Guangdong province (where the vast majority of Foxconn's factories are located) has about 35 million people, within a 2 hour drive of Hong Kong. If that's middle-of-nowhere China then Anaheim is middle-of-nowhere US.
On the scale of gaffes by a Presidential candidate, I'd prefer to have a mistake about windows on airplanes (some of which DO roll down, like many Cessnas and the like) than about the number of States in these United States of America.
No, that would be a straw man. Misguided because most ethanol sources in the U.S. are from subsidized corn, which requires huge amounts of fossil fuels to produce for little fuel compared to sugarcane/beats
I agree - the best use for people who wear those stupid "Beats" headphones is to turn them into fuel...
But in the typical consumer's mind, a small 3.5" screen MUST be cheaper than the big 4.8" screen of the S3, thus Apple MUST have a higher profit on the unit - it shouldn't cost the same, the iPhone 4S should be cheaper.
No, that's one of the GOOD things about patents. I can do lots of things with something that's patented. So long as I don't make money (and usually lots of money) using it, I'm probably okay.
Only if the patent holder decides to not sue you. Merely implementing the patent for ANY purpose other than understanding it - whether for sale or free distribution - is an infringement. Profit or loss is not a concern - simply reason for implementation.
They both "dither" the signal via different means. The US system of introducing errors does so by varying the timing of the pulses slightly, so it's like the satellite moves around a bit. GLONASS does it by having the satellite occasionally misreport it's ID - so satellites swap places. Use the timing of the GLONASS satellites with the stability of position of the US satellites and you can correct the two systems to get one solid, rock-stable positioning system even if both are dithering.
And the Apple Store "theme" is a blatant rip-off of the much older and still present Bang & Olufsen stores - which also made products very "Apple like" well before Apple even thought of a phone. If anyone's copying, it's Apple and Samsung ripping off B&O.
I don't think you quite understand what constant dollars are - it's a value that is adjusted for inflation, so that X dollars in some previous year represents Y dollars in a later year. Please check out what it means. We've doubled the revenue per capitta in constant dollars, and gone from a real surplus to a massive deficit.
You were insinuating that the rich benefit from that infrastructure without paying for it. On the contrary, they pay overwhelmingly for it. Calling out a need for higher taxes because they use an infrastructure for which they already pay is highly disingenuous.
If you consider enforcing your FRAND requirements "attacking" then yes. It started when Apple REFUSED to pay the same FRAND terms that EVERY OTHER PHONE MAKER pays to Motorola, for their FRAND patents required to make a cell phone.
Look at Romney. Doesn't pay taxes at all for ten years, then pays 15% for a couple years after he decides he might run for president. Meanwhile I'm giving over a third of everything I have to the government.
Source? Other than Reid's "invisible friend"? I can guarantee anyone with any position of wealth who hasn't paid taxes in the last 10 years would have significant issues with the IRS and they would be quite open and public...
The tax should be even at all levels of income, period end of statement. That is the Constitutional answer, as well as the most logical and "Fair". If I pay 13%, then some person making a bazillion dollars a year should pay 13%. If that person pays 10%, I pay 10%.
No. This is inherently Regressive, and has absolutely nothing to do with "Constitutionality".
So when you go out to dinner with friends, do you split the bill based upon income? Or do you just divide X number of ways - that "regressive" way?
The tax should be even at all levels of income, period end of statement. That is the Constitutional answer, as well as the most logical and "Fair". If I pay 13%, then some person making a bazillion dollars a year should pay 13%. If that person pays 10%, I pay 10%.
What we have in the US is drastically different, unfair, and unconstitutional. There are 60,000 plus pages of tax laws to back my statement.
Fully agree.
We currently have a middle class paying upwards of 40% in taxes (FICA/Fed/State/City). We have the top 1% of wealth paying 10-17%, and that's only on the income they claim to make in the US.
Wrong. There are always a few exceptions to the rule, but the top 1% pay about 24% in income tax alone. And the average is just under $1 million in AGI, so they are paying an effective FICA/SSI rate around 1.7%. And I don't know how it is in your state, but here in CA (and other states I've lived) there is NO exemption above a certain income point, and usually a progressive tax rate applied as well.
