Outlook is more then just a e-mail reader. Corporate support for Outlook and nothing else is from running Exchange as their collaboration suite. Nothing works better with Exchange than Outlook and replacing all the functionality of Exchange/Outlook is not easy.
And there are other collaborative programs out there. I seriously doubt MS Exchange Server/Outlook is indispensable. It's like if it's not MS it's not usable. That's just as bad as those who say only Macs are good or those who say only Linux is good.
Interestingly, LO crashes randomly when saving a document while OO does not. Maybe it's a fluke on my system, but that's how it is. Drove me crazy until I decided to try OO, not believing that it would actually help. Using OS X SL.
No wonder, if you're using it in OSX you're really using X Windows. I use the native Mac port of OO, NeoOffice, and the only problem I've had with it is that I think it takes too long to launch. That may change after I increase my RAM from 2GB to 4GB but I don't think so, it was slow when I got my Mac more than 3 years ago.
As for OSX SL, I'm still using Leopard as my primary OS. I installed SL on an external drive to test it, once testing is done I'll install it on the internal drive. Actually I plan on replacing the HDD with a larger one like the 500GB Seagate Momentus XT 500 GB 7200RPM SATA 3Gb/s 32 MB Cache 2.5 Inch Solid State Hybrid Drive . I'd rather get a bigger drive but having a Solid State Hybrid Drive may be faster.
i find renaming to be an annoying task in OSX. the double-click speed mixed with my own impatience means it's pot luck as to whether i rename the next file or open it.
I have no problem holding down the apple key while clicking then selecting "Get info" to rename files. Actually if I have up to 10 files to rename I find that that is faster.
removal of all eject and restart buttons is a big problem.
For you not for me.
as is the steadfast, bloody-minded and consistent refusal to get out of the '80s and put at least a second button on their mouse. instead they have 1 big button that covers the entire surface of the thing
Again, for you but not for me. I do the same on my Mac as I did on my Windows and Linux PCs, use a keypress-click combo. For instance before Slashdot started using the new UI when I made a post I held down "alt" when I clicked to open a new tab in Windows, well on my Mac I held down the apple key. Or when I google, I'll open links the same way.
Of course that does not mean I can not use a two button mouse, but I don't. Instead just as when I used Windows I use a two button Trackball.
Some like having the Trash and Eject be the same UI target were a dumb idea from day one. Some, like having all of the menus at the top of the screen made sense when we were on low resolution single screen systems, but are detriments in multi-monitor high resolutions systems, and some of them are brand new bonehead decisions like choose to use a green plus for a button that will shrink the screen.
Those are all person preferences. Some like you have problems with them but others may like them.
And the so called "maximize" green button is not a maximize button at all, it resizes the current window to its optimal width and height. Personally I'd rather it maximize windows but I don't have a problem grabbing a corner and dragging it to make it bigger, or smaller. And that was a problem I had with MS Windows, if a window were maximized it couldn't be made smaller simply by grabbing a corner. It had to be reduced in size by clicking the reduce button first. Only then could a corner be grabbed to make it the size the user wants.
Falcon
Oh, btw when I said that about MS Windows I meant those versions I've used however I have not used any version in more than 3 years. The last I used was XP.
Doesn't this pricing figure make the assumption that physically making a paper magazine or newspaper costs $0.00?
Quite the opposite, it may make assumption printing costs are infinite. If prints cost were zero, download costs would have to approach zero too to get people to download. Heck some people would pay more for dead-tree media, for some things I am one of them. I'd pay the new price of $130 a year's subscription of the dead-tree edition of the Economists over Amazon's $10 a month. The dead-tree edition does come with:
The World in 2012, a special issue distributed to all paid subscribers active in December 2011
Free access to The Economist in audio, with digital recordings of all print articles available as a subscribers-only weekly podcast
Unrestricted access to The Economist online, including news, analysis, rankings, blogs, multimedia, online debates and a fully searchable archive dating back to 1997
Regular in-depth industry and regional special reports, and The Economist Technology Quarterly
When you read the Note on the Text for the ebook of LoTR, which was excellently done, you see how much effort it takes to get a good copy. "The Victorian Internet", OTOH, is a crappy OCR. Much of the action took place in "Rritain", and sometimes entire words are rendered as "????" when the OCR broke down.
