Therefore: US employees must have higher wages to maintain a middle class standard of living that would cost 30% to 50% less in other areas of OUR OWN country.
Yes, but the article just said that you can have a decent middle-class lifestyle in India for $4000 a year. That's over 90% less than in Silicon Valley etc. If you could outsource to Kentucky and save 30%-50%, or outsource to India and save 90%, it seems pretty reasonable to think that outsourcing to India is a good idea huh?
The Internet has made outsourcing possible on a wide scale, but Kentucky doesn't benefit much from that, because the jobs are jumping right over it.
Have any of these companies thought about where their customers will come from when the middle class and upper middle class in America are no longer working AND no longer contributing to the tax base?
The problem is that only a tiny fraction of the money they'd be paying to their workers will come back to THEIR company in this way. By your logic, the more they pay their workers, the better off the company will be. Why not just double everyone's salary and make a fortune?
Theoretically, all those newly-employed brains will have more income to spend on more stuff, thus creating more jobs. So jobs may go over to India in the short term, but that may create more jobs here (and elsewhere) in the long term.
It obviously may take a long time before that happens, so the reality is not quite as nice.
most of the benefits of what's new in XML only apply if you're putting your documents into a few (mostly Asian) languages.
And it's not Chinese or Japanese or Korean, it's more esoteric languages like Mongolian, Yi, Cambodian, etc. And the benefit only applies to element and attribute NAMES - you can already use these characters in text VALUES in XML 1.0.
XML 1.1 also helps people who use IBM mainframes, or who interoperate with them.
Yes, but we won't know anything about it for a while:
"I have been seeing a lot of expectations about Monday, but personally, I don't expect to know much until the next court date on the 23rd, if SCO is being truthful and actually does turn over significant answers and documents. SCO may have media pronouncements to make, but IBM has to look over what they are given and evaluate it and that takes time. They aren't given to trying this case in the media, so my best guess is that our next event in the IBM matter will be the court hearing."
"I have been seeing a lot of expectations about Monday, but personally, I don't expect to know much until the next court date on the 23rd, if SCO is being truthful and actually does turn over significant answers and documents. SCO may have media pronouncements to make, but IBM has to look over what they are given and evaluate it and that takes time. They aren't given to trying this case in the media, so my best guess is that our next event in the IBM matter will be the court hearing."
there is some real value in all this theory -- The Matrix takes a lot from Baudillard and his postmodern work
Not knowing anything about Baudillard, I ask this naive question: Did any of the *good* parts of the Matrix come from Baudillard? I.e. would the average person have enjoyed the Matrix any less if the Baudillard stuff wasn't there, or do only literary academics appreciate it in the movie?
If a man were to step on another planet, it would be one of the most meaningful and inspiring moments in thousands of years. It would change humanity forever.
Why would stepping on Mars be that much cooler than stepping on the moon? I mean, the first moon landing was great and inspiring, but it was a looooong way from "chaning humanity forever". And to me, going from never walking on another celestial body to walking on the moon is a MUCH bigger jump than walking on a planet after having already walked on the moon.
The moon landing was awe-inspiring to the whole planet. Then they did it a few more times, and people said, OK, that was cool, but now it's getting old, and man this is sure costing us a lot of money. Why would Mars be any different?
For some people yes, for other no. I think those things would be kinda cool, in the same way that reading science fiction stories about space is cool, but there's no way I think it's worth it to spend billions on them. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you're way more into this than the average person, and I don't see the will of the country behind this. It'll get canned sooner or later, if it ever gets started.
If we look at similar projects, such as building the atomic bomb in WWII, or the Apollo program launched by Kennedy, equally, if not greater, technical challenges had to be solved under intense scheduling goals.
The U.S. population was happy to spend big bucks on those programs because at the time they seemed necessary for the country to survive. The average American doesn't care a whole lot about going to Mars (whether they should or not).
The way people feel about Apollo or the Manhattan project: "We have to do this, or we're screwed."
The way people feel about going to Mars: "That'd be kinda cool, huh?"
To be clear, it breaks the feature of forwarding of all e-mails from a mail server to another mail server, but there's an easy workaround as someone mentioned.
