Yes. Since the bulk of registrations occur for the fall semester, blaming Trump for the 2016-2017 school year, before he was elected, at a time when no one in their right minds thought Trump winning was a possibility, I'd say "yes." Trump may have something to do with higher numbers, but it started before he was elected.
It is still true, "door buster" deals notwithstanding. Just one example, great if you have kids, is Target often picks one LEGO set to offer half off. LEGO is expensive, that's a great deal. But sure - don't go for the Panosomic or Samsong 42" TV they are selling to get people in the door.
Plane tickets are most certainly cheaper, especially adjusted for inflation. It was a race to the bottom - do not blame the airlines for giving customers what they wanted. Most individuals look on travel sites now and look for one thing - the cheapest fare. In order to offer cheaper fares, airlines had to do something. Yes, they make a lot of money, but they make it on volume - they actually have razor thin margins. For the record, I don't "support" airlines, I'm just telling you like it is.
It's not just a matter of white vs. wheat - the wheat itself is different. The vast majority of our wheat comes from from semi-dwarf wheat. Semi-dwarf wheat debatably saved us from mass starvation in the 60s and 70s, because it grows so much denser and is very resistant to insects and disease - crop yields of wheat are many times what they used to be. But dwarf wheat is not as good for you as other wheats... you know those amber waves of grain we sing about? Not anymore.
As I said, even the CBO stated the primary loser in corporate income taxes are the employees. Taxes are an expense of running business; companies get their money from their customers. Q.E.D.
I'm not purposefully leaving anything, just giving a view most people don't consider.
What I wrote is largely (almost entirely) true, for example. There is a trade deficit, so those taxes, by and large, affect mostly American consumers, for example and, for another, MOST taxes are not those end consumer goods of the type that get exported - most of them end up coming in the forms of services and, even for goods, things like shipping.
You could make the argument that income taxes are passed on to companies - it wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but when we compare the two the problem I have with corporate income taxes are that they are hidden from consumers, so most people support them and even want them to be higher because they don't get that it's costing them money. The more confusing the government makes the system, the more it can tax people who don't understand how it works, even getting their support. As I said, even the CBO said that the most affected people are the employees.
I think you're missing the point. Your chickens may be free-roaming, but have been bred for generations for certain characteristics. Fruits and vegetables have been selected for certain characteristics; it's actually very difficult to find "ancient grains," like the wheat that was common back then. It's not just because we've become accustomed to prepared foods, it's because foods have morphed over the years for perceived benefits, like disease and insect resistance.
Yeah, I suppose it's possible to replicate some dishes, but even the grains we use for bread are different than what was common back then (and worse for you).
And, sadly, most people don't understand that corporate taxes are taxes on YOU, not the companies. The CBO says corporate taxes mostly affect the employees of that company; but corporate taxes are part of doing business, and thus passed onto their customers. Even if the customers are other businesses, those costs all eventually get passed down to retail. Period. But if it makes you feel better, keep complaining.
I wouldn't argue that cutting it necessarily helps job creation, only time will tell if that would really happen, but if you don't think companies compete on prices (*), and that prices would come down through competition (and you realize a lot of products have razor thin margins already - because of competition), then tell me what you're smoking.
(*) yes, some companies do things like collude and do other anti-competitive things, but that's already illegal.
Well... yes. The problem is that, over the years I've thought a great deal about "happiness." YOLO, so what does it take to truly be happy? The perception of value in status is detrimental to long term happiness. After all, if your friends value you for how expensive your "stuff" is, are they really good friends? So the pursuit of the temporary elation one gets from getting a status symbol is detrimental to the long term happiness of, say, for example, financial independence that can be achieved a lot quicker when one is frugal.
But no, I don't expect my teenage kids to understand that. Sadly.
Ok, I believe you're blaming the retailers for giving the consumers what they want (because if they didn't eat it up, the consumers wouldn't do it). I just completely disagree.
Let me give you an example: when I was younger, you'd buy a plane ticket to go some where. You only bought one if there wasn't a reasonable alternative to get to where you wanted to go. They were expensive. They also had a lot more leg room on the plane, and free baggage check, meals, and movies on the planes. Now people complain they get herded like cattle, have to pay for every bag and pay for meals. But who is to blame? It's the customers looking for the lowest prices possible without consideration to what that meant to quality of product or service. Black Friday is the same thing... we brought this on ourselves; uneducated, unthinking consumerism.
