Given that the ruling seems to violate several international agreements on copyright, I wonder how long it will last.
I also don't get the common sense aspect of it. If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business? Well, they'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying. DRM plus a million. Because they would have to.
If you justify copyright infringment based on "information wants to be free", then expect people to try their damnedest to change what their information wants to be.
At some level, in some sense, sure. Typing it into an IDE makes a machine do math. But so does typing a novel in Word. Yet few people would argue that writing a novel is a mathematical exercise, even if one uses a computer.
And yes, there is a compiler, but there are similar transformations to print the pages out. The end product in one case is binary code, interpertable by a machine to produce desired behavior (the machine will then use math). In the other case, the end product is text, interpertable by a human brain to produce the desired thoughts. This may use math as well.
There is no such thing as non-mathematical software.
Math is in everything at some level, the only interest is if the math is what is interesting.
Taking math out of software is sort of akin to taking carbon out of food.
Few people would contend that a chef's recipe is chemistry, despite the building blocks requiring some chemicals. (Okay, on slashdot, more people than normal may.)
And what Rumsfeld said about "known unknowns" was logical (albeit paraphrased in a place where the original quote would have been better.)
And Al Gore didn't claim to have "invented" the internet; he said he "took the initative in creating the internet", which given how you would expect a Congreeman to take initative (recognizing a good program, giving it attention and money) is true.
And Sarah Palin's speech was actually coherent, not beautiful but coherent, if you read it.
And Quayle's spelling of potato isn't the most common, but is technically a valid alternative. (Although the potato incident was dumb for other reasons.)
People who you dislike rarely say the dumb things you think they did, as you'll address a quote out of context (or misrepresentation of that quote) from someone you like, but not from someone you don't. You're more than happy to assume people you don't like are retarded.
There are three other things, two of which I've had done for ATM cards.
First, based on the how voicemail works, you need a PIN only when calling from a different number. This feature could be off by default, and require you to call in and activate it. This is based on the way computers allow remote users (off by default).
When you acquire a phone, it could force you to type a PIN into a pad (taken from how some ATM card distributors work).
Lastly, mail a randomly selected PIN to a customer.
Those are only the books. When we give the weight of a hard drive, it's not just the platters'. What about the building itself, librarians, shelves, etc.
And even if you constrain it to information, you neglected the weight of the card-catalog, the FAT of real life.
Not entirely perfect, because you can still crash the car or commit some traffic violation with it or do anything else with it that hurts the original owner.
I could also add rootkits into a Windows 7 torrent, hurting Microsoft's reputation for security (please leave dumb flames at home; You can use OS X Snow Leopard and Apple instead). It harms the original owners of their ability to have a homogenous and more secure operating system market, which seems far worse (even correcting for their size and asset base as compared to yours) to a purely cosmetic scratch on your bumper (for instance).
Or imagine if Sony CDs were completely fine, but all the Somy CDs that I created and used their logo on contained rootkits? They lost at least some sales as part of the boycott that ensued.
,Only if I can use the car while you're using it and still neither of us has trouble finding a parking space despite the other one already using it.
I already posited that I would have it back before you needed it, so you would have no need to use it while I'm using it. And the parking space problem likewise resolves itself.
Please leave the key in the door, and reply with your address and schedule. Thanks!
The car analogy doesn't work unless when I download Big Robots Part 8, someone going to see the movie gets turned away. "Sorry, Goldberg's Pants pirated this film so you can't see it."
So you're fine with me using your car without your permission as long as I replace the gas/fluids I use and get it back before you wake up?
After all, that's what you're asserting is the correct analog to copyright violation and you seem to assert it is acceptable.
Seriously? Imagine you could search Google for something like "sushi restaurant near me", let Google access your location information (once or every time), and get a list of nearby restaurants.
I know where the sushi resturants are near me. When I travel, I'm almost always around a native. And when I'm not I can use a map, electronic or otherwise, with locations marked on it.
Location services are shaping up to be the killer app for mobile computing.
Then it's a good thing a computer-only browser implements this feature...
I would want Google/etc. to know where I am even less than where my home is.
It's not. When you choose "share" or "don't share" the prompt goes away. It's exactly like the "remember this site's username and password?" prompt.
