You really couldn't tell the difference between two washing machines from 10 feet away? Or two different midsized sedans? Or even two non-smart phones? I couldn't tell the brand name of each one, but I could easily say "the left one has bigger buttons" or "the right one is a lighter color and has different headlights".
Now, assume that rather than being shown two random products, you were shown the products for which you were being paid HUNDREDS of dollars an hour to prove in court were dissimilar. So dissimilar that a random shopper would not confuse them for one another.
There are a lot of things about this case I don't like, but yeah, Samsung was asking for it on the design trademarks. And they need better lawyers.
If the tax were lower many companies would find it cheaper/more convenient to pay the tax rather than go the the trouble to avoid it.
How do you figure? Google saved $1B by doing this. If we cut corporate taxes by 90%, Google would only have saved $100M. Are you arguing that Google wouldn't do this loophole to save only $100M? Or even $10M?
"We'd pay if only the taxes we lower" is a variant of blame-the-victim, and makes exactly as much sense as "I wouldn't hit you if only you didn't talk back to me."
One of them seems to sell your information to the highest bidder, regularly changes defaults to allow more sharing, and has many "partners" which grab your data and share if further.
The other one collects information and uses it to show you advertisements, but doesn't seem to do anything else with it, and actively goes after people exploiting loopholes. And also gives an incredible amount of support to open-source projects. And provides many free services which are often superior to "pay" alternatives.
The fact that people continually group the two in the same category shows that it doesn't matter how "well" a corporation behaves, people will still manufacture reasons to hate them. So your attitude encourages corporations to misbehave. Bravo.
Besides, Google is regularly investigated by both governments and by competitors via lawsuits (mostly SEO firms who are sad that Google closed their loopholes.) So in addition to being counter-productive, you are also incorrect.:-)
Not so many years ago, in many parts of the southern USA, if a crime was committed and it was obvious that the government wasn't bringing anyone to justice fast enough, citizens would take things into their own hands. They'd lynch the person that everyone *knew* was guilty (who, for some reason, usually had dark skin), then pat themselves on the back for being such good citizens.
It's common that during disasters, citizens take things into their own hands by looting anything that they may need or want, hoarding it rather than sharing it with their neighbors in need.
I'm a great fan of self-sufficient citizens, don't get me wrong. But one of the things I fear more than the government is my fellow citizens happily defining "the right thing" using their prejudices and religions. I think that the government should have a strong role in the aftermath of a disaster.
Excellent point. The only thing which could improve it is if it were true.
Factcheck.org says "limiting malpractice liability would reduce total national health care spending by about one-half of 1 percent". As always they list all of their sources so you can check them yourself if needed.
I'm a big fan of reducing health care costs, but the only way to do that is to start with facts. Hint: Whoever you heard say "tort law is a big part of healthcare costs" is either misinformed or being deceptive; either way I'd treat anything else he/she says with a grain of salt from now on.
Excellent point. We'll need more research to determine if the same conditions which make a good fracking site also cause a site to have contaminated groundwater, or if all of the fracking sites were unluckily placed on sites which had bad groundwater. This assumes that the stories of groundwater turning bad shortly after fracking starts in the area turn out to be malicious or mass hallucinations.
In all seriousness, I think we agree that more research is needed. This study agrees with some anecdotal evidence, but the results need to be replicated before they should inform policy.
Much like movies are a perceptual trick that gives our brains all the clues that we are viewing a moving image by flashing a bunch of still pictures at us quickly? 2D movies look kinda like a 3D window except that it's all clearly at a fixed distance on a flat white screen. A lot of people had problems with movies when they first came out, and some people are still bothered by the 24 or 30 frames/sec, but nowadays our minds have adapted to it since we're bombarded by them from birth.
3D movies may not take over the world, but it won't be because they're cheap tricks and it won't be because people cannot adapt. It will be because we cannot get useful 3D for multiple people without glasses yet. Once that's fixed, I expect 2D movies to eventually be as common as black-and-white pictures and movies today. It won't make all movies better just like color doesn't automatically make movies better, but it's another tool a skilled filmmaker can use.
