Meanwhile, it is remarkably stupid for the Democrats to glorify the system, that costs them as dearly as you make it sound...
Why? If they believe in a progressive tax system, and redistribution of wealth, then they accept that this costs them (if they are wealthy or in wealthy states). It is not stupid to glorify the system that they believe in. Now, if they were to complain about the benefits to the poor states, while maintaining that the progressive system is ideal, then you've got a point, since it's hypocrisy again. And guess what? Plenty of Democrats do that (see Lautenberg, D-NJ).
The question for progressives is, "What is the difference between effective spending and pork?"
Unless they perpetuate the system by reaping its rewards, sincerely denouncing it is not only not wrong, but perfectly right and honest. "This sucks, but as long as it is forced upon all of us, I'm going to milk it for all its worth."
Unless they perpetuate the system..., sincerely denouncing it is not only wrong, but perfectly right and honest
Huh? It's not only wrong, but right?
"This sucks, but as long as it is forced upon all of us, I'm going to milk it for all its worth."
As I addressed in a response to an earlier post you made (modded "funny" since it is ludicrous that it is not hypocritical), this concept is hypocritical. In my opinion, it is completely wrong. It is terrible for one to espouse a principal but violate that principle when it benefits them. Please explain to me, how that particular example of hypocrisy can be right. As for honesty, admitting you're doing something bad may be honest, but it does not make the commission of the bad act any less wrong.
D'oh. Preview is my oft-ignored friend. There goes the humor. Should read:
"It is also not, to put it bluntly, a jet. 'If you're very pedantic,' Mr. Martin acknowledged..."
Translation: We've submitted this to Slashdot, and wish to head off the Legion of Pedantry and the Battalion of Righteous Verbiage before they cause the discussion to degenerate into useless babble that doesn't help us get VC funding.
"It is also not, to put it bluntly, a jet. 'If you're very pedantic,' Mr. Martin acknowledged..."translation: We've submitted this to Slashdot, and wish to head off the Legion of Pedantry and the Battalion of Righteous Verbiage before they cause the discussion to degenerate into useless babble that doesn't help us get VC funding.
If I get the time I'll do a more complete analysis (with election results from 2000-2006) and map it out by state, median income, and election history. I'll probably write it up and post it as a journal entry sometime in September, but I'll need to find a hosting site for the maps & graphs. Not sure if I'll have time to code an interactive map, but we'll see.
The funny thing is, though, that it's liberal tax policies that have contributed the most to the disparity... pork is less of a factor than progressive taxes are.
For what it's worth, I'm in favor of a progressive tax system, I just think it's wrong for the Republicans to reap the rewards while decrying the system that rewards them.
But that would invalidate the whole purpose of the comparison. The fact that the top earners are included is vital to the concept of the progressive tax system and the concept of the "welfare state".
The whole point was to highlight the contrast of the Republican position wrt these concepts versus the actual implementation of these concepts, which favors states that vote Republican. When you exclude the top and bottom earners, then the basis for the contrast is gone, since you have eliminated the biggest portion of the progressive tax system.
Usually congressmen first become wealthy, then become politicians
Your response: [single datum contradicting general statement]
Also, I'd like to add that the wealth distribution has changed a lot since Nixon was elected, though the wealthy far outweighed the !wealthy in national office even when he was elected. Now, it is impossible to be elected to national office without the connections to the powerful elite that typically come only with being one of the wealthy.
It's well known that salaries in California, New York, DC, etc are highly inflated to deal with cost of living. That's why they pay more income tax.
you mistake correlatiom for causation. The high cost of living in CA, NY, DC, NJ, etc do not necessarily cause high salaries, though they are correlated to high salaries.
But, even if we accept your premise that there is no problem here because the differences are due to the progressive tax system... would it not then follow that federal "aid" to these areas should also be higher, since the cost of providing services in those areas is higher?
You can't consider the cost of living and inflated wages without considering the other half of the equation, which is the cost of services provided. If you were to normalize for cost of living, then the ratio of taxes paid:benefits received should be the same for the wealthy/expensive areas as for the poor/inexpensive areas.
On one hand, decrying the welfare system, while on the other hand, reaping the benefits of the welfare system?
