Just imagine how much better businesses would be doing if consumers suddenly discovered that they were getting 100% of the witholding from their paychecks back this year!
Your argument might hold water if Amazon and ONLY Amazon could provide jobs and taxes in New York. You may have seen pictures of the place, it's not exactly an empty field devoid of commerce.
I'll give you ten cents for your car. It's ten more cents than the zero you will get if you piss me off by asking for eleven cents. You don't want to blow the deal, do you?
I actually do get that. I deliberately posted a mirror image of the corporate apologists here that think corporations shouldn't be taxed.
Of course, corporations already have lawyers and accountants on the payroll anyway while individuals often don't except at tax time, so there is some reason to prefer extracting that "water" while corporations are holding it.
The behavior modification taxes tend to backfire if there is any danger they might modify behavior. See the hand wringing over cigarette taxes drying up.
Others like fuel tax actually do make sense if they are used to pay for pollution abatement and road maintenance.
Well, for one, I'm an adult and the odds are no kid will be using my phone. I use it when I'm out and about for work and I'm quite capable of behaving professionally without a nanny.
I would be concerned that it might block such dreadfully raunchy XXX rated porn as a news item about a corrupt politician or about how the porn filter blocks a lot more than just porn. This has actually been discovered in internet porn filters in the past, I don't see any provisions for stopping it from happening again.
As briefly amusing as it might be to see it block ExpertSexChange.com, in general net nannies are well known for blocking based on silly innuendo rather than actually objectionable content.
This is just a cynical play to collect money from people who think if they complain their minister will think they are viewing porn.
Shade tree mechanics have been a thing since cars went mainstream. Same for tractors. Somehow, we haven't ended the human race yet. It's becoming less common now, in part because it's getting harder to fix without a special blessing from the OEM (who do they think they are, the Pope?) but I don't see any evidence that lives are being saved. If anything it's more dangerous since people will avoid expensive dealer repairs as long as possible (sometimes out of necessity).
Danger FUD is a common tactic of those opposed to the right to repair, don't fall for it.
There's nothing magic about gas. People successfully assemble gas grills and change tanks out all the time. Putting in a new water heater or gas stove isn't rocket science but it could be made even easier and safer with minimal effort. I have found that the most common failure in a microwave is the keypad and logic. Make that an easily swappable module and people won't likely need to mess with the magnetron or wave guides. Actually, it's already easily swappable in most cases, it's just impossible to get the replacement part.
Keep in mind that right to repair ALSO means that if you're not all that handy yourself, you can take it to someone else to repair and they can actually fix it without paying the OEM thousands in fees to become "authorized". Note that often all "authorized" means is that the fee was paid in full and they have agreed not to use same-spec 3rd party parts or "undercharge". Can you think of anyone who wouldn't like for low cost repairs to be a thing?
The last time my washing machine broke down, I had to show the "authorized" repair person how to put it in diagnostic mode and how to read off the error code. In spite of a lid latch failed code and everything else working fine, he wanted to replace the mainboard (and not the lid latch) but of course, he didn't have one on the truck. I called the warranty center back and demanded a different repairman with a lid latch on the truck. He came out and replaced the lid latch. It's been trouble free since then. So much for the "assured quality of an authorized repair".
Personal income taxes just end up being paid by hard working corporations. If I have to pay taxes out of my income, I buy less stuff and corporate profits go down.
So do the right thing and abolish personal income tax. Do the right thing and let the corporations pay their taxes out of their profits.
And of course, nobody could ever possibly want to use a general purpose API for a general purpose that may or may not be ad blocking.
The rule list size limit is a bit of a red herring, that's not the worst feature of the new API. The new API is a static list. Point out the error if I'm wrong, but it certainly looks like the rule list is loaded at browser startup and I see no API for updating it. No more "allow this for this site" or "don't allow this anymore" etc. No more OK for this but not with cookies. You can turn the filtering on or off for a particular group of pages but not modify it. We don't really need to return to the old Microsoft joke "you have moved your mouse, please reboot to make the change take effect"
Of course, the size of the list should be flexible. Nobody uses fixed size lists for things like this beyond programming 101 and I doubt the Google developers do either. That makes the size cutoff arbitrary.
It only took me a few minutes on a lazy Sunday afternoon to see the crippling limitations, surely you're not trying to tell me that nobody at Google noticed that the new API is in no way a proper replacement for the old API.
That's not to say that the new API has no uses, just that it doesn't actually replace the API it is claimed to replace. Sorry, we don't sell front loaders anymore, try this table spoon.
In the words of Judge Judy, "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining".
The rest of us can only go by what Google releases publicly. And what was released publicly was that they were removing an essential API for ad blockers and replacing it with nothing at all useful.
Now that the excuse has been publicly debunked with actual measurements, they are reversing that decision.
The size of the static list was never the point of controversy. Even an infinite static list would be less useful than the current API.
