Will it include commercials? If it does, and advertisers are still willing to pay even if the show is not being distrubuted via standard means (i.e. television), then we may be witnessing the beginning of a new era of advertising. Kind of like what Google did with Adwords.
PBS shows, being public television, can not have commercials. What they have are underwriter credits instead. There is a difference between the two, but it can be murky at times. Basic difference, underwriter credits are a promo for the company (brought to you by....) but can not have any products advertised in it. Commercials on the other hand are advertisements for poducts.
That said, I have no idea if it will be distributed with underwriter credits. Most likely, you would have to ask the producers/producing station.
I'd wager that $430 24" TV was a monitor with no DTV tuner.
When you add another $200 for a tuner the TV is still getting close to the $800 figure stated above.
No bet, you are correct. However, it is still below that $800 figure. However, I have seen tuners for $250 (as I mentioned)(side note, there is now one at best buy for sale at $230) that will take ATSC and output DTV and NTSC signals. Over at Froogle, there is One for $145 and it does analog.
That 24" TV does 1080i, so it is a true HDTV. That said, Best Buy also has a 27" 1080i TV for $400. They are coming down in price and total cost for an HD pair (TV+ Receiver) is well under $800 now. If you want to use just your analog TV, well, finding those DTV2Analog (analog only) converters are kind of hard to find right now. However, the CEA (the group of manufacturers who will be making the D2A converters) is expected to have them down to $66 in a few years. (their numbers, not mine)
So, our total for a 1080i TV set right now is at $545 (and dropping). And for those with analog sets that want to keep them, it will be $66 as long as they can wait or $145 if they can't.
Also digital Tuners that will convert to analog are still INSANELY priced.
$250, but that is coming down and it will also output to a digital TV if you ever decide to get one.
when I can get a DTV to ATV tuner for $99.00 then I'll agree that it's a good time to switch.
Wait 2 years.
with DTV's still well over $800.00 and DTV transmitters still 5X the price of the analog gear it is not going to happen.
I've seen some (24") at Best Buy for $430.
and everyone forgets about the small town UHF channels. Who is going to buy them a new transmitter when they can barely afford pro-sumer 4 year old camcorders for their news?
The same people who would otherwise buy them a new Analog transmitter when the current one wears out after it is 30 years old. The stations have known that this transition was comming for at least the past 10 years. They have had time to prepare and as per current FCC regulations must have been broadcasting a digital signal by now, even if it is not at max power. In other words, they already have it by this point.
Oh and the small college tv channels? what about them?
Who is going to buy them 20 million dollar transmitters?See above. Although seeing as how College TV stations are low power stations, it will/has cost them MUCH LESS than 20 Million.
Now, when human-capable matter transporters come online to disrupt things, air travel will have to adjust.
This about what it would do to the Auto & Ships & Shiping Industry. Only time you would need a vehicle would be when you transporter pad is down or in an emergency (think ambulance/firefighter/etc..).
FTTP is not "being tested", it is already being deployed. My friend's house was fitted with the capacity to use it (though they didn't get a subscription) just the other day...
Hey uh, do you think you could post the number for calling verizon on this? Possibly the one they gave your friend? I'd love to try fibre as an alternative to cable. I'm also in the Verizon area, but I have no idea what number to call.
we are multiple decades away from widespread, economical 100-megabit access.
Today, 1 Megabit broadband is slow. 5 Mbit is the norm. 2.5 mbit is about what I normally expect when downloading a popular torrent. 10 Years ago (lets see, this is '05 so that would be '95) I had under 56k speeds/ That is a 50x increase in under 10 years. That means that 100 Mbit access is probably at most 10 years away, not multiple decades.
What are ordinary people going to do with 100Mpbs next year that they have such a difficulty doing now? ...
Older computers that run Windows 98 that a lot of people still use, probably can't even handle a consistent 100Mbps stream.
