And I didnt get you either when you elected GWB fucking TWICE.
And I dont get how can you guys pass the check on the economy to Obama when he received a wreck of a country that was made first and foremost by the republicans and GWB.
Its really amazing.
When Republicans and GWB were running the economy, we were doing damn well. Unemployment was less than 4% and the government was raking in record tax receipts, AFTER tax cuts. I don't expect you to remember that since it was more than 3 years ago. Things didn't go to shit until the D's took over Congress starting in 2007. It's gotten worse since 2008 when the D's got the White House and a filibuster proof Senate. The unemployment rate in Oct 2006 was less than 4.5%. What's the unemployment rate now?
Memorize this:
CONGRESS CONTROLS THE ECONOMY
Stop blaming Bush. Stop blaming Obama. Don't give credit to Bush or Clinton. It is all CONGRESS.
Shepherd Smith is guy who slammed his hand down on the table and screamed, "We don't F*kkin' torture!!!" when discussing Gitmo.
A conservative can't be against torture? I think you're wearing the blinders you accuse me of wearing. I think you're also incapable of parsing the English language, since you brought up Diane Rheem, who isn't a news reporter, analyst, or commentator. I think you're judging Juan Williams by the color of his skin and his prior employer rather than based upon opinions he holds.
You don't think Diane Rehm is liberal? Why not ask the Corporation for Public Broadcasting:
In 2005, a private study funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting accused Rehm of booking 22 liberal guests for every 5 conservative guests.
Rehm is on NPR for several hours a day. She gets the same amount of air time on NPR than Beck and O'Reilly get on FoxNews combined and she doesn't have to break for ads.
So, because Shep is on FoxNews, he's a conservative. I've labeled liberals, and I can label conservatives, Beck, Palin, Limbaugh... that's easy. So tell you what, you tell who YOU think a liberal is. Go ahead, name a few and explain to me why you think they are liberal.
Shepherd Smith is guy who slammed his hand down on the table and screamed, "We don't F*kkin' torture!!!" when discussing Gitmo.
I listed several NPR "employees" who were liberal. I listed to a full year of Dianne Rehm discussing Clinton's impeachment and never mentioned the word "perjury".
As for your not being able to recognize liberal correspondents as liberal (Juan Williams a conservative!??! Seriously), it shows where you stand on the political spectrum. Everyone to your left is a liberal. Everyone to your right is a conservative. Since you are to the left of Juan Williams, Mara Liasson and the rest of them, you see them as conservative.
Personally, I'm a Libertarian. I believe the 10th Amendment is in the Constitution and everything that violates it is unconstitutional. I think weed should be legal, marriage shouldn't be recognized by the government, civil unions are contract and should be recognized under law and anyone should be allowed to enter into it, abortion should be illegal as no one can agree when a person is a person, and any activity that doesn't violate the rights of others should be legal. So, yeah, I'm hold some middle of the road positions, but I am open minded enough to know that I lean right on most issues and run right on others. I can see that someone to my political left may still be a conservative. Evidently, you can't if you think Juan Williams is a conservative.
NPR is about as unbiased a source as you can get...
Those 10 words and three letters were all I needed to know about your intelligence.
Juan Williams is a liberal on Fox News. Shepherd Smith is another. Mara Liasson is a liberal on Fox News who also works for NPR. Can you tell me who the conservatives on NPR are? Tell me who are the conservative counterweights for Dianne Rehm, Garrison Keillor and the rest of them.
Remember, a person that only makes $15,000 a year uses less government than a person that makes $300,000 a year.
.
That's true, except proportionally, the person making $300K, pays much more than the person making $15,000. See, the person making $15K pays $0.00 in federal income tax. A person making $300K pays something in federal income taxes.
Now for the really hard math part...
Something, anything at all, is infinitely greater proportionally than zero.
Oh, and never use NPR as a source. Anything funded by George Soros or politicians is not a valid source.
The third choice of "limited government" never works, and only leads to tragic outcomes, because to put it simply: the public is incapable of making decisions on their own that benefit society.
Right now, if you give the public more money, they will simply send it to China or Saudi Arabia.
We need government to spend the public's money in a focused manner, that the public would NOT do on their own.
Government is what determines economic direction, not the public.
Somalia has "limited government". Somalia is also a failure. We don't want to be like Somalia.
We need more socialism and government control, not less.