It's a myth the rich don't pay an equivalent tax rate - they actually do. The top 1% (of which, interestingly, President Obama was firmly within back in 2008 when he ran on his populist campaign) pay, on average, a much higher total tax rate than the middle class.
Your rates are way too low to pay for the current government.
You need 25% of everything over the poverty line combined with 10% cuts to close the gap.
And then those at the poverty line would still be paying over 12% of their income in state and local taxes, licenses, fees, and excise taxes. Plus more property taxes hidden in their rent.
In 1957, the Federal Government made, in constant dollars, about $2800 per capita. In 2010 it was about $6200 - more than double. Why did I choose 1957? It was the last year we actually had a real surplus, we paid down the debt. In 1957, our Federal Government received less than HALF of what it does now, per capita and in constant dollars, and it actually had a real (not just budget) surplus. And this is when we were building those freeways, not just maintaining them...
The problem is NOT that we don't have enough revenue - it's that the Federal Government has exploded in size and scope. Spending is the problem, not tax revenues.
The rich get indirect benefits from the public service. It is, after all, the system of roads, railroads and ports that allow them to ship goods and move workers about... But someone's gotta pay for it, and it seems to me that those who got rich off this peaceful, regulated, protected and educated country ought to pay for it.
Have you ever shipped something? You pay for those roads, and railroads, and ports - there are significant costs, fees, taxes and duties applied when you ship something. It's NOT free, it is a net money-maker for the various Governmental entities (the last study I can find shows that roads are a net-earner for the Federal Government, not a cost). The cost of shipping a pallet from Ningbo, China to the port of Los Angeles is somewhere around $90 - then you get somewhere around $500 in port and inspection fees (and that's if your shipment is NOT selected for extra inspection/CBP investigation). It's a huge lie that "the wealthy/businesses" get that infrastructure for free - it's paid for with taxes and fees.
Slashdot Mirror
Chicago votes... That 124% turnout tends to skew things...
Well what else are they going to do, given the Senate refuses to pass - or even address - a budget?
Guangdong province (where the vast majority of Foxconn's factories are located) has about 35 million people, within a 2 hour drive of Hong Kong. If that's middle-of-nowhere China then Anaheim is middle-of-nowhere US.
Given your concern over roll-down windows in a plane, I'm sure you're absolutely aghast at 57 states of the USA. Am I right?
I'm sure you're up in arms about the whole Rezko/Obama thing, or Tim Geithner's screwed up tax returns, too?
On the scale of gaffes by a Presidential candidate, I'd prefer to have a mistake about windows on airplanes (some of which DO roll down, like many Cessnas and the like) than about the number of States in these United States of America.
No, that would be a straw man. Misguided because most ethanol sources in the U.S. are from subsidized corn, which requires huge amounts of fossil fuels to produce for little fuel compared to sugarcane/beats
I agree - the best use for people who wear those stupid "Beats" headphones is to turn them into fuel...
FRAND - I do not think you understand the meaning of the term. It's not "free", but "fair".
But in the typical consumer's mind, a small 3.5" screen MUST be cheaper than the big 4.8" screen of the S3, thus Apple MUST have a higher profit on the unit - it shouldn't cost the same, the iPhone 4S should be cheaper.
No, that's one of the GOOD things about patents. I can do lots of things with something that's patented. So long as I don't make money (and usually lots of money) using it, I'm probably okay.
Only if the patent holder decides to not sue you. Merely implementing the patent for ANY purpose other than understanding it - whether for sale or free distribution - is an infringement. Profit or loss is not a concern - simply reason for implementation.
They both "dither" the signal via different means. The US system of introducing errors does so by varying the timing of the pulses slightly, so it's like the satellite moves around a bit. GLONASS does it by having the satellite occasionally misreport it's ID - so satellites swap places. Use the timing of the GLONASS satellites with the stability of position of the US satellites and you can correct the two systems to get one solid, rock-stable positioning system even if both are dithering.
Of course it's a copy, that much is obvious.
And the Apple Store "theme" is a blatant rip-off of the much older and still present Bang & Olufsen stores - which also made products very "Apple like" well before Apple even thought of a phone. If anyone's copying, it's Apple and Samsung ripping off B&O.
Clearly you've never been to a B&O or Bose store, back in the 90s. The Apple Store is a damn-near exact copy of the B&O store experience.
Source - other than Reid's claim?