Yes, there are good deals on other things on Black Friday - but most of the stuff people need, like clothing, can be had for the same kinds of sale prices throughout the year.... pretty much every holiday and then some.
Notwithstanding Black Friday weekend, I actually still enjoy holiday shopping... especially on weekdays and not right near Christmas, but otherwise it's not that bad.
The couple of years I did "participate" in the madness (good word for it), I would especially stay away from places like Walmart and Best Buy. You can only be one place at 5 or 6am. The only time I ever went out that early was to Sports Authority. A line, yes, but no fighting, no BS - a decent crowd of people. I then followed up going to other stores hours after they opened. I missed the "door buster" crap that I wouldn't buy anyway, but got good deals lingering in the background.
I haven't done it in some time - I do some shopping online, but while the worst of the worst out there is absolutely terrible (I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Walmart), the best of the best is pretty good.
No, it's not quite the same. Believe it or not, there are actually really good deals on quality things on Black Friday because retailers, if many people are going shopping anyway, want those shoppers in their stores and not a competitors. Now most of them do that by offering so no-name brand, or some crazy cheap bottom-basement product made by a brand name at the behest of Walmart, but those are the deals to get people in the door - if you actually look hard enough, you can find great deals on products you might actually be interested in - you just have to get beyond the "door buster" BS.
A good example is that our state used to have a "sales-tax free day" before school started to help people buy clothes and school related supplies. Since computers and a lot of electronics can be considered school supplies, it became a very competitive shopping day, and retailers would offer discounts on non-school related stuff, too. When they know you will be out there, they compete for your business.
It's true that if you go during an off time of year, you might be able to haggle a better price for expensive electronics or a car or something, but you can't say that busy shopping days mean you can't get a good deal - that's just not true at all.
You're essentially blaming the retailers for competing. The consumers brought this on themselves. The first store that opened at 6am on Friday instead of their usual 9 or 10am was only trying to get a jump on competitors, and the consumers lapped it up. If the consumers decided it wasn't worth it, the retailers wouldn't do it - they are essentially giving consumes what consumes want, despite the people complaining about it. That's all there is to it. If you don't like it, you are not forced to participate.
But the entitlement mentality has firmly set in. We comment about people on welfare with iPhones and expensive plans - because I can accept that a phone can be considered a necessity, but we're still subsidizing people who receive some kind of welfare to have expensive phones and plans instead of inexpensive ones.
We're paying for their food, so they can take whatever they have left and waste it.
No, [laughing] she got the iPad because that's what she wanted. She didn't want to look dumb in front of her friend, so I was still on the hook. It was ridiculous. And she's one of those older people who, in their minds, everything is necessarily complex:
Because the #1 American sin is to purchase something that isn't the best value. Why do you think people are so angry at the $1000 iPhone, it is because they want it or something similar to it, but cannot justify the cost especially compared to its competition, they can afford it, but it isn't the best deal. And if they get it then they have made a bad purchasing decision. Which is really Bad! Even though the product may bring enjoyment to their lives for a good deal of time.
I understand what you are saying, but "best value" is an interesting turn of phrase because, for example, you are suggesting that a $1000 is the best "value."
These people don't care about value, they care about impressing their friends with the latest gadgets from the top name brands.... impressing their friends is more important than value; elevating themselves in their own mind is the priority... the psychology is that owning something better somehow makes them better. The short term elation is more important than that long term satisfaction of actually getting something that is the best value.
There's also, especially for younger people, the need to fit in. My daughter wants an iPhone because her friends have iPhones. My elderly mom is the same way - what they say about older people acting more like children is absolutely true; my dad called and asked which tablet he should get my mom. When I suggested a middle of the road model that should have been more than good enough, he said it had to be an iPad model because that's what her friend had.
IMO, the best "value" right now are several year old models that are less than half the price of the new ones which have merely incrementally improved features. Even then, though, the best "value" depends on some interpretation... it could be "the best value for $X," and people value certain features over others.
