I agree in principal, but any savings they might gain by having their own department is easily lost by inefficiencies which inevitably creep in any government service, hence things would be run more efficiently if they used a private corporation who actually has to compete with others. just my opinion.

There are lies, damned lies and then statistics as goes the famous adage. The cost of prisoners is actually alot more. In my opinion, the cost of prisoners is actually 8.86$ per hour if not more. How? : Alot of crime is due to poverty, lack of opportunities, allure of "easy" money and what not (this is imperative evidence, i don't have the links to prove it, I am sure others can find them). It can be argued that had they been educated properly to begin with, there would be less prisoners/crime. True there always will be criminals, but if people have a decent way out, they would rather not take the risk of crime. So let us assume that, as kids they cost the state 4.86$ per hour, due to failure of the system, inspite of having gone through the education, they are still costing the state additional 4$ per hours. Hence, there is a compounding effect here. Result is total loss to state. As kids they cost in education, as adults they cost in prisons and other associated costs of crime. If by imparting higher quality education, the expenditure on future prisoners can be reduced, I would be all for it. If by spending say $8 on education, they don't go to prison, we would not be paying the 4$, hence we don't loose much. Infact, they will start businesses, or work somewhere, earning state valuable taxes, hence the net cost to educate them would be actually less then 4$ and might even be profitable over their lifetime. I have made alot of simplifications, but it is simple to illustrate the fallacies of the comparison. Investing in education has alot of by-products, one of which is a healthier society.

who'd have thought?

perhaps, this is what the terrorists want.

Scene 1 : Execute a scenario which forces the president to kill the internet.
Scene 2: Senate is gloating, we killed the internet, long live America.
Scene 3: Little do they know, this was part of the plan.
Scene 4: Alot of services which depend on internet are no longer available. Communications, Applications, Health ... a whole bunch i don't know.

By creating a vaccum of information, rumours fly around, people panic, and we have the case of nervous people who don't know what to do (cause internet always worked - they have never imagined internet did not work).

Chaos .. perhaps ensues. maybe i am just bieng paranoid. Jack Bauer should be able to handle things and 24 hours later, it will be a distant nightmare.

I think you are confusing different forms of taxation.

If you are talking about income taxes, then yes, on average, the poor may pay little, however that can also be debated. There are also consumption taxes. Sales tax, or value added are examples. Poor have no choice but to pay them, and for rich they are peanuts (example of regressive taxation).

Suppose there are 2 people with incomes 100 (poor), rich (10000). poor man buys essentials and assuming sales tax is 15%, he can buy 85$ worth (for argument's sake as actual amount is slightly higher). rich man, buys the same essentials, and pays 15$ in taxes and has disposable income of 9900.

for the rich man, he pay 0.15% based on his income, while poor man pays 15%.

Poor man probably works for someone, hence pays income taxes too. Suppose on average 20%. Hence his real disposable income is 65$ not 85.

Rich man, probably has smart dudes working for him to minimize taxes. His corporations probably give him dividends (15%) or tax havens or double irish dutch sandwich (2-3%).

The way i see it, poor man does get screwed.

Poor may pay little in absolute terms, but compared to what they earn and need to stay alive, it is a significantly higher percentage.

Also, poor probably have to go about things more inefficiently than the rich. Poor have to deal with pay day loans (hefty %), transport (spend 2-3 hours on the bus to commute/shop) whereby a car would be faster. ... and so on.

worst case scenario - there is no change and status quo remains

ideal scenario - it works

If no one tries, there is definitely no change. so I am all for it.

and in time and after constant bickering from his she, he will decide, maybe she should've made the decision.

Alot less emotional cost.

SAP ERP?

true. However, I meant from a user perspective not an implementation perspective. Question is if users had access to this information, how would they modify their behaviour? Would they be willing to pay?

if it is feasible, someone would have done it. I guess it is not, or no one had the idea/vision for it.

if it is that friendly, then people would rather wait and not call unless it really was an emergency. friendly for folks and not so for the corporations. probably an excellent idea for an app.

so if the 75% stop tweeting, the 25% will become 100% :). Unless, 75% were following the 25% and if no one is following 25%, then why will they bother? will twitter die then?