Exactly, this is an incredibly smart pick. The very fact that there is so much chatter about it from Democrats shows that deep down they know they've been out-manouevered. 1) Your spot on - solids the base which is what McCain has been lacking. 2) From Alaska - how much of a Washington outsider can you be, even more so compared to Biden. Which side is bringing change exactly? 3) A woman (and mother) to pick up some Hillary (and Oprah) votes. 4) Any lack of experience talk directed to the Republican VP will be deflected against the experience of the Democratic Presidental nominee. 5) A maverick, in tune with how McCain does things, that gets things done and doesnt toe the party line. 6) And a pretty face doesnt hurt!
MSNBC is to the left what the lefties claim FoxNews is to the right...Keith Oburwhatever is a rediculously partisian, especially with his constant Worse, Worser and Worsest bit - how uninspiring is that?
Quite agtee. The Democrats are falling over themselves to say its a slam dunk for Obama to win. This pick proves what genius it is for the Republicans - it plays on the Democrats pride where the Democrats can't possibly fathom who would actually vote for McCain\Palin; just like in 2004 with Bush when they thought "how could Kerry lose?". And guess what, when you surround yourself with like minded people its easy to forget the other half of the country miles away who don't agree - problem is, they vote. So, the worst thing [for the Democrats] is to totally undermine her.
Well, actually that isn't a view coming only from management - the last thing a system needs is to start from scratch every single revision, or when a new member comes on the team. "Refactoring to suit current needs" DOES save set up time and costs. Decent design and architecture is a compromise between the perfect ideal system that sits on a shelf and the need to get something thats useable.
Well, if enough people agree with your sentiment get your name on the ballot and try and change things. To say you want "no part of it [rubber stamping a tyrannical government]" only serves to prolong your agony and keep the status quo. Besides, if you think this is a tyrannical government (either Republican or Democratic) you may want to travel the world a bit.
A monopoly is to have exclusive control of a market...not exclusive control of a product that you sell. And besides, being a monopoly isnt illegal; being a monopoly and using your monopoly for anti-competitive practices is. Pystar are more than welcome to go out and build their own OS.
Um, where is this God given right to ownership of any resource? There is ownership in terms of legal\political notions but thats it. Heck, aren't there even Native Indian sayings that effect? You conclusion would lead to rollback of just about every war that has ever existed to some arbritary point in time.
No, we understand your arguement - its just that its utter flawed.
If everyone decided to look back in history and accumulate all the losses to the point that are currently present it would be insanity. Should the English demand money from the Italy and Norway because they invaded them 2000 years ago? Perhaps my parents should pay me money for spending it on their wedding instead of paying for my college? How far do you go back and how do you calculate it?
Look, shit happens. Every now and again really bad shit happens. For those that did have influence you put them on trial and let justice prevail. You then try to help those that were wronged. But one thing to gurrantee *not* moving on is to blame people that had no influence on it. People need to learn that its not what cards you get given but how you play your hand that counts.
Or, thanks to the 13 million voters that were easily duped in 1997 by "things were only going to get better". I remember that May 1st (well May 2nd I guess was the next day) when Labour won with a landslide, telling people to get ready for a disappointment.
So you're judge, jury and executioner to punish these companies? This is upto, pressumeably The City of London, and Oyster. If Oyster haven't delivered as per the contract then they are liable.
No system anywhere is bug free - all have some set of vulnerabilities. The cost to investigate, fix, test, implement.....and then have another group find another set of vulnerabilities...is likely too much. At the end of the day this cost will be passed onto the customers. Threatening to releasing this information is not far off blackmail.
If I was to hang around your house telling you you need to lock you house up better or I'm going to give away free keys - think you'd be kind of pissed.
Not sure of your point here. There have plenty of customers *without* a cell phone bill of rights.
They're monopolies, and bribers of legislators and presidents, IMHO.
Yeah and so? Whats that got to do with a cell phone bill of rights? At the end of the day your suggestions would involve a massive increase in operating costs. Then one of two things would happen; (1) they pass that cost onto the customer, the cell phone usage plummits, providers then remove the unncessary services (like video etc.) and introduce other cost cutting measures, and the industry nose dives. Or (2), they eat it the costs, profits go down, shareholders leave to put their money in an industry that yields better profit. Both ways involve a cut in services, a cut in coverage (to recoup costs) and less investment in new technologies.
No one is saying providers are squeaky clean mary poppins types, but to slap those list of "what they should do" would be suicide.
1) You should already know the cost per month of what the provider charges. But how can taxes be included - they could change over the course of the contract and this is something the Government is responsible for, not the provider. If the Government isn't clear on these taxes (calculation or display) its the Governments fault - not the responsibility of the provider surely?
