iStudentUK
May 4, 05:12 PM
I suppose your thinking (and those of many others here) is that he should have been given a trial by jury, sent to prison, and that we had no right to try and obtain information from him?
Yep, that's what I think. He should have been interrogated, but not with "enhanced" methods.
Yep, that's what I think. He should have been interrogated, but not with "enhanced" methods.
RobertD63
Apr 18, 11:51 PM
When I try to go to the guides site it tries to connect and then fails. Anyone else getting this problem??
Huntn
Mar 3, 03:13 PM
You indicated that the rich weren't paying their 'fair share.' I responded by pointing out that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the tax burden. That is completely separate (although obviously relative and related) from the tax 'rate' which they pay.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
Analog Kid
Jul 26, 10:47 PM
Usually, I get pretty excited about new technologies and standards, but this just isn't doing it for me...
I've finally resigned myself to having a mirror set of hard drives for backup. Storing to removable media is too hard to organize, requires too many discs, and the optical discs don't have a life span long enough to make me comfortable. With the information density of BluRay I'm sure the recordables are going to have lousy longevity. I'll stick with live copies that I can keep testing the checksums on.
So, for me they're nothing more than a distribution method for high-def video and the fun has even been taken out of that by all the DRM shackles they've wrapped around it. I wonder how many people are really going to throw out their whole home entertainment system just to be able to play BR discs. If the recordable discs are $50, I'm sure discs with content will be at least that much-- and I can't back up this expensive, fragile data? I've got enough $12 DVDs I can't watch on my Mac because they've gotten scratched. Can't watch it on any computer I chose? Can't rip it to my iPod?
(come to think of it, $50 recordable media is probably all the DRM they need... Who's going to make an illegal copy when the blank media costs more than a DVD player?)
And doesn't the DRM phone home?!?
Nah. I'll wait. Hopefully by the time the media price has gotten low enough to make it worth it I'll have found myself with the equipment to actually view them and some Scandinavian kid will have cracked the encryption.
I've finally resigned myself to having a mirror set of hard drives for backup. Storing to removable media is too hard to organize, requires too many discs, and the optical discs don't have a life span long enough to make me comfortable. With the information density of BluRay I'm sure the recordables are going to have lousy longevity. I'll stick with live copies that I can keep testing the checksums on.
So, for me they're nothing more than a distribution method for high-def video and the fun has even been taken out of that by all the DRM shackles they've wrapped around it. I wonder how many people are really going to throw out their whole home entertainment system just to be able to play BR discs. If the recordable discs are $50, I'm sure discs with content will be at least that much-- and I can't back up this expensive, fragile data? I've got enough $12 DVDs I can't watch on my Mac because they've gotten scratched. Can't watch it on any computer I chose? Can't rip it to my iPod?
(come to think of it, $50 recordable media is probably all the DRM they need... Who's going to make an illegal copy when the blank media costs more than a DVD player?)
And doesn't the DRM phone home?!?
Nah. I'll wait. Hopefully by the time the media price has gotten low enough to make it worth it I'll have found myself with the equipment to actually view them and some Scandinavian kid will have cracked the encryption.
more...
srf4real
Oct 5, 08:11 PM
Opera will zoom entire pages, very useful for resizing tiny little thumnail photos or huge images too big for my hpvs17 monitor... if it can be done, why isn't Apple on top of it?
CWallace
Jan 13, 02:33 PM
Made this - what do you think?
Looks like this - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=413156
Looks like this - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=413156
more...
Jessica Lares
Oct 12, 01:14 AM
That's what I thought. I'll get the part off eBay tomorrow and open it up.
Shambles
Apr 3, 12:01 PM
Here we go..
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5585833528_72c86a2ce6_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5585833528_72c86a2ce6_b.jpg
more...
CaptMurdock
Apr 3, 04:16 PM
What icon/theme is that?
Most of them are from the Flurry (http://iconfactory.com/freeware/preview/flrs) set, although I made a few myself in the same style.