Okay, either it eats up more space or I have to conciously get rid of it. I have the same issue with the "remember" interface, although that only appears rarely and I can ignore it until I move to the next page.
Honestly, what does any other random program do when you make a dumb choice? Whatever you asked it to do.
This is why I try to minimize the number of dumb options I have presented to me. I make mistakes, and I'd just as soon minimize the points of failure.
Re:Twitter is actually pretty handy.
on
The Twitter Book
·
· Score: 1
Think about it: Everybody asks each other how they're doing. It's even customary business etiquette; even if the two parties could care less how they're doing, they ask each other anyway to relieve tension and make small talk. Sometimes, it remains just that, but there are other, much rarer, times where someone's day actually is quite interesting.
The reason you ask in a business setting is to make small talk, contacts, etc. It's not the response but the subtext that's important. Twitter strips the subtext and leaves only the boring minuta.
Using it to find parties is almost interesting... it's the only reason I log onto facebook. But it pisses me off that what used to be acceptable (email a few people, have a private bulletin board on my own server for people to RSVP and chat) now needs to be done through some third party.
A Firefox prompt opened at the top of the window: "${site} wants to know your location: Share Location, Don't Share" with a checkbox to remember the settings for that site. Go ahead and explain how you could possibly be offended by that.
Why would I ever want to share my location? Why would I want part of my window eaten up by an option I don't like? What happens when I click the wrong one at 5am cause I'm tired?
A low-tech approach in collecting the tax could amount to an annual reading of each vehicles odometer. A high-tech approach would involve equipping cars and trucks with GPS devices and computers.
The commission favors the higher-tech approach, in part, because far more can be done with it. For example, it could be tailored to help reduce traffic congestion by charging different rates throughout the day. A Brookings Institution study estimated that peak travel could be reduced up to 20 percent if the tax made it cheaper to travel outside of rush hour.
And the bonus "the police need to know what cars were near [crime-scene] at [time around which crime was committed].
Roads should be paid for by a tax on fuel, the more you drive and use the roads the more you pay
The problem with that is at the edge of juristictions. For instance, a more sparesly populated area can have a lower fuel tax, profiting from people who cross the border and only use the roads enought to fill up, and then leave. Or tourist destinations where they fill up on the way there and back.
Also, roads don't merely benefit drivers. I know someone who walks everywhere. He cackles with glee when the price of gas goes up; of course his grocery bills et al get larger when that happens.
The last thing I would mention is that roads are only one benefit to a driver. An excellent public transit system should be supported by those who use the roads. After all, I have to get around. Subsidize my using public transit, and there will be less traffic. Do it a million-times over (with economies of scale!) and you get a real bang for your buck. (This idea only applies in areas with traffic problems.)
Schools, and fire and police, should be paid for with property taxes.
I tend to think schools should be paid for with income taxes. But I don't know what difference ad valorum vs. income taxes make. With police protection, you again get the freeloaders who benefit without paying.
Why shouldn't the relatively rich (property owners) carry a larger burden of keeping the civilization running than the relatively poor (non property owners)?
First, non-property owners pay property taxes... they are built into their rent.
Second, I was commenting on people crossing artificial territorial boundaries and freeloading... someone who works and parties in Manahatten and takes a train to New Jersey every night for instance. Those people should really contribute to the things that property tax owners do. It doesn't really have to do with rich v. poor, but commuter/tourist v. resident.
Third, if you really want the rich to pay relatively more (and I think they should), then an income or asset tax seems best. The only issue is the various citys/counties/states all do that inependently. There needs to be some federal oversight of this process.
So, just to keep track of the conversation: Your position is no longer that the tax-break is good, or well done. It's just a pragmatic "best possible case"?
I would say that's the best reason to eliminate it. It implies that the current situtation is a local maximum for benefit. If we destroy it, we can get to a new, higher, local maximum.
What if I live in Alaska (no state sales tax) and I buy a gift to ship to my cousin in California (highest state tax)--will I have to pay California sales tax on that item?
I think you should. If you were to purchase an item for him in California, you would. If you get it shipped to you and reship it, the equivalent of buying it in Alaska and shipping it yourself, you wouldn't.
