The Linux distros continue to make significant headway, by any measure you care to apply, except dollar measures. So long as they stay healthy, which looks like a very long time, there will be no duopoly.
Market share? Linux enjoys half the market share of Microsoft Vista...
The Linux distros continue to make significant headway, by any measure you care to apply, except dollar measures. So long as they stay healthy, which looks like a very long time, there will be no duopoly.
Market share? Linux enjoys half the market share of Microsoft Vista...
Close - you both pay for your phone service (the ABILITY to place and receive calls), only the initiatior pays an additional fee for actually placing a call.
As a consumer I have the choice to pay for a "bigger pipe" from the ISP, why can't a provider pay for a similar "bigger pipe" TO the ISP?
Really? You could pay everyone involved in the entire production chain (raw materials to sub-assemblies to final assemblers/packers) a non-slave (AKA 'living Wage'?) by increasing the retail price of an iPhone $4? I find it hard to believe - please explain.
And, when talking about price for something like an iPhone (as one example) remember there are many different price points:
Price of an unlocked iPhone to an individual
Price of a locked iPhone sold in bulk to a carrier/retailer
Price phone company (Apple, Motorola) pays the manufacturer (Foxconn) for finished iPhone
Price for manufacturer (Foxconn) to build the iPhone from parts
Subsidized price of locked iPhone to the consumer/subscriber
Raising the per piece price by $4 when it leaves the factory would not raise the price most consumers pay by 'only' $4.
Solution for the US? 1950s income tax rates and strengthen the unions: try to bring back the institutions and policies we had during our boom times.
Of course, The booming economy of the '50s was because of higher tax rates and strong private-sector unions... It had nothing to do with the massive increases in production capacity & capabilities as a result of the recently ended war effort, right?
Ignoring unions, please explain how government taking a larger portion of everyone's income 'grows' the economy?
Here's what I suggest, let's remove every tax incentive offered to the auto industry and strengthen the auto worker unions to get them back to where they were in the '50s - that will certainly bring Detroit back from bankruptcy...
The chips in question, quad-core Atoms (AKA Bay Trail), are actually quite good - I have a Dell Venue 8 Pro tablet with that CPU and it runs Windows 8.1 quite well, with very useful battery life (IMHO)...
I think their strategy is to get the products in user's hands to overcome negative impressions from earlier Netbook/mobile offerings from Intel.
The 'poor' (as defined by their incomes putting them in the lower 59% of tax filers) pay no INCOME taxes, the 'rich' (as defined by their incomes putting them in the umpire 50% of tax filers) pays 110% of all tax monies collected.
Why is it 110%? Because the money that some 'poor' people collect in excess of whatever they paid in has to come from somewhere...
What does this bill do? It reverses a court decision until a higher court decides the matter. Do you really wasn't congressmen second-guessing district courts, overturning their decisions at will?
This bill is stupid - why won't the FCC simply reclassify ISPs as 'common carriers'? It's what the court told them to do in their decision, since the FCC has no right to oversee 'information services'...
Understand what the bill does - it reverses a district court decision only until the the Supreme Court rules on this case.
Neither side was surprised by this decision, both saw this decision coming, because the FCC created the conflict that caused them to lose the appeal - they declared Broadband ISPs were NOT 'common carriers' then the FCC tried to regulate Broadband ISPs as if they WERE 'common carriers'.
In effect, the FCC said it had no jurisdiction, then tried to exert it's non-existent jurisdiction. The District court told the FCC how to fix this, simply classify a Broadband ISPs as 'common carriers' - instead, the Legislative branch (Congress) of government wants to meddle with the decisions of the Judicial branch as to how it's decisions impact the Executive a Branch (FCC)...
Right, because we have no broadband infrastructure.
The federal government didn't 'fund' the wiring of America's telephony service - it allowed the telco's to not pay taxes on their investment in their physical plant, just like any other business.
Do you really imagine AT&T was handed a check for each house/neighborhood/city/state it ran phone service to?
Telco requests an 'exclusive' right to deploy it's wired service in a given area, and in exchange for meeting certain requirements (at their own expense) the local authority grants the telco an exclusive right to service the desired area. It also licenses the telco to string wires across public and private lands, in so-called 'right of ways' without giving the telco any ownership of any public or private lands their infrastructure passes over/under (as the case may be).
At no point does the local authority 'pay' the telco to run cables to service the community - it simply grants them an exclusive license as an inducement to invest THEIR OWN MONEY in constructing their infrastructure, an investment they wouldn't make if a competitor could come in and run a competing service in the same area...
Your tax dollars didn't pay for AT&T's wiring of your neighborhood - the federal tax code allowed AT&T to write off it's physical plant investments just as the local steel mill, donut shop, or software development firm does. THAT is their subsidy - the same subsidy that every other industry enjoys.
The FCC made this an issue by declaring broadband ISPs as information services, not common carriers - if the FCC would simply reclassify ISPs as common carriers they could regulate the ISPs as they proposed to under the original bill.
The judges in the district court opinion explicitly pointed out this suggested course of action.