Government needs to be expanded and be given more control, let's make sure we give them more power tomorrow.
Remember, DON'T BE LIKE SOMALIA.
I'm going to respond as if you are serious in your post, only because I hear so many with a post just like yours who are dead serious... Please don't reply with a "WHOOOSH".
First, don't misrepresent your opponent's position. It's a fallacy... Red Fish or something. I remember herring about it, but don't recall.
Anyway, no one is for NO government. No one is for government under a civil war. No one is for a corrupt government. What us limited government types want is a limited FEDERAL government, with a strong and state and local governments... or not, depending on what you and your state decides.
The federal government is, or should be, limited by the Constitution, as spelled out by the 10th Amendment. Basically, it says that anything not spelled out in the Constitution as a federal power is a power to the states or people, provided it doesn't violate the Constitution. In other words, if the only the feds can do it, then it's a federal job... everything else should be a state power. Health care, for example, should be a state power. There is absolutely no reason why the states can't create their own health care plans. Welfare, state power. Education... state and local control. Legal status of marijuana, state power... and so on.
I'll even go so far as to agree with a liberal reading of the 10th to say that anything that states can't do effectively, the Feds should step in.
NASA, military, interstate commerce, federal treaties... federal powers. If the Feds want more powers, like health care, then the Constitution needs to be amended. That's what the amendment process is for.
But, please stop saying that us LIMITED government types want NO government. Limited != None. I shouldn't have to tell you that, but evidently, I do.
What can be racist is what you do/imply with them. You can for example use those facts as a base to research how to improve the situation: better assistance, work equality rules,... In that case, it is not racist. Similar to the fact that only women (at bird) get pregnant is not sexist if use to target your pregnancy line of clothes, but it is if you use it as an argument not to hire a woman.
By only selecting facts that paint defavourably black people in a completely off topic discussion the GP is however very suspicious.
Good point. If any civil rights leader had used those statistics to push for more educational funding for minorities, would they still be considered racist? I doubt it. Let's try it:
We need to increase funding for schools whose population primarily minority groups because per capita black people commit more crimes, have more bastard children, have fewer college graduates, and lower literacy rates than ANY OTHER SINGLE GROUP in the USA. Per capita, adjusted for percentage of population, yada yada.
What kills me is that anyone who opposes special benefits based on race would be the ones labeled "racist".
I don't like software patents either, but development does take its time and money and you currently still have to play by the rules like everyone else. Just because you're not selling as many devices as HTC doesn't mean you don't have to pay the same royalties. Even Google, like every other company, is asking for patent royalties, so why suddenly Microsoft shouldn't? Sure, hate the software patents, but twisting this as something like Microsoft demanding manufacturers to pay if they want to install Linux is just... wrong.
The patents in question relate to synchronizing e-mail, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power, Microsoft said in a statement
Really? synchronizing email, calendars and contacts? Doesn't the iphone do that? Why is MS not suing Apple? Wait, didn't my Palm Treo do that? Hell, my wife's old Palm Pilot did that. Before all that, Eudora did it. So, in other words, this is nothing new, as far as the software goes. The only difference is the hardware. So why is MS not suing Apple, Palm or any of the other software applications that do this stuff... you know, like any OS anywhere that runs on a battery powered device or does email? Oh, that's right, because the whole point is to scare Acer, Asus and other smaller manufacturers from supporting Android.
This is not about development costs. How much software development cost went into patenting an idea that's been around since before Windows for Workgroups. This is legal blackmail, nothing more. HTC is paying MS off because it was probably cheaper than a lawsuit (and probably gets the money back in WinMo7 licensing deals). This is about companies installing software that isn't written by MS. This is about not paying licensing fees, BECAUSE OPEN SOURCE HAS NO LICENSING FEES!!!
The article implies that it's due to people keeping their finger on the touchscreen when they select a language preference. The location of Harry would be in the same screen location as English, where Sally would be in the same screen location as Spanish. Really, it's just sloppy coding, as you should wait until the user's finger is lifted before allowing another selection.
I saw nothing in the article that says all of these voters selected Spanish as their language. The only close I saw was the explanation given by the poll worker.
"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."
Really..? FOX News shouldn't be used as a reference for any intelligent news stories..
This was the local Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. The two are not necessarily related. For example, do you think that people as right wing as you think FoxNews is would play Family Guy, American Dad the Simpsons and even Married with Children?
I think Apple might have a thing or two to say about that...