I agree that we can't prove a particular intent form what we see, we can only make good guesses. It COULD be some developer with a wild hair up their nether regions. It could be someone wanting to mark their territory (much as a dog does), or it could be because Google really isn't that fond of ad blockers.
But since this isn't a court of law, we're not obligated to use "beyond reasonable doubt" as our cutoff.
In general, let the users decide would be a better answer. Make the new API available concurrently. If the old API has security implications, state them clearly and make sure the user can easily see which API a given extension is using. Let them decide if something using the new API is doing an adequate job. Mark the new API as experimental to indicate that it might be pulled back out if it doesn't work out.
But also worth considering, people are tired of churn. I really don't give a crap if my favorite extension is so 30 seconds ago, it works for me and I have too many things to do to keep finding workarounds for the churn.
And we can tell them that with legislation in the public interest with the added benefit covers the many cases where the manufacturer didn't notify the customer before sale that every effort to make the device irreparable has been made.
Lets not do that. We have managed just fine allowing people to repair their cars and lawn mowers without a special license for as long as those things have existed.
You may be unaware of a legal concept known as construction.
When a manufacturer takes steps to make sure parts are unavailable, repair information can't be published, and goes out of their way to have a properly speced repair part not work (for example, by requiring a software tool to "introduce" the part to the system, they are constructively denying your right to repair.
They also wear gloves and masks, long pants and boots. They dilute it before application. They spray it using a spray wand. Compared to a kid rolling on the ground where it was applied (or even younger kids possibly tasting the dirt), the people applying it may actually ingest less of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just imagine how much better businesses would be doing if consumers suddenly discovered that they were getting 100% of the witholding from their paychecks back this year!
My reply was to someone who explicitly claimed that evasion of taxes was neither immoral nor unethical.
One more time for good measure:
My reply was to someone who explicitly claimed that evasion of taxes was neither immoral nor unethical.
Your argument might hold water if Amazon and ONLY Amazon could provide jobs and taxes in New York. You may have seen pictures of the place, it's not exactly an empty field devoid of commerce.
I'll give you ten cents for your car. It's ten more cents than the zero you will get if you piss me off by asking for eleven cents. You don't want to blow the deal, do you?
My reply was to someone who explicitly claimed that evasion of taxes was neither immoral nor unethical.
As for Amazon, so you're saying as long as I mostly pay my taxes it's fine if I skip the rest as long as I buy off the correct people?
The people of NY called bullshit on that for good reason.
or back to my analogy, putting my steak on his tab is cool as long as I slip the cashier a buck or two?
We knew it from statistical sampling, but it's nice to get a comprehensive count from a whole country.
They're trying not to be, but they can't seem to find the Brexit.
I actually do get that. I deliberately posted a mirror image of the corporate apologists here that think corporations shouldn't be taxed.
Of course, corporations already have lawyers and accountants on the payroll anyway while individuals often don't except at tax time, so there is some reason to prefer extracting that "water" while corporations are holding it.
The behavior modification taxes tend to backfire if there is any danger they might modify behavior. See the hand wringing over cigarette taxes drying up.
Others like fuel tax actually do make sense if they are used to pay for pollution abatement and road maintenance.
Are you SURE there was no double entendre there?
IF they pay those taxes, sure. But if they get a sweatheart "tax break", then no.
Well, for one, I'm an adult and the odds are no kid will be using my phone. I use it when I'm out and about for work and I'm quite capable of behaving professionally without a nanny.
I would be concerned that it might block such dreadfully raunchy XXX rated porn as a news item about a corrupt politician or about how the porn filter blocks a lot more than just porn. This has actually been discovered in internet porn filters in the past, I don't see any provisions for stopping it from happening again.
As briefly amusing as it might be to see it block ExpertSexChange.com, in general net nannies are well known for blocking based on silly innuendo rather than actually objectionable content.
This is just a cynical play to collect money from people who think if they complain their minister will think they are viewing porn.
You're preaching to the choir here. My questions were to someone who doesn't think it's immoral or unethical to evade taxes.
Shade tree mechanics have been a thing since cars went mainstream. Same for tractors. Somehow, we haven't ended the human race yet. It's becoming less common now, in part because it's getting harder to fix without a special blessing from the OEM (who do they think they are, the Pope?) but I don't see any evidence that lives are being saved. If anything it's more dangerous since people will avoid expensive dealer repairs as long as possible (sometimes out of necessity).
Danger FUD is a common tactic of those opposed to the right to repair, don't fall for it.
There's nothing magic about gas. People successfully assemble gas grills and change tanks out all the time. Putting in a new water heater or gas stove isn't rocket science but it could be made even easier and safer with minimal effort. I have found that the most common failure in a microwave is the keypad and logic. Make that an easily swappable module and people won't likely need to mess with the magnetron or wave guides. Actually, it's already easily swappable in most cases, it's just impossible to get the replacement part.