Professing to hate the welfare system while liking it enough to take advantage of it? That is a textbook example of hypocrisy. Real conviction of belief that the welfare system is wrong would preclude taking advantage of the welfare system.
I get the feeling you don't understand what hypocrisy is.
Check the federal funds report (latest data is 2006, published early July). Note that Louisiana and Mississippi figures are abnormal compared to historical data due to Katrina, and this only covers expenditures, not federal taxes paid from the state in question.
If you want to see balance of payment figures, check this link out. New Jersey (my home state), for example, only receives $0.61 for every dollar remitted to the federal government.
Here's a nice slideshow that shows 25 years of historical BOP rankings for each state (flash required).
The correlation between "red state" and "high ranking in funds received vs. remitted" is extremely strong... I'd seen a map of red/blue states where the data was plugged in that made it ridiculously apparent, but couldn't find the link quickly & can't be bothered to do the same myself right now. I'm sure it's around somewhere if you care to spend some time googling.
Funny, though, how it's primarily due to the higher incomes in the blue states and the progressive tax system... and the Republicans are the ones against a progressive tax system that benefits their states. Just goes to confirm that the rural poor in the US vote against their own economic interests.
So basically alaska is a state primarily funded by the rest of the United in which their inhabitants are simply leeching off the rest of the US. Being that they receive so much federal money.
Which describes almost every "red" state in the Union.
This helps explain why the Republicans are no longer the party of small government. It strikes me as rich irony that the party that decries the existence of the 'welfare state' is dependent upon welfare from the democtratic states in order to keep the pork coming in, which is what keeps them in office.
I've noticed the same thing as you over the last several years, and I'm by no means an old-timer here... I'm probably part of the problem:)
Don't worry though, things will improve (slightly) when the little cretins are back in school. Summer is a bad time for reading slashdot... but I just can't help myself.
I won't agree with you that it is anti-competitive, since software is not a commodity... if they use an advantageous market position to keep distributors from offering competitors' products, that would be anti-competitive.
I will agree that their restrictions on sales to specific locations are used to maximize profits. These restrictions enable them to separate markets, which is what allows them to price differently across countries.
As for the US being multiple markets, that is debateable. The US, as a whole, is one market -- and yes, segments of that market vary wildly. However, the legal implications for software is that it acts as a single market in many regards, due to the fact that it is one nation. Individual state laws segment the market, as do local economies, but pricing that varies according to locale is rare in the US (and of course, there are exceptions -- software as a service that is billed on a cost-plus basis is a great example).
No, it's not that europeans are willing to pay more - it's that they have no option. If we were prepared to pay more, then you'd see sales volumes being the same as in the US - they aren't
I think you misunderstand the pricing decision. It's not about volume, it's about profit. The demand curve in Europe is not as steep as in the US, so profits are maximized at a higher price. Maybe I should have been more clear in my original post.
This suits the manufacturers very nicely as it means they claw back some of the reduced margin from american resellers who are in a better position to pressure for higher discounts
Again, I think there is some fundamental misunderstanding of the pricing decisions going on here. Britain/Europe are considered separate markets for almost all sellers of software. Pricing is one market is independent of pricing in another market, insofar as comparitive analysis of prices in different markets by buyers doesn't really affect the demand curve... if the price difference is too large, then the demand curve will be affected.
In other words, narrow margins in one market do not cause higher prices in another market. In each market, the software should be priced so as to maximize profits in that market.
Very easily. The US and Europe are different markets. Analytics for pricing have shown time and again that Europeans and Britons are willing to pay more for consumer electronics and for software. Hence, suppliers charge more.
As time goes on and the "global" market homogenizes, this will change. But until then, pricing decisions based upon local markets will continue to create situations like those described in the summary.
As for the reasons that Europeans are willing to pay more, any input I'd have would be speculation. The fact that the development of most commercial software happened in the US (historically, not necessarily presently) probably has something to do with it.
Finance people think hours filling in expenses claims over £30 lunches
If it takes you hours to do this, you're doing it wrong.
Furthermore, which only adds to your point, there are reasons that controls on those claims exist that you might not be aware of. Sure, it seems like a waste of time to you, but have you considered the potential cost to the company for not complying with regulations requiring that documentation?