You're missing the point (as is probably most everyone else here) on why the TelCos are doing this buildout. Once they hit 25 Mbps, they can start offering full quality HDTV service over the lines and compete with cable like never before. They will be able to supply Phone, Internet and Video on one service. That is their main reason. 20 Mbps for TV, 5 mbps for internet and ~11Kb for phone. If they really want to have fun, they can start doing Video Phones on their networks for about 1Mbit total.
Chanel Changing times for the TV will be a little bit longer than with DTV, but that is because it is using the multicast on the network and has to tell the router/central server to send it the bits. However, this will mean a third competitor in the Cable/Satelite market. It will also mean a second proper competitor in the broadband market.
Once they get above 25Mbps, then they can start increasing the quality of the TV they offer. 15-20 Mbps is really the minimum you need for HDTV. ~45 Mbps will pretty much garuntee you great quality no matter what is on the screen.
One final comment on the prices of OC-3s. The TelCos are generally some of the companies that own various backbones that the internet here in the US is made of. They can charge themselves whatever they want for access.
I think you meant to say the Pentium D + LaGrande (DRM in silicon), not Pentium M. The Pentium D (with not-yet-released updates and fixes), does exactly what Apple is after - controlled access to media with an architecture that provides lower-power (iPod-like devices and battery-powered Powerbooks).
Not sure. I'm basing that off of this article from The Register. I don't know if they plan on keeping hte Pentium D in the lineup (or even moving to the Pentium E if it ever comes about), but it still (as another poster has mentioned) consumes too much power. Apple wants lower power processors, probably under 50W per core (just a guess).
Here is a link on the Pentium M roadmap.
As listed below (and speculated for the Macs):
4Q 06-1Q 07:
Merom: A dual-core Pentium M (Banias) successor
Conroe: A 64-bit desktop version of Merom (see comments above about Conroe).
A 64-Bit dual core Merom is just what apple needs to be the successor to the 64-bit dual core G5s. And, surprise suprise, it is due out just when Jobs said the transition would occur/finish. It is also more than likely going to be fairly low power as it is in the Pentium M lineup. We won't know till it comes out if it is as low power as these G5s, but it should be lower power than the current high end P4s. The guy also speculates on why Intel over AMD on the next page of the article.
Speaking of Roadmaps... Why not would Apple not switch to AMD? AMD's chips run with less power consumption and way less number of transistors. When comparing the Dual core chips from AMD and Intel, AMD wins on power consumption. But I thought Jobs said Intel had the best Performance per watt? ADA4800DAA6CD (AMD Dual core 64-bit): 110W Intel® Pentium® Processor Extreme Edition: 130W These are the latest and greatest from Intel and AMD right?
From the roadmaps and rumor mill, even the Pentium EE 130 W(clocked at what, 3.8ghz?) and the AMD Athlon 110 W and too high power and not good enough on performance.
It appears Intel plans on dropping the P4 line and going to enhancing the Pentium M edition. It is expected that Apple will be going with the Pentium Ms (which apparently have dual core slated in their lineup) instead of with the Pentium EE.
In summary, Apple won't touch the Pentium EE due to high power consumption. However, they do like the Pentium M with has much better performance per watt/clock cycle and much lower power consumption.
From that I would guess that either AMD could not give Apple the same deal as Intel could. Either that or Apple expects Intel to have much better performance than AMD by that time. Also, as far as I know the Pentium Ms are much better than AMDs mobiles in power and performance.
Seems like FTP is going to be the #1 recomendation for this. It's actually what some other universities are using as well.
When I was still in school (1 year ago), we had 50MB of web space provided by the university with access via FTP. We used it for transfering files around that we needed. (Thank you FTP integration in IE) This was especially usefull as the computers we needed access to were generally locked down so we couldn't transfer off files that were larger than floppies. As for the USB memmory sticks? At times they were unavailable (no drivers or hadn't come to market yet/been invented yet), were too small or the machines were locked down to keep anything USB from working.
Another reason, works with any OS, browser and client. How much can be said for other products including open source ones?
I concern myself with the living who were drafted because Lyndon B Johnson wanted a war. I concern myself with the living because those are who can be helped. The dead can wait. There is nothing that can be done for them.
