They say that no science has been done yet, but now we know that 1.18 TeV is below the energy level at which higgs bosons travel back in time to disrupt supercollider experiments.
After buying an unlocked phone, what can you do with it? Are there any US providers that will let you use it? Will they charge you less than they charge customers who are given "free" phones (since the price of the phone is really just baked into the contract?)
Sales taxes are most definitely skewed. Rich people can invest in property, retirement savings, spend money overseas, pay for all sorts of untaxed services, etc. Someone who has less means doesn't have much choice about paying for food, gas, and other necessities. Read up on regressive taxes if you think I'm wrong.
We are looking at three types of tax here - sales, property, and income. There is no chance of income tax or property tax being eliminated (nor should they be.) Therefore, those are fixed costs. Sales tax, on the other hand, could realistically be eliminated. Even if sales tax is the cheapest tax to collect, the best way to reduce the overhead of tax collection is to eliminate it.
Really, this debate comes down to your philosophy of taxation. Should those who have more (property taxes) and earn more (income taxes) pay a higher percentage of tax? I'd say yes, but you may not agree.
If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes. Sales taxes are a pain to collect, and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses. Also, they are skewed against the poor, since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods.
To look at this another way, perhaps Amazon's 5-10% price advantage will pressure the states to drop their sales tax for the sake of local businesses. This is completely feasible - Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon already have no sales tax.
The money that consumers use to purchase goods was already taxed, twice. First the government taxes their income, then the state takes a slice too. Do we really need to tax people's money as it goes into the wallet AND as it goes out?
I have no children, and yet I favor higher spending for education. However, I also favor applying taxes and fees directly to those making use of services, when possible.
For example, consider the roads. Everyone pays for the roads, and everyone benefits from them. Even those who never leave their homes rely on the roads to have groceries delivered to them, to enable the power company to function, etc. However, people who actively use the roads pay a higher share through licensing fees and gasoline taxes. This seems like a fair balance - those who use the service more pay a higher share.
As for education, it is important that all children have free access to it regardless of their parent's means. It is also important to not put undue financial burden on parents so that they struggle to meet their childrens' basic needs.
However, that being said, it would be fair that those who choose to have children would pay a larger share for their education. I would implement this by charging enrollment fees on a sliding scale. Parents making under a certain level would pay no fees. (They would still be paying for education with their taxes.) But above a certain pay level, fees should start increasing.
There are people in my town with children who live in brand new $500,000 homes. My taxes subsidize their childrens' free education, and meanwhile I am struggling to move up from an apartment to a house costing less than 20% of what those homes cost. It would be far more fair to improve education by charging those who are using it and can afford it, rather than raising the taxes of those who only benefit indirectly.
However, I'd be shocked to see this ever happen. Politics doesn't often cater to what is fair.
I imagine they didn't read much Slashdot in prison. Perhaps Slashdot should be required reading for prisoners, if that's not too cruel and unusual. It is a great way to express one's antisocial tendencies without actually effecting anyone!
If these men were free anywhere near me, I'd sure want to be aware of it. If they're embarrassed by that hate-fueled murder in their past, they'll just have to deal with it.
It would be expensive for a single theater to build out their own online ticket sales system. However, it would not be too hard for the big national theater chains to set up one system for all of their theaters. The smaller theaters could use a third party ticketing service. There is no reason it needs to be expensive.
I'm not too lazy to stand in line -- I just don't want to waste my time. If tickets were sold online, I wouldn't have to wait in line, and neither would the fanboys. The fanboys would get their seats by being at the computer right at midnight when the tickets for a particular show go on sale.
Why should I have to make choices like that if I'm a paying customer? If the theater wants my money, they should be bending over backwards to give me a better experience than what I get at home.
This is what I would expect:
Ability to buy my tickets online, so that I don't have to wait in line or worry about getting in to a new release.
Ability to reserve specific seats when purchasing my tickets, so I don't have to get to the show early for good seats.
No extra charge for buying tickets online. Running an online shopping cart should be cheaper than paying a ticket salesperson, so there is no justification for extra fees.
No ads. No more than 3 trailers.
Do I sound picky? Perhaps. I have a nice TV at home, and renting movies is very cheap. It is up to the theater to give me a reason to not just stay home.