2) Unlikely you could really prove it, especially remotely.
4) Why? Its a contract - that means you agree to set of stipulations if the provider does. Don't like it, then don't agree. Besides the cost of the phones are subsidized by the length of the contract.
5) No extra charge eh? Sure why not.
6) True in one sense, for data throughput...but the cost of moving the data is just one factor - there is a case to be made for infrastructure of those services. I see it a bit like taxes...the more you earn the higher the *rate*. So this would be a flat tax so to speak - not that I'd complain.
8) Would be nice...but what if users dont take responsibility? Whos to judge if an app is 'good' or 'bad'? The internet, as grand as it is, is infested with malware and viruses. Lets avoid those with the cell phone network as much as possible.
11) Well USB is the current standard but what if it changed, or something better came along?
Anyway, nice idea...but with almost all of your points the overall cost will go up - as much as one may not like AT&T \ Verizon \ whoever they still have to make money, and at a margin that pleases stockholders.
it is true that one could do certain things to stop the harrasment, and probably a good idea. And you're right to take the moral high ground. However, the onus shouldnt be on the person being persecuted to change their ways or have to go to unnecessary lengths to defend themselves. The onus is on the bully to stop playing power games with someone that they perceive to be weaker. It is also worth pointing out that not everyone has the disposition 'to grow a spine' or have a thick skin - if someone has a timid personality then they will fall victim far easier.
Sure you shouldn't *have* to, but the reality is that this is a good approach between creating a compliant standard webpage and creating branches for the different browser idiosyncacies.
In an ideal world IE, FF, Opera, Safari etc. would all render every webpage identically. Thats not being realistic.
I agree on your sentiment...we will eventually regret any choice to let it fall into ruin. The things we look at in the last few years might seem old and tacky but they are a part of history and will, more often than not, become a national treasure.
mmm...true to say that no one person knows best but your point would conclude that we don't need laws at all. Theres a balance to made; being able to have the freedom to do what you want but within the confines of what "society" says is acceptable. In the case of child pornography or bomb building the populace has invoked their freedom to choose to be protected from it - that is for western democracies represented in parliament\congress; Now for China (as an example) its a tiny elite that are dictating what is deemed right.
oh come on...Balmer didn't sound pompous or patronizing in the slightest. He thanked Jerry and the board for time invested among other things, went on discussing why MS is withdrawing the offer, and ended on "But a deal is not meant to be." Exactly where are these pompous and patronizing remarks - I wish slashdotters would judge with a bit more of an open mind.
Ability to pay should not be taken into account. You should be billed entirely on the risk that you take on. He engaged in high risk activity and should foot the bill.
70% of what? Total federal tax revenues? A persons income? Tax revenues by that bracket only?
Yes there are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics but I think you're making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill here - I've seen other sources but my link explains this pretty clearly. 70% of the Federal Income Tax comes from the 10% highest earners. A link in a post below my original (from cbo.gov) points to 55% of all Federal Taxes. According to the chart, the top 25% of earners pay 85% of the Federal Income tax bill - it stands to reason that if you're in the top 10% earners group you're also in the top 25%. Put it this way; take everyone that pays income taxes, line 'em up, take the top 10% of people that paid the most, and how much did they pay of the whole bill - 70%.
Yes the data could be a bit newer I suppose, but not by much - I'm sure it takes time to publish and collate - we *might* have data for 2006 but the difference isn't going to be by much.
If the rich are being taxed disproportionately, then they do they fight so hard to AVOID a flat tax?
Are they? Thats news to me...btw the article was written by Stephen Moore who is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial board who [co-]created the Fair tax and Flat tax propositions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Moore_(economist)
I can disprove the argument without the need for hard data...the figures you are giving are pretty much hot air
Personally I try to look at data before I base an opinion - call me old fashioned that way. Look, the article is a precis of data from the cbo (cited earlier) - sure, it doesnt present all the data, but unless you can cite something to the contary I don't know quite where you base your opinion from?
Its pretty well established that "the Rich" pay an overwhelming proportion of the tax bill - the top 10% of people pay about 70%....so in response to your statement, how exactly are you making the rich richer ?
If you want to say that those with a soul must agree with you, you may want to get some facts straight first.
And how would this be any different with a real person instead of robot? At the end of the day a human operator has to fire and if they'll get startled operating a robot then you can bet they'll get startled if in the same room. In fact as I think about being trigger happy is less like to happen with a robot since the operator on a keyboard miles away doesnt have the same sense of self preservation as being in the line of fire.