Crappy OCR isn't to blame, editors need to read and make corrections. That is part of the job description for copy editors.
To me, they are offset by the advantages they have over traditional media.
Like being able to read without electricity? Oops, Kindles need electricity. Like being able to stick it in a pocket. I wear cargo pants and shorts but I doubt a Kindle will fit in one of the pockets. On the other hand one can hold a bunch of books, so they save space and weight. That is the only advantage they have that I can think of. A big disadvantage though, to me and a few others, is that reading screens over a period of tyme hurts. Reading these posts I have to glance away maybe a few tymes a minute otherwise my eyes start to hurt. Next then is I'll get a headache as well. Reading paper though I can read and read and read without looking away for many minutes. Occasionally I lose track of tyme reading books and magazines but I rarely do when reading on screen.
Post a link to it, because I can't find it anywhere on their site. Unless you're talking about the print edition, in which case you're missing the point.
A subscription to the print edition includes access to the online version. What is hard to understand? I actually saw it in a brick-and-mortar Barnes and Noble. But here it is from the Economist:
The World in 2012, a special issue distributed to all paid subscribers active in December 2011
Free access to The Economist in audio, with digital recordings of all print articles available as a subscribers-only weekly podcast
Unrestricted access to The Economist online, including news, analysis, rankings, blogs, multimedia, online debates and a fully searchable archive dating back to 1997
Regular in-depth industry and regional special reports, and The Economist Technology Quarterly
One might argue that new-growth trees take carbon out of the air and put it in paper. But would this carbon sequestration have a measurable impact on greenhouse gases?
One proposal for carbon sequestration was to plow trees underground then plant new trees. I heard about it a few years ago but don't know what's going on with it now.
A monopoly is when you have 100 % control of the market. While amazon do not control all electronic distribution. They do control the distribution to all Kindles.
Yes Amazon controls Kindles. However what is a Kindle? It's an e-reader and there are others on the market. The iPad is one. Barnes and Noble's Nook is another. Those Android based tablets on the market now along with all the others coming online can be used as e-readers too. So Amazon does not have a monopoly on e-readers.
It's just nobody likes the free market and if you want it free, it must be regulated.
You obviously have not read my posts about freemarkets. Here is one thread on freemarkets and capitalism I posted in. Here I compare what we have today with Corporatists and Fascists, Mussolini said Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism. I say neither Democrats nor Republicans want a freemarket in this post.
As for regulation, regulating a market means it is not free. A freemarket is free from government interference Actually government allowed every monopoly that exists to exist. Patents are government granted monopolies. The use (granting) of easements are government granted monopolies. Requiring broadcasters to be licensed is another government granted monopoly.
I'm acquainted with an author who is trying to build some audience by not-quite-giving-away a couple of his novels at impulse-purchase prices on Kindle, but Amazon insists on selling his ebooks for a higher price.
I've heard there are other websites that offer ebooks for download, perhaps the author you know can use one or more of them. And perhaps he or she can open their own website. Let's go all out here, and setup a blog too so readers can have discussions. I haven't done it myself but I have been thinking about and researched doing that as a photographer. And maybe, though I'm not sure, a videographer.
"At those prices, PC Pro claims it's cheaper to mail out a physical magazine than have it delivered electronically on the Kindle." But that doesn't include the costs of actually printing the physical magazine.
Where's your citation? As has been stated here a number of tymes traditionally subscription revenue pays for printing and distributing magazines and newspapers, publishers make their profits from advertisements.
If Kindles can't download, what good are they? They have to be able to download. Or are you saying downloads can only be done over cellphones? I use mine everywhere, even at home. Bluetooth? Both my cellphone and laptop have that built in.
"Fortune magazine" has the article A fantastic use for Apple's cash about the $60 Billion Apple has. Businesses raised include Disney and Sony, both are publishers. Thinking about it I wonder what the reaction to Apple announcing a buy-out of ABC, CBS, or NBC would be.
Amazon (and Apple) are not being "allowed" to control content.