Nobody is able to design the cable. We simply don't have the technology, which is why they're focusing on the climber instead.
This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt. If someone wins the contest, then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that's left is the bit with the belt.
Linux distros face a key disadvantage. When a new version of Windows is coming out, the individual hardware makers will do a good deal of testing with the new OS, and will report back any issues. This is because Windows is their bread and butter. If Linux distros ever approached 50% of the home market share, the hardware makers would pay much more attention to iy. Until then, the burden for making hardware work is mostly on the Linux devs. Considering this, I think they do a pretty amazing job, but I can't fault anyone for feeling more comfortable with Windows.
The market is wide open right now for products like this. Imagine if someone could sell a little black box that runs XBMC and supports full HD for $100. It doesn't seem that far off. It doesn't need to have storage or memory or any sort of drive. The main connectivity option would be ethernet, for connecting over the LAN to a PC which holds all the content. A USB port would also be nice to support an external hard drive, a flash drive stick, and/or a wireless adapter.
(I know there are already similar products. I currently run XBMC on an Xbox, and I have a PS3. However, the Xbox doesn't handle HD video, and the PS3 has a poor interface and lacks support for some formats. I'm waiting for that simple, cheap, does-it-all option to finally arrive.)
I'd also love to see something similar just for audio. Imagine a little box with just an ethernet connection and an audio output. It would connect to a media server which would stream music to it, and then output that music to some powered speakers or to any sort of device. The music could be controlled by any device on the local network with web access to the media server. It could be a nearby computer, or a phone with a web browser and wifi.
This would give you something like the Sonos multi-room system. But instead of spending over $1000, you could spend under $100. If a person already has a server and a LAN set up, they can use that rather than buying expensive new equipment.
How expensive could it be to make a little box which connects to a LAN and outputs audio? Twenty bucks? You could buy just one to have audio for your kitchen, or buy several and set up your entire home.
Slashdot Mirror
They say that no science has been done yet, but now we know that 1.18 TeV is below the energy level at which higgs bosons travel back in time to disrupt supercollider experiments.
(Yes, I'm kidding.)
After buying an unlocked phone, what can you do with it? Are there any US providers that will let you use it? Will they charge you less than they charge customers who are given "free" phones (since the price of the phone is really just baked into the contract?)
"Do not point laser at remaining technician."
And if you were removing the wallpaper from a 12-sided room, would that make you an Interior Dedecordodecahedronator?
Soon it will be their jobs which are snatched away.
Sales taxes are most definitely skewed. Rich people can invest in property, retirement savings, spend money overseas, pay for all sorts of untaxed services, etc. Someone who has less means doesn't have much choice about paying for food, gas, and other necessities. Read up on regressive taxes if you think I'm wrong.
We are looking at three types of tax here - sales, property, and income. There is no chance of income tax or property tax being eliminated (nor should they be.) Therefore, those are fixed costs. Sales tax, on the other hand, could realistically be eliminated. Even if sales tax is the cheapest tax to collect, the best way to reduce the overhead of tax collection is to eliminate it.
Really, this debate comes down to your philosophy of taxation. Should those who have more (property taxes) and earn more (income taxes) pay a higher percentage of tax? I'd say yes, but you may not agree.
Did nobody here take science in high school?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
.... ....
I didn't say anything about tariffs or use taxes. I'm talking about the elimination of sales taxes altogether.
If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes. Sales taxes are a pain to collect, and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses. Also, they are skewed against the poor, since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods.
Just for kicks, you might try convincing your uncle that the planet Niribu was involved in 9/11.
To look at this another way, perhaps Amazon's 5-10% price advantage will pressure the states to drop their sales tax for the sake of local businesses. This is completely feasible - Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon already have no sales tax.
The money that consumers use to purchase goods was already taxed, twice. First the government taxes their income, then the state takes a slice too. Do we really need to tax people's money as it goes into the wallet AND as it goes out?
I have no children, and yet I favor higher spending for education. However, I also favor applying taxes and fees directly to those making use of services, when possible.
For example, consider the roads. Everyone pays for the roads, and everyone benefits from them. Even those who never leave their homes rely on the roads to have groceries delivered to them, to enable the power company to function, etc. However, people who actively use the roads pay a higher share through licensing fees and gasoline taxes. This seems like a fair balance - those who use the service more pay a higher share.
