Because at a personal decision making level, we can do one of those - hiding our pseudonymical identity. And at that level, we cannot do the other entirely - fixing the court system.
Though at a personal decision making level - we can do 1/300millionth part of fixing the court system - assuming a country population of 300 million.
In other words, if I had guaranteed access to food, shelter, healthcare, education then they wouldn't have any leverage to oppress me.
You already know that there are no guarantees in nature. So, ok, let us pass a law that "guarantees" all these resources to you. And let it actually work for a decade or so - enough for you to start trusting the "guarantee". But laws , and their ultimate implementation - due to legislators - in turn due to voting, are heavily dependent on what people think and believe.
This thought and belief can be changed, manipulated, abused through invading your privacy. This involves knowing your thoughts in detail so that what to show you to nudge you over the fence to where "they" want you beliefs to be. Once you believe what they want you to believe - you yourself vote to get rid of your guarantees. Not that you will know you are voting to get rid of guarantees - but you will do so anyway because your thoughts and beliefs have been manipulated.
So, once you know how guarantees work, it is no more true that guaranteed access to essential resources protects your privacy in any form.
Like your policy of wearing clothes without enough pockets that was formulated when such a law did not exist ? And you persist in the policy when the reality , under which the policy was formulated , changes so that you end up generating more plastic waste ?
You are the only one responsible for generating more plastic waste in this scenario - not the "policy". In general there may be policies that end up doing more bad than good, but it is on you this time.
How does that cover "life" that we don't know about ? In your "chemistry" , you have made a lot of assumptions about the "life" : none of which are justified for an unknown kind of "life" .
No, we are talking about life that we don't know about. You have to demonstrate a way that no "life" is possible without water - including life that we don't know about.
And you bought these clothes to get an excuse to use more one-time use plastic ? Or at least bought them in an environment where you were not responsible for indirect cost of using one time use plastic?
Why is your lack of pockets a problem of the world ? Why can't you pay the cost of taking a bag from the car/home/bike for the privilege of wearing clothes without pockets ?
You have no clue what gets dumped into the river, do you ? Only the ashes and big bones that do not disintegrate even in a large fire are dumped. A 70 kg human body leaves behind much less than 1 kg stuff to be dumped. Thin / weak people leave a fistful.
For all purposes of hygiene , that part can be licked by babies and nothing much would happen except some nourishment. Calling it half-burned displays your colossal ignorance.
Anyway it is far more environmentally sustainable than burying dead bodies in the ground, to speak nothing of preventing contagious diseases.
Nope. This is the level when they pay 10% of the money to the police officer catching them and litter even more.
Stronger punishment rarely leads to higher compliance - more likelihood of getting caught has a far bigger effect. But strength of punishment is negatively correlated with likelihood of getting caught due to corruptibility of agents of law.
One in your car, one in your bike, one in your office bag, one little one in your pocket. If still not sufficient, grocery stores sell some for a little money.
I have said directly how to verify the claims yourself.
Scientifically the claims of yours I quoted in my earlier post are false. Thermodynamic impossibility for such activities to take zero resources. People here that are not calling that out are already giving you a benefit of doubt by imagining you talking metaphorically. Some possible meanings that may be somewhat true but unverifiable without further details:
1. for no performance gain
Example metaphorical meaning that could be true but not verifiable : In all computer usage of the world, less than X% of usage (unspecified so far whether this percentage is by time, by economic value, by resource utilization etc.) will observe at least one application taking a shorter duration of time by the genre of optimizations being talked about - specifically Y optimization.
Cannot be verified due to unspecified nature of X and Y.
2. that uses effectively no resources for "performance gains"
Example metaphorical meaning that could be true but not verifiable : You have secretly defined "resources" to be a subset of actual resources but are not specifying which resources you are considering.
Or the amount of resources used is less than X% of total resource usage by a secret resource quantifying formula.
These are, again, unverifiable due to unspecified nature of things.
But you won't believe anything I say so what's the point
Another claim made without evidence. Have you got a hang of this whole "logic" thing ?
