Not really, if I was under the mistaken impression that the sun burned petrol to fuel its light then you'd hopefully correct me. If I made a more minor error say for example I talked about how the 68000 processor was clearly copied from the 386 architecture then again I'd hope you'd put me right. If I misused grammar so my meaning was unclear for example I mistyped "I helped my Uncle Jack off a Horse" Then again you should say something. Personally whenever I see someone misuse their/there/they're my internal language processor seg-faults. So while I have no time for abusive grammar nazis I personally like to be as correct and clear as I can so I welcome feedback. However I try to only give it when invited or in really bad abuses where I'm not sure what the person was trying to say. YMMV
The why of Newtonian gravity is that mass attracts other mass proportional to the two masses and that attraction falls off with distance by the inverse square law. Why it does that could be spacial distortion of relativity or it could be gravitons or it could be a new model we have yet to come up with. TBH I believe we've already reached the state where spacial distortion is an insufficient answer to the why of Newtonian gravity because it doesn't work at the quantum level and certainly dark matter and energy seem to indicate there may be BIG errors in that model of why gravity works like it does, My point is that the answer to the question why changes as human understanding and imagination crafts new model. It is not nore do i think it ever will be an absolute answer. Take another example. Why does a rainbow look like it does. Because the rain drops act like a prism. But what about the shape of it? Why can you only see it when the sun is behind you. There is never a simple or full answer to any why question, and the answer to that question also needs to change with your audience. Why when my finger touches a key on the keyboard does the key get pushed down? Well i could talk about the electrostatic fields of the atoms as they interact with each other and why they become so strong over small distances to make matter feel solid when in fact it is just electromagnetic fields interacting. None of that though explains why the electrostatic fields around atoms behave as they do. Sure we have equations that describe all these interactions and to get back to the article that is the important point. We have equations for all the things discussed here, from electromagnetism to dynamics of a rainbow to gravity etc. But there really is no good answer to why any of these things.
Not really. Does gravity work because mass distorts space or because of gravitons? At the heart of it most science doesn't care why, but it does care what. Now theories are proposed to postulate a why, but they're usually used to encourage more experiments. Many of the previous whys have been proved wrong, or at least incomplete, bohr model of the atom Newton's universal gravitation, any theory of superconductivity; but it doesn't matter the experiments and results were real and the ideas produced by the models useful. Can't remember who said this, but Asking why we do science is like asking why we have sex, sure sometimes something useful comes out, but that's not the reason we're doing it.
Not really America has a public statement of principles that many other countries don't. Therefore it would be easier to raise issues like this that violate those principles. Not everyone is so lucky.
This is an interesting point the GP makes, most companies are judged on their gross margin which this plan may well hurt. Sure they make more actual profit, but if it takes a proportionately greater amount of money to make that, then are they actually hurting themselves? Now if they're selling a lifestyle for even greater gross margin and customer loyalty then maybe it's worth that hit, but I'm not sure the stock market would see that - they're very short sighted.
Don't forget DCX was also trying out composite fuel tanks, aerospike engines and new body lift profile and I'm sure lots of other things that I can't remember off the top of my head. I get the impression it was typical modern NASA, everyone put their latest pet project/ "cool idea" onto the one thing that has funding and then it doesn't work because it's too many new things at once. The whole thing goes up in flames and we're left with the shuttle. If they just did normal engineering and what they used to do which was 1 test project per technology. But no NASA knows better. This is why I really have hope for Space-X they're doing one small step at a time.
"Except that property rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no requirement of a property tax for this." Except that it is up to the state to enforce these rights.