For me, for example, they all have "good enough" cameras... I don't need more megapixels. I don't care about the speaker sound quality when I listen to all my music with headphones or Bluetooth. Value is in the eye of the beholder, but it's pretty universally agreed that, largely, the newest versions of electronics items have a premium just for being new, which makes their "value" terrible.
I suppose a lot of people value status symbols, and maybe that makes an iPhone X "valuable." I appreciate these people - they are what make the older phones much better values for people like me.
It doesn't matter that it's mostly(*) cheap crap. If a laptop is otherwise not affordable to someone, and they can find a full Windows laptop for $130 (that's an actual Dell deal on an existing model this year, not a made up cheap crap model) that their kids can do homework on, that they can do online banking and job searches on, then it's still worth it.
(*) It's true that the majority of offers, especially on electronics, seem to be for items that are not normally available at those stores from manufacturers whose names you never heard (or are already known for making cheap crap), and even "real" manufacturers who've made some cheap junk for "door busters," but there are deals to be had. I've participated in BF when there was actually something I had my eye on that was going to be significantly cheaper. There are good deals on things besides electronics. I've never waited over night, or in a tent city, but often retailers are inclined to offer something to compete with the likes of Best Buy and Walmart just to get people in the door.
I still participate, too - but from the comfort of my computer chair. I'd been wanting to switch mobile carriers and did it on BF a couple of years ago, getting excellent deals on new phones for the family (which served as their main Christmas presents).
Now I need to wonder why people "stress" about it. If the vast majority of us don't participate (I've only done it a couple of times), then why would we stress? There's something seriously wrong with the American psyche... too many people stress about unimportant things like this. If you work in retail and are actually "forced" to work Thanksgiving, or any time over that weekend, I can see that as being stressful.... but that's not 80% of us. And, for the record, I've worked on Thanksgiving and didn't stress about it (I work in television). The police are still working; many people at the big game (whichever one you want to watch) are working - security, ticketing, concessions, cleaning staff, the people setting up and maintaining the field and equipment, and the players - all working for your pleasure on Thanksgiving (and don't forget us TV folks who are broadcasting it to you - not just the director and camera operators, there's a lot more people involved than most people know). Police are working, fire fighters are working, the news people in all media are working, hospital staff is working, people making sure you have the electric to watch the big game and cook your Thanksgiving dinner are working.... it's actually quite a large list, and nobody seems to give a crap about them.
Yes - I think this is what the topic is about. A printer, for example, that requires an internet connection to set up because it only includes a software down-loader so that the user gets the latest version of the drivers.
Logitech's "Harmony Link" is a great example... I can't imagine why anyone would buy one to begin with, but most people probably didn't realize what they were getting into.
Obviously software whose main function is networking would be affected, so I don't know why everyone feels the need to point that out. An MMORPG obviously needs networking.
It's also what makes buying a Chromebook dubious, but from my understanding you are able to work offline - although I'd imagine in a "crippled" way until you get back online, but I honestly don't know.
I like my dongle. I have the software installed on every computer I use - two work laptops and home laptop and a home desktop, and just have my dongle with me. Yes, it's costly if I lose it (a lot more than $1000), but I like the flexibility. My VPN connection to work servers is normally just fine... but there are days it seems it just doesn't want to work; I'd hate to have to go into work when I normally wouldn't have to because Comcast is out, or our VPN portal is being DDOS attacked or something.
When it comes to licensing problems, I'd say a LOT less work is lost at work on our dongle based software than on the ones that rely on an internet connection.
I guess it comes down to, no matter how big Munich is, it's still just a cog in the German wheel, the rest of which is likely MS. Why would they need power point? I don't know, but Munich is just a cog in the German wheel, and they need to see PPT stuff from other government agencies, and if LibreOffice can't play it back correctly (or, rather, can't play it back just like it looks in MS PPT), then it's a problem. I could imagine quite a bit that would make me angry if true (like payoffs), but since I can't know, we just need to accept that they gave up on Linux and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Since the bulk of registrations occur for the fall semester, blaming Trump for the 2016-2017 school year, before he was elected, at a time when no one in their right minds thought Trump winning was a possibility, I'd say "yes." Trump may have something to do with higher numbers, but it started before he was elected.