As for education, it is important that all children have free access to it regardless of their parent's means. It is also important to not put undue financial burden on parents so that they struggle to meet their childrens' basic needs.
However, that being said, it would be fair that those who choose to have children would pay a larger share for their education. I would implement this by charging enrollment fees on a sliding scale. Parents making under a certain level would pay no fees. (They would still be paying for education with their taxes.) But above a certain pay level, fees should start increasing.
There are people in my town with children who live in brand new $500,000 homes. My taxes subsidize their childrens' free education, and meanwhile I am struggling to move up from an apartment to a house costing less than 20% of what those homes cost. It would be far more fair to improve education by charging those who are using it and can afford it, rather than raising the taxes of those who only benefit indirectly.
However, I'd be shocked to see this ever happen. Politics doesn't often cater to what is fair.
I imagine they didn't read much Slashdot in prison. Perhaps Slashdot should be required reading for prisoners, if that's not too cruel and unusual. It is a great way to express one's antisocial tendencies without actually effecting anyone!
If these men were free anywhere near me, I'd sure want to be aware of it. If they're embarrassed by that hate-fueled murder in their past, they'll just have to deal with it.
It would be expensive for a single theater to build out their own online ticket sales system. However, it would not be too hard for the big national theater chains to set up one system for all of their theaters. The smaller theaters could use a third party ticketing service. There is no reason it needs to be expensive.
I'm not too lazy to stand in line -- I just don't want to waste my time. If tickets were sold online, I wouldn't have to wait in line, and neither would the fanboys. The fanboys would get their seats by being at the computer right at midnight when the tickets for a particular show go on sale.
Do I sound picky? Perhaps. I have a nice TV at home, and renting movies is very cheap. It is up to the theater to give me a reason to not just stay home.
I second this, password maker is great! I am hoping that a Chrome extension is in the works.
Wait a minute, why are you so concerned about being sent to guantanomo (sic) bay? I think it's time we questioned you.
That's nothing. I keep my mouse stationary, and rotate Earth to scroll.
Nobody is able to design the cable. We simply don't have the technology, which is why they're focusing on the climber instead.
This is a bit like having a contest to design a cool hat to be worn while using an anti-gravity belt. If someone wins the contest, then we are one step closer to being able to float while wearing a cool hat - all that's left is the bit with the belt.
Linux distros face a key disadvantage. When a new version of Windows is coming out, the individual hardware makers will do a good deal of testing with the new OS, and will report back any issues. This is because Windows is their bread and butter. If Linux distros ever approached 50% of the home market share, the hardware makers would pay much more attention to iy. Until then, the burden for making hardware work is mostly on the Linux devs. Considering this, I think they do a pretty amazing job, but I can't fault anyone for feeling more comfortable with Windows.
Just like woosh has a very precise meaning on Slashdot.
The market is wide open right now for products like this. Imagine if someone could sell a little black box that runs XBMC and supports full HD for $100. It doesn't seem that far off. It doesn't need to have storage or memory or any sort of drive. The main connectivity option would be ethernet, for connecting over the LAN to a PC which holds all the content. A USB port would also be nice to support an external hard drive, a flash drive stick, and/or a wireless adapter.
(I know there are already similar products. I currently run XBMC on an Xbox, and I have a PS3. However, the Xbox doesn't handle HD video, and the PS3 has a poor interface and lacks support for some formats. I'm waiting for that simple, cheap, does-it-all option to finally arrive.)
I'd also love to see something similar just for audio. Imagine a little box with just an ethernet connection and an audio output. It would connect to a media server which would stream music to it, and then output that music to some powered speakers or to any sort of device. The music could be controlled by any device on the local network with web access to the media server. It could be a nearby computer, or a phone with a web browser and wifi.
This would give you something like the Sonos multi-room system. But instead of spending over $1000, you could spend under $100. If a person already has a server and a LAN set up, they can use that rather than buying expensive new equipment.
How expensive could it be to make a little box which connects to a LAN and outputs audio? Twenty bucks? You could buy just one to have audio for your kitchen, or buy several and set up your entire home.
Slashdot user D: And who is going to pay for this big hole? The taxpayers?
I think they should have gone with Open Web Type Format.