"OK, so by your argument then, renters do not deserve protection of law for theft from their homes" No, I was using a house as an example of one type of property, like I used a car as another, the argument applies to all types of property. If the house rights were infringed then the owner of the house would be the one to contest the issue. not the renter It is always the owner of the property that has their rights infringed. In the case of someone who is renting a property and has their goods stolen then it is the goods that they own that are stolen regardless of where they are located at that time. What I was talking about is the principle of taxing wealth i.e. all goods owned. If you don't own the house you live in, fine, but the goods you own are all that can be stolen from you and there is a tax on those goods. (Now for most people the value of those would be so small as to be either not worth taxing or it would be insignificant.) Any formulat I would support would be a none linear formula (yes I know this too has issues, but let's keep it simple for the sake of discussion of the principle)
Look you seem to think that tax on income is fair. Why? I have worked for that, I have sweat toiled and studied to get that income why is someone else entitled to a cut? Well there's any number of reasons why in order for society to function someone has to take a cut, but it is still unfair. Tell me, why is it more fair to tax income that I have worked for and is adding something to society by that toil than for something that is sat there doing nothing. Why is it more fair that someone can sit on a pile of unused goods and hoard them from society. Most economic theories go on about the most useful thing to do with money in a society, what brings a high quality of life is to keep money moving around as much as possible, so why tax and therefore discourage people from earning and loaning and sharing and instead encourage people to sit on their goods not doing anything with them. If you tax income, and rent and interest etc then you encourage people to do what's worst for society.
"because they are no longer on their way to becoming rich that they should be taxed more?" no because as they have hoarded wealth they will have had this extra tax applied steadily as it has increased. "Property? Cash in the bank?" Yes, assets. Now I know that it is possible to hide wealth (paintings in the attic) but i don't believe that is how the majority of the nations wealth is stored and it's the big hitters who have control of multinationals I'm concerned with, not grandma and her diamond ring under the floorboards. "The whole purpose of income tax is to have a sliding scale which accounts for income levels (which those living off of investments have a great deal of as well). " True, but you have the crazy situation of someone who is sitting on assets of hundreds of millions who has a very low income why? They never bought that house it is one of the family properties so they don't pay a mortgage. The company pays for most of their dinners. Travel, again all company. New suit? Business expense, New car, buy it offshore and import it as a $1 sale (it has been done)You have have the crazy situation where a multi-millionare living a playboy lifestyle has a lower income that a white collar worker because everything is either inherited or done in the name of their company or done offshore and comes direct out of the company/trust fund's coffers. That is just crazy!
Okay another example. Let's say I just bought a 200k sports car. I think you agree it is more likely to get stolen than my current 2k skip on wheels. That car will probably require more police effort and arguably do more damage to the roads than my old one. So me having fancy property is a cost to the state. Why should someone else bear that cost? Maybe you're willing to take on the cost of the defence of that property personally through insurance, guns and security devices, maybe there really is zero crime where you are. Go back to first principles, what are the functions of the state and most of those statements of intent talk about providing a level playing field for all (justice, law, etc), providing some form of social responsibility (looking after neighbours, the weak, universal education etc) and securing property rights. Property rights go way beyond simple theift, what about trespass, what about if my neighbour pollutes the stream that runs through my property, what if he simply uses more that his fair share of the water in that stream? You need the state then to stand up for your rights, look after your property's rights and therefore it is fair to tax the property that the state is providing a service to. (even if you never need to call on that service).
Alternatively I leave the money in the bank and (micro and macro economic effects aside although that is another fascinating conversation) there is no cost to anyone else other than the contract between me and my bank.
I like that idea, but I really don't think it's true. Maybe it's a sad world view that I hold, maybe it's experience of living in the UK where the tax collected from transport and cars in particular are at least an order of magnitude above the costs, but I really think taxes applied are as large as the government thinks the economy can sustain in that area; and expenditure is matched to what will get them elected at the next election. Somewhere income meets outgoings, but they're nothing like as simple as you make out.
But isn't that really the way of the world? You only own the things you do because those with more power let you.* The only reason I have my car outside the house still is because if someone stole it some men with big guns would go looking for the person who stole it and got it back. When you look at government as one big mafia like protection scheme the whole system becomes a lot more simple. Is it right? I'm not sure, it's certainly not nice, but I can't come up with any coherent system that accounts for human failings that does not end up with it devolving into something like the current system. It is at least at the moment just, in that by and large there are no favourites; just those with money and those without and a path** between the two. This is at least an improvement on previous systems.