HAHA!!! Slashdot has had a number of articles about Apple censoring apps, books, and software. It's a mystery how Apple decides whether something submitted meets Apples standards.
The Economist and other rags amazon pushes out with their prices.
B&N does. B&N sells yearly subscriptions to the "Economist" for $100. That includes the weekly and web editions. When I first saw it on display I wanted to buy a subscription, I didn't because I didn't have the money.
And pundits say printed magazines are dead. TFA cites the kindle edition of the Economist as costing more than a subscription which includes the print edition and full access to the website. Of course it gives the costs in the UK. In the US the Kindle edition costs $10.49. I semi-regularly buy the print edition from Barnes and Noble for a few dollars less. Thing I notice though is that the Kindle edition seems to be monthly whereas the print edition is weekly. And I bet the web edition, which has the archives, is updated daily.
dell doesn't have an OS but this may see its deployment of Ubuntu ramp up.
Dell does ship some PCs with Ubuntu not MS Windows but Dell does not control Ubuntu. Apple compleatly controls Mac OSX, and OSX is only supposed to be installed on Macs. I seem to recall Michael Dell saying back in the '90s, or early 2000s, he'd love to ship Dell PCs with the Mac OS.
A while ago they released some machines using intel and were condemned for the embedded powervr graphics that isn't foss friendly. Go amd - problem gone.
FOSS has problems with both ATI and Nvidia GPUs. Neither releases command controls, or whatever, to allow FOSS developers to write drivers for Linux. ATI does release it's own Linux drivers but they're closed source. And I've heard they have bugs and don't work for all distros.
if you ignore the computers that generate the most revenue for Apple, then Apple looks like it did five years ago, and that's the opposite of Dell buying AMD?
I don't know about that. I'm about to rebuild a PC, well use the case at least, and I've been looking at various AMD and Intel CPUs. The nomenclature they both use is real confusing but comparing and reading online reviews and comparison tests AMD beats Intel almost always and frequently match if not beat Intel in both actual usage and in benchmarks. Not all the tyme mind you but, guessing here, but maybe in a third of the tests.
Nvidia would be far more likely to suffer if Dell only sold ATI cards in their gaming systems
Dell would be hurt too. Much like other religious technical wars, be it Linux or Windows, Macs or Windows PCs, there's war between fanatics fighting over GPUs like what ATI and Nvidia offer. If Dell went to only using ATI chips they'd lose Nvidia fanatics. Gamers and photographers who say they need Nvidia.
How many software engineers are needed? How many managers? How many people with doctorates in History? "How many positions are needed?", is a ridiculous question, because it is orthogonal to the question at hand which centers around if a degree is necessary. The point is that there are a LOT of ways to make money that don't derive from a college degree.
You say there are a lot but you fail to list them or say how many there are, either in absolute numbers or as a percentage of the population. You evade the question saying "it is orthogonal to the question at hand which centers around if a degree is necessary". If you want to go down that road, no degree is needed as there are no necessities. Living itself is not necessary. No farmers needed. No sanitation workers needed.
My own profession required a degree, and I got one, but it is simple snobbery to imply that everyone needs one.
Just as snobbish as it is to imply I said everyone needs a college degree. All I asked was how many, though I did leave out "many" in my question, positions there are that pay well that do not need a degree. I even pointed out an apprenticeship can help with some but again how many positions are there that do not need at least that? Heck, I'll even make it easier and reduce education and training to a 2 year degree, an associate degree, as well as apprenticeships. My sister got an associate in nursing and she'd worked as a nurse for more than 20 years. A friend who got her associate degree worked as a paralegal. But I go back and ask how many well paying positions are there that only need 2 years education beyond high school or an apprenticeship? I contend there are not many careers that pay well that all that's needed for is a high school diploma.
And by that I mean allowing the person to get married and have a family, buy a house, save money for retirement, and not have to depend on Social Security, Medicare, or their children. Yes those are matters of personal responsibility. Make sure that each spouse is able to make their own way in the world before getting married. Make sure there is enough income so one person can be a stay-at-home parent before having children. Or have each parent work part-time, on different schedules so a babysitter or childcare isn't needed on a continuing basis. Maybe have a babysitter watch babies and young children once a week, for an evening out, but not much more than that. Start a college savings plan for each child, in case they decide they want to go to college.