As for a "few taunted soldiers", if you are in the US, go into DC sometime. Vietnam vets make up the largest group of homeless in the country.
Now days we cheer lead our military who also have no respect for innocent civlians.
Before making blanket statements like this, actually talk to military personel. The vast majority of the US military personel don't like making a mistake and killing civilians. It's only a few who spoil it for the rest.
What's interesting is this is the king of statement that was made about those who were drafted and sent to Vietnam. "Babykillers" among others was one of the insults used against them when they returned, Whether or not they had killed anyone.
my thoughts would be that if you better educate and care for those that would become fanatics and terrorists, then maybe they'll see that they don't have to kill people to make their point.
You are assuming that all of them can be reasoned with. Maybe you can reason with some of them (more power to you if you can). However, I personally don't think you can reason with all of them. (That's not to say you can't, I just don't think so.) For the cases where you can't reason with them, it comes down to kill or be killed. No other options that I see in those cases.
Al Habayas (I think that is the correct name, the terrorist group in/around Lebanon) is at least finally realizing diplomacy is a way to get things done.
A wonderful piece of film history used for the very first appearance of the spectacular "lightsaber", which thrilled audiences the world over. $60,000 - $80,000
The price estimates vary wildly in accuracy. With normal items, they can generally be pretty accurate. However, sometimes they are high.
With unusual/unique items (and if this doesn't qualify, I don't know what does) they have been way off before. I can't remember which item it was, but it went for 2 to 4 times the estimated ammount. I think it may have been one of Dorothys dresses from The Wizard of Oz or the ruby slippers (or something else entirely).
And if by "fully equipped," you mean a Rolls-Royce with titanium plating, guided missle launchers, flight capabilities, and a Mr. Fusion, then yeah, you're right.
In other words, the James Bond version after Q and Doc Brown get down with it? Although, I suppose that with Doc Brown involved we'd have to add in a flux capacitor.
While I can't imagine wanting to wear Luke's X-Wing flight suit, I think that light saber is pretty sweet. Although I bet it goes for the price of a new car.
If by new car, you mean a fully equiped Rolls-Royce, you're right.
I think if a kid is capable of commiting a crime knowingly, then he should face the same punishment as an adult.
I think a lot of kids commit crimes with the "knowledge" that if they get caught, it would be a slap on the wrist and go away when they turn 18.
Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court ruled that minors can not be executed. Otherwise those of us around the DC are wouldn't have to worry about the younger of the two DC snipers (who is currently sentenced to life).
"Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate."
seems to suggest that he was fired for his expression of a political opinion. That would be unacceptable, and as far as I can see it would also be contrary to law.
I guess the question then comes down to this:
Should a company/organization be allowed to fire people who have views that can undermine (sorry, best word I can think of) the company/organization.
For example, would a logging company want to employ someone who actively campaigns against logging? (We can debate the environment impact of logging later, this is just from the employer/employee perspective.)
Would the Labor Party want a registered Conservative and Unionist Party member working for them? (Apologies if people can't register political affiliations like you can in the US).
Would the Church of England be forced to employ an atheist?
Should a police department be forced to employ someone who supports the actions of the (more radical wing of [the ones who blow stuff up]) the IRA (Irish Republican Army)?
Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the costs associated with adoption. No complaints about the health care cost deductions. I will say this though:
Depending on the agency and situation, adoption will run $5- $40k
You don't understand how the current tax system works. I'm in the 25% bracket (for some of my income) but I pay nothing like 25% of my income to the feds.
Maybe it comes down to how we are calculating the ammount we pay. I'm taking the ammount I pay in the year to the government in taxes (after filing me refund) and dividing that by the ammount I make in one year. It comes out close to 25%. I don't have many deductions. Sucks to be me.
The adoption tax credit is going to set my federal taxes to 0 for the next few years. The credit makes it possible for normal people to handle the expenses involved- eliminating it will seriously hurt adoption in the US, toss more kids into foster care and end up costing the taxpayers money in the long run.