When you decouple the software from the hardware maker (like Android), you automatically create incentives for the manufacturer to NOT spend any time improving the software:
It's not like hardware makers spent any time improving their software before Android. Palm released a few desultory updates in the past for various devices, and I've had a few firmware updates to fix major bugs, but that's it. Amost nobody (except for Apple) releases software updates for devices which add new functionality.
In an ideal world people would consider the upgradeability of hardware when they buy it, but they don't. Until they do, there's no incentive to improve the software.
So, your theory is that Glen's rants are based on "true access to information"? *snicker*
When the Obama government talks to MSNBC it means that MSNBC is a shill who should be distrusted. When the Bush government made Fox the primary news outlet, though, it just proved that the other "Liberal Media" couldn't be trusted. Right?
I find that the older and (somewhat) richer I've become, the more liberal I've become. It's the difference between "self-interest" and "enlightened self-interest". I don't want more money, I want a stable world to live in.
Yeah, I feel really bad for those slave doctors in Europe where health care is considered a right. Chained to their operating tables, barely making enough to feed their families...
In fact, even in the US, emergency rooms must provide health care to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Yes, that's right, the US considers emergency health care a right!
I suggest you move to a capitalist paradise like Somalia, where you'll never have the government trying to take your hard-earned money to help your fellow citizens. And perhaps you shouldn't use words like "slavery" without knowing what they mean.
Also note that I could have anything stolen that was worth $5000 and the best that I'd get out of the cops is a sympathetic look and some advice to check with my insurance.
But if the thief stole a $5000 TV from you, and then publicly posted on Facebook "I'm loving this new TV I stole from Mr Pitchpipe at 500 Main Street", then you may get a bit more action from the cops.
Slashdot Mirror
You really couldn't tell the difference between two washing machines from 10 feet away? Or two different midsized sedans? Or even two non-smart phones? I couldn't tell the brand name of each one, but I could easily say "the left one has bigger buttons" or "the right one is a lighter color and has different headlights".
Now, assume that rather than being shown two random products, you were shown the products for which you were being paid HUNDREDS of dollars an hour to prove in court were dissimilar. So dissimilar that a random shopper would not confuse them for one another.
There are a lot of things about this case I don't like, but yeah, Samsung was asking for it on the design trademarks. And they need better lawyers.
If the tax were lower many companies would find it cheaper/more convenient to pay the tax rather than go the the trouble to avoid it.
How do you figure? Google saved $1B by doing this. If we cut corporate taxes by 90%, Google would only have saved $100M. Are you arguing that Google wouldn't do this loophole to save only $100M? Or even $10M?
"We'd pay if only the taxes we lower" is a variant of blame-the-victim, and makes exactly as much sense as "I wouldn't hit you if only you didn't talk back to me."
One of them seems to sell your information to the highest bidder, regularly changes defaults to allow more sharing, and has many "partners" which grab your data and share if further.
The other one collects information and uses it to show you advertisements, but doesn't seem to do anything else with it, and actively goes after people exploiting loopholes. And also gives an incredible amount of support to open-source projects. And provides many free services which are often superior to "pay" alternatives.
The fact that people continually group the two in the same category shows that it doesn't matter how "well" a corporation behaves, people will still manufacture reasons to hate them. So your attitude encourages corporations to misbehave. Bravo.
Besides, Google is regularly investigated by both governments and by competitors via lawsuits (mostly SEO firms who are sad that Google closed their loopholes.) So in addition to being counter-productive, you are also incorrect. :-)
Not so many years ago, in many parts of the southern USA, if a crime was committed and it was obvious that the government wasn't bringing anyone to justice fast enough, citizens would take things into their own hands. They'd lynch the person that everyone *knew* was guilty (who, for some reason, usually had dark skin), then pat themselves on the back for being such good citizens.
It's common that during disasters, citizens take things into their own hands by looting anything that they may need or want, hoarding it rather than sharing it with their neighbors in need.
