treblah
Aug 3, 01:31 AM
It's not scientific at all. No way in hell is it scientific. I should know, I'm a scientist, got a degree and everything.
:D
:D
citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
benpatient
Mar 29, 01:26 PM
I agree w/ this. Everyone has internet at home and everyone who is so into media, already has a media server. Stuff like air video and streamtome works just fine for streaming media from anywhere internet is available.
People who care so much about accessing media enough to take their time to upload their stuff to cloud can certainly do same at their own house. Is this really for people who don't have internet at home or can't afford nas at home?
Seriously, what is the point of all this? Only time cloud storage works is for group collaboration where people need to share things from everywhere. For personal stuff, personal computer works the best w/ decent internet.
Not everyone has decent internet at home, you know. And those that do might not keep a computer on 24/7. I know that I'm in that situation. Leaving my MacPro on and not asleep 24/7 adds about 400-500 dollars a year to my electrical costs.
I could get the 500GB paid amazon cloud storage account for that much!
People who care so much about accessing media enough to take their time to upload their stuff to cloud can certainly do same at their own house. Is this really for people who don't have internet at home or can't afford nas at home?
Seriously, what is the point of all this? Only time cloud storage works is for group collaboration where people need to share things from everywhere. For personal stuff, personal computer works the best w/ decent internet.
Not everyone has decent internet at home, you know. And those that do might not keep a computer on 24/7. I know that I'm in that situation. Leaving my MacPro on and not asleep 24/7 adds about 400-500 dollars a year to my electrical costs.
I could get the 500GB paid amazon cloud storage account for that much!
MacNut
Apr 14, 09:22 PM
So do you think the best idea is to just cut everybody equally?
To me that is mind-bogglingly simplistic.
We have to be intelligent enough to identify areas of need vs. those that are operating at a decent level of efficiency.
Here's an example ...
I work at a university that is undergoing cuts. But some departments actually make the university money. Does it make sense to cut departments that generate income as much as departments that don't? At least the people in charge here understand the difference and aren't applying "across the board cuts".If something is making money why would you cut it? You expand on it to make even more money. Trim the programs that are dead weight and is sinking the rest of the ship. Government gets into a mentality that once a program is created no matter how much it might fail they have to keep it around to stroke their ego. They can never admit that something might not be working.
To me that is mind-bogglingly simplistic.
We have to be intelligent enough to identify areas of need vs. those that are operating at a decent level of efficiency.
Here's an example ...
I work at a university that is undergoing cuts. But some departments actually make the university money. Does it make sense to cut departments that generate income as much as departments that don't? At least the people in charge here understand the difference and aren't applying "across the board cuts".If something is making money why would you cut it? You expand on it to make even more money. Trim the programs that are dead weight and is sinking the rest of the ship. Government gets into a mentality that once a program is created no matter how much it might fail they have to keep it around to stroke their ego. They can never admit that something might not be working.
Clive At Five
Nov 22, 12:53 PM
I'll agree as well. One feature that Apple might be able to captalize on, if they do sell direct to consumers rather than through carriers, would be resolution of the bells/whistles problem.
For some people, a phone isn't a phone unless is has a 3MP camera, takes 640x480 video, etc. For others, all they want is basic PDA functionality. Would it be possible for Apple to offer a BTO option? I mean, Camera/Video is generally listed under a single menu option, and it wouldn't be that difficult to design the firmware to only display the category if the Camera is installed. To make things easier, Apple could stock one or two basic models in their stores, and leave people to go to apple.com for customizations...Any reason why this couldn't work?
Other than confusing everyone with too many options, no.
If you're a teenage girl, your phone has to have a camera on it, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a hiker, maybe you're going to want a phone with GPS, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a huge multitasker, you're going to want PDA-functionality, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
Very few people, I feel, will want a bare-bones phone... meaning most will have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's too complicated for most people to do.
So in short, no, I don't think that'll work. Good idea, though. That way you'd get a phone with the features you want without the crap that you don't want. Unfortunately, as far as a particular model of phone goes, it's either all or nothing... and I don't think Apple will want to release 18 different models of phone, each with different capabilities... that's worse than BTO.