Why should the adoption credit be any more than the credit for having your own biological kid/dependant? I don't understand that. Or am I missunderstanding you. It seems to me that those who have their own kids should have just as much of a credit (for having the same expenses) as those who adopt.
A simple tax system that many people might accept would be a flat-tax plus a "Citizen's Dividend". For example, you might have a 15% flat tax and a $10,000/year "Citizen's Dividend" payout to each tax payer. This makes the flat-tax system progressive because $10,000 is nothing when you are taxed on your million dollar income. Plus you can reduce many government welfare services (and their huge hidden costs and political battles) because low-income people now have at least $10,000/year to buy food/etc.
A citizens divedend sounds like a good idea until you start doing the math on it. Primary problem is money. There are 300 Million people in the US. At $10k per person, that comes out to a total payout of $3 Trillion dollars. That is larger than the current US budget and is over a quarter of the US GDP.
Second problem I have with that, is that we are having the government take money from some people and giving other people money without having to do anything to earn it. I have a problem with that (even if I am the one getting hte money). Stealing from Peter to pay Paul and that kind of thing. If people want to help out others who are less fortunate, let them give their own money willingly without getting the government to handle it (and force others to give money). It's not that I have a problem with charity, It's that I have a problem with the government forcing me to as that is not charity.
One of the recognized problems with a citizens dividend (and welfare for that matter) is that you will have a certain percentage of the population who will become "surfers". (That's the persons term who wrote about this, not mine). This group would live off the "dividend" (if you can really call it that) without ever trying to get a job.
One last thing. You may actually increase the political battles over this. For one thing, about how to set the $10k, when to move it, who will have it taxable and many other things. Also, you may make people more reliant on the gov as employers will most likely factor this into their paycheck calculations among other things.
As someone in a similar boat, I have to commend you on being willing to double or triple your taxes so that the super-rich can get another Gulfstream V.
Look carefully at your federal taxes and then pull out a calculator to see what's you'd owe under a flat tax. Under most proposals, I'd be paying somewhere between $3-8k more per year. I'm an exceptional case for a number of reasons, but a flat tax will absolutely screw most middle class americans.
Double or tripple? I'm in the 25% tax bracket right now and the max is 35%. According to you with a flat everyone would be paying 50-75% (including those currently paying 35%).
Among other problems with the current income tax is that a good number Pay zero dollars of income tax. If we are going to have an income tax, I believe a flat tax is the only fair way as it doesn't discourage people from earning more. (One of the things people did when we had a 90% top tax bracket was litteraly stop working when they hit the top bracket, as it was not worth it to continue working). It also makes sure that an increase/decrease hits everyone equally. I'm tired of hearing about people who want taxes raised on the rich because they don't pay enough while the complainers generally pay zero as is.
I have actually been convinced that the best thing to do would be to eliminate the income tax altogether and go with some for of Value Added Tax (VAT) similar to what is used in Europe. Note, this means eliminating the corporate income tax, capital gains tax and pretty much all the other government taxes as well. We would have zero individual tax evasion as we would only have to worry about the buisinesses paying the taxes they collect for the state, like they do right now for the sales tax. We could also eliminate the IRS and a whole host of support for it saving several billion dollars in the budget.
Does the 2nd protect an individual right? Is there such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution? If you have two views on that, you will have two views on what the decisions should be.
A summary of the views:
2nd: Militia = group of private citizens vs. Militia = a military group commsioned by the state
Seperation of Church and State:
Government can't have anything to do with religion and must be atheis vs. Government can't discriminate based on religion.
I know of people who interpret seperation to mean that baring religious organizations from competing with non-relgious organizations for public grants as unconstitutional (as they see it as discriminating against religion).
Slashdot Mirror
Will it include commercials? If it does, and advertisers are still willing to pay even if the show is not being distrubuted via standard means (i.e. television), then we may be witnessing the beginning of a new era of advertising. Kind of like what Google did with Adwords.