Whose forcing them to do what exactly? As someone who was on a greencard for 10 years I saw it (and still do) as a privilege to have got my citizenship - the US has owed me nothing yet has given me the opportunity to, through a process, work here and live here (and eventually apply for citizenship) - nothing secondary about it. If my fellow immigrants dont like this then they are free to get educated and live elsewhere. For companies it allows them to employ smart people in this country.
Slashdot Mirror
And by telling the rules you broke the golden rule!
Exactly, this is an incredibly smart pick. The very fact that there is so much chatter about it from Democrats shows that deep down they know they've been out-manouevered. 1) Your spot on - solids the base which is what McCain has been lacking. 2) From Alaska - how much of a Washington outsider can you be, even more so compared to Biden. Which side is bringing change exactly? 3) A woman (and mother) to pick up some Hillary (and Oprah) votes. 4) Any lack of experience talk directed to the Republican VP will be deflected against the experience of the Democratic Presidental nominee. 5) A maverick, in tune with how McCain does things, that gets things done and doesnt toe the party line. 6) And a pretty face doesnt hurt!
MSNBC is to the left what the lefties claim FoxNews is to the right...Keith Oburwhatever is a rediculously partisian, especially with his constant Worse, Worser and Worsest bit - how uninspiring is that?
Quite agtee. The Democrats are falling over themselves to say its a slam dunk for Obama to win. This pick proves what genius it is for the Republicans - it plays on the Democrats pride where the Democrats can't possibly fathom who would actually vote for McCain\Palin; just like in 2004 with Bush when they thought "how could Kerry lose?". And guess what, when you surround yourself with like minded people its easy to forget the other half of the country miles away who don't agree - problem is, they vote. So, the worst thing [for the Democrats] is to totally undermine her.
Well, actually that isn't a view coming only from management - the last thing a system needs is to start from scratch every single revision, or when a new member comes on the team. "Refactoring to suit current needs" DOES save set up time and costs. Decent design and architecture is a compromise between the perfect ideal system that sits on a shelf and the need to get something thats useable.
Well, if enough people agree with your sentiment get your name on the ballot and try and change things. To say you want "no part of it [rubber stamping a tyrannical government]" only serves to prolong your agony and keep the status quo. Besides, if you think this is a tyrannical government (either Republican or Democratic) you may want to travel the world a bit.
A monopoly is to have exclusive control of a market...not exclusive control of a product that you sell. And besides, being a monopoly isnt illegal; being a monopoly and using your monopoly for anti-competitive practices is. Pystar are more than welcome to go out and build their own OS.
Oh, a bit like when they say humans cause all Global Warming.
Um, where is this God given right to ownership of any resource? There is ownership in terms of legal\political notions but thats it. Heck, aren't there even Native Indian sayings that effect? You conclusion would lead to rollback of just about every war that has ever existed to some arbritary point in time.
If everyone decided to look back in history and accumulate all the losses to the point that are currently present it would be insanity. Should the English demand money from the Italy and Norway because they invaded them 2000 years ago? Perhaps my parents should pay me money for spending it on their wedding instead of paying for my college? How far do you go back and how do you calculate it?
Look, shit happens. Every now and again really bad shit happens. For those that did have influence you put them on trial and let justice prevail. You then try to help those that were wronged. But one thing to gurrantee *not* moving on is to blame people that had no influence on it. People need to learn that its not what cards you get given but how you play your hand that counts.
Or, thanks to the 13 million voters that were easily duped in 1997 by "things were only going to get better". I remember that May 1st (well May 2nd I guess was the next day) when Labour won with a landslide, telling people to get ready for a disappointment.
So you're judge, jury and executioner to punish these companies? This is upto, pressumeably The City of London, and Oyster. If Oyster haven't delivered as per the contract then they are liable.
If I was to hang around your house telling you you need to lock you house up better or I'm going to give away free keys - think you'd be kind of pissed.
Not sure of your point here. There have plenty of customers *without* a cell phone bill of rights.
They're monopolies, and bribers of legislators and presidents, IMHO.
Yeah and so? Whats that got to do with a cell phone bill of rights? At the end of the day your suggestions would involve a massive increase in operating costs. Then one of two things would happen; (1) they pass that cost onto the customer, the cell phone usage plummits, providers then remove the unncessary services (like video etc.) and introduce other cost cutting measures, and the industry nose dives. Or (2), they eat it the costs, profits go down, shareholders leave to put their money in an industry that yields better profit. Both ways involve a cut in services, a cut in coverage (to recoup costs) and less investment in new technologies.
No one is saying providers are squeaky clean mary poppins types, but to slap those list of "what they should do" would be suicide.
1) You should already know the cost per month of what the provider charges. But how can taxes be included - they could change over the course of the contract and this is something the Government is responsible for, not the provider. If the Government isn't clear on these taxes (calculation or display) its the Governments fault - not the responsibility of the provider surely?
