Who collects the tax? The location of the buyer, the location of the seller, the shipping warehouse or the server making the transaction (actual point of sale)?
If live in Colorado and order an item from Illinois, where has the sale been made, Colorado or Illinois? I'm sure each state will argue their state is the location of the sale.
What about hosted sales sites? Let's say, I live in Idaho and order an item from a company registered in Maine, but all their internet presence is hosted in Texas. Now which state gets the taxes?
First I'm against an "internet sales tax." The only way I can see this working is for the federal government to create a single "internet sales tax" and divide it evenly among the states involved in the transaction.
I promise I'm not schilling. I use SpiderOak for my hosted files be it backups, shares or syncs. They don't store your password and can't reset it. If you forget your password you're S-O-L. All they can do is hand over an encrypted container that the government will have to crack.
"Zero knowledge" services like this are unlikely to become the norm in the US, because enough people won't understand just how the service works and will try to hold the service provider responsible when the user forgets their password (because they haven't had to type it in in 6 months and didn't have a way to store and access important passwords) and the company says, "Tough luck. We warned you."
1. A PR stunt to appeal to those who don't know much about open source things in general. Now the big tech companies look like they're doing something benevolent and giving to society.
or
2. A place for unsuspecting people to post code or ideas and have them freely adopted by the big tech companies, who will in turn charge you for THEIR enhancements and innovations.
By Monsanto's logic, if some of my patented drink mix unintentionally found it's way into an aquifer, anyone who gets water from that aquifer owes me money if I demand it. Soon enough I'll own the water cycle!
Should the FCC declare ISP services "common carrier?"
I ask this for 2 reasons: 1. Imposes some level of net neutrality 2. AT&T (as one example) is trying to shift as much of it's business as possible to IP based services (U-Verse) because they are unregulated (no minimum service mandates) and "premise techs" (u-verse techs) aren't union in many places and make MUCH less then their AT&T telephone service counterparts.
Was success of the internet up until the early 2000s a kind of de facto net neutrality? e.g. Companies did not have sophisticated enough equipment to control or spy on traffic as they do today, or ISPs were not content providers or vice versa.
Do you think the internet would be as ubiquitous and successful as it is today if the founding protocols and languages were patented or copyrighted and used in a manner we see technology patents being used today?
The end product should no longer be patentable, just the specific design to get to the end. Patents improving/tweaking an existing "invention" in which the end product has not changed should only protect the new, technical design.
Buffalo/bison are the long term answer. They are the natural grazers of the US and Canadian plains. They don't stay in one place to eat all the food and starve since they can't survive in the snow well and they're massive. It's estimated that the pre-columbian bison population was between 30 and 60 million head, while the current us cattle population is just under 100 million. Historic bison ranges don't mesh well with current agribusiness. But, corporate animal farms and McDonald's can't make DESIRED profits being environmentally responsibly. We shouldn't have Asian and European cow breeds/hybrids as significant meat sources in the US. If only we weren't interested in starving the remaining Native Americans and making buffalo rugs and coats in the 1800s, this may be less of a problem.
Who gives a shit? Seriously, this isn't even tech worthy. This would be news if Apple switched to open/standard codecs/protocols to allow interoperability with non Apple devices or they switched to USB 3, or opened the walled garden.
The real issue here is Apple. They don't really want you be be able to do anything easily that doesn't involve a revenue stream outside Apple Inc.; it's too proprietary to be cost effective and sustainable over the long term for schools where money is tight and stubborn administrators are trying hopelessly to compete with wealthier schools. Here's an example: to send video wirelessly you have to buy another Apple product, Apple TV. Technology should use quality, open standards for all interfaces on all hardware, in other words interoperability that can't be blocked by greedy companies, e.g, if you have a networked video projector, there should be nothing extra you need to buy to wirelessly send it video from your ipad. If you, the end user, CHOOSE to use a proprietary codec/protocol, fine, as long as it's a CHOICE. This will force companies to compete on interface, hardware, and pricing, NOT today's golden goose "lock in/walled garden." We need to enrich the lives of our students and the world not the pockets of proprietary technology companies.
By the logic of the UK courts, if someone in the UK posts a pornographic picture of the prophet Muhammad and it's seen on the internet by anyone in a country where that's illegal, that person SHOULD be extradited upon request.
tvshack didn't put his service in the United States, individuals in the US used his service illegally. Once again, watch out gun manufacturers; you'll be responsible for the crimes committed with your guns. What if someone shot up a DVD production facility with a Colt gun and caused loss of revenue for members of the MPAA? It's clearly not the shooter's fault, since Colt firearms made a gun available to them. Treat the gun store as an ISP and you now have to go after Colt.
People avoid using the start menu for 2 maybe 3 reasons.
1. The start menu is full of company branding abuse not organization. e.g. start=>programs=>company name=>software division=>product series=>launch video editor It's not perfect, but Gnome 3's menu is more or less organized by what the software does. e.g. "start"=>video applications=>launch video editor
2. Many programs automatically install icons on the desktop AND quick launch bar; no "need" to use the start menu (insert desktop housekeeping argument here)
3. In IT, many deployed programs are given direct launch access via icons on the desktop or quick launch bar, partly because of reason #1.