PBS shows, being public television, can not have commercials. What they have are underwriter credits instead. There is a difference between the two, but it can be murky at times. Basic difference, underwriter credits are a promo for the company (brought to you by....) but can not have any products advertised in it. Commercials on the other hand are advertisements for poducts.
That said, I have no idea if it will be distributed with underwriter credits. Most likely, you would have to ask the producers/producing station.
I'd wager that $430 24" TV was a monitor with no DTV tuner. When you add another $200 for a tuner the TV is still getting close to the $800 figure stated above.
No bet, you are correct. However, it is still below that $800 figure. However, I have seen tuners for $250 (as I mentioned)(side note, there is now one at best buy for sale at $230) that will take ATSC and output DTV and NTSC signals. Over at Froogle, there is One for $145 and it does analog.
That 24" TV does 1080i, so it is a true HDTV. That said, Best Buy also has a 27" 1080i TV for $400. They are coming down in price and total cost for an HD pair (TV+ Receiver) is well under $800 now. If you want to use just your analog TV, well, finding those DTV2Analog (analog only) converters are kind of hard to find right now. However, the CEA (the group of manufacturers who will be making the D2A converters) is expected to have them down to $66 in a few years. (their numbers, not mine)
So, our total for a 1080i TV set right now is at $545 (and dropping). And for those with analog sets that want to keep them, it will be $66 as long as they can wait or $145 if they can't.
Also digital Tuners that will convert to analog are still INSANELY priced.
$250, but that is coming down and it will also output to a digital TV if you ever decide to get one. when I can get a DTV to ATV tuner for $99.00 then I'll agree that it's a good time to switch.
Wait 2 years.
with DTV's still well over $800.00 and DTV transmitters still 5X the price of the analog gear it is not going to happen.
I've seen some (24") at Best Buy for $430.
and everyone forgets about the small town UHF channels. Who is going to buy them a new transmitter when they can barely afford pro-sumer 4 year old camcorders for their news?
The same people who would otherwise buy them a new Analog transmitter when the current one wears out after it is 30 years old. The stations have known that this transition was comming for at least the past 10 years. They have had time to prepare and as per current FCC regulations must have been broadcasting a digital signal by now, even if it is not at max power. In other words, they already have it by this point.
Oh and the small college tv channels? what about them?
Who is going to buy them 20 million dollar transmitters?See above. Although seeing as how College TV stations are low power stations, it will/has cost them MUCH LESS than 20 Million.
we were diagramming sentences. I haven't met a single other person under 50 that has even heard of such a thing.
I'm 23. Been there, done that. Hated it a lot. Can give my aunt a call to find out if they are still doing it in schools if you want.
Now, when human-capable matter transporters come online to disrupt things, air travel will have to adjust.
This about what it would do to the Auto & Ships & Shiping Industry. Only time you would need a vehicle would be when you transporter pad is down or in an emergency (think ambulance/firefighter/etc..).
FTTP is not "being tested", it is already being deployed. My friend's house was fitted with the capacity to use it (though they didn't get a subscription) just the other day...
Hey uh, do you think you could post the number for calling verizon on this? Possibly the one they gave your friend? I'd love to try fibre as an alternative to cable. I'm also in the Verizon area, but I have no idea what number to call.
we are multiple decades away from widespread, economical 100-megabit access.
Today, 1 Megabit broadband is slow. 5 Mbit is the norm. 2.5 mbit is about what I normally expect when downloading a popular torrent. 10 Years ago (lets see, this is '05 so that would be '95) I had under 56k speeds/ That is a 50x increase in under 10 years. That means that 100 Mbit access is probably at most 10 years away, not multiple decades.
What are ordinary people going to do with 100Mpbs next year that they have such a difficulty doing now?
...
Older computers that run Windows 98 that a lot of people still use, probably can't even handle a consistent 100Mbps stream.