They may not want to, but college is important to some. I know, it was important to me. And to my sisters. I came from low income parents, my dad enlisted and retired from the US Air Force and my mom worked part-time while raising 3 children and attending a technical school to become a lab tech for hospitals. She even took us to work sometimes to save money. She worked in a restaurant and would sit us in one of the booths. I rarely saw my father but my mother raised my sisters and I to be responsible and to believe we can do almost anything we set our minds to. So by the tyme I was a teen I was already working odd jobs, lawn or yard care, babysitting, or whatever I could find where people needed help. When I was able to, old enough, I applied for and got a job working in a restaurant after school. In 9th or 10th grade I decided I wanted to go to college and was leaning towards Computer Engineering. When it finally came to it, in 12th grade, I was torn between that and a marine science degree. Then like my older sister who joined the Army, and not having money to pay for college, I enlisted in the Army as well to save money to go to college when I got out. My younger sister skipped that and went straight to college, working her way through.
An accident delayed if not derailed my goal of getting at least a Masters if not a Professional or PhD degree. Now life itself is a struggle. But getting a degree is still important to me.
So what's to stop any business owner from incorporating their business? NOTHING.
Nothing? Nothing but state laws. Each state makes their own requirements corporations have to meet. Some states do not allow all of a corporation's stock to be owned by one person. Some states require corporations to have 3 executives. Other states have other requirements. There are also disadvantages to corporate forms of business. Of course you can register an offshore corporation but they have their own disadvantages.
So before you make a fool of yourself again research what you will post about before posting.
You've got that wrong, reading comprehension on your part -100%.
Just to try to educate you and improve your comprehension, all businesses pass on the cost of taxes, but by giving corporations limited liability you're giving them an unfair advantage against other forms of business ownership.
Slashdot Mirror
Outlook is more then just a e-mail reader. Corporate support for Outlook and nothing else is from running Exchange as their collaboration suite. Nothing works better with Exchange than Outlook and replacing all the functionality of Exchange/Outlook is not easy.
And there are other collaborative programs out there. I seriously doubt MS Exchange Server/Outlook is indispensable. It's like if it's not MS it's not usable. That's just as bad as those who say only Macs are good or those who say only Linux is good.
Falcon
Interestingly, LO crashes randomly when saving a document while OO does not. Maybe it's a fluke on my system, but that's how it is. Drove me crazy until I decided to try OO, not believing that it would actually help. Using OS X SL.
No wonder, if you're using it in OSX you're really using X Windows. I use the native Mac port of OO, NeoOffice, and the only problem I've had with it is that I think it takes too long to launch. That may change after I increase my RAM from 2GB to 4GB but I don't think so, it was slow when I got my Mac more than 3 years ago.
As for OSX SL, I'm still using Leopard as my primary OS. I installed SL on an external drive to test it, once testing is done I'll install it on the internal drive. Actually I plan on replacing the HDD with a larger one like the 500GB Seagate Momentus XT 500 GB 7200RPM SATA 3Gb/s 32 MB Cache 2.5 Inch Solid State Hybrid Drive . I'd rather get a bigger drive but having a Solid State Hybrid Drive may be faster.
Falcon Falcon
i find renaming to be an annoying task in OSX. the double-click speed mixed with my own impatience means it's pot luck as to whether i rename the next file or open it.
I have no problem holding down the apple key while clicking then selecting "Get info" to rename files. Actually if I have up to 10 files to rename I find that that is faster.
removal of all eject and restart buttons is a big problem.
For you not for me.
as is the steadfast, bloody-minded and consistent refusal to get out of the '80s and put at least a second button on their mouse. instead they have 1 big button that covers the entire surface of the thing
Again, for you but not for me. I do the same on my Mac as I did on my Windows and Linux PCs, use a keypress-click combo. For instance before Slashdot started using the new UI when I made a post I held down "alt" when I clicked to open a new tab in Windows, well on my Mac I held down the apple key. Or when I google, I'll open links the same way.
Of course that does not mean I can not use a two button mouse, but I don't. Instead just as when I used Windows I use a two button Trackball.
okay, i'm ranting now.