Apple doesn't sell competing products to this, Microsoft does.
We are talking about phones, tablets, set top boxes and TV's.
Microsoft phones have been terrible. We'll see how their new offerings do. From what I can tell, it's doesn't do anything that Android doesn't do. It's a race to the "cloud" and Google is already there.
Tablets? Where can I purchase a Microsoft powered tablet? Sure, I've seen them, but they are running nothing more than the desktop version of Windows with a tablet front end... and they have all sucked.
Set top boxes? I see no Microsoft boxes there with the exception of the X-Box. Since my X-Box didn't come with wifi, I can't really tell you how well it works and I'm not spending $100 to test it out. Oh, and let's not forget about the monthly Live subscription fee. The X-Box is a gaming device. It is not capable of recording "Dancing with the Stars". Once Google in integrated into set top boxes, like is planned with Dish Network, you'll be able to use Google to search for a show and set it to record, all without having to use the clunky interface that modern set top boxes come with. Who knows, it may even stream it to your Android powered phone or PC.
Finally, I have not seen Microsoft integrated into a TV and while I'm sure someone is working on a similar project in a basement somewhere in Redmond, it will be hard to penetrate that market once GoogleTV gets settled in.
What I see is Google services penetrating the TV market. Your HDTV will receive TV signals as always, but will also be able to browse the web to read information about your current shows. I could see an Android tablet being the remote control, possibly mirroring what you see on the TV, with an optional keyboard for us old folks. Maybe we'll be able to pull up a guide on our tablet, search for a particular show and have the tablet act as the remote to change the channel. Maybe instead of "Picture in Picture", we could have "Picture in Lap", where the secondary feed is directed to your tablet...
The possibilities are endless here and currently, Google is the only game on the market for this. Apple will try, but I don't see Apple allowing tablets to be shipped with TV's to be used as remotes. They'll screw it up and set up exclusive contract with Sony or something while Android will be everywhere. Apple will charge a premium and run fancy ads geared toward hipsters while Google's stuff will come integrated.
google tv is a solution in search of a problem. A half-assed solution at that.
Nope. A problem exists. My DVR's software is extremely clunky to the point of unusability. If you could replace that crap with a google interface that allows me to search for shows and times and allow me to use it to program the DVR, I would gladly pay for it. I understand that Dish Network is thinking about integrating it into their set top boxes. So, I might be gladly paying for it.
Add to that the fact that you can use the web on the dang thing is an absolute bonus.
That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.
So you'll end up spending more in European taxes to avoid spending less American taxes. Enjoy your European retirement. Your dollars will go so much further over there. Allow me to quote you and say, "That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read."
Since I'll be retired and have zero income, and will be able to take advantage of the zomg-socialist benefits in Europe like universal healthcare, I think it'll be just fine. And my dollars will go about 30% farther, since thanks to your plan, I won't have paid income tax earning them.
Well, I assume you pay for stuff now. You do drive a car and live in a furnished house, so you will be paying taxes on that stuff. But if you want to leave your family and friends to avoid paying a few percentage points in sales tax, I guess that will be your right. Actually, you'll still be paying the VAT in Europe... so, enjoy. Be sure to watch out for union backed protesters trying to take your stuff and blocking heating oil and power from getting to your new home.
That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.
So you'll end up spending more in European taxes to avoid spending less American taxes. Enjoy your European retirement. Your dollars will go so much further over there. Allow me to quote you and say, "That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read."
Statistcally speaking, poor people have no savings, and thus pay 20% on all income. Rich people can save, say half of their income or invest it. Thus they pay 10% of their income on taxes, and make profits on the other 10% that poor people have to pay, rather than make a profit on.
Please for the love of god read ~5 pages from any basic book of economic theory. This is extremely basic stuff here.
So is the money saved for ever? Does it sit in a savings account earning.05% for all eternity? Or does it eventually get pulled out and spent at some point?
As for the capital gains you mentioned, what happens to that money? I'm willing to bet that eventually, it will be spent on something.
So, unless they cash out their investments and burn the cash to heat their homes, they will be paying taxes on ALL of their money eventually.
The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.
I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught". I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.
This is why need to scrap the entire tax code and replace it a federal sales tax. This shifts the taxes not on what people make, but what they spend. Suddenly everyone would pay taxes including the rich, poor, illegal whoever. No one would be taxed for money saved or invested.