I'm a great fan of self-sufficient citizens, don't get me wrong. But one of the things I fear more than the government is my fellow citizens happily defining "the right thing" using their prejudices and religions. I think that the government should have a strong role in the aftermath of a disaster.
Excellent point. The only thing which could improve it is if it were true.
Factcheck.org says "limiting malpractice liability would reduce total national health care spending by about one-half of 1 percent". As always they list all of their sources so you can check them yourself if needed.
I'm a big fan of reducing health care costs, but the only way to do that is to start with facts. Hint: Whoever you heard say "tort law is a big part of healthcare costs" is either misinformed or being deceptive; either way I'd treat anything else he/she says with a grain of salt from now on.
This is just another news item for the tabloids.
Sad that the WSJ has fallen from far-right-but-respectable to tabloid so quickly.
Without conservation efforts, power costs wouldn't be excessively high? That seems optimistic.
Excellent point. We'll need more research to determine if the same conditions which make a good fracking site also cause a site to have contaminated groundwater, or if all of the fracking sites were unluckily placed on sites which had bad groundwater. This assumes that the stories of groundwater turning bad shortly after fracking starts in the area turn out to be malicious or mass hallucinations.
In all seriousness, I think we agree that more research is needed. This study agrees with some anecdotal evidence, but the results need to be replicated before they should inform policy.
Quick, solve the cognitive dissonance!
1) Fracking is safe and does not contaminate ground water. We know this, because it is True.
2) But a scientific study has shown that wells near fracking sites produce fouled water.
SOLUTION: Fracking is safe, except when you're doing it wrong.
Much like movies are a perceptual trick that gives our brains all the clues that we are viewing a moving image by flashing a bunch of still pictures at us quickly? 2D movies look kinda like a 3D window except that it's all clearly at a fixed distance on a flat white screen. A lot of people had problems with movies when they first came out, and some people are still bothered by the 24 or 30 frames/sec, but nowadays our minds have adapted to it since we're bombarded by them from birth.
3D movies may not take over the world, but it won't be because they're cheap tricks and it won't be because people cannot adapt. It will be because we cannot get useful 3D for multiple people without glasses yet. Once that's fixed, I expect 2D movies to eventually be as common as black-and-white pictures and movies today. It won't make all movies better just like color doesn't automatically make movies better, but it's another tool a skilled filmmaker can use.
Kevin
It's not like hardware makers spent any time improving their software before Android. Palm released a few desultory updates in the past for various devices, and I've had a few firmware updates to fix major bugs, but that's it. Amost nobody (except for Apple) releases software updates for devices which add new functionality.
In an ideal world people would consider the upgradeability of hardware when they buy it, but they don't. Until they do, there's no incentive to improve the software.
So, your theory is that Glen's rants are based on "true access to information"? *snicker*
When the Obama government talks to MSNBC it means that MSNBC is a shill who should be distrusted. When the Bush government made Fox the primary news outlet, though, it just proved that the other "Liberal Media" couldn't be trusted. Right?
I find that the older and (somewhat) richer I've become, the more liberal I've become. It's the difference between "self-interest" and "enlightened self-interest". I don't want more money, I want a stable world to live in.
Yeah, I feel really bad for those slave doctors in Europe where health care is considered a right. Chained to their operating tables, barely making enough to feed their families...
In fact, even in the US, emergency rooms must provide health care to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Yes, that's right, the US considers emergency health care a right!
I suggest you move to a capitalist paradise like Somalia, where you'll never have the government trying to take your hard-earned money to help your fellow citizens. And perhaps you shouldn't use words like "slavery" without knowing what they mean.
Also note that I could have anything stolen that was worth $5000 and the best that I'd get out of the cops is a sympathetic look and some advice to check with my insurance.
But if the thief stole a $5000 TV from you, and then publicly posted on Facebook "I'm loving this new TV I stole from Mr Pitchpipe at 500 Main Street", then you may get a bit more action from the cops.