You're missing the point (as is probably most everyone else here) on why the TelCos are doing this buildout. Once they hit 25 Mbps, they can start offering full quality HDTV service over the lines and compete with cable like never before. They will be able to supply Phone, Internet and Video on one service. That is their main reason. 20 Mbps for TV, 5 mbps for internet and ~11Kb for phone. If they really want to have fun, they can start doing Video Phones on their networks for about 1Mbit total.
Chanel Changing times for the TV will be a little bit longer than with DTV, but that is because it is using the multicast on the network and has to tell the router/central server to send it the bits. However, this will mean a third competitor in the Cable/Satelite market. It will also mean a second proper competitor in the broadband market.
Once they get above 25Mbps, then they can start increasing the quality of the TV they offer. 15-20 Mbps is really the minimum you need for HDTV. ~45 Mbps will pretty much garuntee you great quality no matter what is on the screen.
One final comment on the prices of OC-3s. The TelCos are generally some of the companies that own various backbones that the internet here in the US is made of. They can charge themselves whatever they want for access.
I think you meant to say the Pentium D + LaGrande (DRM in silicon), not Pentium M. The Pentium D (with not-yet-released updates and fixes), does exactly what Apple is after - controlled access to media with an architecture that provides lower-power (iPod-like devices and battery-powered Powerbooks).
Not sure. I'm basing that off of this article from The Register. I don't know if they plan on keeping hte Pentium D in the lineup (or even moving to the Pentium E if it ever comes about), but it still (as another poster has mentioned) consumes too much power. Apple wants lower power processors, probably under 50W per core (just a guess).
Here is a link on the Pentium M roadmap.
As listed below (and speculated for the Macs):
4Q 06-1Q 07:
Merom: A dual-core Pentium M (Banias) successor
Conroe: A 64-bit desktop version of Merom (see comments above about Conroe).
A 64-Bit dual core Merom is just what apple needs to be the successor to the 64-bit dual core G5s. And, surprise suprise, it is due out just when Jobs said the transition would occur/finish. It is also more than likely going to be fairly low power as it is in the Pentium M lineup. We won't know till it comes out if it is as low power as these G5s, but it should be lower power than the current high end P4s. The guy also speculates on why Intel over AMD on the next page of the article.
Speaking of Roadmaps... Why not would Apple not switch to AMD? AMD's chips run with less power consumption and way less number of transistors. When comparing the Dual core chips from AMD and Intel, AMD wins on power consumption. But I thought Jobs said Intel had the best Performance per watt? ADA4800DAA6CD (AMD Dual core 64-bit): 110W Intel® Pentium® Processor Extreme Edition: 130W These are the latest and greatest from Intel and AMD right?
From the roadmaps and rumor mill, even the Pentium EE 130 W(clocked at what, 3.8ghz?) and the AMD Athlon 110 W and too high power and not good enough on performance.
It appears Intel plans on dropping the P4 line and going to enhancing the Pentium M edition. It is expected that Apple will be going with the Pentium Ms (which apparently have dual core slated in their lineup) instead of with the Pentium EE.
In summary, Apple won't touch the Pentium EE due to high power consumption. However, they do like the Pentium M with has much better performance per watt/clock cycle and much lower power consumption.
From that I would guess that either AMD could not give Apple the same deal as Intel could. Either that or Apple expects Intel to have much better performance than AMD by that time. Also, as far as I know the Pentium Ms are much better than AMDs mobiles in power and performance.
Seems like FTP is going to be the #1 recomendation for this. It's actually what some other universities are using as well.
When I was still in school (1 year ago), we had 50MB of web space provided by the university with access via FTP. We used it for transfering files around that we needed. (Thank you FTP integration in IE) This was especially usefull as the computers we needed access to were generally locked down so we couldn't transfer off files that were larger than floppies. As for the USB memmory sticks? At times they were unavailable (no drivers or hadn't come to market yet/been invented yet), were too small or the machines were locked down to keep anything USB from working.
Another reason, works with any OS, browser and client. How much can be said for other products including open source ones?
I concern myself with the living who were drafted because Lyndon B Johnson wanted a war. I concern myself with the living because those are who can be helped. The dead can wait. There is nothing that can be done for them.