Keep in mind that right to repair ALSO means that if you're not all that handy yourself, you can take it to someone else to repair and they can actually fix it without paying the OEM thousands in fees to become "authorized". Note that often all "authorized" means is that the fee was paid in full and they have agreed not to use same-spec 3rd party parts or "undercharge". Can you think of anyone who wouldn't like for low cost repairs to be a thing?
The last time my washing machine broke down, I had to show the "authorized" repair person how to put it in diagnostic mode and how to read off the error code. In spite of a lid latch failed code and everything else working fine, he wanted to replace the mainboard (and not the lid latch) but of course, he didn't have one on the truck. I called the warranty center back and demanded a different repairman with a lid latch on the truck. He came out and replaced the lid latch. It's been trouble free since then. So much for the "assured quality of an authorized repair".
Personal income taxes just end up being paid by hard working corporations. If I have to pay taxes out of my income, I buy less stuff and corporate profits go down.
So do the right thing and abolish personal income tax. Do the right thing and let the corporations pay their taxes out of their profits.
So if I were to say evade the grocery store's food tax, that wouldn't lead you to question my ethics?
How about if I just trick the cashier into putting my steak on your tab? (hey, somebody's gotta pay for it and somebody did so it's all good, right?).
And of course, nobody could ever possibly want to use a general purpose API for a general purpose that may or may not be ad blocking.
The rule list size limit is a bit of a red herring, that's not the worst feature of the new API. The new API is a static list. Point out the error if I'm wrong, but it certainly looks like the rule list is loaded at browser startup and I see no API for updating it. No more "allow this for this site" or "don't allow this anymore" etc. No more OK for this but not with cookies. You can turn the filtering on or off for a particular group of pages but not modify it. We don't really need to return to the old Microsoft joke "you have moved your mouse, please reboot to make the change take effect"
Of course, the size of the list should be flexible. Nobody uses fixed size lists for things like this beyond programming 101 and I doubt the Google developers do either. That makes the size cutoff arbitrary.
It only took me a few minutes on a lazy Sunday afternoon to see the crippling limitations, surely you're not trying to tell me that nobody at Google noticed that the new API is in no way a proper replacement for the old API.
That's not to say that the new API has no uses, just that it doesn't actually replace the API it is claimed to replace. Sorry, we don't sell front loaders anymore, try this table spoon.
In the words of Judge Judy, "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining".
The rest of us can only go by what Google releases publicly. And what was released publicly was that they were removing an essential API for ad blockers and replacing it with nothing at all useful.
Now that the excuse has been publicly debunked with actual measurements, they are reversing that decision.
The size of the static list was never the point of controversy. Even an infinite static list would be less useful than the current API.
I agree that we can't prove a particular intent form what we see, we can only make good guesses. It COULD be some developer with a wild hair up their nether regions. It could be someone wanting to mark their territory (much as a dog does), or it could be because Google really isn't that fond of ad blockers.
But since this isn't a court of law, we're not obligated to use "beyond reasonable doubt" as our cutoff.
In general, let the users decide would be a better answer. Make the new API available concurrently. If the old API has security implications, state them clearly and make sure the user can easily see which API a given extension is using. Let them decide if something using the new API is doing an adequate job. Mark the new API as experimental to indicate that it might be pulled back out if it doesn't work out.
But also worth considering, people are tired of churn. I really don't give a crap if my favorite extension is so 30 seconds ago, it works for me and I have too many things to do to keep finding workarounds for the churn.
You also have to apply enough force at that point to overcome the energy being input to the system.
It's much easier to control where it walks to than it is to stop it from walking.
And we can tell them that with legislation in the public interest with the added benefit covers the many cases where the manufacturer didn't notify the customer before sale that every effort to make the device irreparable has been made.
They're not forced to, they could just not sell their irreparable junk anymore if they like.
Go tell that to whoever you're shilling for.
Lets not do that. We have managed just fine allowing people to repair their cars and lawn mowers without a special license for as long as those things have existed.
Why not, I have the right to repair or modify the steering on my car. If you modify the autosteer badly, you are the most likely person to die.
You may be unaware of a legal concept known as construction.
When a manufacturer takes steps to make sure parts are unavailable, repair information can't be published, and goes out of their way to have a properly speced repair part not work (for example, by requiring a software tool to "introduce" the part to the system, they are constructively denying your right to repair.
They also wear gloves and masks, long pants and boots. They dilute it before application. They spray it using a spray wand. Compared to a kid rolling on the ground where it was applied (or even younger kids possibly tasting the dirt), the people applying it may actually ingest less of it.
She tried to push down on it to make it stop like my dad once did, but she's not heavy enough.
That is at odds with TFA based on people who actually examined the use of the software.
You COULD throw out the reports from police, but they DON'T.