-Clive
For some people, a phone isn't a phone unless is has a 3MP camera, takes 640x480 video, etc. For others, all they want is basic PDA functionality. Would it be possible for Apple to offer a BTO option? I mean, Camera/Video is generally listed under a single menu option, and it wouldn't be that difficult to design the firmware to only display the category if the Camera is installed. To make things easier, Apple could stock one or two basic models in their stores, and leave people to go to apple.com for customizations...Any reason why this couldn't work?
Other than confusing everyone with too many options, no.
If you're a teenage girl, your phone has to have a camera on it, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a hiker, maybe you're going to want a phone with GPS, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a huge multitasker, you're going to want PDA-functionality, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
Very few people, I feel, will want a bare-bones phone... meaning most will have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's too complicated for most people to do.
So in short, no, I don't think that'll work. Good idea, though. That way you'd get a phone with the features you want without the crap that you don't want. Unfortunately, as far as a particular model of phone goes, it's either all or nothing... and I don't think Apple will want to release 18 different models of phone, each with different capabilities... that's worse than BTO.
-Clive
iliketyla
Mar 29, 02:06 PM
Up to another 50% on what they already cost?
Well even though my argument was already refuted by the citizens of other continents on here, in a perfect world the products would cost more yes, but we'd also be making more money with employment here in the U.S.
Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and the U.S. makes products that other countries have no interest in buying due to poor quality.
Well even though my argument was already refuted by the citizens of other continents on here, in a perfect world the products would cost more yes, but we'd also be making more money with employment here in the U.S.
Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and the U.S. makes products that other countries have no interest in buying due to poor quality.
coolbreeze
May 6, 01:12 AM
Here we go again...
Hint: Intel is your winner, AAPL. Understand that.
Edit: for you young'ins, this a panel of IBM G5 processors. Specifically designed for Apple. The processor partnership was supposed to be groundbreaking.
Soon after, Apple went begging to Intel and, well, what's the processor brand in the Mac you are reading this on?
Hint: Intel is your winner, AAPL. Understand that.
Edit: for you young'ins, this a panel of IBM G5 processors. Specifically designed for Apple. The processor partnership was supposed to be groundbreaking.
Soon after, Apple went begging to Intel and, well, what's the processor brand in the Mac you are reading this on?
slu
Mar 27, 08:35 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Too bad I don't click tech crunch links. Especially since it is two in a row.
Too bad I don't click tech crunch links. Especially since it is two in a row.
maclaptop
Apr 20, 08:00 AM
1) This model hasn't promised anything yet because no one but Apple knows what's in store. I don't see any cosmetic changes in store, and the iPhone 4 still looks better than every handset out to date.
2) Sorry but my phone has never been dropped. Speak for yourself when you say it's going to get dropped. Not all of us are as clumsy as you and your friends apparently.
1) You're right but it still reminds me of Antennagate, and Jobs wise ass comment.
So I'll have fun with a Galaxy S2 while the gullible remain in denial.
2) My aren't you perfect.
Now you've backed yourself into a corner and loaded up on bad karma.
The next time you hear glass shatter, you'll know what it is... :)
2) Sorry but my phone has never been dropped. Speak for yourself when you say it's going to get dropped. Not all of us are as clumsy as you and your friends apparently.
1) You're right but it still reminds me of Antennagate, and Jobs wise ass comment.
So I'll have fun with a Galaxy S2 while the gullible remain in denial.
2) My aren't you perfect.
Now you've backed yourself into a corner and loaded up on bad karma.
The next time you hear glass shatter, you'll know what it is... :)
Rodimus Prime
Apr 9, 09:58 PM
So if the parentheses are solved first why not just put them in front? Why go through all the semantics? Do scientists purposely make it this hard when solving equations?
It is easier to read some with them out of order. Big time when you start factoring stuff out. It is easier to just put them in front so you can reference them.
Anyone who says 2 clearly can not do any real math. Also remember division is simple multiplying by some decimal number. For examly 1/2 = .5
Multiplying something by 0.5 is the same as dividing it by 2. Subtraction is just adding a negative number. Now days that is often how I treat subtraction is just adding a negative number. Makes things a lot easier
It is easier to read some with them out of order. Big time when you start factoring stuff out. It is easier to just put them in front so you can reference them.
Anyone who says 2 clearly can not do any real math. Also remember division is simple multiplying by some decimal number. For examly 1/2 = .5
Multiplying something by 0.5 is the same as dividing it by 2. Subtraction is just adding a negative number. Now days that is often how I treat subtraction is just adding a negative number. Makes things a lot easier
capoeirista
Nov 2, 01:34 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
ClamXAV is free and it's pretty good if you think you need it. Plus it's open source (I think).