Of course, there would still be loopholes. Medicine, unprocessed food, children's clothes etc can be made tax exempt as to not tax what people need to survive. All other "loopholes" and complexities would disappear instantly. No more extraordinarily wealthy people claiming everything as a loss or business expense in order to avoid taxes on it. If it's purchased, it's taxed.
(and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)
Really? So, when was the last time you were able to actually, I dunno, make some changes to the Android kernel and then install it back on your Evo without first voiding your warranty by jailbreaking it?
It's not Google that would void my warranty. Android is open. It's so open in fact that the people who make the phones and provide them can do as they like, including changing the kernel.
I should probably add that if I were to design my own phone or buy one directly from Google, then I am free to place whatever kernel I want on it. And since this is a discussion comparing the openness of Apple IOS vs Android, do you think I could design a phone and slap Apple's OS on a phone of my own creation? Do you think I could modify the OS at the code level before doing so?
Really? So, when was the last time you were able to actually, I dunno, make some changes to the Android kernel and then install it back on your Evo without first voiding your warranty by jailbreaking it?
It's not Google that would void my warranty. Android is open. It's so open in fact that the people who make the phones and provide them can do as they like, including changing the kernel.
I believe the problem is that he's listing off all the flaws he sees (some of which are considered features by the Android community) in the Android deployment, but he fails to see any failures in his own platform because he does acknowledge them as value added features.
Of course. That problem where you hold the phone wrong... that's a "feature" that allows to swap hands and make the whole, "I'm pulling into a tunnel" lie much more realistic.
AT&T didn't allow you to do this with their initial android offerings - can't comment on the new ones. It was a walled garden just the same as the Apple experience.
So because AT&T locked down their Android phones, this means that all of Android is suddenly no longer "open"? Strange. AT&T's actions had absolutely no effect on my Evo.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you tell me who writes the budget? Who controls the purse strings?
Im not an american. I just dont get you guys.
And I didnt get you either when you elected GWB fucking TWICE.
And I dont get how can you guys pass the check on the economy to Obama when he received a wreck of a country that was made first and foremost by the republicans and GWB.
Its really amazing.
When Republicans and GWB were running the economy, we were doing damn well. Unemployment was less than 4% and the government was raking in record tax receipts, AFTER tax cuts. I don't expect you to remember that since it was more than 3 years ago. Things didn't go to shit until the D's took over Congress starting in 2007. It's gotten worse since 2008 when the D's got the White House and a filibuster proof Senate. The unemployment rate in Oct 2006 was less than 4.5%. What's the unemployment rate now?
Memorize this:
CONGRESS CONTROLS THE ECONOMY
Stop blaming Bush. Stop blaming Obama. Don't give credit to Bush or Clinton. It is all CONGRESS.
Shepherd Smith is guy who slammed his hand down on the table and screamed, "We don't F*kkin' torture!!!" when discussing Gitmo.
A conservative can't be against torture? I think you're wearing the blinders you accuse me of wearing. I think you're also incapable of parsing the English language, since you brought up Diane Rheem, who isn't a news reporter, analyst, or commentator. I think you're judging Juan Williams by the color of his skin and his prior employer rather than based upon opinions he holds.
You don't think Diane Rehm is liberal? Why not ask the Corporation for Public Broadcasting:
In 2005, a private study funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting accused Rehm of booking 22 liberal guests for every 5 conservative guests.
Rehm is on NPR for several hours a day. She gets the same amount of air time on NPR than Beck and O'Reilly get on FoxNews combined and she doesn't have to break for ads.
So, because Shep is on FoxNews, he's a conservative. I've labeled liberals, and I can label conservatives, Beck, Palin, Limbaugh... that's easy. So tell you what, you tell who YOU think a liberal is. Go ahead, name a few and explain to me why you think they are liberal.
Shepherd Smith is guy who slammed his hand down on the table and screamed, "We don't F*kkin' torture!!!" when discussing Gitmo.
I listed several NPR "employees" who were liberal. I listed to a full year of Dianne Rehm discussing Clinton's impeachment and never mentioned the word "perjury".
As for your not being able to recognize liberal correspondents as liberal (Juan Williams a conservative!??! Seriously), it shows where you stand on the political spectrum. Everyone to your left is a liberal. Everyone to your right is a conservative. Since you are to the left of Juan Williams, Mara Liasson and the rest of them, you see them as conservative.