It is still true, "door buster" deals notwithstanding. Just one example, great if you have kids, is Target often picks one LEGO set to offer half off. LEGO is expensive, that's a great deal. But sure - don't go for the Panosomic or Samsong 42" TV they are selling to get people in the door.
Plane tickets are most certainly cheaper, especially adjusted for inflation. It was a race to the bottom - do not blame the airlines for giving customers what they wanted. Most individuals look on travel sites now and look for one thing - the cheapest fare. In order to offer cheaper fares, airlines had to do something. Yes, they make a lot of money, but they make it on volume - they actually have razor thin margins. For the record, I don't "support" airlines, I'm just telling you like it is.
It's not just a matter of white vs. wheat - the wheat itself is different. The vast majority of our wheat comes from from semi-dwarf wheat. Semi-dwarf wheat debatably saved us from mass starvation in the 60s and 70s, because it grows so much denser and is very resistant to insects and disease - crop yields of wheat are many times what they used to be. But dwarf wheat is not as good for you as other wheats... you know those amber waves of grain we sing about? Not anymore.
As I said, even the CBO stated the primary loser in corporate income taxes are the employees. Taxes are an expense of running business; companies get their money from their customers. Q.E.D.
I'm not purposefully leaving anything, just giving a view most people don't consider.
What I wrote is largely (almost entirely) true, for example. There is a trade deficit, so those taxes, by and large, affect mostly American consumers, for example and, for another, MOST taxes are not those end consumer goods of the type that get exported - most of them end up coming in the forms of services and, even for goods, things like shipping.
You could make the argument that income taxes are passed on to companies - it wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but when we compare the two the problem I have with corporate income taxes are that they are hidden from consumers, so most people support them and even want them to be higher because they don't get that it's costing them money. The more confusing the government makes the system, the more it can tax people who don't understand how it works, even getting their support. As I said, even the CBO said that the most affected people are the employees.
I think you're missing the point. Your chickens may be free-roaming, but have been bred for generations for certain characteristics. Fruits and vegetables have been selected for certain characteristics; it's actually very difficult to find "ancient grains," like the wheat that was common back then. It's not just because we've become accustomed to prepared foods, it's because foods have morphed over the years for perceived benefits, like disease and insect resistance.
Yeah, I suppose it's possible to replicate some dishes, but even the grains we use for bread are different than what was common back then (and worse for you).
And, sadly, most people don't understand that corporate taxes are taxes on YOU, not the companies. The CBO says corporate taxes mostly affect the employees of that company; but corporate taxes are part of doing business, and thus passed onto their customers. Even if the customers are other businesses, those costs all eventually get passed down to retail. Period. But if it makes you feel better, keep complaining.
I wouldn't argue that cutting it necessarily helps job creation, only time will tell if that would really happen, but if you don't think companies compete on prices (*), and that prices would come down through competition (and you realize a lot of products have razor thin margins already - because of competition), then tell me what you're smoking.
(*) yes, some companies do things like collude and do other anti-competitive things, but that's already illegal.
But that technology is somehow detrimental... "invading," not helping.
Well... yes. The problem is that, over the years I've thought a great deal about "happiness." YOLO, so what does it take to truly be happy? The perception of value in status is detrimental to long term happiness. After all, if your friends value you for how expensive your "stuff" is, are they really good friends? So the pursuit of the temporary elation one gets from getting a status symbol is detrimental to the long term happiness of, say, for example, financial independence that can be achieved a lot quicker when one is frugal.
But no, I don't expect my teenage kids to understand that. Sadly.
Ok, I believe you're blaming the retailers for giving the consumers what they want (because if they didn't eat it up, the consumers wouldn't do it). I just completely disagree.
Let me give you an example: when I was younger, you'd buy a plane ticket to go some where. You only bought one if there wasn't a reasonable alternative to get to where you wanted to go. They were expensive. They also had a lot more leg room on the plane, and free baggage check, meals, and movies on the planes. Now people complain they get herded like cattle, have to pay for every bag and pay for meals. But who is to blame? It's the customers looking for the lowest prices possible without consideration to what that meant to quality of product or service. Black Friday is the same thing... we brought this on ourselves; uneducated, unthinking consumerism.
