I've never had a problem checking in with first my N900 and now the Nexus4.
Except in Aberdeen, Scotland, it works but they insist on a printed copy...
Of course - a TRUE Scotsman would demand the paper ticket, because that paper can be used for notes, or toilet paper, or starting a fire later on. Why turn down that free piece of paper? You paid for it after all!
I fly several times a month, and have never had a problem using the eticket feature on my smartphone (Galaxy Note 2). American, Delta, Alaska Air - works like a charm at SBA, LAX, SEA, SFO, JFK, MSP...
Thanks to insane tax law creation, the US has set up a system where one person (employer usually) pays a second (insurance company), who pays for services rendered by a third (doctor), on behalf of a fourth (patient). All in an attempt to add more control over the US economy (via tax law).
Understand that if your employer pays for your insurance, that payment on your behalf is tax-deductible - your employer does not pay any tax on those dollars, nor is that spending on your behalf assumed to be income to you (you don't pay tax on that benefit). However, if your employer just gave you those same dollars, and you bought the same health insurance, you would have to pay tax on that money from your employer. Thus there can be up to a 35% tax benefit on that money to having your employer pay for it.
If you want to return sanity to the system, you'd first eliminate this tax inequality - make all healthcare spending either taxable (at employer and employee level) or tax free. Equalize it. Then have the consumer pay the doctor directly. If you want to buy insurance, that's fine - but it's the consumer who submits bills to the insurance company, and the insurance company pays the consumer. Make the consumer get involved in the financial side of their own healthcare, because right now the consumer really doesn't know how much anyone's paying, nor now much is being charged.
I for one would love the tax structure of the 50s and 60s. Per-capita, and adjusted for inflation, the US Federal Government ran on half the dollars it runs on now. And we had an actual balanced budget (the only real one - those in the 90s were on-paper only) - Eisenhower paid down the national debt in 1957 (something that no President since then has done). Yes, BRING ON the 1950s/60s tax structure as it will cut Federal revenues in half - and hopefully that would pull the Federal Government back to the size it was, rather than the monstrosity it is now.
Yes, only 4 (that we know of) our of 300 million - not so many to worry about! How about you let me put a few drops of raw sewage on your meal. After all, it's just a little sewage in so much food...
Actually, you can. If you're in Shanghai, we can go visit the phone market down by the central railway station. Thousands of stalls where you can buy cell phones - real and copy - and haggle it out. The same with other electronics parts, clothing, mechanical items, tires, etc.
How do you think America managed to make its economic productivity boom?
By being the only significant industrialized nation on the face of the Earth at the end of WWII. Pretty much every other Nation of importance had its entire infrastructure wiped out; we WERE the factory for the world, and as a result were able to skyrocket past everyone else. We had good leaders who understood that and primed the pump for our economic explosion and dominance.
We owe as much to our productivity and worldwide economic dominance to the two oceans covering our flanks as we do to the sound fiscal policy from 1946 to ~1964.
Do not make the mistake of assuming "socialist = controlled economy"; there is very little economic freedom difference between the US and the Nordic nations. Socialism does not always mean a centrally-controlled economy. The Nordic nations are, in fact, a good example of free market economies working with socialist societal policies (a big safety net). Companies are allowed to compete in relative freedom (at least around the same as the US, UK, and Canada) but the Government does provide a fairly large safety net.
we don't think laws are going to do anything magical. But we do think doing something is better than nothing. And history pretty much bears that out. Things got better when we stopped letting bankers do things that caused busts. That's what Glass-Steagal was going and it worked great until Clinton gutted it (because he felt being pro-Corporate was the only way to win a US Presidential Election).
Note that Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 - Clinton was NOT trying to win a US Presidential election as he was finishing out his second term. Why did he vote for it? Don't really know, but it wasn't to win another election - an election he was constitutionally prevented from entering.
Slippery slope fallacy. The government has the ability to execute, but it doesn't execute everyone.
The current Administration has argued that it can kill anyone on US soil for any reason it deems to be "vital to national security". That includes execution of US citizens, on US soil, without a trial or even grand jury convened. And the current Administration has admitted to at least 4 US citizens without a trial or grand jury convened.
Slippery slope? We've fallen nearly to the bottom of the slope already.
And? They already are attacking US-manufactured goods by subsidizing production of their own domestic production. Tariff or subsidy, it has the same impact on US-built products: it makes them effectively too expensive in the market.
Everyone, including the OP, mentions Solyndra as this big failure of the solar industry, but nobody discusses why it failed. Their business model was based on selling non-silicon based panels at a time when the price of silicon panels was skyrocketing. Then, as you mention, the Chinese government hands billions of dollars to their silicon based solar panel manufacturers, and their prices subsequently plummeted.
If the US and the EU decide to leave their renewable energy sector to the whims of the free market, while allowing China to subsidizes the hell out of it- we might as well just hand the entire industry over to them.