* Yes I know there's the argument that people don't take power, they are given it and while that has a lot of merit it only seems to apply for Seldon like masses, or the very very powerful which is not much use to you and I. ** it may not be as easy a path as it should be, but at least it exists; hopefully this will get better with time and effort.
Erm yes, what you seem to think is really unfair to me just seems common sense. So hang on: Let's say you had a veritable hermit. They had their own farm, they are totally self sufficient, they want nothing from anyone else, but likewise they don't want to give anything to anyone else. At first inspection it seems quite right that they should be able to do this. Except that the state is already doing lots for them, providing them with law so that no-one breaks into their property and kills them and steals their land. Even if the hermit had guns the state provides the national guard and rest of the armed forces to protect against those with larger arms. Even avoiding that what if our hermit's neighbour started a mine that cut off our hermit's water supply. He could go to the state to get them to respect his land rights to have that stream. This is all assuming that the hermit plays by the rules of his isolation and never gets really ill and relies upon the state welfare system and therefore uses the resources of the state. This property tax that you describe is the price for the state granting property rights, otherwise you'd have anarchy where the person with the largest guns wins. Now that might be romantic in a wild west sort of way, but it's not civilised. Poperty taxes sound to me like a fair exchange for the enforcement of property rights.
"is it fair to be taxed on it again and again and again until it's gone?" Yes, if you're not doing anything with it. Easy analogy: You're a land owner in medieval England, does your family have the right for dozens more generations to sit on their posterior while peasants work the land and fetch you lunch while you add nothing to the system? Okay the modern equivalent to that is sitting back and living off the interest on a lump sum in the bank, frankly that's not the sort of lifestyle I think a society wants to encourage, but if you choose to do that then realise it's not something you'd be able to do for generations. A society that has a significant number of people doing that is not healthy. They should all be contributing something. Now if we're talking about pensions that's different, but you're specifically saving for yours and your partner's old age only there, which obviously is good for society.
I'm not saying they aren't very rich. But if your aim is to tax the uber-rich then I think you'd be better of taxing those with assets of say more than 1 billion, say an extra percentage point ftax for each billion owned or some such formula. I have no problem with the uber rich, I have MASSIVE problems with family oligarchies where once you are rich you will stay rich (because your dad pays to get you into Harvard and then you get a job at the family company, all expenses are company expenses, cars and houses are given to you etc). Now maybe I'm trying to fight a none existent/small scale problem, but I'm not convinced. Isn't the American dream that anyone can become one of the super wealthy, well one way to do that is to make sure that it's easy to climb up, but also don't you need to make it hard(er) to remain at the very top. As an outsider now I look at the old-rich(i.e. more than 2 generations of wealth) as I look back at the French royalty/nobility, so look for anyway to limit their power.
"Property tax is possibly the most unfair there is." See there I disagree. If any tax can be fair then it exists to either provide for common services (such as defence, road and law) or to provide social responsibility for a society (look after the sick, poor and otherwise disadvantaged). In the first case the costs scale with some function of population and land area, if you own a lot of land you need more roads. If you have an expensive property you'll more likely need to call out the police, etc. In the second case then it is a conscience question of how much burden do you want to put on those with to provide for those without; again fair would imply that you tax proportionate to the amount you have. Taxing someone more who has a lot of stuff has to be better than asking for the same amount from someone who doesn't have that much stuff. In all those cases of fairness I don't see why property tax isn't fair. Now it's also easy to say that all tax is unfair and really the current system is about milking the proverbial cow, how can government get the most out of society, but that's a different discussion...