There is potential liability when claims are not reported properly, or when there is a deviation from process. That liability can be far more costly than your wasted time... even when multiplied by all the people who need to file expense claims. I personally know of one company fined over $350k US because of improperly documented expense claims were not reported, or taxed, as taxable income, which is required by law.
My point is that you might be only seeing part of the big picture, just as you make the claim that finance, or support, does not see the big picture. It's a two-way street, and without an understanding of all the factors involved, how can you make the claim that no one else sees the big picture?
Areas of Fort Stant on Cave are open to those who get permits from the BLM, but Snowy River -- deep in the cave behind locked metal gates -- is off-limits. It's unlikely Snowy River ever will be open to anything but research because of the fragility of the tiny calcite crystals and microbes on the cave walls.
Ahh, I love the irony in the last paragraph of the article. Most of the article seems to be dedicated to lauding those who have walked on the Magical Mystery Floor of iCalcite Crystals... those who have obviously brought their foreign microbes to the fragile ecosystem...
My question is, why is the Bureau of Land Management allowing *anyone* to disturb the system if it's so fragile? Why not send light-weight robots that have been disinfected? It's not like we don't have the technology.
Oh yeah... something in the article about practicing for Europa and Mars exploration. Puh-leeze. Robotic exploration is how we'll explore Mars, even if we put people there. Ditto for Europa. Human life, sent millions and millions of miles, is too precious to risk on non-Earth spelunking.
If we evaluate both sides, they both come out to FALSE. Therefore his comparison has merit.
OK, that's oversimplified. Raising the threshold for ads could lower income... it could also increase income. It depends on the demand curve, and the price points on the demand curve. Without modeling the demand curve (or via trial-and-error) there is no way to determine whether increasing the threshold will increase or reduce income.
Speaking of smoking, I can get a real twenty five year old human crack whore for twenty bucks.
Along the unadvertised free "extras". I won't be happy until the experience is fully replicated -- they need to make an anatomically correct robot with herpes and gonorrhea resevoirs.
When sex with an android can result in me pissing guacamole, then I'll know that humandoi robotics has fully arrived.
And by a complement, I mean that I want two of them. One to complement each arm.
FWIW, I'm not sure using them as arm-candy would be the best use. You wouldn't be utilizing the "anatomically correct" portion of the design, which means they'd be over-engineered for your intended purpose.:)
Personally, I'd like anatomically incorrect female robots. I don't want something that feels like the real thing, I want something that feels *better* than the real thing. But maybe that's just me.
Now I don't think even Dick Cheney could go along with the idea of a bomb-powered ship but I wonder if anti-matter would be a suitable replacement charge?
The problem is storing and transporting the antimatter. It can't be done reliably. So instead, you'd need to create the antimatter on board the ship. That'd need to be a pretty damn big ship.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? If they believe in a progressive tax system, and redistribution of wealth, then they accept that this costs them (if they are wealthy or in wealthy states). It is not stupid to glorify the system that they believe in. Now, if they were to complain about the benefits to the poor states, while maintaining that the progressive system is ideal, then you've got a point, since it's hypocrisy again. And guess what? Plenty of Democrats do that (see Lautenberg, D-NJ).
The question for progressives is, "What is the difference between effective spending and pork?"
Unless they perpetuate the system ..., sincerely denouncing it is not only wrong, but perfectly right and honest
Huh? It's not only wrong, but right?
As I addressed in a response to an earlier post you made (modded "funny" since it is ludicrous that it is not hypocritical), this concept is hypocritical. In my opinion, it is completely wrong. It is terrible for one to espouse a principal but violate that principle when it benefits them. Please explain to me, how that particular example of hypocrisy can be right. As for honesty, admitting you're doing something bad may be honest, but it does not make the commission of the bad act any less wrong.
Translation: We've submitted this to Slashdot, and wish to head off the Legion of Pedantry and the Battalion of Righteous Verbiage before they cause the discussion to degenerate into useless babble that doesn't help us get VC funding.
You're right, it did go to the towns airport.
Which was already adequately served by ferry service.
And the ferry service could have been expanded at a fraction of the cost of the bridge.
It was unnecessary pork that signified an enormous disrespect for the idea of spending tax dollars efficiently.
