Simply increasing your prices by 10% does not constitute a loan or debt, it's not covered by usury laws. Nor is providing a discount for paying early, since that isn't interest, it isn't charged every month.

Now, 6% per month late fee, I guess that would depend on whether the jurisdiction's usury law covered an involuntary loan (you've forced your vendor to extend you credit without an agreement to do so).

Aren't there credit reporting agencies for corporations? Isn't there a way this guy could damage the credit of the deadbeats?

That would address most of the problems I have, except for the lack of accessories.

There's one other reason I want to get an iOS device. There's an app called Coaster that's made for iOS and Android. However, the app developer blocked it from Android tablet devices. I don't have a smartphone, just a tablet with data. The app will work on an iPad Mini, but even after I tried to hack my tablet to run smartphone-only software, it refused to install. I tried contacting the developer to no avail. So yes, apps are important.

I've got an Android tablet on T-mobile (Galaxy Tab 7 Plus). I've had it for about a year now. Before that I had the Droid Triumph, the Droid, and the G1. For all of these except the G1, I've had to find custom firmware. The pre-installed, unremovable shovelware is annoying, but the lack of updates is unacceptable. The iPhone 3GS was released 3.5 years ago and will run iOS 6, no waiting for the carrier to release the update.

Even with Samsung, supposedly a good Android manufacturer, my device hasn't received any major update since its release in August 2011. If I didn't root and update the device I would be stuck with an OS from July 2011. Even the custom firmware (derivative of CM, which doesn't officially support my device) has its issues, including Wifi problems.

Then there's the lack of accessories, I got a 7" tablet because I thought the larger screen would make for a better GPS device in my car. My tablet was advertised along side a "navigation dock" for this purpose. The dock was never released. It also won't charge off a computer's USB, unless the tablet is off. This applies even if you pay extra for their special "charge and sync" cable which Samsung claims will allow the device to charge while tethered (sharing the data connection) with your laptop.

As soon as Google Maps for iOS 6 comes out, I'm switching to an iPad Mini. Looks like the AT&T version should work fine on T-mobile. I really liked Android, but it's far too rough around the edges for its maturity.

You're against T-mo getting more spectrum so they can improve coverage? Why?

Or like in California, where we vote to increase business, sales, and income taxes via propositions to balance the budget.

It's not like CA gets a choice in how much the federal gov sucks from us. The comparison is based on federal income taxes paid by residents vs. federal spending in the state (including grants to state and local government, and in CA's case, federal spending on investigators/police attempting to enforce federal law against businesses which are legal under state law). Federal spending also includes spending on military bases and defense contracts.

As for the budget problems, Sacramento is working on it. I certainly wouldn't call CA a "failed state". We have businesses, including thriving startups. We also have public transit and an much more democratic process than the big states back east.

Your information is laughably out of date

Gold clauses were reinstated in 1977, some 35 years ago (at least in the U.S., perhaps there's another country out there that barred gold clauses). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_clause

In any case, a currency's value comes from acceptance and trust in future acceptance, by both merchants and the government. Individuals rely on the government to ensure that the currency does not become worthless. This doesn't always work. When the U.S. dollar was backed by gold, it did vary in value, sometimes in "shocks" that would cause the value to change drastically in a matter of weeks. What's the point of tying currency to a metal when the value actually comes from the ability to trade the currency?

Metals change in value, fiat currency changes in value, everything changes in value. It's preferable to keep currency somewhat stable in value (avoid rapid changes) so that wages and prices don't have to be adjusted every week. Long term, changes in the value will happen no matter what the currency is based on, and that really only affects debt. Lenders have to take inflation into account when calculating interest. If you're worried about your savings getting inflated away, buy a productive asset. If you really think a hunk of metal will have a good value in the future, you can even buy that. Personally, I think it's more likely a business will continue to have value in the future. For instance, a profitable brewery (a business that can command a premium on its work-product) is likely to hold its value well, so buy an interest in the brewery. If you're worried about one particular brewery losing value, spread your risk by buying interests in many breweries. If you're worried the whole industry will lose value, buy interest in many industries.

Money's primary usefulness is short-term, a medium of exchange. That's the aspect of it that needs to be preserved, not its ability to hold long-term value.

San Jose, CA has a private water company. The rates are high, the quality is low, and the rates will get much higher as they now need to replace aging, ill-maintained infrastructure and have no financial reserves to pay for it.

Meanwhile, San Francisco's water is considerably better (some of the best water you can get in fact) and considerably cheaper. Of course, we just had to shoot down some conservationists who wanted to get rid of our water supply, but that's over now.

As for choosing your neighborhood, city, etc. There are plenty of places in the U.S. that work like this. Take homeowner's associations, where everything from the color of your house to your choice of video provider will be regulated (all in the name of real estate values, i.e. maintaining wealth). Or how about apartment complexes? Ever look at the lease of a corporate-owned complex (individually owned aren't much better). I've seen several from both NY and CA, they'll claim everything under the sun, legal or not.