A better approach is to NOT give money to companies, but use tariffs to make the price of Chinese-sourced panels reflect their actual, unsubsidized costs. That's what tariffs are for. This approach Offers 3 benefits:
1. China's cheap panels are no longer cheap - their Governmental payouts to buy the market are eliminated.
2. The Federal Government actually gets a few dollars via the original funding method (tariffs).
3. The "best man wins" concept of the Free Market can still work since companies must compete not to see who is handed a pile of cash from DC, but on quality and pricing of product relative to other players.
Why bother with that either (unless you already have one.. which any self-respecting geek should already have). I have this thing called a 'clock' that I can use to determine how quickly something is charging.
Clock? Some of us use a sundial, you insensitive clod!
Oh, sure. In fact, I would posit that ANY speed is higher than we'd want to be going when we run into something. But labeling a rather common, ordinary speed as "very high speed" - which Mr. Musk did - is more for "shading" the argument than being accurate. Because, in fact, it is not accurate. In his own locale, 70 MPH is on the low-side of things on the freeways...
Sure. Although in this case I doubt the initial funders spent anywhere near $300 million building snapchat. And if they have, then they really are doubly-confirmed as idiots - one for spending SO MUCH on development of an app with no business plan to monetize, and two for turning down $3 billion dollars!
Don't forget the 6V systems from yesteryear, still in many pre-1970s cars. And we won't even go into the insanity that is a positive-ground system as used in many European cars...
My rule of thumb in selling ideas/patents/business seeds has been to sell out when the offer is 5X the money/time I put into it, at my normal consulting rate. If I put 50K into a patent - in direct costs and time - and someone offers me 250K for it, I take it. Yes, they make take it to $1+ million, but I've already got 5 times the value out of it - a fairly healthy return!
Take a look at the size of departments. The DHS is way down the list - not even close to the largest employer in the Government. And it is only as big as it is because it wraps several previous departments/bureaus into one larger organization.
Sure - but what can you do with a battery? I mean, my horse doesn't need one, the buggywhip works fine! Now get out of my freshly plowed field, you youthful rapscallion...
He's using it correctly. Remember the Programmer's Mantra: "It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
Slashdot Mirror
I've never had a problem checking in with first my N900 and now the Nexus4.
Except in Aberdeen, Scotland, it works but they insist on a printed copy...
Of course - a TRUE Scotsman would demand the paper ticket, because that paper can be used for notes, or toilet paper, or starting a fire later on. Why turn down that free piece of paper? You paid for it after all!
I fly several times a month, and have never had a problem using the eticket feature on my smartphone (Galaxy Note 2). American, Delta, Alaska Air - works like a charm at SBA, LAX, SEA, SFO, JFK, MSP...
CNN tries it and it still fails, but now it fails after they collect all your information... So at least the NSA and IRS are happy!
Thanks to insane tax law creation, the US has set up a system where one person (employer usually) pays a second (insurance company), who pays for services rendered by a third (doctor), on behalf of a fourth (patient). All in an attempt to add more control over the US economy (via tax law).
Understand that if your employer pays for your insurance, that payment on your behalf is tax-deductible - your employer does not pay any tax on those dollars, nor is that spending on your behalf assumed to be income to you (you don't pay tax on that benefit). However, if your employer just gave you those same dollars, and you bought the same health insurance, you would have to pay tax on that money from your employer. Thus there can be up to a 35% tax benefit on that money to having your employer pay for it.
If you want to return sanity to the system, you'd first eliminate this tax inequality - make all healthcare spending either taxable (at employer and employee level) or tax free. Equalize it. Then have the consumer pay the doctor directly. If you want to buy insurance, that's fine - but it's the consumer who submits bills to the insurance company, and the insurance company pays the consumer. Make the consumer get involved in the financial side of their own healthcare, because right now the consumer really doesn't know how much anyone's paying, nor now much is being charged.
I for one would love the tax structure of the 50s and 60s. Per-capita, and adjusted for inflation, the US Federal Government ran on half the dollars it runs on now. And we had an actual balanced budget (the only real one - those in the 90s were on-paper only) - Eisenhower paid down the national debt in 1957 (something that no President since then has done). Yes, BRING ON the 1950s/60s tax structure as it will cut Federal revenues in half - and hopefully that would pull the Federal Government back to the size it was, rather than the monstrosity it is now.
Yes, only 4 (that we know of) our of 300 million - not so many to worry about! How about you let me put a few drops of raw sewage on your meal. After all, it's just a little sewage in so much food...
Actually, you can. If you're in Shanghai, we can go visit the phone market down by the central railway station. Thousands of stalls where you can buy cell phones - real and copy - and haggle it out. The same with other electronics parts, clothing, mechanical items, tires, etc.
How do you think America managed to make its economic productivity boom?