For my question, only the evidence you had for making your original claim matters. Whichever process you reached the conclusion that we are in a paywall world : I was asking what was that process.
Of I were to come to such a conclusion, since business is being discussed, I would consider neither eyeball time, not bytes transferred. Money earned is the best measure of business in general , and this case is no exception.
Is more money being earned by paywalled internet than by providing "free" websites / web services ? I don't think so at all, but i didn't make the claim about it. You did - apparently without evidence.
I am not arguing that. I remember someone recently saying :
" I find it dishonest to count number of distinct domains, as this includes throwaway domains used by phishing campaigns. As for web usage time, a lot of popular news sites have switched to a subscription model, either metered or hard."
Maybe i remember incorrectly. Otherwise I would assume that eyeball minutes is the metric being considered.
Normally it's not an issue since the state you purchased in applies their own sales tax that you can deduct, and taxpayers do their own assessments, so it's rarely worth the effort to figure this out for purchases made in person. However for mail orders, phone orders, online purchases, or anything that gets shipped, then often the vendor is required to collect and pay the use tax based upon the delivery location.
Yes, and the "exemption" that mail order / internet etc sales enjoyed was because most sales were not made this way, and it would complicate the law without much benefit if things were taxed in more complex ways. Now a much larger proportion of sales is being made through internet, so something must be done.
But that something being "use tax" is a very wrong solution. It is another false oversimplification - where no one really cares about use. People care about the infrastructure used to enable the sale in the first place. The following jurisdictions deserve to collect at least some tax : 1. The state(s) where the buyer lives / works obviously provided economic opportunities to the buyer to earn the money and keep it to make this particular purchase. 2. The state(s) where bank transactions happen obviously provided a lot of financial security - through good laws , regulation and law enforcement. 3. The state (s) where the company selling the goods is located, where the warehouse is located.
The jurisdiction where a person wears a hat, or drinks his Amazon ordered Coca Cola has a much much lower moral right on any tax about that sale than the ones I listed above, right ? Then why another false oversimplification of "use tax", instead of defining the jurisdiction of the "sale" more rigorously and divvying up the "sales tax" appropriately between all the involved jurisdictions ?
So don't report the use tax if you buy some food and eat it w/o bringing it into your home state
And where to report it if I wear the hat all over the world before reaching my home state ? In France I wear it 20 hours but take only 45 photos of which 22 were uploaded to Facebook getting 8653 likes so far. What is the France tax rate ? On the other hand, in Japan I wore it 83 hours, slept wearing the hat once, took 21 photos and shared the photos only through email to family. In Nigeria, I used the hat to save myself from the hot sun, though I am not sure I lost an opportunity to make some Vitamin D in the process. What is Nigeria tax rate ?
Should ? The whole idea of taxes is practicality winning over "should". What "should" be the tax rate applicable to a Texan buying a $7 sandwich from a Californian in Georgia while wearing a red shirt at 70 degree F temperature while it is not raining outside but slightly cloudy at evening 6 pm ?
And how many would agree with this tax rate that you say "should" apply ?
If it is a hard to find item in the area, you can still get it online, just for 5-10% more
Why would the "item in the area" not be liable to sales tax and only online would ? Or are you saying different taxes are applicable between getting locally vs getting it online ?
This is not a "raising" of taxes. It is a different distribution of taxes - better distribution according to the GP. The proof of "better" is extremely difficult, so I won't get into that.
But at least understand the statement you are replying to.
The term "use tax" is not a very logical replacement of / addition to the term "sales tax". With mail order / online sales - it is not clear where the sales happened. On the computer when clicked "Buy", in the bank branch from where money was deducted for the customer, in the bank branch where money was deposited for the seller, at the godown where the product was stored, or at the place where the product was delivered.
With "use tax" - the product might be used / consumed while travelling in multiple places. An online ordered hat can be worn all over the world. Generally people don't mean to tax that.
So what we need is still "sales tax", but a more well defined definition of where the sales happened (it could be defined to have happened in multiple parts).
Yes, but companies don't say people play favorites in their companies. Companies say that higher management has favorites in lower management, or lowest level workers.