This Democrat bill is nothing but a pandering piece of legislation to reverse a district court opinion until a higher court (SCOTUS) makes a final ruling on this... It will have no long-term impact on 'net neutrality'.
All it does is restore the rules the court struck down until such time as the current appeals process completes...
In other words, the things the district court struck down will be re-instated until the Supreme Court determines the the district court was right, and the 'net neutrality' laws will be struck down again.
This bill is just an example of stupid politicians pandering to the electorate - relief from the court's decision is easy, and it was even described in the district court's decision (which everyone, on both sides of the case expected)... The FCC simply needs to decide that broadband carriers are 'common carriers' not 'information services' and then their attempts to force net neutrality will become legal/enforceable. The court said that since the FCC ruled that broadband carriers were not common carriers, they could not be regulated like common carriers.
The Democrats simply want to legislate that the FCC ignore the District Court's decision until such time as the Supreme Court rules on this case's ultimate appeal.
When did Democrats request more money to implement Obamacare and have that request denied by Republicans?
The implementation was fully funded by the 2010 PPACA law, there were no requests to increase funding for it's implementation, and the website went live the very first day of the government shutdown. Given all that, please point out how Republicans withheld funding for the implementation of ACA?
$634 million is the amunt set aside for the website, they spent over half of that by Oct. 1, 2013, and are quickly burning through the rest trying to fix what they created.
Wait till the other 95% of the healthcare plans in America become subject to the Employer mandate - the current fiasco only impacts the uninsured and 5% of those who arranged for their own coverage (the individual market)...
Those 22,000 people signed up for coverage to start in January, but if their coverage did start, it was wrong, the website messed it up, and they are either uninsured or insured but paying the wrong amount or getting the wrong coverage, and the government doesn't even seem to have a plan to review the 22,000 seven page appeal forms anytime soon.
Any idea when the appeals process will be implemented?
Any idea when their insurance policy will be corrected?
Private insurers had a motivation to correct these problems - they would lose a customer or face fines from state insurance regulators, but who will hold the federal government accountable? Who do they appeal to?
Those 22,000 appeals probably represent 50,000 people (since each appeal represents a plan, some are individual, some are couple, others are family plans) - how many people need to have their healthcare mangled by the government before it becomes something the government will take seriously? Imagine it was your family's coverage that had been handled improperly, how many MONTHS would you sit back and wait for the government to implement their appeal process?
Slashdot Mirror
... Federal Spending will still increase.
Market share? Linux enjoys half the market share of Microsoft Vista...
Market share? Linux enjoys half the market share of Microsoft Vista...
Close - you both pay for your phone service (the ABILITY to place and receive calls), only the initiatior pays an additional fee for actually placing a call.
As a consumer I have the choice to pay for a "bigger pipe" from the ISP, why can't a provider pay for a similar "bigger pipe" TO the ISP?
Why would universities continue to offer degrees in disciplines that won't lead to higher incomes?
Schools would be incentivized to offer highly-compensated degrees at the cost of liberal arts, etc.
Right, because Obamacare is but one example of the government getting out of the way of the free market...
You can't imagine a lower-priced blackberry custom made for the Indonesian market?
Really? You could pay everyone involved in the entire production chain (raw materials to sub-assemblies to final assemblers/packers) a non-slave (AKA 'living Wage'?) by increasing the retail price of an iPhone $4? I find it hard to believe - please explain.
And, when talking about price for something like an iPhone (as one example) remember there are many different price points:
Price of an unlocked iPhone to an individual
Price of a locked iPhone sold in bulk to a carrier/retailer
Price phone company (Apple, Motorola) pays the manufacturer (Foxconn) for finished iPhone
Price for manufacturer (Foxconn) to build the iPhone from parts
Subsidized price of locked iPhone to the consumer/subscriber
Raising the per piece price by $4 when it leaves the factory would not raise the price most consumers pay by 'only' $4.
How can so many Americans, themselves living on government handouts and public assistance 'afford' iPhones that several hundreds of dollars?
Of course, The booming economy of the '50s was because of higher tax rates and strong private-sector unions... It had nothing to do with the massive increases in production capacity & capabilities as a result of the recently ended war effort, right?
Ignoring unions, please explain how government taking a larger portion of everyone's income 'grows' the economy?
Here's what I suggest, let's remove every tax incentive offered to the auto industry and strengthen the auto worker unions to get them back to where they were in the '50s - that will certainly bring Detroit back from bankruptcy...
The chips in question, quad-core Atoms (AKA Bay Trail), are actually quite good - I have a Dell Venue 8 Pro tablet with that CPU and it runs Windows 8.1 quite well, with very useful battery life (IMHO)...
I think their strategy is to get the products in user's hands to overcome negative impressions from earlier Netbook/mobile offerings from Intel.
Who, exactly do you think pays INCOME taxes?
The 'poor' (as defined by their incomes putting them in the lower 59% of tax filers) pay no INCOME taxes, the 'rich' (as defined by their incomes putting them in the umpire 50% of tax filers) pays 110% of all tax monies collected.
Why is it 110%? Because the money that some 'poor' people collect in excess of whatever they paid in has to come from somewhere...