2) Unlikely you could really prove it, especially remotely.
4) Why? Its a contract - that means you agree to set of stipulations if the provider does. Don't like it, then don't agree. Besides the cost of the phones are subsidized by the length of the contract.
5) No extra charge eh? Sure why not.
6) True in one sense, for data throughput...but the cost of moving the data is just one factor - there is a case to be made for infrastructure of those services. I see it a bit like taxes...the more you earn the higher the *rate*. So this would be a flat tax so to speak - not that I'd complain.
8) Would be nice...but what if users dont take responsibility? Whos to judge if an app is 'good' or 'bad'? The internet, as grand as it is, is infested with malware and viruses. Lets avoid those with the cell phone network as much as possible.
11) Well USB is the current standard but what if it changed, or something better came along?
Anyway, nice idea...but with almost all of your points the overall cost will go up - as much as one may not like AT&T \ Verizon \ whoever they still have to make money, and at a margin that pleases stockholders.
it is true that one could do certain things to stop the harrasment, and probably a good idea. And you're right to take the moral high ground. However, the onus shouldnt be on the person being persecuted to change their ways or have to go to unnecessary lengths to defend themselves. The onus is on the bully to stop playing power games with someone that they perceive to be weaker. It is also worth pointing out that not everyone has the disposition 'to grow a spine' or have a thick skin - if someone has a timid personality then they will fall victim far easier.
In an ideal world IE, FF, Opera, Safari etc. would all render every webpage identically. Thats not being realistic.
I agree on your sentiment...we will eventually regret any choice to let it fall into ruin. The things we look at in the last few years might seem old and tacky but they are a part of history and will, more often than not, become a national treasure.
mmm...true to say that no one person knows best but your point would conclude that we don't need laws at all. Theres a balance to made; being able to have the freedom to do what you want but within the confines of what "society" says is acceptable. In the case of child pornography or bomb building the populace has invoked their freedom to choose to be protected from it - that is for western democracies represented in parliament\congress; Now for China (as an example) its a tiny elite that are dictating what is deemed right.
oh come on...Balmer didn't sound pompous or patronizing in the slightest. He thanked Jerry and the board for time invested among other things, went on discussing why MS is withdrawing the offer, and ended on "But a deal is not meant to be." Exactly where are these pompous and patronizing remarks - I wish slashdotters would judge with a bit more of an open mind.
Ability to pay should not be taken into account. You should be billed entirely on the risk that you take on. He engaged in high risk activity and should foot the bill.
Yes there are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics but I think you're making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill here - I've seen other sources but my link explains this pretty clearly. 70% of the Federal Income Tax comes from the 10% highest earners. A link in a post below my original (from cbo.gov) points to 55% of all Federal Taxes. According to the chart, the top 25% of earners pay 85% of the Federal Income tax bill - it stands to reason that if you're in the top 10% earners group you're also in the top 25%. Put it this way; take everyone that pays income taxes, line 'em up, take the top 10% of people that paid the most, and how much did they pay of the whole bill - 70%.
Yes the data could be a bit newer I suppose, but not by much - I'm sure it takes time to publish and collate - we *might* have data for 2006 but the difference isn't going to be by much.
If the rich are being taxed disproportionately, then they do they fight so hard to AVOID a flat tax?
Are they? Thats news to me...btw the article was written by Stephen Moore who is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial board who [co-]created the Fair tax and Flat tax propositions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Moore_(economist)
I can disprove the argument without the need for hard data...the figures you are giving are pretty much hot air
Personally I try to look at data before I base an opinion - call me old fashioned that way. Look, the article is a precis of data from the cbo (cited earlier) - sure, it doesnt present all the data, but unless you can cite something to the contary I don't know quite where you base your opinion from?
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes/
Its pretty well established that "the Rich" pay an overwhelming proportion of the tax bill - the top 10% of people pay about 70%....so in response to your statement, how exactly are you making the rich richer ?
If you want to say that those with a soul must agree with you, you may want to get some facts straight first.
And how would this be any different with a real person instead of robot? At the end of the day a human operator has to fire and if they'll get startled operating a robot then you can bet they'll get startled if in the same room. In fact as I think about being trigger happy is less like to happen with a robot since the operator on a keyboard miles away doesnt have the same sense of self preservation as being in the line of fire.
Whose forcing them to do what exactly? As someone who was on a greencard for 10 years I saw it (and still do) as a privilege to have got my citizenship - the US has owed me nothing yet has given me the opportunity to, through a process, work here and live here (and eventually apply for citizenship) - nothing secondary about it. If my fellow immigrants dont like this then they are free to get educated and live elsewhere. For companies it allows them to employ smart people in this country.