If I get the time I'll do a more complete analysis (with election results from 2000-2006) and map it out by state, median income, and election history. I'll probably write it up and post it as a journal entry sometime in September, but I'll need to find a hosting site for the maps & graphs. Not sure if I'll have time to code an interactive map, but we'll see.
The funny thing is, though, that it's liberal tax policies that have contributed the most to the disparity... pork is less of a factor than progressive taxes are.
For what it's worth, I'm in favor of a progressive tax system, I just think it's wrong for the Republicans to reap the rewards while decrying the system that rewards them.
Who said nothing comes from Alaska?
Not me.
If you want to compare federal spending versus GDP for each state, you're welcome to. You'll find that Alaska ranks poorly there as well.
But that would invalidate the whole purpose of the comparison. The fact that the top earners are included is vital to the concept of the progressive tax system and the concept of the "welfare state".
The whole point was to highlight the contrast of the Republican position wrt these concepts versus the actual implementation of these concepts, which favors states that vote Republican. When you exclude the top and bottom earners, then the basis for the contrast is gone, since you have eliminated the biggest portion of the progressive tax system.
Your response: [single datum contradicting general statement]
Also, I'd like to add that the wealth distribution has changed a lot since Nixon was elected, though the wealthy far outweighed the !wealthy in national office even when he was elected. Now, it is impossible to be elected to national office without the connections to the powerful elite that typically come only with being one of the wealthy.
you mistake correlatiom for causation. The high cost of living in CA, NY, DC, NJ, etc do not necessarily cause high salaries, though they are correlated to high salaries.
But, even if we accept your premise that there is no problem here because the differences are due to the progressive tax system... would it not then follow that federal "aid" to these areas should also be higher, since the cost of providing services in those areas is higher?
You can't consider the cost of living and inflated wages without considering the other half of the equation, which is the cost of services provided. If you were to normalize for cost of living, then the ratio of taxes paid:benefits received should be the same for the wealthy/expensive areas as for the poor/inexpensive areas.
Are you kidding me?
On one hand, decrying the welfare system, while on the other hand, reaping the benefits of the welfare system?
Professing to hate the welfare system while liking it enough to take advantage of it? That is a textbook example of hypocrisy. Real conviction of belief that the welfare system is wrong would preclude taking advantage of the welfare system.
I get the feeling you don't understand what hypocrisy is.
Check the federal funds report (latest data is 2006, published early July). Note that Louisiana and Mississippi figures are abnormal compared to historical data due to Katrina, and this only covers expenditures, not federal taxes paid from the state in question.
If you want to see balance of payment figures, check this link out. New Jersey (my home state), for example, only receives $0.61 for every dollar remitted to the federal government.
Here's a nice slideshow that shows 25 years of historical BOP rankings for each state (flash required).
The correlation between "red state" and "high ranking in funds received vs. remitted" is extremely strong... I'd seen a map of red/blue states where the data was plugged in that made it ridiculously apparent, but couldn't find the link quickly & can't be bothered to do the same myself right now. I'm sure it's around somewhere if you care to spend some time googling.
Funny, though, how it's primarily due to the higher incomes in the blue states and the progressive tax system... and the Republicans are the ones against a progressive tax system that benefits their states. Just goes to confirm that the rural poor in the US vote against their own economic interests.
Which describes almost every "red" state in the Union.
This helps explain why the Republicans are no longer the party of small government. It strikes me as rich irony that the party that decries the existence of the 'welfare state' is dependent upon welfare from the democtratic states in order to keep the pork coming in, which is what keeps them in office.
Meh. Big deal. He'll get hired on as a "consultant" to one of the companies he arranged sweetheart deals for.
Hopefully, he'll be prohibited from lobbying -- I'm not sure if there are rules for prohibiting certain criminals from lobbying.
I've noticed the same thing as you over the last several years, and I'm by no means an old-timer here... I'm probably part of the problem :)
Don't worry though, things will improve (slightly) when the little cretins are back in school. Summer is a bad time for reading slashdot... but I just can't help myself.
What, and deprive them of the use of that code?
Don't you realize that by stealing that code, you'd be causing them to lose sales?
/deliberately obtuse
I won't agree with you that it is anti-competitive, since software is not a commodity... if they use an advantageous market position to keep distributors from offering competitors' products, that would be anti-competitive.