Venezuela has 1/1000th the CRIME or 1/1000th the GUN CRIME they did the previous year.
I'd like a citation to back up your claim either way...
What does this bill do? It reverses a court decision until a higher court decides the matter. Do you really wasn't congressmen second-guessing district courts, overturning their decisions at will?
This bill is stupid - why won't the FCC simply reclassify ISPs as 'common carriers'? It's what the court told them to do in their decision, since the FCC has no right to oversee 'information services'...
Understand what the bill does - it reverses a district court decision only until the the Supreme Court rules on this case.
Neither side was surprised by this decision, both saw this decision coming, because the FCC created the conflict that caused them to lose the appeal - they declared Broadband ISPs were NOT 'common carriers' then the FCC tried to regulate Broadband ISPs as if they WERE 'common carriers'.
In effect, the FCC said it had no jurisdiction, then tried to exert it's non-existent jurisdiction. The District court told the FCC how to fix this, simply classify a Broadband ISPs as 'common carriers' - instead, the Legislative branch (Congress) of government wants to meddle with the decisions of the Judicial branch as to how it's decisions impact the Executive a Branch (FCC)...
What could go wrong?
Right, because we have no broadband infrastructure.
The federal government didn't 'fund' the wiring of America's telephony service - it allowed the telco's to not pay taxes on their investment in their physical plant, just like any other business.
Do you really imagine AT&T was handed a check for each house/neighborhood/city/state it ran phone service to?
It instead increases costs in a way that BENEFITS people?
Do you understand how these services are funded?
Telco requests an 'exclusive' right to deploy it's wired service in a given area, and in exchange for meeting certain requirements (at their own expense) the local authority grants the telco an exclusive right to service the desired area. It also licenses the telco to string wires across public and private lands, in so-called 'right of ways' without giving the telco any ownership of any public or private lands their infrastructure passes over/under (as the case may be).
At no point does the local authority 'pay' the telco to run cables to service the community - it simply grants them an exclusive license as an inducement to invest THEIR OWN MONEY in constructing their infrastructure, an investment they wouldn't make if a competitor could come in and run a competing service in the same area...
Your tax dollars didn't pay for AT&T's wiring of your neighborhood - the federal tax code allowed AT&T to write off it's physical plant investments just as the local steel mill, donut shop, or software development firm does. THAT is their subsidy - the same subsidy that every other industry enjoys.
Sounds like a cable TV plan...
The FCC made this an issue by declaring broadband ISPs as information services, not common carriers - if the FCC would simply reclassify ISPs as common carriers they could regulate the ISPs as they proposed to under the original bill.
The judges in the district court opinion explicitly pointed out this suggested course of action.
This Democrat bill is nothing but a pandering piece of legislation to reverse a district court opinion until a higher court (SCOTUS) makes a final ruling on this... It will have no long-term impact on 'net neutrality'.
All it does is restore the rules the court struck down until such time as the current appeals process completes...
In other words, the things the district court struck down will be re-instated until the Supreme Court determines the the district court was right, and the 'net neutrality' laws will be struck down again.
This bill is just an example of stupid politicians pandering to the electorate - relief from the court's decision is easy, and it was even described in the district court's decision (which everyone, on both sides of the case expected)... The FCC simply needs to decide that broadband carriers are 'common carriers' not 'information services' and then their attempts to force net neutrality will become legal/enforceable. The court said that since the FCC ruled that broadband carriers were not common carriers, they could not be regulated like common carriers.
The Democrats simply want to legislate that the FCC ignore the District Court's decision until such time as the Supreme Court rules on this case's ultimate appeal.
When did Democrats request more money to implement Obamacare and have that request denied by Republicans?
The implementation was fully funded by the 2010 PPACA law, there were no requests to increase funding for it's implementation, and the website went live the very first day of the government shutdown. Given all that, please point out how Republicans withheld funding for the implementation of ACA?
$634 million is the amunt set aside for the website, they spent over half of that by Oct. 1, 2013, and are quickly burning through the rest trying to fix what they created.
Oregon sent over $150 million on their website, and last I heard hadn't been able to process a single application through it after 4 months!
Wait till the other 95% of the healthcare plans in America become subject to the Employer mandate - the current fiasco only impacts the uninsured and 5% of those who arranged for their own coverage (the individual market)...
Those 22,000 people signed up for coverage to start in January, but if their coverage did start, it was wrong, the website messed it up, and they are either uninsured or insured but paying the wrong amount or getting the wrong coverage, and the government doesn't even seem to have a plan to review the 22,000 seven page appeal forms anytime soon.
Any idea when the appeals process will be implemented?
Any idea when their insurance policy will be corrected?
Private insurers had a motivation to correct these problems - they would lose a customer or face fines from state insurance regulators, but who will hold the federal government accountable? Who do they appeal to?
Those 22,000 appeals probably represent 50,000 people (since each appeal represents a plan, some are individual, some are couple, others are family plans) - how many people need to have their healthcare mangled by the government before it becomes something the government will take seriously? Imagine it was your family's coverage that had been handled improperly, how many MONTHS would you sit back and wait for the government to implement their appeal process?