So companies say there is a "zero tolerance" , wink wink, towards suspected / alleged favoritism. Clearly there was no real zero tolerance about it at Intel - because this relationship ran for a while. Occasionally, this falsehood surfaces and needs to be "managed". This was a case of the "management" of the falsehood resulting in a CEO resigning. A price one has to pay for saying things one doesn't mean.
Still no timeline ? When exactly, in your considered opinion, was an overwhelming move to paywalled internet completed ?
#4 is Amazon, which I mentioned. Video on Amazon... Google Play Music...
Is your statement that more than a minuscule percentage of internet companies, of which other, free, services are used for a large amount of time by users in general, have at least one paywalled service - irrespective of the amount of usage the paywalled service gets in comparison to the free service from the same company ?
In order: Correct, correct, outdated, and correct. On February 1, 2018, WIRED put up a metered paywall.
Great - not checked Wired for a while, although with your non-falsifiable lack of a timeline makes it unclear whether a change in February 2018 is enough or not. Wired gets a minuscule percentage of the internet traffic as compared to Reddit, even lower than a minuscule percentage if compared to Slashdot , Reddit and Stack* combined. So even in nerd sites, where the chances of ad-blocking are highest - paywalled websites hold a less than minuscule percentage of market share.
I take it that the answer to my original question "Do you have evidence that more than a minuscule percentage of the internet is behind a paywall ?" is an overwhelming NO.
Your paywalled examples don't appear prominently in these lists. So by your own metric (time spent) , we are far from being in a paywall internet business environment.
If we talk about nerd sites :/. , reddit , wired are free . Stack* sites have a declared policy of not minding even if users block ads.
Slashdot Mirror
Because at a personal decision making level, we can do one of those - hiding our pseudonymical identity. And at that level, we cannot do the other entirely - fixing the court system.
Though at a personal decision making level - we can do 1/300millionth part of fixing the court system - assuming a country population of 300 million.
In other words, if I had guaranteed access to food, shelter, healthcare, education then they wouldn't have any leverage to oppress me.
You already know that there are no guarantees in nature. So, ok, let us pass a law that "guarantees" all these resources to you. And let it actually work for a decade or so - enough for you to start trusting the "guarantee". But laws , and their ultimate implementation - due to legislators - in turn due to voting, are heavily dependent on what people think and believe.
This thought and belief can be changed, manipulated, abused through invading your privacy. This involves knowing your thoughts in detail so that what to show you to nudge you over the fence to where "they" want you beliefs to be. Once you believe what they want you to believe - you yourself vote to get rid of your guarantees. Not that you will know you are voting to get rid of guarantees - but you will do so anyway because your thoughts and beliefs have been manipulated.
So, once you know how guarantees work, it is no more true that guaranteed access to essential resources protects your privacy in any form.
Like many of these policies that are
Like your policy of wearing clothes without enough pockets that was formulated when such a law did not exist ? And you persist in the policy when the reality , under which the policy was formulated , changes so that you end up generating more plastic waste ?
You are the only one responsible for generating more plastic waste in this scenario - not the "policy". In general there may be policies that end up doing more bad than good, but it is on you this time.
Evidence ? Or pure faith ?
How does that cover "life" that we don't know about ? In your "chemistry" , you have made a lot of assumptions about the "life" : none of which are justified for an unknown kind of "life" .
Unless you can demonstrate a way that
No, we are talking about life that we don't know about. You have to demonstrate a way that no "life" is possible without water - including life that we don't know about.
And you bought these clothes to get an excuse to use more one-time use plastic ?
Or at least bought them in an environment where you were not responsible for indirect cost of using one time use plastic?
Why is your lack of pockets a problem of the world ? Why can't you pay the cost of taking a bag from the car /home/bike for the privilege of wearing clothes without pockets ?
Ever heard of actions and consequences ?
You have no clue what gets dumped into the river, do you ? Only the ashes and big bones that do not disintegrate even in a large fire are dumped. A 70 kg human body leaves behind much less than 1 kg stuff to be dumped. Thin / weak people leave a fistful.