I'm more worried that this taxes people on their way to becoming rich. I'd rather they taxed those who were already rich and living off their savings/company. I'd rather tax those who are sitting on trust funds than those who are aggressively making lots of money, as they are quite likely to be the wealth creators rather than the fat cats doing nothing but sucking money out of the system. Tax wealth not income, otherwise all you do is keep those who are already rich rich and make it harder for those who are up and coming to get somewhere. But i doubt you'll get those in power supporting tax on wealth precisely because they know this, it is in their interest to raise the barrier to entry to the upper class.
I am an ASIC engineer by trade so I am well aware of that, I was simplifying the problem for the sake of a comment... The point I was trying to make was that a dual core 1GHz machine of any architecture _should_ be enough for any task a user will run on a tablet. Certainly for running 10 year old applications that were being discussed. Now as for running modern applications it should be capable of that too, of course this is ignoring using it as a compute resource or inefficient software, which was perhaps foolish. There's no amount of processor power you can throw at bad software that will make it good.
But you should be comparing it to a 2003 processor, and so the 2012->2015 tablets that it will be running on should vastly out perform them. Even then, it's a word processor! How much CPU can it possible need? *ducks*
In what world do you live where 1 dual core 1GHz processor is not enough for common or even very uncommon user tasks? If you were talking about a compute farm or a server then yes what I asked would be an unreasonable question. But we are talking about legacy x86 user apps! Games will either be ported to the new architecture or simple casual gaming stuff. You're not using this tablet for rendering Toy Story 3, you're not using it for playing the latest FPS, you're not using it to solve airflow across an aircraft wing. Now I'm not denying that software is perfectly capable of wasting however much hardware you throw at it, but that's a very different problem
Name me a job today that requires an education that does not require using a computer. Knowing how your tools work is the first thing you should learn in any job.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, if I was under the mistaken impression that the sun burned petrol to fuel its light then you'd hopefully correct me. If I made a more minor error say for example I talked about how the 68000 processor was clearly copied from the 386 architecture then again I'd hope you'd put me right.
If I misused grammar so my meaning was unclear for example I mistyped "I helped my Uncle Jack off a Horse" Then again you should say something.
Personally whenever I see someone misuse their/there/they're my internal language processor seg-faults.
So while I have no time for abusive grammar nazis I personally like to be as correct and clear as I can so I welcome feedback. However I try to only give it when invited or in really bad abuses where I'm not sure what the person was trying to say. YMMV
That's the same video i posted above... ;-)
So yes, excellent post, I love it
I take your point, but i don't think science is that simple (it never is, but that's it's charm).
I've tried to write a point below but Feynman explained it far better than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
The why of Newtonian gravity is that mass attracts other mass proportional to the two masses and that attraction falls off with distance by the inverse square law.
Why it does that could be spacial distortion of relativity or it could be gravitons or it could be a new model we have yet to come up with.
TBH I believe we've already reached the state where spacial distortion is an insufficient answer to the why of Newtonian gravity because it doesn't work at the quantum level and certainly dark matter and energy seem to indicate there may be BIG errors in that model of why gravity works like it does,
My point is that the answer to the question why changes as human understanding and imagination crafts new model. It is not nore do i think it ever will be an absolute answer.
Take another example. Why does a rainbow look like it does. Because the rain drops act like a prism. But what about the shape of it? Why can you only see it when the sun is behind you. There is never a simple or full answer to any why question, and the answer to that question also needs to change with your audience.
Why when my finger touches a key on the keyboard does the key get pushed down? Well i could talk about the electrostatic fields of the atoms as they interact with each other and why they become so strong over small distances to make matter feel solid when in fact it is just electromagnetic fields interacting. None of that though explains why the electrostatic fields around atoms behave as they do. Sure we have equations that describe all these interactions and to get back to the article that is the important point. We have equations for all the things discussed here, from electromagnetism to dynamics of a rainbow to gravity etc. But there really is no good answer to why any of these things.
See Feynman did say it much much better than me
Not really.
Does gravity work because mass distorts space or because of gravitons? At the heart of it most science doesn't care why, but it does care what.