Yes, there are good deals on other things on Black Friday - but most of the stuff people need, like clothing, can be had for the same kinds of sale prices throughout the year.... pretty much every holiday and then some.
Notwithstanding Black Friday weekend, I actually still enjoy holiday shopping... especially on weekdays and not right near Christmas, but otherwise it's not that bad.
The couple of years I did "participate" in the madness (good word for it), I would especially stay away from places like Walmart and Best Buy. You can only be one place at 5 or 6am. The only time I ever went out that early was to Sports Authority. A line, yes, but no fighting, no BS - a decent crowd of people. I then followed up going to other stores hours after they opened. I missed the "door buster" crap that I wouldn't buy anyway, but got good deals lingering in the background.
I haven't done it in some time - I do some shopping online, but while the worst of the worst out there is absolutely terrible (I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Walmart), the best of the best is pretty good.
No, it's not quite the same. Believe it or not, there are actually really good deals on quality things on Black Friday because retailers, if many people are going shopping anyway, want those shoppers in their stores and not a competitors. Now most of them do that by offering so no-name brand, or some crazy cheap bottom-basement product made by a brand name at the behest of Walmart, but those are the deals to get people in the door - if you actually look hard enough, you can find great deals on products you might actually be interested in - you just have to get beyond the "door buster" BS.
A good example is that our state used to have a "sales-tax free day" before school started to help people buy clothes and school related supplies. Since computers and a lot of electronics can be considered school supplies, it became a very competitive shopping day, and retailers would offer discounts on non-school related stuff, too. When they know you will be out there, they compete for your business.
It's true that if you go during an off time of year, you might be able to haggle a better price for expensive electronics or a car or something, but you can't say that busy shopping days mean you can't get a good deal - that's just not true at all.
Most customers don't want to bail on Thanksgiving early just to go shopping - but will anyway and resent it.
I can't believe you're blaming the retailers for that.
You're essentially blaming the retailers for competing. The consumers brought this on themselves. The first store that opened at 6am on Friday instead of their usual 9 or 10am was only trying to get a jump on competitors, and the consumers lapped it up. If the consumers decided it wasn't worth it, the retailers wouldn't do it - they are essentially giving consumes what consumes want, despite the people complaining about it. That's all there is to it. If you don't like it, you are not forced to participate.
But the entitlement mentality has firmly set in. We comment about people on welfare with iPhones and expensive plans - because I can accept that a phone can be considered a necessity, but we're still subsidizing people who receive some kind of welfare to have expensive phones and plans instead of inexpensive ones. We're paying for their food, so they can take whatever they have left and waste it.
No, [laughing] she got the iPad because that's what she wanted. She didn't want to look dumb in front of her friend, so I was still on the hook. It was ridiculous. And she's one of those older people who, in their minds, everything is necessarily complex:
HER: "How do I get my email?"
ME: "Push this button..."
HER: "Oh! It's too complicated!"
Because the #1 American sin is to purchase something that isn't the best value. Why do you think people are so angry at the $1000 iPhone, it is because they want it or something similar to it, but cannot justify the cost especially compared to its competition, they can afford it, but it isn't the best deal. And if they get it then they have made a bad purchasing decision. Which is really Bad! Even though the product may bring enjoyment to their lives for a good deal of time.
I understand what you are saying, but "best value" is an interesting turn of phrase because, for example, you are suggesting that a $1000 is the best "value."
These people don't care about value, they care about impressing their friends with the latest gadgets from the top name brands.... impressing their friends is more important than value; elevating themselves in their own mind is the priority... the psychology is that owning something better somehow makes them better. The short term elation is more important than that long term satisfaction of actually getting something that is the best value.
There's also, especially for younger people, the need to fit in. My daughter wants an iPhone because her friends have iPhones. My elderly mom is the same way - what they say about older people acting more like children is absolutely true; my dad called and asked which tablet he should get my mom. When I suggested a middle of the road model that should have been more than good enough, he said it had to be an iPad model because that's what her friend had.