The net effect is the customer has to pay the sales tax twice because I acted as an agent for him to order an item from out of state. Is that fair?
That situation already exist; CostCo populates small shops' inventories already, or a local Coca-Cola bottling plant ships sodas to convience stores. And the solution already exists (IIRC), the company can get back the sales tax it paid when it resells an item.
There is also the nasty issue of the borders between a heavily populated and more sparsely populated city/country/state. The sparsely populated area will lower it's fuel tax, and make a good profit on all the people close to the border who only use it's roads to fill up at the on-the-border gas stations. This causes a free-loader problem in the heavily populated area (and any tourist destinations) with regard to the roads.
I'd also say that fuel taxes should heavily subsidize public transit. After all, the people who have less traffic to deal with definitely benefit from reliable public transit.
Property taxes should pay for schools, fire, parks, and police.
I don't know why property taxes should pay for any of those, as opposed to say, an income tax. Again, people who don't own property in a city but commute there for jobs/shopping/nightlife act as freeloaders, profiting off the largess of condo dwellers.
I heard a simple saying not too long ago: "if you want less of something, tax it".
Well, that saying is stating that if you increase the cost of something, less will be purchased. Rediscovering supply and demand are we? And just because it may be beneficial to the idea of health insurance (it's not, see below), that doesn't justify why the government should necessarily subsidize it. I want a tax-break for a jetski, which will encourage me to invest in waterfront properties, driving up their value, and thus taxes, allowing me to borrow against the higher value my lake house just realized and finally have the capital to start that business of my own, spawning a new 40 billion a year company.
See how easy it is to imagine potential benefits?
You then explain why the government wants people to have health care. Why then not simply make all health-care tax deductible? Why only employer-provided health care? It provides an incentive to only corporate cogs to be healthy? Health insurance is tied to an employer, making it harder to go into business for yourself... not only do you not get your health care subsidized by the government, and not only do you not get a volume discount, but you'll be rejected if you have a preexisting condition.
Why not have the federal government offer an optional free "socialized" program. You get a lot o the benefits of your scheme, with the ability of people who are unemployeed and who are at a small business/self-employeed to benefit as well.
Now you expect companies like Amazon to keep up with every nuance of every tax code on every good on every day of the year in every division in every city in every state? And to keep up on when the rate goes from 7% to 7.25%? And to cut checks to every single one of these tax authorities?
Yeah. Target can do it from a central location. So can WalMart. Why is Amazon the only big company that sells to me that cannot do this?
I'd imagine either Target et al already subscribe to a central clearinghouse company, or that small fry would and Amazon would roll it's own. As for liability, well, payroll services operate just fine.
And the complexity is moderate, not too bad. The type of day is statewide, the type of goods seem fairly standard in every state I've been in, and the different tax rates are all easily seen on a map. So, every year, a new map of geographic location/X way good rates is inputted. Doesn't seem so hard to me. Hell, the various governments would be happy to supply their data to a queryable central federal database if the feds would lead on this issue.
I think the problem is that when I, an Oregon resident (no sales tax) purchase something from an amazon affiliate in RI. Why should I or Amazon be required to pay sales tax to state when I have zero use for that state's publicly funded infrastructure.
I agree with the problem (although for different reasons... I would say because no sale occured in RI. Obviously no one objects to the affiliate paying income tax).
However, I was replying to an anti-"tax on internet sales, period" thread. So please understand my comment in that light.
And you can't talk about wear on the roads or use of digital infrastructure because that is paid for by shipping charges and isp charges respectively.
Sales tax is not to defray infrastructure costs associated with the seller. It's to defray what the infrastructure the reciever uses, often in non-sales venues. Roads, schools, etc. But I agree that Portland has choosen to fund those some other way, and RI should not try to grab money.
I think the law was overreaching because they were struggling to get some amount of the cash RI residents spend on the internet. I think it was a valid goal, accomplished poorly, in large part due to it being an issue the federal government ought, but has not, handle.
You really want the states deciding they can tax based on a FREAKING LINK?!?