Personally, I'm a Libertarian. I believe the 10th Amendment is in the Constitution and everything that violates it is unconstitutional. I think weed should be legal, marriage shouldn't be recognized by the government, civil unions are contract and should be recognized under law and anyone should be allowed to enter into it, abortion should be illegal as no one can agree when a person is a person, and any activity that doesn't violate the rights of others should be legal. So, yeah, I'm hold some middle of the road positions, but I am open minded enough to know that I lean right on most issues and run right on others. I can see that someone to my political left may still be a conservative. Evidently, you can't if you think Juan Williams is a conservative.
NPR is about as unbiased a source as you can get...
Those 10 words and three letters were all I needed to know about your intelligence.
Juan Williams is a liberal on Fox News. Shepherd Smith is another. Mara Liasson is a liberal on Fox News who also works for NPR. Can you tell me who the conservatives on NPR are? Tell me who are the conservative counterweights for Dianne Rehm, Garrison Keillor and the rest of them.
Thank you. That's what I thought.
Remember, a person that only makes $15,000 a year uses less government than a person that makes $300,000 a year.
.
That's true, except proportionally, the person making $300K, pays much more than the person making $15,000. See, the person making $15K pays $0.00 in federal income tax. A person making $300K pays something in federal income taxes.
Now for the really hard math part...
Something, anything at all, is infinitely greater proportionally than zero.
Oh, and never use NPR as a source. Anything funded by George Soros or politicians is not a valid source.
The third choice of "limited government" never works, and only leads to tragic outcomes, because to put it simply: the public is incapable of making decisions on their own that benefit society.
Right now, if you give the public more money, they will simply send it to China or Saudi Arabia.
We need government to spend the public's money in a focused manner, that the public would NOT do on their own.
Government is what determines economic direction, not the public.
Somalia has "limited government". Somalia is also a failure. We don't want to be like Somalia.
We need more socialism and government control, not less.
Government needs to be expanded and be given more control, let's make sure we give them more power tomorrow.
Remember, DON'T BE LIKE SOMALIA.
I'm going to respond as if you are serious in your post, only because I hear so many with a post just like yours who are dead serious... Please don't reply with a "WHOOOSH".
First, don't misrepresent your opponent's position. It's a fallacy... Red Fish or something. I remember herring about it, but don't recall.
Anyway, no one is for NO government. No one is for government under a civil war. No one is for a corrupt government. What us limited government types want is a limited FEDERAL government, with a strong and state and local governments... or not, depending on what you and your state decides.
The federal government is, or should be, limited by the Constitution, as spelled out by the 10th Amendment. Basically, it says that anything not spelled out in the Constitution as a federal power is a power to the states or people, provided it doesn't violate the Constitution. In other words, if the only the feds can do it, then it's a federal job... everything else should be a state power. Health care, for example, should be a state power. There is absolutely no reason why the states can't create their own health care plans. Welfare, state power. Education... state and local control. Legal status of marijuana, state power... and so on.
I'll even go so far as to agree with a liberal reading of the 10th to say that anything that states can't do effectively, the Feds should step in.
NASA, military, interstate commerce, federal treaties... federal powers. If the Feds want more powers, like health care, then the Constitution needs to be amended. That's what the amendment process is for.
But, please stop saying that us LIMITED government types want NO government. Limited != None. I shouldn't have to tell you that, but evidently, I do.
patience
English is tough stuff.
It's called a pun. It's one of those hard English words.
I imagine this alleged time traveler's reception must have been terrible
The reception is fine. The lag is a bitch though.
The fact are just fact - they are not racist.
What can be racist is what you do/imply with them. You can for example use those facts as a base to research how to improve the situation: better assistance, work equality rules, ... In that case, it is not racist. Similar to the fact that only women (at bird) get pregnant is not sexist if use to target your pregnancy line of clothes, but it is if you use it as an argument not to hire a woman.
By only selecting facts that paint defavourably black people in a completely off topic discussion the GP is however very suspicious.
Good point. If any civil rights leader had used those statistics to push for more educational funding for minorities, would they still be considered racist? I doubt it. Let's try it:
We need to increase funding for schools whose population primarily minority groups because per capita black people commit more crimes, have more bastard children, have fewer college graduates, and lower literacy rates than ANY OTHER SINGLE GROUP in the USA. Per capita, adjusted for percentage of population, yada yada.
What kills me is that anyone who opposes special benefits based on race would be the ones labeled "racist".