As for a "few taunted soldiers", if you are in the US, go into DC sometime. Vietnam vets make up the largest group of homeless in the country.
Now days we cheer lead our military who also have no respect for innocent civlians.
Before making blanket statements like this, actually talk to military personel. The vast majority of the US military personel don't like making a mistake and killing civilians. It's only a few who spoil it for the rest.
What's interesting is this is the king of statement that was made about those who were drafted and sent to Vietnam. "Babykillers" among others was one of the insults used against them when they returned, Whether or not they had killed anyone.
my thoughts would be that if you better educate and care for those that would become fanatics and terrorists, then maybe they'll see that they don't have to kill people to make their point.
You are assuming that all of them can be reasoned with. Maybe you can reason with some of them (more power to you if you can). However, I personally don't think you can reason with all of them. (That's not to say you can't, I just don't think so.) For the cases where you can't reason with them, it comes down to kill or be killed. No other options that I see in those cases.
Al Habayas (I think that is the correct name, the terrorist group in/around Lebanon) is at least finally realizing diplomacy is a way to get things done.
I don't know how accurate these estimates are,
A wonderful piece of film history used for the very first appearance of the spectacular "lightsaber", which thrilled audiences the world over. $60,000 - $80,000
The price estimates vary wildly in accuracy. With normal items, they can generally be pretty accurate. However, sometimes they are high.
With unusual/unique items (and if this doesn't qualify, I don't know what does) they have been way off before. I can't remember which item it was, but it went for 2 to 4 times the estimated ammount. I think it may have been one of Dorothys dresses from The Wizard of Oz or the ruby slippers (or something else entirely).
And if by "fully equipped," you mean a Rolls-Royce with titanium plating, guided missle launchers, flight capabilities, and a Mr. Fusion, then yeah, you're right.
In other words, the James Bond version after Q and Doc Brown get down with it? Although, I suppose that with Doc Brown involved we'd have to add in a flux capacitor.
While I can't imagine wanting to wear Luke's X-Wing flight suit, I think that light saber is pretty sweet. Although I bet it goes for the price of a new car.
If by new car, you mean a fully equiped Rolls-Royce, you're right.
I think if a kid is capable of commiting a crime knowingly, then he should face the same punishment as an adult. I think a lot of kids commit crimes with the "knowledge" that if they get caught, it would be a slap on the wrist and go away when they turn 18.
Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court ruled that minors can not be executed. Otherwise those of us around the DC are wouldn't have to worry about the younger of the two DC snipers (who is currently sentenced to life).
"Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate."
seems to suggest that he was fired for his expression of a political opinion. That would be unacceptable, and as far as I can see it would also be contrary to law.
I guess the question then comes down to this:
Should a company/organization be allowed to fire people who have views that can undermine (sorry, best word I can think of) the company/organization.
For example, would a logging company want to employ someone who actively campaigns against logging? (We can debate the environment impact of logging later, this is just from the employer/employee perspective.)
Would the Labor Party want a registered Conservative and Unionist Party member working for them? (Apologies if people can't register political affiliations like you can in the US).
Would the Church of England be forced to employ an atheist?
Should a police department be forced to employ someone who supports the actions of the (more radical wing of [the ones who blow stuff up]) the IRA (Irish Republican Army)?
I hope you get the idea here.
Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the costs associated with adoption. No complaints about the health care cost deductions. I will say this though:
Depending on the agency and situation, adoption will run $5- $40k
Holy **** those costs need to come down.
You don't understand how the current tax system works. I'm in the 25% bracket (for some of my income) but I pay nothing like 25% of my income to the feds.
Maybe it comes down to how we are calculating the ammount we pay. I'm taking the ammount I pay in the year to the government in taxes (after filing me refund) and dividing that by the ammount I make in one year. It comes out close to 25%. I don't have many deductions. Sucks to be me.
The adoption tax credit is going to set my federal taxes to 0 for the next few years. The credit makes it possible for normal people to handle the expenses involved- eliminating it will seriously hurt adoption in the US, toss more kids into foster care and end up costing the taxpayers money in the long run.