I don't think you quite understand what constant dollars are - it's a value that is adjusted for inflation, so that X dollars in some previous year represents Y dollars in a later year. Please check out what it means. We've doubled the revenue per capitta in constant dollars, and gone from a real surplus to a massive deficit.
Please see the definition for the word "average".
Yes - constant dollars.
You were insinuating that the rich benefit from that infrastructure without paying for it. On the contrary, they pay overwhelmingly for it. Calling out a need for higher taxes because they use an infrastructure for which they already pay is highly disingenuous.
If you consider enforcing your FRAND requirements "attacking" then yes. It started when Apple REFUSED to pay the same FRAND terms that EVERY OTHER PHONE MAKER pays to Motorola, for their FRAND patents required to make a cell phone.
Look at Romney. Doesn't pay taxes at all for ten years, then pays 15% for a couple years after he decides he might run for president. Meanwhile I'm giving over a third of everything I have to the government.
Source? Other than Reid's "invisible friend"? I can guarantee anyone with any position of wealth who hasn't paid taxes in the last 10 years would have significant issues with the IRS and they would be quite open and public...
Actually Washington is the highest at $9.04 per hour.
The tax should be even at all levels of income, period end of statement. That is the Constitutional answer, as well as the most logical and "Fair". If I pay 13%, then some person making a bazillion dollars a year should pay 13%. If that person pays 10%, I pay 10%.
No. This is inherently Regressive, and has absolutely nothing to do with "Constitutionality".
So when you go out to dinner with friends, do you split the bill based upon income? Or do you just divide X number of ways - that "regressive" way?
The tax should be even at all levels of income, period end of statement. That is the Constitutional answer, as well as the most logical and "Fair". If I pay 13%, then some person making a bazillion dollars a year should pay 13%. If that person pays 10%, I pay 10%.
What we have in the US is drastically different, unfair, and unconstitutional. There are 60,000 plus pages of tax laws to back my statement.
Fully agree.
We currently have a middle class paying upwards of 40% in taxes (FICA/Fed/State/City). We have the top 1% of wealth paying 10-17%, and that's only on the income they claim to make in the US.
Wrong. There are always a few exceptions to the rule, but the top 1% pay about 24% in income tax alone. And the average is just under $1 million in AGI, so they are paying an effective FICA/SSI rate around 1.7%. And I don't know how it is in your state, but here in CA (and other states I've lived) there is NO exemption above a certain income point, and usually a progressive tax rate applied as well.
It's a myth the rich don't pay an equivalent tax rate - they actually do. The top 1% (of which, interestingly, President Obama was firmly within back in 2008 when he ran on his populist campaign) pay, on average, a much higher total tax rate than the middle class.
Your rates are way too low to pay for the current government.
You need 25% of everything over the poverty line combined with 10% cuts to close the gap.
And then those at the poverty line would still be paying over 12% of their income in state and local taxes, licenses, fees, and excise taxes. Plus more property taxes hidden in their rent.
In 1957, the Federal Government made, in constant dollars, about $2800 per capita. In 2010 it was about $6200 - more than double. Why did I choose 1957? It was the last year we actually had a real surplus, we paid down the debt. In 1957, our Federal Government received less than HALF of what it does now, per capita and in constant dollars, and it actually had a real (not just budget) surplus. And this is when we were building those freeways, not just maintaining them...
The problem is NOT that we don't have enough revenue - it's that the Federal Government has exploded in size and scope. Spending is the problem, not tax revenues.
The rich get indirect benefits from the public service. It is, after all, the system of roads, railroads and ports that allow them to ship goods and move workers about... But someone's gotta pay for it, and it seems to me that those who got rich off this peaceful, regulated, protected and educated country ought to pay for it.
Have you ever shipped something? You pay for those roads, and railroads, and ports - there are significant costs, fees, taxes and duties applied when you ship something. It's NOT free, it is a net money-maker for the various Governmental entities (the last study I can find shows that roads are a net-earner for the Federal Government, not a cost). The cost of shipping a pallet from Ningbo, China to the port of Los Angeles is somewhere around $90 - then you get somewhere around $500 in port and inspection fees (and that's if your shipment is NOT selected for extra inspection/CBP investigation). It's a huge lie that "the wealthy/businesses" get that infrastructure for free - it's paid for with taxes and fees.