Now theories are proposed to postulate a why, but they're usually used to encourage more experiments.
Many of the previous whys have been proved wrong, or at least incomplete, bohr model of the atom Newton's universal gravitation, any theory of superconductivity; but it doesn't matter the experiments and results were real and the ideas produced by the models useful.
Can't remember who said this, but Asking why we do science is like asking why we have sex, sure sometimes something useful comes out, but that's not the reason we're doing it.
Not really
America has a public statement of principles that many other countries don't. Therefore it would be easier to raise issues like this that violate those principles.
Not everyone is so lucky.
This is an interesting point the GP makes, most companies are judged on their gross margin which this plan may well hurt. Sure they make more actual profit, but if it takes a proportionately greater amount of money to make that, then are they actually hurting themselves?
Now if they're selling a lifestyle for even greater gross margin and customer loyalty then maybe it's worth that hit, but I'm not sure the stock market would see that - they're very short sighted.
And they keep telling you that they'll tell you what's in it so you can make your own at home, but then hide all the recipe books.
Don't forget DCX was also trying out composite fuel tanks, aerospike engines and new body lift profile and I'm sure lots of other things that I can't remember off the top of my head.
I get the impression it was typical modern NASA, everyone put their latest pet project/ "cool idea" onto the one thing that has funding and then it doesn't work because it's too many new things at once. The whole thing goes up in flames and we're left with the shuttle.
If they just did normal engineering and what they used to do which was 1 test project per technology. But no NASA knows better.
This is why I really have hope for Space-X they're doing one small step at a time.
WRT 3, Better still get it spraying a cloud of tritium so that the glowing effect stays there for a while after it has passed.
What could possibly go wrong?
"Except that property rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no requirement of a property tax for this."
Except that it is up to the state to enforce these rights.
"OK, so by your argument then, renters do not deserve protection of law for theft from their homes"
No, I was using a house as an example of one type of property, like I used a car as another, the argument applies to all types of property. If the house rights were infringed then the owner of the house would be the one to contest the issue. not the renter It is always the owner of the property that has their rights infringed. In the case of someone who is renting a property and has their goods stolen then it is the goods that they own that are stolen regardless of where they are located at that time. What I was talking about is the principle of taxing wealth i.e. all goods owned. If you don't own the house you live in, fine, but the goods you own are all that can be stolen from you and there is a tax on those goods. (Now for most people the value of those would be so small as to be either not worth taxing or it would be insignificant.) Any formulat I would support would be a none linear formula (yes I know this too has issues, but let's keep it simple for the sake of discussion of the principle)
Look you seem to think that tax on income is fair. Why? I have worked for that, I have sweat toiled and studied to get that income why is someone else entitled to a cut? Well there's any number of reasons why in order for society to function someone has to take a cut, but it is still unfair. Tell me, why is it more fair to tax income that I have worked for and is adding something to society by that toil than for something that is sat there doing nothing.
Why is it more fair that someone can sit on a pile of unused goods and hoard them from society. Most economic theories go on about the most useful thing to do with money in a society, what brings a high quality of life is to keep money moving around as much as possible, so why tax and therefore discourage people from earning and loaning and sharing and instead encourage people to sit on their goods not doing anything with them. If you tax income, and rent and interest etc then you encourage people to do what's worst for society.
"because they are no longer on their way to becoming rich that they should be taxed more?"
no because as they have hoarded wealth they will have had this extra tax applied steadily as it has increased.
"Property? Cash in the bank?"
Yes, assets.
Now I know that it is possible to hide wealth (paintings in the attic) but i don't believe that is how the majority of the nations wealth is stored and it's the big hitters who have control of multinationals I'm concerned with, not grandma and her diamond ring under the floorboards.