When I first read this, I thought you were trying to say that I couldn't forward a piece of mail to someone else using my mail reader.
After all those years and billions one still cannot easily get from South Station (or Back Bay, or North Station) to the Airport. Or how about any of said stations to Harvard Square? Or how about Harvard Square to Back Bay or Copley Place? Never mind getting from Harvard to Boston College.
It's certainly a pain to get from South Station (or anywhere else on the Red Line) to the airport. Not sure about your other complaints though - what are you suggesting? To get from North Station to Harvard you have to change trains once - is that what you're complaining about? Doesn't seem so bad to me. The Green Line is a pain past Kenmore but it's fine before then.
Which would be very wise -- the news wires don't appear to have this info yet. SCOX is down only 1.44% currently, while the facts of these decisions should mean a much harsher fall off.
Well, if you own SCO stock, presumably you think their lawsuit is going to win, right? (Or at least has a decent chance to win.) If this ruling is just that SCO has to show their evidence, then that shouldn't change your opinion of the stock.
Even once every 3 months is too much IMO. Then they "only" have to memorize 4 good passwords per year for your system, but that's in addition to the many other passwords/PINs they have memorized for everything else (which may be for the other systems of your company, or systems of partner companies, or the employee's personal life like ATMs and online banking).
I think the cost of requiring any password changes at all (or more than once a year, anyway) is just too great. A significant percentage of users is going to write down their passwords somewhere, which is WAY worse.
Yes, but that stops working if people can get the goods for free over file-sharing networks. This proposal is trying to solve that problem, as well as do away with copyright, which some people would like to see axed.
I really like the general idea. Capitalism works great for material goods, but it has a lot of problems for digital goods, in the face of unstoppable copying. It would be interesting to try a whole new system and see how it works. I think you could add software to this system as well as music and movies and such.
That said, I see a few problems:
- It depends on each taxpayer to be (slightly) altruistic. You have to take the trouble to remember and then designate a recipient on your tax form, but you get no direct benefit from this. What if you don't put anyone down, is the money lost? What if 75% of the people are too lazy to write down a recipient? Maybe the unassigned money goes proportially to all the artists that people did put down.
- How do you remember which artist(s) to give it to throughout the year? I predict that every album and every movie will come out in March under this system.
- How do you define a "fraudulent" registration? What if me and my buddy both register, then we each make a finger painting and give it to each other, and then we put each other down on the tax form? Who's to say that that art wasn't good enough to qualify as a "registered" artist? I think you'd have to make people pay $100 to register, to prevent this from happening.
- Do people in other countries get to copy these works? If so, then the country that implemented this system would essentially be subsidizing listeners in other countries.
Donanting the money would be a tax deduction, but receiving it would probably count as taxable income (the document wasn't quite clear about this). So the net gain would be 0.
No, donating is a tax credit, not a deduction, meaning you get all of the $100 back. The receiver only pays 28% or whatever in taxes, so it would be a net gain. Otherwise the system wouldn't make any sense.
"I'd buy, but not in an auction." Huh - does that make any sense? You're saying that you'd buy at a price that someone else determined, but not at a price that you determined.
Put in a bid for what you think is a reasonable price. If the price goes too high, then you won't get any shares, that's fine. If it doesn't, then you get to buy shares at a price that's not overvalued (according to you).
Well, the price discount would probably be somewhere in between, not huge but not negligible either. If it were negligible nobody would switch. And yes, the American companies would find some way to lower their prices and compete, that's exactly the original poster's point. That's good for consumers.
As far as no competition goes, that's why we have anti-trust laws, or to take the analogy further, you'd assume that other Mexican companies would step in to provide more competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore: US employees must have higher wages to maintain a middle class standard of living that would cost 30% to 50% less in other areas of OUR OWN country.
Yes, but the article just said that you can have a decent middle-class lifestyle in India for $4000 a year. That's over 90% less than in Silicon Valley etc. If you could outsource to Kentucky and save 30%-50%, or outsource to India and save 90%, it seems pretty reasonable to think that outsourcing to India is a good idea huh?