Yeap, your whole post was a rant.
Falcon
but it has it's own share of UI disasters.
Like what?
Some like having the Trash and Eject be the same UI target were a dumb idea from day one. Some, like having all of the menus at the top of the screen made sense when we were on low resolution single screen systems, but are detriments in multi-monitor high resolutions systems, and some of them are brand new bonehead decisions like choose to use a green plus for a button that will shrink the screen.
Those are all person preferences. Some like you have problems with them but others may like them.
And the so called "maximize" green button is not a maximize button at all, it resizes the current window to its optimal width and height. Personally I'd rather it maximize windows but I don't have a problem grabbing a corner and dragging it to make it bigger, or smaller. And that was a problem I had with MS Windows, if a window were maximized it couldn't be made smaller simply by grabbing a corner. It had to be reduced in size by clicking the reduce button first. Only then could a corner be grabbed to make it the size the user wants.
Falcon
Oh, btw when I said that about MS Windows I meant those versions I've used however I have not used any version in more than 3 years. The last I used was XP.
Doesn't this pricing figure make the assumption that physically making a paper magazine or newspaper costs $0.00?
Quite the opposite, it may make assumption printing costs are infinite. If prints cost were zero, download costs would have to approach zero too to get people to download. Heck some people would pay more for dead-tree media, for some things I am one of them. I'd pay the new price of $130 a year's subscription of the dead-tree edition of the Economists over Amazon's $10 a month. The dead-tree edition does come with:
Unrestricted access to The Economist online, including news, analysis, rankings, blogs, multimedia, online debates and a fully searchable archive dating back to 1997
Falcon
Apple saying that you can't sell for a lower price than what you sell in our store. Or Amazon having complete control over pricing.
Yea, I'd say to both "Fuck off!" I'd go use other download websites and or put up my own. The advantage they may offer is more exposure.
Falcon
When you read the Note on the Text for the ebook of LoTR, which was excellently done, you see how much effort it takes to get a good copy. "The Victorian Internet", OTOH, is a crappy OCR. Much of the action took place in "Rritain", and sometimes entire words are rendered as "????" when the OCR broke down.
Crappy OCR isn't to blame, editors need to read and make corrections. That is part of the job description for copy editors.
Falcon
To me, they are offset by the advantages they have over traditional media.
Like being able to read without electricity? Oops, Kindles need electricity. Like being able to stick it in a pocket. I wear cargo pants and shorts but I doubt a Kindle will fit in one of the pockets. On the other hand one can hold a bunch of books, so they save space and weight. That is the only advantage they have that I can think of. A big disadvantage though, to me and a few others, is that reading screens over a period of tyme hurts. Reading these posts I have to glance away maybe a few tymes a minute otherwise my eyes start to hurt. Next then is I'll get a headache as well. Reading paper though I can read and read and read without looking away for many minutes. Occasionally I lose track of tyme reading books and magazines but I rarely do when reading on screen.
Falcon
Post a link to it, because I can't find it anywhere on their site. Unless you're talking about the print edition, in which case you're missing the point.
A subscription to the print edition includes access to the online version. What is hard to understand? I actually saw it in a brick-and-mortar Barnes and Noble. But here it is from the Economist:
And like I said B&N sells subscriptions.
Falcon
One might argue that new-growth trees take carbon out of the air and put it in paper. But would this carbon sequestration have a measurable impact on greenhouse gases?
One proposal for carbon sequestration was to plow trees underground then plant new trees. I heard about it a few years ago but don't know what's going on with it now.
Falcon
A monopoly is when you have 100 % control of the market. While amazon do not control all electronic distribution. They do control the distribution to all Kindles.
Yes Amazon controls Kindles. However what is a Kindle? It's an e-reader and there are others on the market. The iPad is one. Barnes and Noble's Nook is another. Those Android based tablets on the market now along with all the others coming online can be used as e-readers too. So Amazon does not have a monopoly on e-readers.
It's just nobody likes the free market and if you want it free, it must be regulated.
You obviously have not read my posts about freemarkets. Here is one thread on freemarkets and capitalism I posted in. Here I compare what we have today with Corporatists and Fascists, Mussolini said Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism. I say neither Democrats nor Republicans want a freemarket in this post.