"The whole purpose of income tax is to have a sliding scale which accounts for income levels (which those living off of investments have a great deal of as well). "
True, but you have the crazy situation of someone who is sitting on assets of hundreds of millions who has a very low income why? They never bought that house it is one of the family properties so they don't pay a mortgage. The company pays for most of their dinners. Travel, again all company. New suit? Business expense, New car, buy it offshore and import it as a $1 sale (it has been done)You have have the crazy situation where a multi-millionare living a playboy lifestyle has a lower income that a white collar worker because everything is either inherited or done in the name of their company or done offshore and comes direct out of the company/trust fund's coffers. That is just crazy!
Okay another example.
Let's say I just bought a 200k sports car.
I think you agree it is more likely to get stolen than my current 2k skip on wheels.
That car will probably require more police effort and arguably do more damage to the roads than my old one.
So me having fancy property is a cost to the state.
Why should someone else bear that cost?
Maybe you're willing to take on the cost of the defence of that property personally through insurance, guns and security devices, maybe there really is zero crime where you are. Go back to first principles, what are the functions of the state and most of those statements of intent talk about providing a level playing field for all (justice, law, etc), providing some form of social responsibility (looking after neighbours, the weak, universal education etc) and securing property rights. Property rights go way beyond simple theift, what about trespass, what about if my neighbour pollutes the stream that runs through my property, what if he simply uses more that his fair share of the water in that stream? You need the state then to stand up for your rights, look after your property's rights and therefore it is fair to tax the property that the state is providing a service to. (even if you never need to call on that service).
Alternatively I leave the money in the bank and (micro and macro economic effects aside although that is another fascinating conversation) there is no cost to anyone else other than the contract between me and my bank.
I like that idea, but I really don't think it's true. Maybe it's a sad world view that I hold, maybe it's experience of living in the UK where the tax collected from transport and cars in particular are at least an order of magnitude above the costs, but I really think taxes applied are as large as the government thinks the economy can sustain in that area; and expenditure is matched to what will get them elected at the next election.
Somewhere income meets outgoings, but they're nothing like as simple as you make out.
But isn't that really the way of the world? You only own the things you do because those with more power let you.* The only reason I have my car outside the house still is because if someone stole it some men with big guns would go looking for the person who stole it and got it back.
When you look at government as one big mafia like protection scheme the whole system becomes a lot more simple. Is it right? I'm not sure, it's certainly not nice, but I can't come up with any coherent system that accounts for human failings that does not end up with it devolving into something like the current system. It is at least at the moment just, in that by and large there are no favourites; just those with money and those without and a path** between the two. This is at least an improvement on previous systems.
* Yes I know there's the argument that people don't take power, they are given it and while that has a lot of merit it only seems to apply for Seldon like masses, or the very very powerful which is not much use to you and I.
** it may not be as easy a path as it should be, but at least it exists; hopefully this will get better with time and effort.
Erm yes, what you seem to think is really unfair to me just seems common sense.
So hang on:
Let's say you had a veritable hermit. They had their own farm, they are totally self sufficient, they want nothing from anyone else, but likewise they don't want to give anything to anyone else. At first inspection it seems quite right that they should be able to do this. Except that the state is already doing lots for them, providing them with law so that no-one breaks into their property and kills them and steals their land. Even if the hermit had guns the state provides the national guard and rest of the armed forces to protect against those with larger arms. Even avoiding that what if our hermit's neighbour started a mine that cut off our hermit's water supply. He could go to the state to get them to respect his land rights to have that stream. This is all assuming that the hermit plays by the rules of his isolation and never gets really ill and relies upon the state welfare system and therefore uses the resources of the state.
This property tax that you describe is the price for the state granting property rights, otherwise you'd have anarchy where the person with the largest guns wins. Now that might be romantic in a wild west sort of way, but it's not civilised. Poperty taxes sound to me like a fair exchange for the enforcement of property rights.
"is it fair to be taxed on it again and again and again until it's gone?"
Yes, if you're not doing anything with it.
Easy analogy: You're a land owner in medieval England, does your family have the right for dozens more generations to sit on their posterior while peasants work the land and fetch you lunch while you add nothing to the system?