No, I want states to tax based on where the fact that the product is shipped to a consumer in that state. Period. None of this UPS slippery slope crap. None of this "it passed through contiguous states" slippery slope crap. There is one recipient for a good. Let the state where that person recieves it get the sales tax at whatever rate it normally charges.
Let the federal government appoint one company to manage it all for a small cut of the fees, to make processing a fixed cost if you don't want to roll your own. Problem solved.
Your property taxes pay for some of it. Your sales tax pays for more of it. The sales tax, like tolls, is used to cause visitors to pick up a portion of the cost of what they use, so it doesn't all fall on the residents.
Every company you do business with can keep up with it all, since every store location needs to keep up with only one rate and one set of rules
Well, as I mentioned, it's not just one rate. It depends on the type of item sold. The grocery store has at least five rates off the top of my head, depending on the item you buy.
Also, if you think they trust the people at each location to type in the rules, you're crazy. It's a chain. The rules are all handled in a central location. Never trust people at the store level with something that important.
That doesn't scale nicely. Set up a website to sell things out of your garage, and you need to pay somebody to keep up on sales taxes
Like payroll taxes, outsourcing solutions to deal with sales taxes will spring up. Those companies fees do scale nicely.
The rest of your comment goes in the same vein. But payroll taxes are far less complex and companies successfully and profitably outsource those to bonded companies that indemnify them. The same would obviously crop up. The hobbyist stores would have to pay 1% of each purchase or something to another company. Just like they do to handle your credit card. Big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the ruling seems to violate several international agreements on copyright, I wonder how long it will last.
I also don't get the common sense aspect of it. If, instead of being akin to losing some sales to piracy, all sales were legally lost to piracy, how would companies stay in business? Well, they'd do it by erecting technical barriers to copying. DRM plus a million. Because they would have to.
If you justify copyright infringment based on "information wants to be free", then expect people to try their damnedest to change what their information wants to be.
Permit me the reordering of your comments.
At some level, in some sense, sure. Typing it into an IDE makes a machine do math. But so does typing a novel in Word. Yet few people would argue that writing a novel is a mathematical exercise, even if one uses a computer.
And yes, there is a compiler, but there are similar transformations to print the pages out. The end product in one case is binary code, interpertable by a machine to produce desired behavior (the machine will then use math). In the other case, the end product is text, interpertable by a human brain to produce the desired thoughts. This may use math as well.
Math is in everything at some level, the only interest is if the math is what is interesting.
Few people would contend that a chef's recipe is chemistry, despite the building blocks requiring some chemicals. (Okay, on slashdot, more people than normal may.)
True.
And what Rumsfeld said about "known unknowns" was logical (albeit paraphrased in a place where the original quote would have been better.)
And Al Gore didn't claim to have "invented" the internet; he said he "took the initative in creating the internet", which given how you would expect a Congreeman to take initative (recognizing a good program, giving it attention and money) is true.
And Sarah Palin's speech was actually coherent, not beautiful but coherent, if you read it.
And Quayle's spelling of potato isn't the most common, but is technically a valid alternative. (Although the potato incident was dumb for other reasons.)
People who you dislike rarely say the dumb things you think they did, as you'll address a quote out of context (or misrepresentation of that quote) from someone you like, but not from someone you don't. You're more than happy to assume people you don't like are retarded.
There are three other things, two of which I've had done for ATM cards.
First, based on the how voicemail works, you need a PIN only when calling from a different number. This feature could be off by default, and require you to call in and activate it. This is based on the way computers allow remote users (off by default).
When you acquire a phone, it could force you to type a PIN into a pad (taken from how some ATM card distributors work).
Lastly, mail a randomly selected PIN to a customer.
Those are only the books. When we give the weight of a hard drive, it's not just the platters'. What about the building itself, librarians, shelves, etc.
And even if you constrain it to information, you neglected the weight of the card-catalog, the FAT of real life.
Eh, who has original ideas? I mean, Apple was put together out of ideas from HP and Xerox...
I could also add rootkits into a Windows 7 torrent, hurting Microsoft's reputation for security (please leave dumb flames at home; You can use OS X Snow Leopard and Apple instead). It harms the original owners of their ability to have a homogenous and more secure operating system market, which seems far worse (even correcting for their size and asset base as compared to yours) to a purely cosmetic scratch on your bumper (for instance).