The Internet has made outsourcing possible on a wide scale, but Kentucky doesn't benefit much from that, because the jobs are jumping right over it.
Have any of these companies thought about where their customers will come from when the middle class and upper middle class in America are no longer working AND no longer contributing to the tax base?
The problem is that only a tiny fraction of the money they'd be paying to their workers will come back to THEIR company in this way. By your logic, the more they pay their workers, the better off the company will be. Why not just double everyone's salary and make a fortune?
Theoretically, all those newly-employed brains will have more income to spend on more stuff, thus creating more jobs. So jobs may go over to India in the short term, but that may create more jobs here (and elsewhere) in the long term.
It obviously may take a long time before that happens, so the reality is not quite as nice.
most of the benefits of what's new in XML only apply if you're putting your documents into a few (mostly Asian) languages.
And it's not Chinese or Japanese or Korean, it's more esoteric languages like Mongolian, Yi, Cambodian, etc. And the benefit only applies to element and attribute NAMES - you can already use these characters in text VALUES in XML 1.0.
XML 1.1 also helps people who use IBM mainframes, or who interoperate with them.
Yes, but we won't know anything about it for a while:
"I have been seeing a lot of expectations about Monday, but personally, I don't expect to know much until the next court date on the 23rd, if SCO is being truthful and actually does turn over significant answers and documents. SCO may have media pronouncements to make, but IBM has to look over what they are given and evaluate it and that takes time. They aren't given to trying this case in the media, so my best guess is that our next event in the IBM matter will be the court hearing."
From Groklaw
Isn't today ShutUP or PutUP Day for SCO?
Yes, but:
"I have been seeing a lot of expectations about Monday, but personally, I don't expect to know much until the next court date on the 23rd, if SCO is being truthful and actually does turn over significant answers and documents. SCO may have media pronouncements to make, but IBM has to look over what they are given and evaluate it and that takes time. They aren't given to trying this case in the media, so my best guess is that our next event in the IBM matter will be the court hearing."
From Groklaw
there is some real value in all this theory -- The Matrix takes a lot from Baudillard and his postmodern work
Not knowing anything about Baudillard, I ask this naive question: Did any of the *good* parts of the Matrix come from Baudillard? I.e. would the average person have enjoyed the Matrix any less if the Baudillard stuff wasn't there, or do only literary academics appreciate it in the movie?
If a man were to step on another planet, it would be one of the most meaningful and inspiring moments in thousands of years. It would change humanity forever.
Why would stepping on Mars be that much cooler than stepping on the moon? I mean, the first moon landing was great and inspiring, but it was a looooong way from "chaning humanity forever". And to me, going from never walking on another celestial body to walking on the moon is a MUCH bigger jump than walking on a planet after having already walked on the moon.
The moon landing was awe-inspiring to the whole planet. Then they did it a few more times, and people said, OK, that was cool, but now it's getting old, and man this is sure costing us a lot of money. Why would Mars be any different?
For some people yes, for other no. I think those things would be kinda cool, in the same way that reading science fiction stories about space is cool, but there's no way I think it's worth it to spend billions on them. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you're way more into this than the average person, and I don't see the will of the country behind this. It'll get canned sooner or later, if it ever gets started.
If we look at similar projects, such as building the atomic bomb in WWII, or the Apollo program launched by Kennedy, equally, if not greater, technical challenges had to be solved under intense scheduling goals.
The U.S. population was happy to spend big bucks on those programs because at the time they seemed necessary for the country to survive. The average American doesn't care a whole lot about going to Mars (whether they should or not).
The way people feel about Apollo or the Manhattan project: "We have to do this, or we're screwed."
The way people feel about going to Mars: "That'd be kinda cool, huh?"
For those like me who have no idea what a joe job is, here's the definition.
To be clear, it breaks the feature of forwarding of all e-mails from a mail server to another mail server, but there's an easy workaround as someone mentioned.
When I first read this, I thought you were trying to say that I couldn't forward a piece of mail to someone else using my mail reader.