By being the only significant industrialized nation on the face of the Earth at the end of WWII. Pretty much every other Nation of importance had its entire infrastructure wiped out; we WERE the factory for the world, and as a result were able to skyrocket past everyone else. We had good leaders who understood that and primed the pump for our economic explosion and dominance.
We owe as much to our productivity and worldwide economic dominance to the two oceans covering our flanks as we do to the sound fiscal policy from 1946 to ~1964.
Do not make the mistake of assuming "socialist = controlled economy"; there is very little economic freedom difference between the US and the Nordic nations. Socialism does not always mean a centrally-controlled economy. The Nordic nations are, in fact, a good example of free market economies working with socialist societal policies (a big safety net). Companies are allowed to compete in relative freedom (at least around the same as the US, UK, and Canada) but the Government does provide a fairly large safety net.
we don't think laws are going to do anything magical. But we do think doing something is better than nothing. And history pretty much bears that out. Things got better when we stopped letting bankers do things that caused busts. That's what Glass-Steagal was going and it worked great until Clinton gutted it (because he felt being pro-Corporate was the only way to win a US Presidential Election).
Note that Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 - Clinton was NOT trying to win a US Presidential election as he was finishing out his second term. Why did he vote for it? Don't really know, but it wasn't to win another election - an election he was constitutionally prevented from entering.
Slippery slope fallacy. The government has the ability to execute, but it doesn't execute everyone.
The current Administration has argued that it can kill anyone on US soil for any reason it deems to be "vital to national security". That includes execution of US citizens, on US soil, without a trial or even grand jury convened. And the current Administration has admitted to at least 4 US citizens without a trial or grand jury convened.
Slippery slope? We've fallen nearly to the bottom of the slope already.
And? They already are attacking US-manufactured goods by subsidizing production of their own domestic production. Tariff or subsidy, it has the same impact on US-built products: it makes them effectively too expensive in the market.
Everyone, including the OP, mentions Solyndra as this big failure of the solar industry, but nobody discusses why it failed. Their business model was based on selling non-silicon based panels at a time when the price of silicon panels was skyrocketing. Then, as you mention, the Chinese government hands billions of dollars to their silicon based solar panel manufacturers, and their prices subsequently plummeted.
If the US and the EU decide to leave their renewable energy sector to the whims of the free market, while allowing China to subsidizes the hell out of it- we might as well just hand the entire industry over to them.
A better approach is to NOT give money to companies, but use tariffs to make the price of Chinese-sourced panels reflect their actual, unsubsidized costs. That's what tariffs are for. This approach Offers 3 benefits:
1. China's cheap panels are no longer cheap - their Governmental payouts to buy the market are eliminated.
2. The Federal Government actually gets a few dollars via the original funding method (tariffs).
3. The "best man wins" concept of the Free Market can still work since companies must compete not to see who is handed a pile of cash from DC, but on quality and pricing of product relative to other players.
Why bother with that either (unless you already have one .. which any self-respecting geek should already have). I have this thing called a 'clock' that I can use to determine how quickly something is charging.
Clock? Some of us use a sundial, you insensitive clod!
Oh, sure. In fact, I would posit that ANY speed is higher than we'd want to be going when we run into something. But labeling a rather common, ordinary speed as "very high speed" - which Mr. Musk did - is more for "shading" the argument than being accurate. Because, in fact, it is not accurate. In his own locale, 70 MPH is on the low-side of things on the freeways...
Sure. Although in this case I doubt the initial funders spent anywhere near $300 million building snapchat. And if they have, then they really are doubly-confirmed as idiots - one for spending SO MUCH on development of an app with no business plan to monetize, and two for turning down $3 billion dollars!
70 MPH is the posted speed limit on lots of freeways around the US. In other words, a normal operational speed. Definitely not "high speed".
Don't forget the 6V systems from yesteryear, still in many pre-1970s cars. And we won't even go into the insanity that is a positive-ground system as used in many European cars...
Which is why I'm not a VC. I fund and develop my own things...
It does explain Jar Jar Binks...
I have always found it interesting that people take a 2,000 page book
Mine is on a really long scroll as originally created, you insensitive clod!
My rule of thumb in selling ideas/patents/business seeds has been to sell out when the offer is 5X the money/time I put into it, at my normal consulting rate. If I put 50K into a patent - in direct costs and time - and someone offers me 250K for it, I take it. Yes, they make take it to $1+ million, but I've already got 5 times the value out of it - a fairly healthy return!
Take a look at the size of departments. The DHS is way down the list - not even close to the largest employer in the Government. And it is only as big as it is because it wraps several previous departments/bureaus into one larger organization.
Sure - but what can you do with a battery? I mean, my horse doesn't need one, the buggywhip works fine! Now get out of my freshly plowed field, you youthful rapscallion...
He's using it correctly. Remember the Programmer's Mantra: "It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."