Or imagine if Sony CDs were completely fine, but all the Somy CDs that I created and used their logo on contained rootkits? They lost at least some sales as part of the boycott that ensued.
I already posited that I would have it back before you needed it, so you would have no need to use it while I'm using it. And the parking space problem likewise resolves itself.
Please leave the key in the door, and reply with your address and schedule. Thanks!
So you're fine with me using your car without your permission as long as I replace the gas/fluids I use and get it back before you wake up?
After all, that's what you're asserting is the correct analog to copyright violation and you seem to assert it is acceptable.
I know where the sushi resturants are near me. When I travel, I'm almost always around a native. And when I'm not I can use a map, electronic or otherwise, with locations marked on it.
Then it's a good thing a computer-only browser implements this feature...
I would want Google/etc. to know where I am even less than where my home is.
Okay, either it eats up more space or I have to conciously get rid of it. I have the same issue with the "remember" interface, although that only appears rarely and I can ignore it until I move to the next page.
This is why I try to minimize the number of dumb options I have presented to me. I make mistakes, and I'd just as soon minimize the points of failure.
The reason you ask in a business setting is to make small talk, contacts, etc. It's not the response but the subtext that's important. Twitter strips the subtext and leaves only the boring minuta.
Using it to find parties is almost interesting... it's the only reason I log onto facebook. But it pisses me off that what used to be acceptable (email a few people, have a private bulletin board on my own server for people to RSVP and chat) now needs to be done through some third party.
Okay, lynx may be a little extreme. But why does every site need to use javascript? I don't like web pages crashing anymore than movies (see: BluRay).
In other words, display it once so that it looks right; stop trying to make each website an application.
Why would I ever want to share my location? Why would I want part of my window eaten up by an option I don't like? What happens when I click the wrong one at 5am cause I'm tired?
FTFA:
And the bonus "the police need to know what cars were near [crime-scene] at [time around which crime was committed].
The problem with that is at the edge of juristictions. For instance, a more sparesly populated area can have a lower fuel tax, profiting from people who cross the border and only use the roads enought to fill up, and then leave. Or tourist destinations where they fill up on the way there and back.
Also, roads don't merely benefit drivers. I know someone who walks everywhere. He cackles with glee when the price of gas goes up; of course his grocery bills et al get larger when that happens.
The last thing I would mention is that roads are only one benefit to a driver. An excellent public transit system should be supported by those who use the roads. After all, I have to get around. Subsidize my using public transit, and there will be less traffic. Do it a million-times over (with economies of scale!) and you get a real bang for your buck. (This idea only applies in areas with traffic problems.)
I tend to think schools should be paid for with income taxes. But I don't know what difference ad valorum vs. income taxes make. With police protection, you again get the freeloaders who benefit without paying.
First, non-property owners pay property taxes... they are built into their rent.
Second, I was commenting on people crossing artificial territorial boundaries and freeloading... someone who works and parties in Manahatten and takes a train to New Jersey every night for instance. Those people should really contribute to the things that property tax owners do. It doesn't really have to do with rich v. poor, but commuter/tourist v. resident.
Third, if you really want the rich to pay relatively more (and I think they should), then an income or asset tax seems best. The only issue is the various citys/counties/states all do that inependently. There needs to be some federal oversight of this process.
So, just to keep track of the conversation: Your position is no longer that the tax-break is good, or well done. It's just a pragmatic "best possible case"?
I would say that's the best reason to eliminate it. It implies that the current situtation is a local maximum for benefit. If we destroy it, we can get to a new, higher, local maximum.
I think you should. If you were to purchase an item for him in California, you would. If you get it shipped to you and reship it, the equivalent of buying it in Alaska and shipping it yourself, you wouldn't.
That situation already exist; CostCo populates small shops' inventories already, or a local Coca-Cola bottling plant ships sodas to convience stores. And the solution already exists (IIRC), the company can get back the sales tax it paid when it resells an item.