Uh, no. "Four lanes will be open today, but eventually there will be five." Boston Herald
This accounts for the VERY(maximum permissable grade under fed law) steep decline southbound; they had to go over one thing, under another.
Here's a story from the Globe that goes into detail about that.
Buildings? Subway and bus lines? Which ones?
After all those years and billions one still cannot easily get from South Station (or Back Bay, or North Station) to the Airport. Or how about any of said stations to Harvard Square? Or how about Harvard Square to Back Bay or Copley Place? Never mind getting from Harvard to Boston College.
It's certainly a pain to get from South Station (or anywhere else on the Red Line) to the airport. Not sure about your other complaints though - what are you suggesting? To get from North Station to Harvard you have to change trains once - is that what you're complaining about? Doesn't seem so bad to me. The Green Line is a pain past Kenmore but it's fine before then.
It basic cell-lysis, seperation of organic/inorganic phases and alcohol-precipitation of DNA.
Which is... what?
You could use this for PCR
Which is... what?
The point is not what the outcome of elections are when they are practically a formality.
Even if that were true, we still have Democratic primaries...
Which would be very wise -- the news wires don't appear to have this info yet. SCOX is down only 1.44% currently, while the facts of these decisions should mean a much harsher fall off.
Well, if you own SCO stock, presumably you think their lawsuit is going to win, right? (Or at least has a decent chance to win.) If this ruling is just that SCO has to show their evidence, then that shouldn't change your opinion of the stock.
Even once every 3 months is too much IMO. Then they "only" have to memorize 4 good passwords per year for your system, but that's in addition to the many other passwords/PINs they have memorized for everything else (which may be for the other systems of your company, or systems of partner companies, or the employee's personal life like ATMs and online banking).
I think the cost of requiring any password changes at all (or more than once a year, anyway) is just too great. A significant percentage of users is going to write down their passwords somewhere, which is WAY worse.
Yes, but that stops working if people can get the goods for free over file-sharing networks. This proposal is trying to solve that problem, as well as do away with copyright, which some people would like to see axed.
I really like the general idea. Capitalism works great for material goods, but it has a lot of problems for digital goods, in the face of unstoppable copying. It would be interesting to try a whole new system and see how it works. I think you could add software to this system as well as music and movies and such.
That said, I see a few problems:
- It depends on each taxpayer to be (slightly) altruistic. You have to take the trouble to remember and then designate a recipient on your tax form, but you get no direct benefit from this. What if you don't put anyone down, is the money lost? What if 75% of the people are too lazy to write down a recipient? Maybe the unassigned money goes proportially to all the artists that people did put down.
- How do you remember which artist(s) to give it to throughout the year? I predict that every album and every movie will come out in March under this system.
- How do you define a "fraudulent" registration? What if me and my buddy both register, then we each make a finger painting and give it to each other, and then we put each other down on the tax form? Who's to say that that art wasn't good enough to qualify as a "registered" artist? I think you'd have to make people pay $100 to register, to prevent this from happening.
- Do people in other countries get to copy these works? If so, then the country that implemented this system would essentially be subsidizing
listeners in other countries.
Donanting the money would be a tax deduction, but receiving it would probably count as taxable income (the document wasn't quite clear about this). So the net gain would be 0.
No, donating is a tax credit, not a deduction, meaning you get all of the $100 back. The receiver only pays 28% or whatever in taxes, so it would be a net gain. Otherwise the system wouldn't make any sense.
Dreamweaver MX 2004 supports CSS layout, that's the big one that I know about.
"I'd buy, but not in an auction." Huh - does that make any sense? You're saying that you'd buy at a price that someone else determined, but not at a price that you determined.
Put in a bid for what you think is a reasonable price. If the price goes too high, then you won't get any shares, that's fine. If it doesn't, then you get to buy shares at a price that's not overvalued (according to you).
Well, the price discount would probably be somewhere in between, not huge but not negligible either. If it were negligible nobody would switch. And yes, the American companies would find some way to lower their prices and compete, that's exactly the original poster's point. That's good for consumers.
As far as no competition goes, that's why we have anti-trust laws, or to take the analogy further, you'd assume that other Mexican companies would step in to provide more competition.