOT invest if he's taxed? Don't be ridiculous. Mr Rich WILL be taxed, and millions of Average Joes WILL be able to afford MORE. Probably even making up for the difference.
And if debt is such a good thing as an asset, then why the fuck do banks need "bailouts"? Oh yes, because DEBT is DEBT and not REAL MONEY.
So if we tax Mr Rich he won't invest? Is that really what you're saying? You're implying the government should confiscate *everything* Mr Rich makes and make him get the same salary as Average Joe?
NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT.
And Mr Rich *WILL* invest anywhere that will make him money. The USA has, actually, very high taxes compared to many other countries. But their market is HUGE, and their population wealthy.
Or you could invest in, say, 0% tax Fantasyland, population 300. 3000. 3 million, even. Where will Mr. Rich make more money? in 400M USA or in 3M Fantasyland?
Slippery slope is nice for online arguments.
But, you know, in real life (for example, in courts), slippery slope is not allowed. Everything is judged in a case-by-case basis. With, you know, the "spirit of the law" (and not the literal text of it) and "common sense".
For a more graphic example: What makes the economy "move" more?
1 million Average Joes buying a six pack?
or
1 Rich CEO buying a $50K Rolex?
Consider how many people you need to produce 6 million cans of beer, distribute them across the country, put them in shelves, sell them, etc.
And how many people are involved in IMPORTING one watch from England and putting it in a shelve, and selling it?
Are there more walmarts, or boutique stores that sell Rolexes?
Again, as I said, Mr. Rich CEO will, most likely, invest his money. The bulk of that money just goes into the ridiculous "full circle" financial system that allows DEBT to be considered an ASSET.
Again, the point of my original comment still stands: Slashdot Libertarians are defending the ultra-rich, as if they have any remote chance of becoming that rich.
It's just amazing.
Hey dude, wake up... the day you'll be as rich as Buffet you'll be able to skew laws in your favor anyway. Don't worry about that.
I don't know what's up with people defending the likes of Warren Buffet or any other guy who got rich by pure financial speculation. I'm not a marxist, and I have some money in investment funds. I just don't believe people who are that disgustingly rich should be given any mercy when it comes to taxing. They have all sorts of schemes NOT to pay taxes (like, precisely what this article says: sending their money abroad).
Simple:
there are MILLIONS of each Average Joe for every Mr. Rich CEO out there. And, combined, they will SPEND more money.
Is that a difficult concept to grasp? Give Average Joe more money to spend, and HE WILL SPEND IT. And look! It will end up in Mr. Rich CEO's bank account anyway! Because he'll be selling more.
The rest of your comment is just stupid rambling I won't bother addressing, because you're so incredibly dense, obtuse and unwilling to accept any idea other than your own.
Nazis and commies experimented. NASA money put the experiments to good use.
And yes, car emissions will float from Montana to LA and cause smog, acid rain, etc. Just like now they're produced in China. And "float over" to the US.
Too many quotes to keep quoting you. Here are your answers:
1. People would choose "i dont want to pay no taxes and dont want no vaccines on my kids" and then complain the roads are bad, and private education is expensive.
2. GPS. (And before you go all fucking retarded and tell me "hurr durr nasa didn't invent this, the military did" let me ask you WHO DEVELOPED THE LAUNCH TECHNOLOGY FOR SATELLITES?)
3. Because air doesn't stay in one place. Are you fucking retarded?
4. Cars will be replaced anyway.
Here, my friends, is one of the /. libetarians I was talking about at my original post.
You're right. Cuba calls itself "socialist".
But for some reason it doesn't allow its citizens to access TV, Internet, or leave the country.
I see no difference with NK.
OK, I'll try to put this in simple terms and math for ya.
Let's assume you're making $1000/mo and you need $900 to live. If you pay a 10% tax, you're left with just $900, which means:
* barely affording enough to live, and most important:
* no money left for "consumption"
Which is bad, because that extra money is what drives tourism, hobbies, and all other sorts of activities you do to "enjoy your life". "Barely affording enough to live" is basically the same as communism.
Now let's take Mr. CEO making $1M/mo and needing $100K/mo to live. Take 10% off him and he still has $800K at the end of the month. Which he will, most likely, put in the bank (or stock market) for even more money (probably money they will loan to Average Joe who can't afford a new car).
You see: not everyone is equal. A wealthy person has *more* spending at the end of the month (bigger house, more power, employees), but still has money to spend. Barely Living Joe has much less spending, has to sacrifice a lot of luxuries. And yet, they both are paying "10% tax".
In other words: a flat tax "hurts" the poor much more than it hurts the rich.
A simple image to put it as an example: http://ctworkingmoms.com/wp-co...
Now, again, why do you want Average Joe to have more cash in hand at the end of the month? Because Average Joe is much more likely to *spend* that money, which drives the economy, rather that putting it in a bank.
Really? And it's never because Comcast either bought the competition OR pushed them out of business out of unfair competition?
Never ever ever?
Meh, everyone loves to put nice labels on themselves and then try to dissociate from the bad aspects from them. Just like the "communists" who claim no country on earth is really communist. What China, Cuba and NK do is "just the opposite".