I don't like software patents either, but development does take its time and money and you currently still have to play by the rules like everyone else. Just because you're not selling as many devices as HTC doesn't mean you don't have to pay the same royalties. Even Google, like every other company, is asking for patent royalties, so why suddenly Microsoft shouldn't? Sure, hate the software patents, but twisting this as something like Microsoft demanding manufacturers to pay if they want to install Linux is just... wrong.
From HERE:
The patents in question relate to synchronizing e-mail, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power, Microsoft said in a statement
Really? synchronizing email, calendars and contacts? Doesn't the iphone do that? Why is MS not suing Apple? Wait, didn't my Palm Treo do that? Hell, my wife's old Palm Pilot did that. Before all that, Eudora did it. So, in other words, this is nothing new, as far as the software goes. The only difference is the hardware. So why is MS not suing Apple, Palm or any of the other software applications that do this stuff... you know, like any OS anywhere that runs on a battery powered device or does email? Oh, that's right, because the whole point is to scare Acer, Asus and other smaller manufacturers from supporting Android.
This is not about development costs. How much software development cost went into patenting an idea that's been around since before Windows for Workgroups. This is legal blackmail, nothing more. HTC is paying MS off because it was probably cheaper than a lawsuit (and probably gets the money back in WinMo7 licensing deals). This is about companies installing software that isn't written by MS. This is about not paying licensing fees, BECAUSE OPEN SOURCE HAS NO LICENSING FEES!!!
The article implies that it's due to people keeping their finger on the touchscreen when they select a language preference. The location of Harry would be in the same screen location as English, where Sally would be in the same screen location as Spanish. Really, it's just sloppy coding, as you should wait until the user's finger is lifted before allowing another selection.
I saw nothing in the article that says all of these voters selected Spanish as their language. The only close I saw was the explanation given by the poll worker.
"Something's not right," Ferrara said. "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time -- that's wrong."
All these people selected "Spanish"?
Okay Slashdot please stop using the FOX News and the Daily Workers guide to ethical journalism when writing the summaries!
This is the local Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. These are two entirely different entities.
Really..? FOX News shouldn't be used as a reference for any intelligent news stories..
This was the local Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. The two are not necessarily related. For example, do you think that people as right wing as you think FoxNews is would play Family Guy, American Dad the Simpsons and even Married with Children?
Oh nevermind. Facts will not persuade you.
I think Apple might have a thing or two to say about that...
Apple doesn't sell competing products to this, Microsoft does.
We are talking about phones, tablets, set top boxes and TV's.
Microsoft phones have been terrible. We'll see how their new offerings do. From what I can tell, it's doesn't do anything that Android doesn't do. It's a race to the "cloud" and Google is already there.
Tablets? Where can I purchase a Microsoft powered tablet? Sure, I've seen them, but they are running nothing more than the desktop version of Windows with a tablet front end... and they have all sucked.
Set top boxes? I see no Microsoft boxes there with the exception of the X-Box. Since my X-Box didn't come with wifi, I can't really tell you how well it works and I'm not spending $100 to test it out. Oh, and let's not forget about the monthly Live subscription fee. The X-Box is a gaming device. It is not capable of recording "Dancing with the Stars". Once Google in integrated into set top boxes, like is planned with Dish Network, you'll be able to use Google to search for a show and set it to record, all without having to use the clunky interface that modern set top boxes come with. Who knows, it may even stream it to your Android powered phone or PC.
Finally, I have not seen Microsoft integrated into a TV and while I'm sure someone is working on a similar project in a basement somewhere in Redmond, it will be hard to penetrate that market once GoogleTV gets settled in.
What I see is Google services penetrating the TV market. Your HDTV will receive TV signals as always, but will also be able to browse the web to read information about your current shows. I could see an Android tablet being the remote control, possibly mirroring what you see on the TV, with an optional keyboard for us old folks. Maybe we'll be able to pull up a guide on our tablet, search for a particular show and have the tablet act as the remote to change the channel. Maybe instead of "Picture in Picture", we could have "Picture in Lap", where the secondary feed is directed to your tablet...
The possibilities are endless here and currently, Google is the only game on the market for this. Apple will try, but I don't see Apple allowing tablets to be shipped with TV's to be used as remotes. They'll screw it up and set up exclusive contract with Sony or something while Android will be everywhere. Apple will charge a premium and run fancy ads geared toward hipsters while Google's stuff will come integrated.
google tv is a solution in search of a problem. A half-assed solution at that.