ClamXAV is free and it's pretty good if you think you need it. Plus it's open source (I think).
macman4291
Jul 24, 12:39 AM
No. Processors Are Soldered In MacBooks and MacBook Pros So No Upgrades Are Possible.
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
Would it be worth it rolling over my 17 in macbook pro, w/ a 2.16 core duo to a macbook pro w/ merom chip and other new attributes. Would there be a significant difference in speed , ect. that would make it worth it. , and if so, what would i do about my registered applecare protection plan?
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
Would it be worth it rolling over my 17 in macbook pro, w/ a 2.16 core duo to a macbook pro w/ merom chip and other new attributes. Would there be a significant difference in speed , ect. that would make it worth it. , and if so, what would i do about my registered applecare protection plan?
MorphingDragon
May 6, 07:44 AM
GL on getting people to start making ARM binaries for windows 8 which only runs on tablets who happen to be extremely unsuccessful. If Microsoft makes an ARM version of windows 8 for tablets only, then windows-based tablets will be even deader than they are already.
Microsoft could just extend CLR to run on ARM platforms, then a lot of C# projects could be easily ported.
Microsoft could just extend CLR to run on ARM platforms, then a lot of C# projects could be easily ported.
Don't panic
May 6, 10:30 PM
we don't enter otHer Rooms without exploting.
we delegate the exploring.
we had just explored that closet ("that's how we got the golden ... rooster)
so it's safe to leave.
now We are in another room. ucf join us by himself. then when it's our turn again FIRST ucf explores, THEN we move. the next round he moves, then we explore.
at the end of the round we are one turn ahead.
easy.
we delegate the exploring.
we had just explored that closet ("that's how we got the golden ... rooster)
so it's safe to leave.
now We are in another room. ucf join us by himself. then when it's our turn again FIRST ucf explores, THEN we move. the next round he moves, then we explore.
at the end of the round we are one turn ahead.
easy.
treysmay
Aug 7, 04:24 PM
It's almost exactly what I was looking for. I am a student and semi-proffessional artist, the Imac didn't cut it, hd's to slow in macbook pro for video work, and only expandable to 2 gigs of ram for both. the dual 2.0 config will be perfect for running photoshop off of rossetta, FCP, after effects, solid works in bootcamp. Good pricepoint, the dual 2.0 in canadian student discount is close to 50bucks more than the old dual 2.0 OMG WTF. but I was kind of hoping for front row for those nights of book reading and listening to radiohead while stoned, so I dont have to get up if a less ambient song comes on
toots66
Nov 22, 05:32 AM
Elsewhere in the world that is mostly how you buy a phone. Phone first, then a carrier. Not the other way around.
Not in the UK it isn't. It's very difficult to get a new contract without a phone. You can buy phones SIM-free but the high initial price puts most people off (if they know about them at all) because the networks here provide most phones 'free' with 12 or 18 month contracts. And most customers expect a new 'free' phone every 12/18 months, even though this will cost them more in the long-term. It's been going on for years and this is unlikely to change until one network breaks ranks but that would put them at a disadvantage.
How would this situation affect an Apple phone? I cannot see Apple changing their software to suit the network and that might rule out a couple of them. The networks have their own systems in place for selling music, at a higher price than iTMS, so any kind of iPod functionality in the phone would probably put them all off. A single network might be interested if they feel that the features in the Apple phone will gain them new customers.
End-users would still be able to buy a phone separately and use their existing SIM of course. But as this is so different to the entrenched practice in the UK, it would have to be a very good device.
Not in the UK it isn't. It's very difficult to get a new contract without a phone. You can buy phones SIM-free but the high initial price puts most people off (if they know about them at all) because the networks here provide most phones 'free' with 12 or 18 month contracts. And most customers expect a new 'free' phone every 12/18 months, even though this will cost them more in the long-term. It's been going on for years and this is unlikely to change until one network breaks ranks but that would put them at a disadvantage.
How would this situation affect an Apple phone? I cannot see Apple changing their software to suit the network and that might rule out a couple of them. The networks have their own systems in place for selling music, at a higher price than iTMS, so any kind of iPod functionality in the phone would probably put them all off. A single network might be interested if they feel that the features in the Apple phone will gain them new customers.