For all purposes of hygiene , that part can be licked by babies and nothing much would happen except some nourishment. Calling it half-burned displays your colossal ignorance.
Anyway it is far more environmentally sustainable than burying dead bodies in the ground, to speak nothing of preventing contagious diseases.
Nope. This is the level when they pay 10% of the money to the police officer catching them and litter even more.
Stronger punishment rarely leads to higher compliance - more likelihood of getting caught has a far bigger effect. But strength of punishment is negatively correlated with likelihood of getting caught due to corruptibility of agents of law.
One in your car, one in your bike, one in your office bag, one little one in your pocket. If still not sufficient, grocery stores sell some for a little money.
I have said directly how to verify the claims yourself.
Scientifically the claims of yours I quoted in my earlier post are false. Thermodynamic impossibility for such activities to take zero resources. People here that are not calling that out are already giving you a benefit of doubt by imagining you talking metaphorically. Some possible meanings that may be somewhat true but unverifiable without further details :
1. for no performance gain
Example metaphorical meaning that could be true but not verifiable : In all computer usage of the world, less than X% of usage (unspecified so far whether this percentage is by time, by economic value, by resource utilization etc.) will observe at least one application taking a shorter duration of time by the genre of optimizations being talked about - specifically Y optimization.
Cannot be verified due to unspecified nature of X and Y.
2. that uses effectively no resources for "performance gains"
Example metaphorical meaning that could be true but not verifiable : You have secretly defined "resources" to be a subset of actual resources but are not specifying which resources you are considering.
Or the amount of resources used is less than X% of total resource usage by a secret resource quantifying formula.
These are, again, unverifiable due to unspecified nature of things.
But you won't believe anything I say so what's the point
Another claim made without evidence. Have you got a hang of this whole "logic" thing ?
You don't need to doubt the claim. You can actually *measure* it using the startup optimisation
You made the claims
1. for no performance gain
2. that uses effectively no resources for "performance gains"
The burden of proof is on you to measure and report. Ideally find a disinterested third party's already measured data, but I am not too hopeful.
Only the good managers know about good employees. Good managers cost more than tablets : so now we have bad managers + tablets.
For my question, only the evidence you had for making your original claim matters. Whichever process you reached the conclusion that we are in a paywall world : I was asking what was that process.
Of I were to come to such a conclusion, since business is being discussed, I would consider neither eyeball time, not bytes transferred. Money earned is the best measure of business in general , and this case is no exception.
Is more money being earned by paywalled internet than by providing "free" websites / web services ? I don't think so at all, but i didn't make the claim about it. You did - apparently without evidence.
I am not arguing that. I remember someone recently saying :
" I find it dishonest to count number of distinct domains, as this includes throwaway domains used by phishing campaigns. As for web usage time, a lot of popular news sites have switched to a subscription model, either metered or hard."
Maybe i remember incorrectly. Otherwise I would assume that eyeball minutes is the metric being considered.
Normally it's not an issue since the state you purchased in applies their own sales tax that you can deduct, and taxpayers do their own assessments, so it's rarely worth the effort to figure this out for purchases made in person. However for mail orders, phone orders, online purchases, or anything that gets shipped, then often the vendor is required to collect and pay the use tax based upon the delivery location.
Yes, and the "exemption" that mail order / internet etc sales enjoyed was because most sales were not made this way, and it would complicate the law without much benefit if things were taxed in more complex ways. Now a much larger proportion of sales is being made through internet, so something must be done.
But that something being "use tax" is a very wrong solution. It is another false oversimplification - where no one really cares about use. People care about the infrastructure used to enable the sale in the first place. The following jurisdictions deserve to collect at least some tax :
1. The state(s) where the buyer lives / works obviously provided economic opportunities to the buyer to earn the money and keep it to make this particular purchase.
2. The state(s) where bank transactions happen obviously provided a lot of financial security - through good laws , regulation and law enforcement.
3. The state (s) where the company selling the goods is located, where the warehouse is located.
The jurisdiction where a person wears a hat, or drinks his Amazon ordered Coca Cola has a much much lower moral right on any tax about that sale than the ones I listed above, right ? Then why another false oversimplification of "use tax", instead of defining the jurisdiction of the "sale" more rigorously and divvying up the "sales tax" appropriately between all the involved jurisdictions ?