Okay the modern equivalent to that is sitting back and living off the interest on a lump sum in the bank, frankly that's not the sort of lifestyle I think a society wants to encourage, but if you choose to do that then realise it's not something you'd be able to do for generations. A society that has a significant number of people doing that is not healthy. They should all be contributing something.
Now if we're talking about pensions that's different, but you're specifically saving for yours and your partner's old age only there, which obviously is good for society.
I'm not saying they aren't very rich.
But if your aim is to tax the uber-rich then I think you'd be better of taxing those with assets of say more than 1 billion, say an extra percentage point ftax for each billion owned or some such formula.
I have no problem with the uber rich, I have MASSIVE problems with family oligarchies where once you are rich you will stay rich (because your dad pays to get you into Harvard and then you get a job at the family company, all expenses are company expenses, cars and houses are given to you etc).
Now maybe I'm trying to fight a none existent/small scale problem, but I'm not convinced. Isn't the American dream that anyone can become one of the super wealthy, well one way to do that is to make sure that it's easy to climb up, but also don't you need to make it hard(er) to remain at the very top.
As an outsider now I look at the old-rich(i.e. more than 2 generations of wealth) as I look back at the French royalty/nobility, so look for anyway to limit their power.
"Property tax is possibly the most unfair there is."
See there I disagree.
If any tax can be fair then it exists to either provide for common services (such as defence, road and law) or to provide social responsibility for a society (look after the sick, poor and otherwise disadvantaged). In the first case the costs scale with some function of population and land area, if you own a lot of land you need more roads. If you have an expensive property you'll more likely need to call out the police, etc. In the second case then it is a conscience question of how much burden do you want to put on those with to provide for those without; again fair would imply that you tax proportionate to the amount you have. Taxing someone more who has a lot of stuff has to be better than asking for the same amount from someone who doesn't have that much stuff.
In all those cases of fairness I don't see why property tax isn't fair.
Now it's also easy to say that all tax is unfair and really the current system is about milking the proverbial cow, how can government get the most out of society, but that's a different discussion...
I'm more worried that this taxes people on their way to becoming rich.
I'd rather they taxed those who were already rich and living off their savings/company. I'd rather tax those who are sitting on trust funds than those who are aggressively making lots of money, as they are quite likely to be the wealth creators rather than the fat cats doing nothing but sucking money out of the system.
Tax wealth not income, otherwise all you do is keep those who are already rich rich and make it harder for those who are up and coming to get somewhere.
But i doubt you'll get those in power supporting tax on wealth precisely because they know this, it is in their interest to raise the barrier to entry to the upper class.
Did those exist in 2003? Were they used for running Word?
I am an ASIC engineer by trade so I am well aware of that, I was simplifying the problem for the sake of a comment...
The point I was trying to make was that a dual core 1GHz machine of any architecture _should_ be enough for any task a user will run on a tablet. Certainly for running 10 year old applications that were being discussed.
Now as for running modern applications it should be capable of that too, of course this is ignoring using it as a compute resource or inefficient software, which was perhaps foolish. There's no amount of processor power you can throw at bad software that will make it good.
But you should be comparing it to a 2003 processor, and so the 2012->2015 tablets that it will be running on should vastly out perform them.
Even then, it's a word processor! How much CPU can it possible need? *ducks*
In what world do you live where 1 dual core 1GHz processor is not enough for common or even very uncommon user tasks?
If you were talking about a compute farm or a server then yes what I asked would be an unreasonable question.
But we are talking about legacy x86 user apps! Games will either be ported to the new architecture or simple casual gaming stuff. You're not using this tablet for rendering Toy Story 3, you're not using it for playing the latest FPS, you're not using it to solve airflow across an aircraft wing.
Now I'm not denying that software is perfectly capable of wasting however much hardware you throw at it, but that's a very different problem
Name me a job today that requires an education that does not require using a computer.
Knowing how your tools work is the first thing you should learn in any job.
A dual core GHz arm core is underpowered?