SINGLE splash screens could fix problem #1, then software could be grouped by default based on what it does, not who made it; but users could still organize it however they want later.
RIAA Laywer: Excuse me local gun shop owner, you can no longer carry the following guns, as they may be used in a crime... Gun store owner introduces RIAA to his law firm Smith & Wesson, then contacts the NRA and gets this all sorted out.
Software doesn't steal copyrighted content, people steal copyrighted content.
As to cable and all that - gov't creates the barriers to entry by "owning" public assets, such as "public property" and all those taxes that gov't requires to be paid for property create the barriers and support the monopoly power of those already with infrastructure.
Satellite internet is expensive, slow and unreliable in poor weather.
Wireless carriers as ISP are some of the worst about pricing, bandwidth and restrictions e.g. shared internet connection (not via carrier approved hardware)/p2p/...
So who's supposed to control "public property" to the benefit of citizens by opening it up to competitors, space permitting?
There's no market solution to introduce ISP competition when 1 MAYBE 2 ISPs own the physical infrastructure to millions of customers in metro areas. Their only incentive is to leverage their monopoly and charge extra for "permium access" to flavor-of-the-month.com. It's far too difficult/expensive for private business to lay last mile connections. I'm sure the big ISPs will stand in their way first, followed by local governments refusing to let some "upstart" just run cable all over the community when there's already 1 perfectly good ISP, that also gives government buildings free TV. So, where it's not reasonable or feasible for physical connection competition, legislative net neutrality is necessary.
(US-centric) Most average Joe internet connections are allowed to reach a MAXIMUM bandwidth, while commercial accounts can be given MINIMUM bandwidth availability and are charged for their average bandwidth. As long as particular services/sites/protocols aren't selected for or against, I'm comfortable with an "up to" and "at least" bandwidth price modeling. However, if ISPs actually need to throttle my paltry 350KBps at any time as standard network management practice, then they are over selling their network and should legally be held accountable.
If I have a data cap, isn't it in the ISP's best interest to allow me a ton of bandwidth to gobble it up very quickly and start charging overages?
Slashdot Mirror
Who gets the tax? The fed or state(s)?
Who collects the tax? The location of the buyer, the location of the seller, the shipping warehouse or the server making the transaction (actual point of sale)?
If live in Colorado and order an item from Illinois, where has the sale been made, Colorado or Illinois? I'm sure each state will argue their state is the location of the sale.
What about hosted sales sites? Let's say, I live in Idaho and order an item from a company registered in Maine, but all their internet presence is hosted in Texas. Now which state gets the taxes?
First I'm against an "internet sales tax." The only way I can see this working is for the federal government to create a single "internet sales tax" and divide it evenly among the states involved in the transaction.
I promise I'm not schilling. I use SpiderOak for my hosted files be it backups, shares or syncs. They don't store your password and can't reset it. If you forget your password you're S-O-L. All they can do is hand over an encrypted container that the government will have to crack.
"Zero knowledge" services like this are unlikely to become the norm in the US, because enough people won't understand just how the service works and will try to hold the service provider responsible when the user forgets their password (because they haven't had to type it in in 6 months and didn't have a way to store and access important passwords) and the company says, "Tough luck. We warned you."
I wish sci-fi was still nerdy and unpopular.
This is either:
1. A PR stunt to appeal to those who don't know much about open source things in general. Now the big tech companies look like they're doing something benevolent and giving to society.
or
2. A place for unsuspecting people to post code or ideas and have them freely adopted by the big tech companies, who will in turn charge you for THEIR enhancements and innovations.
I, too, can't believe this hasn't been presented in court in a similar manner.
By Monsanto's logic, if some of my patented drink mix unintentionally found it's way into an aquifer, anyone who gets water from that aquifer owes me money if I demand it. Soon enough I'll own the water cycle!
Should the FCC declare ISP services "common carrier?"
I ask this for 2 reasons:
1. Imposes some level of net neutrality
2. AT&T (as one example) is trying to shift as much of it's business as possible to IP based services (U-Verse) because they are unregulated (no minimum service mandates) and "premise techs" (u-verse techs) aren't union in many places and make MUCH less then their AT&T telephone service counterparts.
Was success of the internet up until the early 2000s a kind of de facto net neutrality? e.g. Companies did not have sophisticated enough equipment to control or spy on traffic as they do today, or ISPs were not content providers or vice versa.
Do you think the internet would be as ubiquitous and successful as it is today if the founding protocols and languages were patented or copyrighted and used in a manner we see technology patents being used today?
The end product should no longer be patentable, just the specific design to get to the end. Patents improving/tweaking an existing "invention" in which the end product has not changed should only protect the new, technical design.
They should make sure prior art can be applied as well and make sure "first to file" doesn't come to pass.
