barkomatic
Mar 2, 11:53 AM
According to data on your first chart I'd say that corporate income tax revenues need to increase dramatically. Corporate income taxes only represent 9%(191 billion) of revenue yet individual income tax represents 41% (899 billion). Combine that with all the bailouts the government handed out to the banks and some corporations and I'm guessing the net rate might be close to 0%.
I'm not saying individual taxpayers won't have to sacrifice in order to solve the problem, but I'm not sure why there are those that argue that no matter how many tax breaks corporations get or even government bailouts---that's its always the individual who has to pay.
It's a policy based on greed straight from the richest people and companies in this country.
I'm not saying individual taxpayers won't have to sacrifice in order to solve the problem, but I'm not sure why there are those that argue that no matter how many tax breaks corporations get or even government bailouts---that's its always the individual who has to pay.
It's a policy based on greed straight from the richest people and companies in this country.
Warbrain
Apr 28, 06:09 AM
Agreed, and I think that Android devices finally grew up into a decent alternative many people got tired of waiting and are now under contract with something else. So the available market shrunk as more people got under contract.
Even though the iPhone4 is a great phone, the iPhone 5 is needed soon to energize things. Too many people realize that the iPhone4 is nearing the end of it's life cycle.
This is the issue with a yearly product cycle. People begin to understand when that cycle starts over, avoid new purchases of the product, and even tell their friends and family to not buy right now.
Even though the iPhone4 is a great phone, the iPhone 5 is needed soon to energize things. Too many people realize that the iPhone4 is nearing the end of it's life cycle.
This is the issue with a yearly product cycle. People begin to understand when that cycle starts over, avoid new purchases of the product, and even tell their friends and family to not buy right now.
ftaok
Jul 7, 01:41 PM
I doubt it. microMV is Sony's format and it doesn't look like anyone else is supporting it. So unless Sony decides to support Macs, we won't be using microMV with iMovie.
These are just my opinions. I have no insider info or anything.
These are just my opinions. I have no insider info or anything.
shadowfax
Oct 11, 05:18 PM
that is hilarious. so utilitarian. i am going to get that to save all my photoshop .psds! :D
more...
karlfranz
Nov 29, 01:18 PM
pressuring Apple to reduce the number of devices (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6c6aa286-7f08-11db-b193-0000779e2340.html) movie content from iTunes would be able to play on (namely, iPods).
I still don't understand what the issue is here. I can buy a DVD for almost the same amount and play it on as many devices as I want. The DVD has much better quality than the Apple downloads and has extra bonus features as well.
If I want to get a movie for viewing right away I can always "rent" it for about $4US from my digital cable provider and watch it in my home theatre. Many of them are now even in HD quality.
Oh, and part of the reason movies are now costing so much is for the exhorbitant salaries that certain actors get paid. If you want to cut costs on movie production, there's a good place to start. It's sad that we live in a society where actors, pop/rap stars, sports stars, etc. get paid mega bucks while professions like "school teacher" get paid peanuts.
I still don't understand what the issue is here. I can buy a DVD for almost the same amount and play it on as many devices as I want. The DVD has much better quality than the Apple downloads and has extra bonus features as well.
If I want to get a movie for viewing right away I can always "rent" it for about $4US from my digital cable provider and watch it in my home theatre. Many of them are now even in HD quality.
Oh, and part of the reason movies are now costing so much is for the exhorbitant salaries that certain actors get paid. If you want to cut costs on movie production, there's a good place to start. It's sad that we live in a society where actors, pop/rap stars, sports stars, etc. get paid mega bucks while professions like "school teacher" get paid peanuts.
robbieduncan
Apr 19, 11:37 AM
This is a dangerous thing to ask on the Internet (www.27bslash6.com/p2p2.html).
more...
mizzytheboy
May 5, 05:36 AM
U can use mobile mouse, but it only works with wifi.
mw360
Apr 29, 11:50 AM
Just FYI I bolded out the most specific part. You do realize that there are still phones not capable of setting the time remotely? I still use an old Nokia phone that has no automatic time syncing.
Either you really think it's a trivial implementation to acquire a time-signal over the cell network or you just haven't grasped the concept of the patent.
The patent application has this to say about acquiring a time-signal over an established connection to a CDMA network...
the controller 110 (eg a microprocessor) extracts the system time, as well as various parameters, from the received sync channel message and stores the extracted data
That's it. They make it sound quite trivial don't they? Almost as if that's not the point of this patent.
Either you really think it's a trivial implementation to acquire a time-signal over the cell network or you just haven't grasped the concept of the patent.
The patent application has this to say about acquiring a time-signal over an established connection to a CDMA network...
the controller 110 (eg a microprocessor) extracts the system time, as well as various parameters, from the received sync channel message and stores the extracted data
That's it. They make it sound quite trivial don't they? Almost as if that's not the point of this patent.
more...
SeniorGato1
Apr 28, 07:07 AM
Why buy a 3G iPhone, when there are 4G phones available ?
Thomas Veil
Mar 15, 07:57 PM
Being an Ohioan, I think I can say that in the current environment -- hysterical Republican budget-hacking -- this just might go through.
Which would be ironic, because it'd certainly show the Republicans for the hypocrites they are. Tough on crime -- unless it costs money!
Which would be ironic, because it'd certainly show the Republicans for the hypocrites they are. Tough on crime -- unless it costs money!
more...
TopToffee
Oct 10, 08:01 AM
I'd rather pay and get upgrades than have the developer abandon the app because it isn't profitable to do anymore free updates. What should Loren do when everyone that will buy Tweetie already has it? Develop updates out of the goodness of his heart?