As for regulation, regulating a market means it is not free. A freemarket is free from government interference Actually government allowed every monopoly that exists to exist. Patents are government granted monopolies. The use (granting) of easements are government granted monopolies. Requiring broadcasters to be licensed is another government granted monopoly.
Falcon
I'm acquainted with an author who is trying to build some audience by not-quite-giving-away a couple of his novels at impulse-purchase prices on Kindle, but Amazon insists on selling his ebooks for a higher price.
I've heard there are other websites that offer ebooks for download, perhaps the author you know can use one or more of them. And perhaps he or she can open their own website. Let's go all out here, and setup a blog too so readers can have discussions. I haven't done it myself but I have been thinking about and researched doing that as a photographer. And maybe, though I'm not sure, a videographer.
Falcon
"At those prices, PC Pro claims it's cheaper to mail out a physical magazine than have it delivered electronically on the Kindle." But that doesn't include the costs of actually printing the physical magazine.
Where's your citation? As has been stated here a number of tymes traditionally subscription revenue pays for printing and distributing magazines and newspapers, publishers make their profits from advertisements.
Falcon
The Kindle 1 and 2 do not have WiFi hardware.
If Kindles can't download, what good are they? They have to be able to download. Or are you saying downloads can only be done over cellphones? I use mine everywhere, even at home. Bluetooth? Both my cellphone and laptop have that built in.
Falcon
right?
"Fortune magazine" has the article A fantastic use for Apple's cash about the $60 Billion Apple has. Businesses raised include Disney and Sony, both are publishers. Thinking about it I wonder what the reaction to Apple announcing a buy-out of ABC, CBS, or NBC would be.
Falcon
Amazon (and Apple) are not being "allowed" to control content.
HAHA!!! Slashdot has had a number of articles about Apple censoring apps, books, and software. It's a mystery how Apple decides whether something submitted meets Apples standards.
Falcon
The Economist and other rags amazon pushes out with their prices.
B&N does. B&N sells yearly subscriptions to the "Economist" for $100. That includes the weekly and web editions. When I first saw it on display I wanted to buy a subscription, I didn't because I didn't have the money.
Falcon
And pundits say printed magazines are dead. TFA cites the kindle edition of the Economist as costing more than a subscription which includes the print edition and full access to the website. Of course it gives the costs in the UK. In the US the Kindle edition costs $10.49. I semi-regularly buy the print edition from Barnes and Noble for a few dollars less. Thing I notice though is that the Kindle edition seems to be monthly whereas the print edition is weekly. And I bet the web edition, which has the archives, is updated daily.
Falcon
dell doesn't have an OS but this may see its deployment of Ubuntu ramp up.
Dell does ship some PCs with Ubuntu not MS Windows but Dell does not control Ubuntu. Apple compleatly controls Mac OSX, and OSX is only supposed to be installed on Macs. I seem to recall Michael Dell saying back in the '90s, or early 2000s, he'd love to ship Dell PCs with the Mac OS.
A while ago they released some machines using intel and were condemned for the embedded powervr graphics that isn't foss friendly. Go amd - problem gone.
FOSS has problems with both ATI and Nvidia GPUs. Neither releases command controls, or whatever, to allow FOSS developers to write drivers for Linux. ATI does release it's own Linux drivers but they're closed source. And I've heard they have bugs and don't work for all distros.
Falcon
What is it with this double line spacing?
if you ignore the computers that generate the most revenue for Apple, then Apple looks like it did five years ago, and that's the opposite of Dell buying AMD?
Only if you ignore iOS devices generate 65% of Apple's earnings.
Falcon
Not really. So Dell would have CPUs along with the rest of the hardware. However Dell doesn't have it's own OS/software.
When I read TFA I thought that too, that Dell was becoming another Apple.
Falcon
every measure other than price
I don't know about that. I'm about to rebuild a PC, well use the case at least, and I've been looking at various AMD and Intel CPUs. The nomenclature they both use is real confusing but comparing and reading online reviews and comparison tests AMD beats Intel almost always and frequently match if not beat Intel in both actual usage and in benchmarks. Not all the tyme mind you but, guessing here, but maybe in a third of the tests.