Why should the adoption credit be any more than the credit for having your own biological kid/dependant? I don't understand that. Or am I missunderstanding you. It seems to me that those who have their own kids should have just as much of a credit (for having the same expenses) as those who adopt.
A simple tax system that many people might accept would be a flat-tax plus a "Citizen's Dividend". For example, you might have a 15% flat tax and a $10,000/year "Citizen's Dividend" payout to each tax payer. This makes the flat-tax system progressive because $10,000 is nothing when you are taxed on your million dollar income. Plus you can reduce many government welfare services (and their huge hidden costs and political battles) because low-income people now have at least $10,000/year to buy food/etc.
A citizens divedend sounds like a good idea until you start doing the math on it. Primary problem is money. There are 300 Million people in the US. At $10k per person, that comes out to a total payout of $3 Trillion dollars. That is larger than the current US budget and is over a quarter of the US GDP.
Second problem I have with that, is that we are having the government take money from some people and giving other people money without having to do anything to earn it. I have a problem with that (even if I am the one getting hte money). Stealing from Peter to pay Paul and that kind of thing. If people want to help out others who are less fortunate, let them give their own money willingly without getting the government to handle it (and force others to give money). It's not that I have a problem with charity, It's that I have a problem with the government forcing me to as that is not charity.
One of the recognized problems with a citizens dividend (and welfare for that matter) is that you will have a certain percentage of the population who will become "surfers". (That's the persons term who wrote about this, not mine). This group would live off the "dividend" (if you can really call it that) without ever trying to get a job.
One last thing. You may actually increase the political battles over this. For one thing, about how to set the $10k, when to move it, who will have it taxable and many other things. Also, you may make people more reliant on the gov as employers will most likely factor this into their paycheck calculations among other things.
Here in Minnesota; we are on our first day of a state government shutdown because nobody could agree on a stinkin' budget.
Think of all the money you will save on taxes if this goes on long enough. After all, you wan't have had to pay anyone for their time off.
As someone in a similar boat, I have to commend you on being willing to double or triple your taxes so that the super-rich can get another Gulfstream V.
Look carefully at your federal taxes and then pull out a calculator to see what's you'd owe under a flat tax. Under most proposals, I'd be paying somewhere between $3-8k more per year. I'm an exceptional case for a number of reasons, but a flat tax will absolutely screw most middle class americans.
Double or tripple? I'm in the 25% tax bracket right now and the max is 35%. According to you with a flat everyone would be paying 50-75% (including those currently paying 35%).
Among other problems with the current income tax is that a good number
Pay zero dollars of income tax. If we are going to have an income tax, I believe a flat tax is the only fair way as it doesn't discourage people from earning more. (One of the things people did when we had a 90% top tax bracket was litteraly stop working when they hit the top bracket, as it was not worth it to continue working). It also makes sure that an increase/decrease hits everyone equally. I'm tired of hearing about people who want taxes raised on the rich because they don't pay enough while the complainers generally pay zero as is.
I have actually been convinced that the best thing to do would be to eliminate the income tax altogether and go with some for of Value Added Tax (VAT) similar to what is used in Europe. Note, this means eliminating the corporate income tax, capital gains tax and pretty much all the other government taxes as well. We would have zero individual tax evasion as we would only have to worry about the buisinesses paying the taxes they collect for the state, like they do right now for the sales tax. We could also eliminate the IRS and a whole host of support for it saving several billion dollars in the budget.
Does the 2nd protect an individual right? Is there such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution? If you have two views on that, you will have two views on what the decisions should be.
A summary of the views:
2nd: Militia = group of private citizens vs. Militia = a military group commsioned by the state
Seperation of Church and State:
Government can't have anything to do with religion and must be atheis vs. Government can't discriminate based on religion.
I know of people who interpret seperation to mean that baring religious organizations from competing with non-relgious organizations for public grants as unconstitutional (as they see it as discriminating against religion).