I will agree that their restrictions on sales to specific locations are used to maximize profits. These restrictions enable them to separate markets, which is what allows them to price differently across countries.
As for the US being multiple markets, that is debateable. The US, as a whole, is one market -- and yes, segments of that market vary wildly. However, the legal implications for software is that it acts as a single market in many regards, due to the fact that it is one nation. Individual state laws segment the market, as do local economies, but pricing that varies according to locale is rare in the US (and of course, there are exceptions -- software as a service that is billed on a cost-plus basis is a great example).
I think you misunderstand the pricing decision. It's not about volume, it's about profit. The demand curve in Europe is not as steep as in the US, so profits are maximized at a higher price. Maybe I should have been more clear in my original post.
Again, I think there is some fundamental misunderstanding of the pricing decisions going on here. Britain/Europe are considered separate markets for almost all sellers of software. Pricing is one market is independent of pricing in another market, insofar as comparitive analysis of prices in different markets by buyers doesn't really affect the demand curve... if the price difference is too large, then the demand curve will be affected.
In other words, narrow margins in one market do not cause higher prices in another market. In each market, the software should be priced so as to maximize profits in that market.
Please, look up the definition of price gouging. It's quite different from what you are talking about.
Very easily. The US and Europe are different markets. Analytics for pricing have shown time and again that Europeans and Britons are willing to pay more for consumer electronics and for software. Hence, suppliers charge more.
As time goes on and the "global" market homogenizes, this will change. But until then, pricing decisions based upon local markets will continue to create situations like those described in the summary.
As for the reasons that Europeans are willing to pay more, any input I'd have would be speculation. The fact that the development of most commercial software happened in the US (historically, not necessarily presently) probably has something to do with it.
If it takes you hours to do this, you're doing it wrong.
Furthermore, which only adds to your point, there are reasons that controls on those claims exist that you might not be aware of. Sure, it seems like a waste of time to you, but have you considered the potential cost to the company for not complying with regulations requiring that documentation?
There is potential liability when claims are not reported properly, or when there is a deviation from process. That liability can be far more costly than your wasted time... even when multiplied by all the people who need to file expense claims. I personally know of one company fined over $350k US because of improperly documented expense claims were not reported, or taxed, as taxable income, which is required by law.
My point is that you might be only seeing part of the big picture, just as you make the claim that finance, or support, does not see the big picture. It's a two-way street, and without an understanding of all the factors involved, how can you make the claim that no one else sees the big picture?
Ahh, I love the irony in the last paragraph of the article. Most of the article seems to be dedicated to lauding those who have walked on the Magical Mystery Floor of iCalcite Crystals... those who have obviously brought their foreign microbes to the fragile ecosystem...
My question is, why is the Bureau of Land Management allowing *anyone* to disturb the system if it's so fragile? Why not send light-weight robots that have been disinfected? It's not like we don't have the technology.
Oh yeah... something in the article about practicing for Europa and Mars exploration. Puh-leeze. Robotic exploration is how we'll explore Mars, even if we put people there. Ditto for Europa. Human life, sent millions and millions of miles, is too precious to risk on non-Earth spelunking.
Raising threshold:lower income::raising minimum wage:lower employment.
If we evaluate both sides, they both come out to FALSE. Therefore his comparison has merit.
OK, that's oversimplified. Raising the threshold for ads could lower income... it could also increase income. It depends on the demand curve, and the price points on the demand curve. Without modeling the demand curve (or via trial-and-error) there is no way to determine whether increasing the threshold will increase or reduce income.
Along the unadvertised free "extras". I won't be happy until the experience is fully replicated -- they need to make an anatomically correct robot with herpes and gonorrhea resevoirs.
When sex with an android can result in me pissing guacamole, then I'll know that humandoi robotics has fully arrived.
FWIW, I'm not sure using them as arm-candy would be the best use. You wouldn't be utilizing the "anatomically correct" portion of the design, which means they'd be over-engineered for your intended purpose. :)
Personally, I'd like anatomically incorrect female robots. I don't want something that feels like the real thing, I want something that feels *better* than the real thing. But maybe that's just me.
The problem is storing and transporting the antimatter. It can't be done reliably. So instead, you'd need to create the antimatter on board the ship. That'd need to be a pretty damn big ship.