While there are plenty of examples of the federal government abusing its control over taxpayer's money, there are also plenty of cases where it has granted broad rights and freedoms, something you likely wouldn't see if it came down to a small group of people. I think many areas of the U.S. would happily regulate speech, drop due process and generally eviscerate the bill of rights given the chance. What preserves it is tradition and a few densely populated areas, which would likely maintain those rights internally whether the U.S. existed or not.

I say the federal abuses of control over taxpayer's money with specific examples of abstinence-only education and the federal drinking age, there are many others. The feds should probably be barred from giving money to the states in general, as the states can implement an income tax just as well as the feds can. We might have to still provide 'block grants' to impoverished states which are dependent on money from wealthier states, but that shouldn't require such specific control over their laws as the feds have today.

How in the hell does Google Voice compete with Siri? Google Voice is a call management application with SMS functionality. The only possible overlap is the voicemail transcription feature, which isn't capable of interpreting voice in realtime and doesn't perform any kind of query. It was actually rejected for a while, though I think Apple eventually approved it.

Simple economics, using a card essentially gets the cardholder a discount. I get about 3.5% on purchases that aren't subject to any special deals or 'categories'. Using cash actually incurs fees, either find your particular bank's ATM, pay a fee, or switch to another bank. Besides that, after paying with cash you're left with heavy, noisy, coins. Sure, on the few occasions I'm forced to pay cash that change goes to the nearest tip jar, but that means I'm paying an even higher penalty for using cash. I'm not going to stand there at the counter counting out pennies to pay for my next purchase, when I could swipe a card and let the next person order.

That's not even including the other benefits, I can pull up my credit card statements and find out how much I paid for something last year, or total up how much I'm spending on food each month. Plus, if my wallet is stolen the cash is gone, but I'm not responsible for charges on my card.

Also, Visa/MC don't get 2-3%, their cut is much smaller than that. Most of the fees go to the issuing bank (i.e. for my Chase card, the money goes to Chase). For rewards cards, the issuing bank is returning almost all of that to me. Sure, earning a tiny amount (measured in hundredths of a percent) on each transaction does make Visa/MC very wealthy, but ATM networks make lots of money, too. So do armored car operators (for moving cash from businesses to banks, or from bigger banks to smaller banks).

A law isn't required for that. They could check the referer and if it's google, show something like "sorry, Google doesn't pay us, so you can't see this article". Then they go to Google and demand money. Google will laugh them out the door, but Google would do the same thing if the law was passed: de-list the news site and forget about them.

There's an existing technical solution, no need for a legal one. If these sites want to block clicks that don't include payment they can.

I think a significant part of the reason for creating male contraceptive is to make sure that pregnancy is avoided unless both parties want it, not just the female.

I have the Galaxy Tab 7 Plus with T-mo's "4G". Reading books works pretty well, the 7 inch size is good for portability, and it has access to Google Play, Kindle and Nook stores. (I've found Google Play has the best reader, it's unfortunate they haven't come up with a good ecosystem of third party apps). It's also good at news, PDFs, blogs, etc. Most ebook apps will put the UI into a hidden mode where you won't be distracted by notifications or the clock.

Biggest problem with the Galaxy Tab is it has a tendency to crash, and I had to send it in for repair (which took about 3 weeks) because the wifi stopped working. It turned out all it needed was firmware upgrade, something Samsung could have just told me...

If Apple comes out with an ~7" iPad I'll be buying that, my Galaxy Tab fits in my pocket.

Overall I'd say a tablet is better than an e-reader. Especially with mobile data, you can always find more books while you're on the road.

I grew up in a suburb and live in one for 5 years of my working life, and as others have said, it means driving anywhere you want to go, and you still miss out on a lot of night life and culture. Sure, S.F. has homeless (so does San Jose for that matter) but I've never really felt unsafe in SF. San Francisco has a feeling of life to it, start walking around a suburb and people will look at you like you're nuts. Many don't even have sidewalks, it feels far more like you're expected to stay in your box. Much more closed off from humanity.

Now sure, if you live in a suburb and you have friends there it may be less obvious and there are those who would rather have more control over who they interact with. I'm a geek and I get that, but I prefer the city. Downtown San Jose is at least a bit more citylike. There are people around, and you can find little shops and restaurants (higher population density and people who would prefer to walk to a nearby store rather than drive to a big box store helps), but SF is a real city, there are relatively few in the U.S.

At least you're not driving, on public transit you get to read while someone else does the driving. I moved to San Jose six months ago and I explicitly picked a location where I could take the Light Rail to work, most of my coworkers drive and live nowhere near transit along the peninsula. I plan to move to SF (along with all the other "young talent") where it might take a bit longer to get to work, but you can go around the whole city without a car, instead of just certain areas. (I do have a car, I just hate driving).

Of course, the real reason to move is that even San Jose, with a larger population than S.F., feels like a suburb compared to City.