My usual response when someone IMs me asking if I'm free is to give them an estimate (usually 5-15 minutes) of how long I need to complete what I'm working on so that I'm free to talk. A phone ringing unexpectedly is an annoying interruption and listening to a voice mail is a nuisance.
My usual response to an IM when I'm busy is not to see it (notifications will be turned off). If I don't want my phone to ring I put it on silent, or a restricted ring group, checking voicemail when I'm then free isn't exactly a great hardship.
The problem is that there is so many taxes, both direct and indirect, that it just makes more sense to assign a function, assuming it can be assigned, to the worker residing in India.
You cant credibly just claim that taxes are the cause of every issue and expect it to be taken at face value. Do you really think that taxes are the only reason why Disney can save huge amounts by outsourcing from the US to India? Sure a combination of taxes, worker rights etc, combined with much lower living costs in India may justify it, but do you really want to slash the services provided by government and allow American firms to disregard worker safety and rights to the same extent as India, in the likely false hope that it will stop firms moving labour abroad where they can.
I tried being polite but you are not only a fucking idiot but one that wants to throw away what George Washington gave you.
I tend to lose a lot of sympathy for people when, like in this case, someone responds to a reference they don't have personal experience of, by doing a two minute Google/Wikipedia search and then respond like they have actually studied it.
And moreover the global audience is more diverse, and therefore is more open to unusual films than the north-americans.
So. Fucking. What. I don't care if Sub-Saharan Africans are more willing to accept novel supercar designs if they can't afford to buy them. There's a pretty huge open and diverse audience within the US as well, from the Americans I know, but if that isn't where the studio thinks the big money is then they don't focus most of their effort on it.
You must be the soul of the party wherever you go....
Says the person who went off on one because of a single sentence comment on an online forum.
And finnaly world wide public = paying public too, so they are as important (or more) as north-american public. And note that the global audience is much more numerous and diverse than the north-american public.
No they aren't. Film studios care more about markets that make them money (or may in future make them more money), not about markets which have larger populations and which are more diverse.
If a studio can keep 90% of ticket sales of a new release in the US but only gets to keep 50% of the much smaller number of ticket sales for a new release in Hungary then they clearly are going to give less of a toss about the Hungarian market.
Air is free. I've never had to pay anyone to produce it for my respiration.
No it isn't, think of all the legislation that goes into limiting emissions and protecting vegetation in order to improve/maintain air quality. That firewood wouldn't be on public land if their weren't laws protecting the public forest from which the wood came. None of the examples you give are truly 'free' by the definition you seem to want to use: free of cost or consequence to all.
Well no one is forcing him to live in one of the most expensive areas in the world (assuming it actually is). I make less than 15k per year after taxes and I don't really consider myself poor. In the country I'm living in now the average income is about $250 per month or about $3000 USD per year.
You're earning 500% the average income for the country in which you live, no shit you don't consider yourself poor. Your entire point is nonsense, of course you have to consider location when defining what 'poor' is. I don't care that someone earning $5k in another country can live like a king or not, someone earning $5k in the UK is poor.
Your inability to consider what is worth paying people decent money for says a lot more about your ignorance than anything else.
Automobiles have a very limited impact on roads compared to heavy, loaded, tractor trailers.
To give an anecdotal example, the firm I work for probably has ~400 lorries enter and leave site each day. The road outside directly outside, the first T junction, and the roundabout onto the main road all need repair a few times a year. What really highlights the difference is that on the roundabout, the lane used to turn into our site is wrecked but the other lane which our vehicles don't use can go years without needing repair, just because of a couple of hundred ~25T+ vehicles breaking from 60mph to 0-10mph every day.
I.e., the poor who drive older, used cars would be taxed more than the rich who can afford a new car every year.
I'm inclined towards the view that taxing new cars at point of sale based on emissions, instead of part of the road/fuel tax currently levied might be a more effective way to get emissions down without being too harmful to people at the bottom of society using older more inefficient cars because they can't afford to upgrade.
Tracking every mile a car does seems like surrendering a lot of information to the state in return for a very limited benefit.
The flush toilet is the basis of Western civilization. -- Alan Coult