End-users would still be able to buy a phone separately and use their existing SIM of course. But as this is so different to the entrenched practice in the UK, it would have to be a very good device.
cgmpowers
Aug 2, 11:23 AM
Its been my experience that after the Expo there's always something released about a month or so AFTER the expo.
In addition to that, isn't there a Paris thing in September or something in September?? I remember seeing September on a calendar somewhere that related to Apple...
Christopher Powers
In addition to that, isn't there a Paris thing in September or something in September?? I remember seeing September on a calendar somewhere that related to Apple...
Christopher Powers
cav23j
Mar 26, 11:27 PM
So the sources are Gruber who stated it was a guess and TechCrunch who are, well, TechCrunch.
sounds like someone just bought an iPad 2
sounds like someone just bought an iPad 2
SeaFox
Nov 26, 06:02 PM
2002 called, they want their platform idea back. :rolleyes:
Seriously, does anyone here even hear about tablet PCs anymore? Nope.
What happened with Microsoft Origami? Nothing.
What are people wanting to use for computing on the go? A smart phone.
Apple didn't get involved when this was "the rage" and I couldn't be happier. The idea never became anything more than a niche product in health care, manufacturing, and perhaps education. It bombed. And Apple wasn't left holding the bag on a bunch of unsold product. Another "failure in this companies beleaguered history" as it would be used as fodder in the press.
Seriously, does anyone here even hear about tablet PCs anymore? Nope.
What happened with Microsoft Origami? Nothing.
What are people wanting to use for computing on the go? A smart phone.
Apple didn't get involved when this was "the rage" and I couldn't be happier. The idea never became anything more than a niche product in health care, manufacturing, and perhaps education. It bombed. And Apple wasn't left holding the bag on a bunch of unsold product. Another "failure in this companies beleaguered history" as it would be used as fodder in the press.
bobob
Apr 25, 09:47 AM
No, he's saying Apple does not track your location. There has been no evidence that any of the location information leaves your phone/computer. Whether that file should exist or not is another debate.
Google servers are receiving every single bit of tracking info. Apple�s servers don�t. As easy. Let�s not forget this big picture here.
Is there a link to a site showing that Google logs the tracking info on their servers?
Many of the arguments on this issue seem to centre on the fact that Android's onboard log only stores the most recent entries and then deletes them, but if they're uploaded to Google that would not only nullify that point, but provide an excellent (and legitimately frightening) counter example.
Google servers are receiving every single bit of tracking info. Apple�s servers don�t. As easy. Let�s not forget this big picture here.
Is there a link to a site showing that Google logs the tracking info on their servers?
Many of the arguments on this issue seem to centre on the fact that Android's onboard log only stores the most recent entries and then deletes them, but if they're uploaded to Google that would not only nullify that point, but provide an excellent (and legitimately frightening) counter example.
bryanc
Sep 11, 11:01 AM
10 hours? Luxury. I dream of being able to download 2GB in 10 hours.
It'll take me over 4 days.
Hrumpf... When I was a lad, we used to have to chisel the ones and zeros into a stone tablet with our fingernails, carry them to and from the server 5 miles through a snowstorm (uphill, both ways), only to have our father delete them, kill us outright, and dance about on our graves singin' hallelujah!
Cheers
It'll take me over 4 days.
Hrumpf... When I was a lad, we used to have to chisel the ones and zeros into a stone tablet with our fingernails, carry them to and from the server 5 miles through a snowstorm (uphill, both ways), only to have our father delete them, kill us outright, and dance about on our graves singin' hallelujah!
Cheers
sth
Apr 20, 02:08 AM
People underestimate how big of a change the 3GS was on the hardware side. It was based on a whole different architecture (ARM Cortex A8 CPU + PowerVR SGX535 GPU, same as the later A4-based devices but at a lower clock speed).
Of course, the iPhone4 was the biggest refresh to the iPhone ever since the original was introduced, but I would call the 3GS number 2 on that list.
The iPhone 3G on the other hand was so close to the original iPhone in terms of hardware, that it didn't even get it's own internal revision number.
Why do we still call it iPhone 5? Everything points to iPhone 4S.