The app store has a problem, and that's the amount of crap and cheapness of that crap. It drives the price of everything down. Factor in that ALL upgrades are free and you have a major problem for devs. You can sell an app once to each user, at next to nothing cost, and that's all you get. Yes, initially it's good when you're selling 100K apps a week but what happens when everyone's bought your app? The app store has a sustainability problem, and it will soon rear it's ugly head.
Compare it to desktop software where even the most basic apps cost $10+ and all upgrades are paid.
I'm quite happy to pay Loren �1.79 every 8-12 months for his work on Tweetie because frankly it's amazing and �1.79 is pretty much nothing.
The problem with most whambulance drivers such as yourself is pretty much the same problem with society at large. You only care about yourself and what you can get for yourself regardless if it's at the expense of others. You have no social responsibility. People's inability to look past their own nose and care about others is really quite pathetic. You don't care if Loren gets paid for his work, or for a sustainable app store. Rather you simply care for how cheaply you can get apps and updates. The self-centredness, the "me me me"-ness of society has become quite a problem IMO.
Hear f'n hear
The app store has a problem, and that's the amount of crap and cheapness of that crap. It drives the price of everything down. Factor in that ALL upgrades are free and you have a major problem for devs. You can sell an app once to each user, at next to nothing cost, and that's all you get. Yes, initially it's good when you're selling 100K apps a week but what happens when everyone's bought your app? The app store has a sustainability problem, and it will soon rear it's ugly head.
Compare it to desktop software where even the most basic apps cost $10+ and all upgrades are paid.
I'm quite happy to pay Loren �1.79 every 8-12 months for his work on Tweetie because frankly it's amazing and �1.79 is pretty much nothing.
The problem with most whambulance drivers such as yourself is pretty much the same problem with society at large. You only care about yourself and what you can get for yourself regardless if it's at the expense of others. You have no social responsibility. People's inability to look past their own nose and care about others is really quite pathetic. You don't care if Loren gets paid for his work, or for a sustainable app store. Rather you simply care for how cheaply you can get apps and updates. The self-centredness, the "me me me"-ness of society has become quite a problem IMO.
Hear f'n hear
glen e
May 2, 07:57 PM
have to swap out my wife's 3g to an I4 tomorrow - do I need her 3G to be here?
thanks
thanks
more...
HikariYuki
Aug 16, 08:08 AM
ive got mine circulating randomly through a few atm, but i think this is my new fave
http://i37.tinypic.com/1trby0.png
That is a very nice wallpaper, care to share :)
http://i37.tinypic.com/1trby0.png
That is a very nice wallpaper, care to share :)
(L)
Apr 30, 10:42 PM
...Apple is rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-purchases-icloud-com-for-4-5-million/) to have purchased the iCloud.com domain name for $4.5 million dollars.
Does this mean whoever randomly happened to have iCloud.com just made 4.5M$? Is there any money to be made by squatting on those? That seems counterintuitive, since if anyone could do it, so could Apple. Or do all domain names that have the form i[noun].com cost a ton of money for that reason?
Does this mean whoever randomly happened to have iCloud.com just made 4.5M$? Is there any money to be made by squatting on those? That seems counterintuitive, since if anyone could do it, so could Apple. Or do all domain names that have the form i[noun].com cost a ton of money for that reason?
more...
PharmDoc
Apr 25, 12:09 AM
How many people here would change their mind if the white one was released with upgraded specs (A5 chip)? I'll probably end up getting one for my wife because she's wanted one since launch.
topocalypse
May 4, 09:56 PM
I'm opening like 7 tabs in Safari (2 of which are youtubes) and others are regular text-based pages. I also open iTunes with music on and MSN messenger. My Spec is below (MacBook Pro). Why is safari runs extremely slow and used up 1GB+ of Ram? I wouldn't have expected 4GB of Ram to run out this quickly.
anyone knows the solutions? thanks :D
anyone knows the solutions? thanks :D
more...
macEfan
Dec 15, 08:31 PM
cool! I like it :)
Kieranic
Sep 10, 03:00 AM
Great!! Thanks very much!!!
No problem! :)
These are actually stills from his Moonwalker movie in 1988 (If you don't know). I have more from various scenes throughout the movie in the same quality/size if you'd like them :)
No problem! :)
These are actually stills from his Moonwalker movie in 1988 (If you don't know). I have more from various scenes throughout the movie in the same quality/size if you'd like them :)
Designer Dale
Apr 10, 04:55 PM
According to the DA page, Corel Painter and Adobe PhotoShop. And a ton of talent.
Dale
Dale
yippy
Mar 19, 11:24 AM
No there is not.
mscriv
Apr 6, 12:49 PM
Worth quoting, given the back-and-forth that's gone on since this was originally posted.
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
slackersonly
Oct 2, 09:13 AM
good idea / bad idea (see animaniacs)
good idea: anything that will allow me to get a mac for work is great.
bad idea: anything that will keep me using the notes interface is anti-great.
good idea: anything that will allow me to get a mac for work is great.
bad idea: anything that will keep me using the notes interface is anti-great.
Feisty49
Mar 30, 08:30 AM
I finally found an answer to this question on an Apple site. Nothing is transparent and it took me a while. The answer is: I didn't have the earphone connection to the unit snapped into place. It was connected but who knew it had to be pushed firmly to snap in. I do now! :p
skunk
Mar 3, 05:31 PM
To level the playing field, you definitely need to raise taxes predominantly on the rich. If the chart 5P showed about the declared percentages earned and paid in taxes is correct, then I would assume without any doubt that the super rich were paying a great deal less, percentage-wise, than any other taxpayer, since they can afford to use expensive tax accountants - the same tax accountants who advise the Revenue, of course - to help them avoid large chunks of tax due. If their true "earnings" were equitably taxed, they would be paying a far larger percentage of total income tax than they do.
No comments:
Post a Comment