Are the people of N Korea 'responsible' for Kim Jun Un? No, but they're powerless to do anything about it. The only thing that can stand up to concentrated wealth is a black plague that wipes it out or a strong central gov't. There's a reason we had a 'Dark Ages'

You once again state that I want the super rich to be able to abuse the gov't, ignoring my point that no matter what you or I want their going to, so same to you, my comment stands.

I'd love to live in a magic world of fairy dust and pixy farts where something as powerful as a central gov't doesn't get abused. Instead, I'd rather work around the inevitable abuse. It's kinda like floods. In 4,000 years we might have weather control. We don't have it today, so I'll build levies instead of just prayin' to god to make the water stop.

You seem to have grasped my point about gov't being controlled by people to enrich themselves while being completely oblivious to my point that _you_can_do_that_too? There's enough gov't to go around. Just like there's enough food, shelter and health care to go around. People like you perpetuating the lie that there isn't is what's wrong with the world...

I don't think you can really phase in stuff like this. Letters wouldn't really help. With the internet you already know the site is up. I guess you could put a code in the letter, but then there's the political element. Delays could be used to put the service on hold indefinitely. Plus the codes become yet another piece of infrastructure to fail.

Whether you fail gracefully or not you've still failed. The only difference is a pretty little message instead of a 404. Incremental growth is hard, because you've got so many factors fighting for the status quo that a large change is the only thing that can survive multiple lobbying efforts. If you want health care reform (debatable, but let's assume you do) You've got to strike while the iron's hot and there are people in office with the political will to implement it.

The point you disagree with them on is that society should bend over backwards to accommodate children rather than leaving it up to parents to explain adult things to their kids. If kids don't have decent parents, they have bigger problems than seeing tits.

Therein lies the irony since these are the kids that grow up to be the perverts.

the last one should recognize that he had a _lot_ of help along the way (which he did) and be willing to pay it forward.

In the real world kids from the projects don't make it big. In the real world they're crushed by daily life and their lack of education. Look up the unemployment rate and average income of project kids (especially the ones that speak Ebonics, which sadly makes them more or less unemployable outside of manual labor and fast food). It's not a fun read.

This happens every time a major new internet service is launched. And it _always_ will. See, here's the problem: at launch everyone is interested and wants in. After a few weeks/months the interest dies off and the site hits a BAU point. So if you're designing one of these sites you're stuck either:

a. Spending billions on infrastructure for 3 months tops of high volume and then getting ripped to shreds in the press for 'wasting' all that money. or...

b. Taking your lumps up front and waiting a few months for people to forget about it.

The guys running healthcare.gov opted for 'b.', and I would too. The kinds of people that just want to say bad things about the ACA would have a field day with 'a.', with 'b.' they'll have to acknowledge (or at least ignore) the fact that in a few months it'll be working more or less as intended.

past $9 million a year then no. You're not 'working hard to earn more' any more then. You're riding on someone else's hard (that sounds dirty). Do you seriously think the Chinese billionaire that owns Foxconn 'earned' that? Or to go more extreme how about the southern cotton plantation owners in the 1800s? Yeah, I'm being inflammatory, but the point is still valid.

The people building search engines and inventing cancer drugs top out around $100,000 a year. A few big winners in the dot com bubble stand out, but by and large the habit of giving billions to people that make things has been gotten under control. Kinda like how Atari made it a point of not letting their game makers credit themselves (look up how Activision got it's start).

I'm sorry you had a falling out with your sister, but I don't think pulling her gov't assistance is the answer to her problems. People in her situation don't pull themselves up by their boot straps when that happens. They implode, and usually end up without a home. I'm glad your sister has held onto her house, and I hope she continues to.

I didn't say I support the super rich using the tool of gov't, rather I recognize that it's inevitable. The rich will use their wealth and power to build institutions that protect that wealth and power. We usually call those institutions 'Government'. They're going to do this whether I want them to or not. The only question is can I wrest those institutions from them. Kinda like how the house of commons gradually became more powerful than the house of lords...

Race to the bottom then? You know, the European countries that are doing good are doing so by not allowing themselves to compete head on with slave labor in China...

Apparently, scientists in Japan are extremely concerned that Japanese users of Twitter are frequently reporting spontaneous nosebleeds.

Is it only Twitter causing nosebleeds or are other social media site users presenting similarly?

Despite what your third grade communist fearin' teacher might have told you. After $9 million a _year_ you can't honestly say that the person in question is generating enough raw wealth to be 'worth' it. They're just able to obtain it through a combination manipulation of the political system, military power and indoctrination of the working class. The Koch brothers are a prime example. Their money comes from gov't contracts to run hospitals and gov't granted mineral rights. They add no value to either process. They're just good at manipulating the gov't and the populace to increase their wealth.

The super rich didn't 'earn' their wealth. They the gov't to obtain and maintain it. You can argue they shouldn't be allowed to do this, but you can't stop them from doing it. Their wealth makes them too powerful. To ignore that fact not only plays right into their hands, but it's pointless too. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Gov't is a tool. The rich are going to use it to their advantage. The only question is, are you?

I've known people on gov't assistance. It's a few hundred dollars a month and you have to be making about half the poverty line to get it. If you're sister is on gov't assistance for real then there's something wrong with her. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean there really is something wrong, and she needs the help. You don't get enough from the gov't to live, you get enough so that if your family is giving you a lot of help you can just barely eat.

Is this an astro turfer or something? I'd like to believe noone is this much of a jerk in real life...

you increase the top earner's rates on income over a certain amount. In the 50s and 60s we had the highest growth in real wages and middle class incomes the country (maybe even the species) has ever seen with a 90% top tax bracket. How? Because that 90% wasn't a flat "Give us 90% of your income" it was "90 % over 1 Million" or about $9 million in todays money. So if you made over $9 million dollars in a SINGLE YEAR then you paid 90% of that to the gov't. This kept wealth inequality in check and forced top earners to really work for that money over $9 million. If you wanted to be filthy, stinking rich you really had to work at it (people still did). Meanwhile gov't programs redistributed the wealth. Maybe not evenly, but it's better than phoney job creators hording it and holding up human progress by sitting on their fat rears with all the money in the world...

Nonetheless, the stock price is actually a bit lower than before the 5c/5s announcement.

This is normal. Almost all Apple announcements have been followed by a drop in the stock prices:

• 2001: Introduction of original iPod. AAPL fell 5%
• 2002: Macworld Expo keynote: AAPL fell 4%
• 2003: Macworld Expo keynote: AAPL fell
• 2004: Macworld Expo keynote, introduction of iPod Mini. AAPL fell
• 2005: Macworld Expo keynote: AAPL fell >6%.
• 2008: Macworld Expo keynote, introduction of Macbook Air. AAPL fell >5%.
• 2008: WWDC keynote, introduction of iPhone 3G. AAPL fell 2%
• 2010: Introduction of original iPad. AAPL fell after second day.
• 2010: Introduction of iPhone 4. AAPL fell 3%.

 

stock prices for high-tech companies are not a valid way to measure the company's success in the marketplace

Precisely.