So don't report the use tax if you buy some food and eat it w/o bringing it into your home state
And where to report it if I wear the hat all over the world before reaching my home state ? In France I wear it 20 hours but take only 45 photos of which 22 were uploaded to Facebook getting 8653 likes so far. What is the France tax rate ? On the other hand, in Japan I wore it 83 hours, slept wearing the hat once, took 21 photos and shared the photos only through email to family. In Nigeria, I used the hat to save myself from the hot sun, though I am not sure I lost an opportunity to make some Vitamin D in the process. What is Nigeria tax rate ?
So now time spent had been replaced by video as a metric of internet usage ?
Which should have exactly
Should ? The whole idea of taxes is practicality winning over "should". What "should" be the tax rate applicable to a Texan buying a $7 sandwich from a Californian in Georgia while wearing a red shirt at 70 degree F temperature while it is not raining outside but slightly cloudy at evening 6 pm ?
And how many would agree with this tax rate that you say "should" apply ?
If it is a hard to find item in the area, you can still get it online, just for 5-10% more
Why would the "item in the area" not be liable to sales tax and only online would ? Or are you saying different taxes are applicable between getting locally vs getting it online ?
This is not a "raising" of taxes. It is a different distribution of taxes - better distribution according to the GP. The proof of "better" is extremely difficult, so I won't get into that.
But at least understand the statement you are replying to.
The term "use tax" is not a very logical replacement of / addition to the term "sales tax". With mail order / online sales - it is not clear where the sales happened. On the computer when clicked "Buy", in the bank branch from where money was deducted for the customer, in the bank branch where money was deposited for the seller, at the godown where the product was stored, or at the place where the product was delivered.
With "use tax" - the product might be used / consumed while travelling in multiple places. An online ordered hat can be worn all over the world. Generally people don't mean to tax that.
So what we need is still "sales tax", but a more well defined definition of where the sales happened (it could be defined to have happened in multiple parts).
Why ? PETA people would love it if butchers die of CO poisoning.
Yes, but companies don't say people play favorites in their companies. Companies say that higher management has favorites in lower management, or lowest level workers.
So companies say there is a "zero tolerance" , wink wink, towards suspected / alleged favoritism. Clearly there was no real zero tolerance about it at Intel - because this relationship ran for a while. Occasionally, this falsehood surfaces and needs to be "managed". This was a case of the "management" of the falsehood resulting in a CEO resigning. A price one has to pay for saying things one doesn't mean.
Still no timeline ? When exactly, in your considered opinion, was an overwhelming move to paywalled internet completed ?
#4 is Amazon, which I mentioned. Video on Amazon ... Google Play Music ...
Is your statement that more than a minuscule percentage of internet companies, of which other, free, services are used for a large amount of time by users in general, have at least one paywalled service - irrespective of the amount of usage the paywalled service gets in comparison to the free service from the same company ?
In order: Correct, correct, outdated, and correct. On February 1, 2018, WIRED put up a metered paywall.
Great - not checked Wired for a while, although with your non-falsifiable lack of a timeline makes it unclear whether a change in February 2018 is enough or not. Wired gets a minuscule percentage of the internet traffic as compared to Reddit, even lower than a minuscule percentage if compared to Slashdot , Reddit and Stack* combined. So even in nerd sites, where the chances of ad-blocking are highest - paywalled websites hold a less than minuscule percentage of market share.
I take it that the answer to my original question "Do you have evidence that more than a minuscule percentage of the internet is behind a paywall ?" is an overwhelming NO.
Still no evidence, or timeline. Almost as if you don't want the evidence examined.
https://www.statista.com/stati...
https://www.weforum.org/agenda...
Your paywalled examples don't appear prominently in these lists. So by your own metric (time spent) , we are far from being in a paywall internet business environment.
If we talk about nerd sites : /. , reddit , wired are free . Stack* sites have a declared policy of not minding even if users block ads.