Most of them are from the Flurry (http://iconfactory.com/freeware/preview/flrs) set, although I made a few myself in the same style.
bousozoku
Feb 23, 11:55 AM
I don't think there ever was a ppc 602 processor... at least in a mac. Am I wrong? 601, 603e and 604 (SWEET!).
As I recall, the 602 was an embedded applications processor like the 40x line.
As I recall, the 602 was an embedded applications processor like the 40x line.
more...
TheEvilDonut
Sep 3, 05:09 AM
Nice, another back seat mod.
Although I see your point I don't really mind being reminded the rules even if the person is not a mod. Rules should be followed and I am new here. :o
Although I see your point I don't really mind being reminded the rules even if the person is not a mod. Rules should be followed and I am new here. :o
rhett7660
Mar 31, 06:06 PM
Does anyone else think this is a desperate attempt by Adobe to stay in the tablet game?
They're making software for a device produced by a company that wants nothing to do with them.
Does the software use Adobe's AIR?
Since when did Apple say they wanted nothing to do with Adobe. They didn't want support one piece of software on a mobile devices. I hardly think that qualifies as wanting nothing to do with them.
I think this is great and I am glad Adobe is doing more for the iPad and iPhone.
They're making software for a device produced by a company that wants nothing to do with them.
Does the software use Adobe's AIR?
Since when did Apple say they wanted nothing to do with Adobe. They didn't want support one piece of software on a mobile devices. I hardly think that qualifies as wanting nothing to do with them.
I think this is great and I am glad Adobe is doing more for the iPad and iPhone.
more...
Kernow
Sep 27, 07:14 AM
Well kind of, but that's very limited. It doesn't support drag and drop, icon or column views, file previews, searching, .zip archiving and unarchiving, etc. In other words, all the goodies you get in a Finder window (including iDisk Finder windows). Using AJAX technologies, most of that should be possible, as they are doing for the Mail application. And as I said, making folders individually password-protectable (separate passwords, unlike now where it's one for the whole disk) is a priority for me.
Ah - I get you now, and yes all that would be very nice. I don't use the iDisk that often, mainly just to store the odd file that I work on from both home and work, but the functionality you describe would make that a lot easier too.
Ah - I get you now, and yes all that would be very nice. I don't use the iDisk that often, mainly just to store the odd file that I work on from both home and work, but the functionality you describe would make that a lot easier too.
masterjedi73
Apr 26, 05:06 PM
I'm using a mid 2010 mac mini, samsung miniDV hooked up to firewire 800. (imovie 11) It doesn't skip on the tape, but when I play it back in imovie, it skips in the same place each time. no matter how many times i re-import it, it skips in the same place. Is there any way to stop this?
thanks.
thanks.
more...
johnnyfiive
Aug 11, 04:46 PM
Some nice desktops/wallpapers people have! I found a nice one today which I spread across both monitors.
(Source: http://www.bartelme.at/journal/archive/deep_blue_wallpaper/ )
(Source: http://www.bartelme.at/journal/archive/deep_blue_wallpaper/ )
juanster
Oct 13, 09:55 PM
hmm got the app... hmm not convinced..I guess im just too used to twitterofn or echofon now.. im going:o back to it...
more...
FX4568
Apr 4, 10:24 PM
Phew. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Until you explained it so well I was really worried.
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
840quadra
Nov 29, 01:10 PM
If it is downloadable or for sale in a form of media, it is subject to being pirated!
What the crap does the iPod have to do with this? Because the file is compressed down for a portable media player, it will be more subject to being stolen than not ? Fair Play doesn't let you burn DVD's with iTunes Videos, and you are locked to only playing on validated machines!
Yes Production costs for Movies are much higher than music, however selling them digitally via Apple costs them nothing! They don't have to pay for displays, shipping, manufacturing, marketing, or deal with returns.
This is as stupid as Universal Studios wanting to get a $1 for every iPod sold.