Nvidia would be far more likely to suffer if Dell only sold ATI cards in their gaming systems
Dell would be hurt too. Much like other religious technical wars, be it Linux or Windows, Macs or Windows PCs, there's war between fanatics fighting over GPUs like what ATI and Nvidia offer. If Dell went to only using ATI chips they'd lose Nvidia fanatics. Gamers and photographers who say they need Nvidia.
Falcon
How many software engineers are needed? How many managers? How many people with doctorates in History? "How many positions are needed?", is a ridiculous question, because it is orthogonal to the question at hand which centers around if a degree is necessary. The point is that there are a LOT of ways to make money that don't derive from a college degree.
You say there are a lot but you fail to list them or say how many there are, either in absolute numbers or as a percentage of the population. You evade the question saying "it is orthogonal to the question at hand which centers around if a degree is necessary". If you want to go down that road, no degree is needed as there are no necessities. Living itself is not necessary. No farmers needed. No sanitation workers needed.
My own profession required a degree, and I got one, but it is simple snobbery to imply that everyone needs one.
Just as snobbish as it is to imply I said everyone needs a college degree. All I asked was how many, though I did leave out "many" in my question, positions there are that pay well that do not need a degree. I even pointed out an apprenticeship can help with some but again how many positions are there that do not need at least that? Heck, I'll even make it easier and reduce education and training to a 2 year degree, an associate degree, as well as apprenticeships. My sister got an associate in nursing and she'd worked as a nurse for more than 20 years. A friend who got her associate degree worked as a paralegal. But I go back and ask how many well paying positions are there that only need 2 years education beyond high school or an apprenticeship? I contend there are not many careers that pay well that all that's needed for is a high school diploma.
And by that I mean allowing the person to get married and have a family, buy a house, save money for retirement, and not have to depend on Social Security, Medicare, or their children. Yes those are matters of personal responsibility. Make sure that each spouse is able to make their own way in the world before getting married. Make sure there is enough income so one person can be a stay-at-home parent before having children. Or have each parent work part-time, on different schedules so a babysitter or childcare isn't needed on a continuing basis. Maybe have a babysitter watch babies and young children once a week, for an evening out, but not much more than that. Start a college savings plan for each child, in case they decide they want to go to college.
They may not want to, but college is important to some. I know, it was important to me. And to my sisters. I came from low income parents, my dad enlisted and retired from the US Air Force and my mom worked part-time while raising 3 children and attending a technical school to become a lab tech for hospitals. She even took us to work sometimes to save money. She worked in a restaurant and would sit us in one of the booths. I rarely saw my father but my mother raised my sisters and I to be responsible and to believe we can do almost anything we set our minds to. So by the tyme I was a teen I was already working odd jobs, lawn or yard care, babysitting, or whatever I could find where people needed help. When I was able to, old enough, I applied for and got a job working in a restaurant after school. In 9th or 10th grade I decided I wanted to go to college and was leaning towards Computer Engineering. When it finally came to it, in 12th grade, I was torn between that and a marine science degree. Then like my older sister who joined the Army, and not having money to pay for college, I enlisted in the Army as well to save money to go to college when I got out. My younger sister skipped that and went straight to college, working her way through.
An accident delayed if not derailed my goal of getting at least a Masters if not a Professional or PhD degree. Now life itself is a struggle. But getting a degree is still important to me.
Falcon
So what's to stop any business owner from incorporating their business? NOTHING.
Nothing? Nothing but state laws. Each state makes their own requirements corporations have to meet. Some states do not allow all of a corporation's stock to be owned by one person. Some states require corporations to have 3 executives. Other states have other requirements. There are also disadvantages to corporate forms of business. Of course you can register an offshore corporation but they have their own disadvantages.
So before you make a fool of yourself again research what you will post about before posting.
Falcon
You've got that wrong, reading comprehension on your part -100%.
Just to try to educate you and improve your comprehension, all businesses pass on the cost of taxes, but by giving corporations limited liability you're giving them an unfair advantage against other forms of business ownership.
Maybe now you understand, but I doubt it.
Falcon