IMO, the best "value" right now are several year old models that are less than half the price of the new ones which have merely incrementally improved features. Even then, though, the best "value" depends on some interpretation... it could be "the best value for $X," and people value certain features over others. For me, for example, they all have "good enough" cameras... I don't need more megapixels. I don't care about the speaker sound quality when I listen to all my music with headphones or Bluetooth. Value is in the eye of the beholder, but it's pretty universally agreed that, largely, the newest versions of electronics items have a premium just for being new, which makes their "value" terrible.
I suppose a lot of people value status symbols, and maybe that makes an iPhone X "valuable." I appreciate these people - they are what make the older phones much better values for people like me.
It doesn't matter that it's mostly(*) cheap crap. If a laptop is otherwise not affordable to someone, and they can find a full Windows laptop for $130 (that's an actual Dell deal on an existing model this year, not a made up cheap crap model) that their kids can do homework on, that they can do online banking and job searches on, then it's still worth it.
(*) It's true that the majority of offers, especially on electronics, seem to be for items that are not normally available at those stores from manufacturers whose names you never heard (or are already known for making cheap crap), and even "real" manufacturers who've made some cheap junk for "door busters," but there are deals to be had. I've participated in BF when there was actually something I had my eye on that was going to be significantly cheaper. There are good deals on things besides electronics. I've never waited over night, or in a tent city, but often retailers are inclined to offer something to compete with the likes of Best Buy and Walmart just to get people in the door.
I still participate, too - but from the comfort of my computer chair. I'd been wanting to switch mobile carriers and did it on BF a couple of years ago, getting excellent deals on new phones for the family (which served as their main Christmas presents).
Now I need to wonder why people "stress" about it. If the vast majority of us don't participate (I've only done it a couple of times), then why would we stress? There's something seriously wrong with the American psyche... too many people stress about unimportant things like this. If you work in retail and are actually "forced" to work Thanksgiving, or any time over that weekend, I can see that as being stressful.... but that's not 80% of us. And, for the record, I've worked on Thanksgiving and didn't stress about it (I work in television). The police are still working; many people at the big game (whichever one you want to watch) are working - security, ticketing, concessions, cleaning staff, the people setting up and maintaining the field and equipment, and the players - all working for your pleasure on Thanksgiving (and don't forget us TV folks who are broadcasting it to you - not just the director and camera operators, there's a lot more people involved than most people know). Police are working, fire fighters are working, the news people in all media are working, hospital staff is working, people making sure you have the electric to watch the big game and cook your Thanksgiving dinner are working.... it's actually quite a large list, and nobody seems to give a crap about them.
Yes - I think this is what the topic is about. A printer, for example, that requires an internet connection to set up because it only includes a software down-loader so that the user gets the latest version of the drivers.
Logitech's "Harmony Link" is a great example... I can't imagine why anyone would buy one to begin with, but most people probably didn't realize what they were getting into.
Obviously software whose main function is networking would be affected, so I don't know why everyone feels the need to point that out. An MMORPG obviously needs networking.
It's also what makes buying a Chromebook dubious, but from my understanding you are able to work offline - although I'd imagine in a "crippled" way until you get back online, but I honestly don't know.
I like my dongle. I have the software installed on every computer I use - two work laptops and home laptop and a home desktop, and just have my dongle with me. Yes, it's costly if I lose it (a lot more than $1000), but I like the flexibility. My VPN connection to work servers is normally just fine... but there are days it seems it just doesn't want to work; I'd hate to have to go into work when I normally wouldn't have to because Comcast is out, or our VPN portal is being DDOS attacked or something.
When it comes to licensing problems, I'd say a LOT less work is lost at work on our dongle based software than on the ones that rely on an internet connection.
I guess it comes down to, no matter how big Munich is, it's still just a cog in the German wheel, the rest of which is likely MS. Why would they need power point? I don't know, but Munich is just a cog in the German wheel, and they need to see PPT stuff from other government agencies, and if LibreOffice can't play it back correctly (or, rather, can't play it back just like it looks in MS PPT), then it's a problem. I could imagine quite a bit that would make me angry if true (like payoffs), but since I can't know, we just need to accept that they gave up on Linux and move on.
But I'm not Pharaoh, in this situation, I'm one of his minions.