Nope. A problem exists. My DVR's software is extremely clunky to the point of unusability. If you could replace that crap with a google interface that allows me to search for shows and times and allow me to use it to program the DVR, I would gladly pay for it. I understand that Dish Network is thinking about integrating it into their set top boxes. So, I might be gladly paying for it.
Add to that the fact that you can use the web on the dang thing is an absolute bonus.
That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.
So you'll end up spending more in European taxes to avoid spending less American taxes. Enjoy your European retirement. Your dollars will go so much further over there. Allow me to quote you and say, "That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read."
Since I'll be retired and have zero income, and will be able to take advantage of the zomg-socialist benefits in Europe like universal healthcare, I think it'll be just fine. And my dollars will go about 30% farther, since thanks to your plan, I won't have paid income tax earning them.
Well, I assume you pay for stuff now. You do drive a car and live in a furnished house, so you will be paying taxes on that stuff. But if you want to leave your family and friends to avoid paying a few percentage points in sales tax, I guess that will be your right. Actually, you'll still be paying the VAT in Europe... so, enjoy. Be sure to watch out for union backed protesters trying to take your stuff and blocking heating oil and power from getting to your new home.
That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.
So you'll end up spending more in European taxes to avoid spending less American taxes. Enjoy your European retirement. Your dollars will go so much further over there. Allow me to quote you and say, "That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read."
Statistcally speaking, poor people have no savings, and thus pay 20% on all income.
Rich people can save, say half of their income or invest it. Thus they pay 10% of their income on taxes, and make profits on the other 10% that poor people have to pay, rather than make a profit on.
Please for the love of god read ~5 pages from any basic book of economic theory. This is extremely basic stuff here.
So is the money saved for ever? Does it sit in a savings account earning .05% for all eternity? Or does it eventually get pulled out and spent at some point?
As for the capital gains you mentioned, what happens to that money? I'm willing to bet that eventually, it will be spent on something.
So, unless they cash out their investments and burn the cash to heat their homes, they will be paying taxes on ALL of their money eventually.
I'd be registering my boat, plane, etc. in Bermuda.
And every plane ticket you pay for to go see it you will be taxed on. I think you'll be losing money in the end.
The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.
I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught". I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.
This is why need to scrap the entire tax code and replace it a federal sales tax. This shifts the taxes not on what people make, but what they spend. Suddenly everyone would pay taxes including the rich, poor, illegal whoever. No one would be taxed for money saved or invested.
Of course, there would still be loopholes. Medicine, unprocessed food, children's clothes etc can be made tax exempt as to not tax what people need to survive. All other "loopholes" and complexities would disappear instantly. No more extraordinarily wealthy people claiming everything as a loss or business expense in order to avoid taxes on it. If it's purchased, it's taxed.
(and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)
Really? So, when was the last time you were able to actually, I dunno, make some changes to the Android kernel and then install it back on your Evo without first voiding your warranty by jailbreaking it?
It's not Google that would void my warranty. Android is open. It's so open in fact that the people who make the phones and provide them can do as they like, including changing the kernel.
I should probably add that if I were to design my own phone or buy one directly from Google, then I am free to place whatever kernel I want on it. And since this is a discussion comparing the openness of Apple IOS vs Android, do you think I could design a phone and slap Apple's OS on a phone of my own creation? Do you think I could modify the OS at the code level before doing so?
Really? So, when was the last time you were able to actually, I dunno, make some changes to the Android kernel and then install it back on your Evo without first voiding your warranty by jailbreaking it?
It's not Google that would void my warranty. Android is open. It's so open in fact that the people who make the phones and provide them can do as they like, including changing the kernel.
I believe the problem is that he's listing off all the flaws he sees (some of which are considered features by the Android community) in the Android deployment, but he fails to see any failures in his own platform because he does acknowledge them as value added features.
Of course. That problem where you hold the phone wrong... that's a "feature" that allows to swap hands and make the whole, "I'm pulling into a tunnel" lie much more realistic.
AT&T didn't allow you to do this with their initial android offerings - can't comment on the new ones. It was a walled garden just the same as the Apple experience.
So because AT&T locked down their Android phones, this means that all of Android is suddenly no longer "open"? Strange. AT&T's actions had absolutely no effect on my Evo.