Buffalo/bison are the long term answer. They are the natural grazers of the US and Canadian plains. They don't stay in one place to eat all the food and starve since they can't survive in the snow well and they're massive. It's estimated that the pre-columbian bison population was between 30 and 60 million head, while the current us cattle population is just under 100 million. Historic bison ranges don't mesh well with current agribusiness. But, corporate animal farms and McDonald's can't make DESIRED profits being environmentally responsibly. We shouldn't have Asian and European cow breeds/hybrids as significant meat sources in the US. If only we weren't interested in starving the remaining Native Americans and making buffalo rugs and coats in the 1800s, this may be less of a problem.
Who gives a shit? Seriously, this isn't even tech worthy. This would be news if Apple switched to open/standard codecs/protocols to allow interoperability with non Apple devices or they switched to USB 3, or opened the walled garden.
The real issue here is Apple. They don't really want you be be able to do anything easily that doesn't involve a revenue stream outside Apple Inc.; it's too proprietary to be cost effective and sustainable over the long term for schools where money is tight and stubborn administrators are trying hopelessly to compete with wealthier schools. Here's an example: to send video wirelessly you have to buy another Apple product, Apple TV. Technology should use quality, open standards for all interfaces on all hardware, in other words interoperability that can't be blocked by greedy companies, e.g, if you have a networked video projector, there should be nothing extra you need to buy to wirelessly send it video from your ipad. If you, the end user, CHOOSE to use a proprietary codec/protocol, fine, as long as it's a CHOICE. This will force companies to compete on interface, hardware, and pricing, NOT today's golden goose "lock in/walled garden." We need to enrich the lives of our students and the world not the pockets of proprietary technology companies.
Notice there's no creditable defense, that grammar isn't necessary, in privately comprehensible chat drivel.
I think you meant, "For what does it matter?" You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.
Let's eat Grandma!
or
Let's eat, Grandma!
Yes, grammar is still very important.
By the logic of the UK courts, if someone in the UK posts a pornographic picture of the prophet Muhammad and it's seen on the internet by anyone in a country where that's illegal, that person SHOULD be extradited upon request.
tvshack didn't put his service in the United States, individuals in the US used his service illegally. Once again, watch out gun manufacturers; you'll be responsible for the crimes committed with your guns. What if someone shot up a DVD production facility with a Colt gun and caused loss of revenue for members of the MPAA? It's clearly not the shooter's fault, since Colt firearms made a gun available to them. Treat the gun store as an ISP and you now have to go after Colt.
People avoid using the start menu for 2 maybe 3 reasons.
1. The start menu is full of company branding abuse not organization. e.g. start=>programs=>company name=>software division=>product series=>launch video editor
It's not perfect, but Gnome 3's menu is more or less organized by what the software does. e.g. "start"=>video applications=>launch video editor
2. Many programs automatically install icons on the desktop AND quick launch bar; no "need" to use the start menu (insert desktop housekeeping argument here)
3. In IT, many deployed programs are given direct launch access via icons on the desktop or quick launch bar, partly because of reason #1.
SINGLE splash screens could fix problem #1, then software could be grouped by default based on what it does, not who made it; but users could still organize it however they want later.
RIAA Laywer: Excuse me local gun shop owner, you can no longer carry the following guns, as they may be used in a crime... Gun store owner introduces RIAA to his law firm Smith & Wesson, then contacts the NRA and gets this all sorted out.
Software doesn't steal copyrighted content, people steal copyrighted content.
As to cable and all that - gov't creates the barriers to entry by "owning" public assets, such as "public property" and all those taxes that gov't requires to be paid for property create the barriers and support the monopoly power of those already with infrastructure.
Satellite internet is expensive, slow and unreliable in poor weather.
Wireless carriers as ISP are some of the worst about pricing, bandwidth and restrictions e.g. shared internet connection (not via carrier approved hardware)/p2p/...
So who's supposed to control "public property" to the benefit of citizens by opening it up to competitors, space permitting?
There's no market solution to introduce ISP competition when 1 MAYBE 2 ISPs own the physical infrastructure to millions of customers in metro areas. Their only incentive is to leverage their monopoly and charge extra for "permium access" to flavor-of-the-month.com. It's far too difficult/expensive for private business to lay last mile connections. I'm sure the big ISPs will stand in their way first, followed by local governments refusing to let some "upstart" just run cable all over the community when there's already 1 perfectly good ISP, that also gives government buildings free TV. So, where it's not reasonable or feasible for physical connection competition, legislative net neutrality is necessary.
(US-centric) Most average Joe internet connections are allowed to reach a MAXIMUM bandwidth, while commercial accounts can be given MINIMUM bandwidth availability and are charged for their average bandwidth. As long as particular services/sites/protocols aren't selected for or against, I'm comfortable with an "up to" and "at least" bandwidth price modeling. However, if ISPs actually need to throttle my paltry 350KBps at any time as standard network management practice, then they are over selling their network and should legally be held accountable.
If I have a data cap, isn't it in the ISP's best interest to allow me a ton of bandwidth to gobble it up very quickly and start charging overages?
The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are very different, somewhat conflicting personalities.