There is also the nasty issue of the borders between a heavily populated and more sparsely populated city/country/state. The sparsely populated area will lower it's fuel tax, and make a good profit on all the people close to the border who only use it's roads to fill up at the on-the-border gas stations. This causes a free-loader problem in the heavily populated area (and any tourist destinations) with regard to the roads.
I'd also say that fuel taxes should heavily subsidize public transit. After all, the people who have less traffic to deal with definitely benefit from reliable public transit.
I don't know why property taxes should pay for any of those, as opposed to say, an income tax. Again, people who don't own property in a city but commute there for jobs/shopping/nightlife act as freeloaders, profiting off the largess of condo dwellers.
Well, that saying is stating that if you increase the cost of something, less will be purchased. Rediscovering supply and demand are we? And just because it may be beneficial to the idea of health insurance (it's not, see below), that doesn't justify why the government should necessarily subsidize it. I want a tax-break for a jetski, which will encourage me to invest in waterfront properties, driving up their value, and thus taxes, allowing me to borrow against the higher value my lake house just realized and finally have the capital to start that business of my own, spawning a new 40 billion a year company.
See how easy it is to imagine potential benefits?
You then explain why the government wants people to have health care. Why then not simply make all health-care tax deductible? Why only employer-provided health care? It provides an incentive to only corporate cogs to be healthy? Health insurance is tied to an employer, making it harder to go into business for yourself... not only do you not get your health care subsidized by the government, and not only do you not get a volume discount, but you'll be rejected if you have a preexisting condition.
Why not have the federal government offer an optional free "socialized" program. You get a lot o the benefits of your scheme, with the ability of people who are unemployeed and who are at a small business/self-employeed to benefit as well.
Yeah. Target can do it from a central location. So can WalMart. Why is Amazon the only big company that sells to me that cannot do this?
I'd imagine either Target et al already subscribe to a central clearinghouse company, or that small fry would and Amazon would roll it's own. As for liability, well, payroll services operate just fine.
And the complexity is moderate, not too bad. The type of day is statewide, the type of goods seem fairly standard in every state I've been in, and the different tax rates are all easily seen on a map. So, every year, a new map of geographic location/X way good rates is inputted. Doesn't seem so hard to me. Hell, the various governments would be happy to supply their data to a queryable central federal database if the feds would lead on this issue.
I agree with the problem (although for different reasons... I would say because no sale occured in RI. Obviously no one objects to the affiliate paying income tax).
However, I was replying to an anti-"tax on internet sales, period" thread. So please understand my comment in that light.
Sales tax is not to defray infrastructure costs associated with the seller. It's to defray what the infrastructure the reciever uses, often in non-sales venues. Roads, schools, etc. But I agree that Portland has choosen to fund those some other way, and RI should not try to grab money.
I think the law was overreaching because they were struggling to get some amount of the cash RI residents spend on the internet. I think it was a valid goal, accomplished poorly, in large part due to it being an issue the federal government ought, but has not, handle.
No, I want states to tax based on where the fact that the product is shipped to a consumer in that state. Period. None of this UPS slippery slope crap. None of this "it passed through contiguous states" slippery slope crap. There is one recipient for a good. Let the state where that person recieves it get the sales tax at whatever rate it normally charges.
Let the federal government appoint one company to manage it all for a small cut of the fees, to make processing a fixed cost if you don't want to roll your own. Problem solved.
Your property taxes pay for some of it. Your sales tax pays for more of it. The sales tax, like tolls, is used to cause visitors to pick up a portion of the cost of what they use, so it doesn't all fall on the residents.
Well, as I mentioned, it's not just one rate. It depends on the type of item sold. The grocery store has at least five rates off the top of my head, depending on the item you buy.
Also, if you think they trust the people at each location to type in the rules, you're crazy. It's a chain. The rules are all handled in a central location. Never trust people at the store level with something that important.
Like payroll taxes, outsourcing solutions to deal with sales taxes will spring up. Those companies fees do scale nicely.
The rest of your comment goes in the same vein. But payroll taxes are far less complex and companies successfully and profitably outsource those to bonded companies that indemnify them. The same would obviously crop up. The hobbyist stores would have to pay 1% of each purchase or something to another company. Just like they do to handle your credit card. Big deal.