IMHO the reason why the 3GS was named like that was to bring the iPhone names in line with the respective hardware generation. In other words: New iPhones will most likely just be called iPhone 5/6/7...
to really stay ahead of the market Apple will need to:
add a 4" screen
keep the same form factor
add the dual core A5 processor
update the GPU to something similar (but most likely not as powerful) as in the iPad 2
while keeping the same or possibly even improving the battery life
add a 64GB version
(possible 8 MP backlit CMOS sensor camera along side possible 1080p recording since the iPad can now output in full 1080p through HDMI)
I guess the CPU/GPU will be the same as on the iPad 2, probably with slightly lower Clock speeds, just as they did with the iPhone4 and the iPad.
Don't know about the screen, though. I'd really like to see them getting rid of the black borders left and right, but I don't think they'll be able to fit a 4" screen without making the device physically larger. Also they couldn't just change the resolution because that would break all apps. I'd say either the device gets slightly smaller or no change at all. There's a slim chance of a just slightly bigger screen (3.7" or something like that) at the same resolution but I somehow don't think Apple would do such a thing.
Of course, the iPhone4 was the biggest refresh to the iPhone ever since the original was introduced, but I would call the 3GS number 2 on that list.
The iPhone 3G on the other hand was so close to the original iPhone in terms of hardware, that it didn't even get it's own internal revision number.
Why do we still call it iPhone 5? Everything points to iPhone 4S.
IMHO the reason why the 3GS was named like that was to bring the iPhone names in line with the respective hardware generation. In other words: New iPhones will most likely just be called iPhone 5/6/7...
to really stay ahead of the market Apple will need to:
add a 4" screen
keep the same form factor
add the dual core A5 processor
update the GPU to something similar (but most likely not as powerful) as in the iPad 2
while keeping the same or possibly even improving the battery life
add a 64GB version
(possible 8 MP backlit CMOS sensor camera along side possible 1080p recording since the iPad can now output in full 1080p through HDMI)
I guess the CPU/GPU will be the same as on the iPad 2, probably with slightly lower Clock speeds, just as they did with the iPhone4 and the iPad.
Don't know about the screen, though. I'd really like to see them getting rid of the black borders left and right, but I don't think they'll be able to fit a 4" screen without making the device physically larger. Also they couldn't just change the resolution because that would break all apps. I'd say either the device gets slightly smaller or no change at all. There's a slim chance of a just slightly bigger screen (3.7" or something like that) at the same resolution but I somehow don't think Apple would do such a thing.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 11:52 AM
It would be a lot harder to cheat a value added tax than income tax.
Plus it would take no time or money to fill out
it would naturally put a larger burden on the rich who spend more
it would be simple to raise/lower
It would naturally exempt charitable giving
it would reduce the tax-code a few thousand pages
It would reduce the need to pay to keep up the IRS program
nobody would be in debt to the IRS
Payroll taxes would be easier to manage
My dad spends two full weeks, and hire personal assistants in order to file taxes as it is. Value added tax instead of income tax would be a blessing
or even a less complicated flat income tax rate would be an improvement
Unless basic necessities were exempt, it would hurt the poor more as they spend a far greater percentage of their income on necessities than the rich. It also places a greater burden on small business since they are acting like tax collectors but no greater than it does in states with sales taxes already assuming the taxes are harmonized.
Plus it would take no time or money to fill out
it would naturally put a larger burden on the rich who spend more
it would be simple to raise/lower
It would naturally exempt charitable giving
it would reduce the tax-code a few thousand pages
It would reduce the need to pay to keep up the IRS program
nobody would be in debt to the IRS
Payroll taxes would be easier to manage
My dad spends two full weeks, and hire personal assistants in order to file taxes as it is. Value added tax instead of income tax would be a blessing
or even a less complicated flat income tax rate would be an improvement
Unless basic necessities were exempt, it would hurt the poor more as they spend a far greater percentage of their income on necessities than the rich. It also places a greater burden on small business since they are acting like tax collectors but no greater than it does in states with sales taxes already assuming the taxes are harmonized.
brendu
Apr 26, 02:12 PM
One interesting thing to note. Apple held 25% of recent acquirers with 2 phone models. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. They are also on only 2 carriers, and have only been with Verizon for part of the time leading up to the march survey. Android however is on dozens of handsets and all four US carriers. I would say apple is doing amazingly well when you consider those specifics.
I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
No comments:
Post a Comment