What the crap does the iPod have to do with this? Because the file is compressed down for a portable media player, it will be more subject to being stolen than not ? Fair Play doesn't let you burn DVD's with iTunes Videos, and you are locked to only playing on validated machines!
Yes Production costs for Movies are much higher than music, however selling them digitally via Apple costs them nothing! They don't have to pay for displays, shipping, manufacturing, marketing, or deal with returns.
This is as stupid as Universal Studios wanting to get a $1 for every iPod sold.
andyx3x
Apr 6, 07:43 AM
Nobody really answered my question. I hate to repost it again just trying to find an answer. I tried to call the at&t rep and they don't know what going on.
I had iPhone 3GS 32GB had it about almost a year. They let me do an early upgrade for the new iPhone 4 in June when it came out for the price of $299 with a two year agreement.
The question I have is let just say the new iPhone 5 comes out with the same price point let say June release like last year. By this new $50 thing does that mean I pay for $549 price point or can I just pay the $299 plus the two year agreement like I did last year?
Thanks guys
If the iPhone were to come out in June, you would not be able to get the $299 price with a new two year agreement. You would have to pay the $549 if you want the new phone immediately.
The reason that AT&T was so generous with their upgrades last summer is because they knew that the iPhone was coming to Verizon and they wanted to lock in as many new two year contracts as possible.
Here's what you do if you want the $299 price and you are not eligible:
1) Open a new line on your account. That will get you the new iPhone and the $299 price. You will have to get a new number tough.
2) Next, call and cancel the line on your 3gs. The ETF should be about $205.
3) Sell your iPhone 4 on Ebay or Craigslist. If it's in really good shape, you should be able to get $400-$450 easy. This will cover your ETF and leave you about $200 extra.
I had iPhone 3GS 32GB had it about almost a year. They let me do an early upgrade for the new iPhone 4 in June when it came out for the price of $299 with a two year agreement.
The question I have is let just say the new iPhone 5 comes out with the same price point let say June release like last year. By this new $50 thing does that mean I pay for $549 price point or can I just pay the $299 plus the two year agreement like I did last year?
Thanks guys
If the iPhone were to come out in June, you would not be able to get the $299 price with a new two year agreement. You would have to pay the $549 if you want the new phone immediately.
The reason that AT&T was so generous with their upgrades last summer is because they knew that the iPhone was coming to Verizon and they wanted to lock in as many new two year contracts as possible.
Here's what you do if you want the $299 price and you are not eligible:
1) Open a new line on your account. That will get you the new iPhone and the $299 price. You will have to get a new number tough.
2) Next, call and cancel the line on your 3gs. The ETF should be about $205.
3) Sell your iPhone 4 on Ebay or Craigslist. If it's in really good shape, you should be able to get $400-$450 easy. This will cover your ETF and leave you about $200 extra.
wordoflife
Dec 9, 08:24 PM
http://i54.tinypic.com/10xeud4.png
/UserName
Apr 16, 06:40 PM
Is there a way to go back to a configuration of a few days ago? My cousin has been messing around with my computer and I want to put it all back the way it was. (I have never used the time machine on this computer so I don't think that will help)
Huntermac
Jan 16, 01:29 AM
It is just some software that lets you transfer waypoints, tracks, and routes between your Mac and Garmin units...
Pretty cool but I thought it might be some great new hardware.. maybe even for Iphone. :(
http://www.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=3885
Pretty cool but I thought it might be some great new hardware.. maybe even for Iphone. :(
http://www.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=3885
AndroidfoLife
Apr 20, 04:40 PM
Android will be on more things by the end of the year. iOS is restricted to apple products. But we are already seeing the creativity that people are using android for. Being that it is open source and easy to modify and write on we have many things. Android now powers eReaders, TVs, Video games, and even a microwave
Macula
Nov 20, 02:13 PM
Yeah, right. And don't tell me that you haven't heard about the release that will follow Leopard! They say it will even have a new Finder.
0 comments:
Post a Comment