Now, I am not a fan of taxes by any means, but I dislike free riders even more. Using your logic, it would be ok for all of Mircosoft's employees to declare themselve personal corporations in the state of Nevada, and then claim their wages as revenue of such a corporation.
Technically, yes. Of course, if they want to keep living in Washington, they probably own or rent property there. This property can be subject to property taxes. If they want to eat in the state of Washington, they probably buy food. This transaction, which takes place in the state of Washington, can be subject to a sales tax.
I'm opposed to income taxes because income is so easy to shift. Consumption is a lot easier to define, identify, and tax.
There are other benefits that accrue to the share holders of Microsoft, such as the fire protection, roads, etc. It makes sense to make Microsoft pay for those, for example by having a property tax on their offices in Washington (which, IIRC, exists and they do pay). I was objecting to the claim that Microsoft needs to pay the state of Washington for the education of its employees - not to corporate taxes in general.
I didn't realize that the education I got from the government, for which my parents paid by taxes, made me the property of that government (since I cannot be parted from that education without killing me). It's only a short logical jump from saying that the employee's education obligates the employer to saying that it obligated the employees themselves and therefore they may not leave the jurisdiction that paid to have them educated. I seem to recall the USSR, may it rest in pieces, used that argument.
The fact is that having a well educated workforce does benefit the state of Washington. It means a workforce that makes more money (= state income tax), spends more money (= sales tax), and gets more expensive houses (= property taxes). This is true, and pays the state of Washington for the costs of educating the children who grew up to work in Microsoft, regardless of how Microsoft runs its business.
Who decides which creator gets which piece of this pie? The Canadian RIAA, or the Canadian ministry of culture? Either way, is there any reason to assume their money allocation will be anything similar to what music consumers actually want?
An employer is a customer, who buys your labor. Suing your customers is usually a bad idea, as the RIAA is slowly discovering. Suing your one big customer is an even worse idea.
Not really a joke. This is the same as paying people a small amount for telecommuting 7:30-10, driving to work 10:30 and working 10:30-5 instead of driving 7:15-8 and working 8-5.
That's the way the market is supposed to work to allocate resources more efficiently.
It seems especially silly as most (all!?) of the nations that contain the source of the current generation of terrorists are excluded.
That is precisely the reason. They don't trust that law enforcement in those countries isn't compromised (= has people whose true loyalties are terrorist organizations). We don't know if US and UK intelligence services trust Saudi Arabia. We do know that they don't trust Iran and Syria.
What makes you think having more college student voters would lead to better elected officials? Are they somehow smarter than people who finished college ten years ago, for example?
Corporate Copyrights are not just Music and Videos produced by Evil Inc. They also include a lot of software, which is the livelihood of many slashdot posters. Are you sure we can live without commercial software development?
Judaism isn't a race, because you can't join a race and you can convert to Judaism - even if it's harder than converting to Islam.
I didn't bring Saudi Arabia as an example because it excuses Israel, but because it doesn't make sense to boycott Israel and not boycott Saudi. And if you drive a car, you probably can't boycott Saudi.
Would you also review your patronage of companies that do business with Saudi Arabia, which forbids any exercise of non-Muslim religion? Israel isn't perfect, but it does have non-Jewish citizens, and allows the exercise of other religions. It does discriminate, but it goes both ways. Non Jewish citizens aren't usually forced to serve in the military, although they can volunteer.
In all seriousness, Canada's immigration rate is nearly double that of the US. The rest of the world disagress with your statement. Except maybe Russians - most of them are accustomed to living in a police state already.
Is that because more people want to immigrate to Canada, or because Canada allows more immigrants to come in?
The Middle East has had a thriving scientific and technological tradition long before 600 AD. It's not referred to as "Islamic" or "Arab", because neither term is used for what is today the Arab World prior to that time.
Early Islam did not retard scientific and technological progress, but it didn't necessarily help them either.
Developing a plan to implement a deterrent doesn't mean stopping 100% of illegal downloading, or even 50%. It just means that you have some policy that looks like it'll work when you don't examine it too closely. That may sound stupid to you and me, but doing something that looks like it might work, without verifying in some way that it'll actually do some good, is what politics is all about. It's not about solving problems as much as it is about appearing to solve problems.
It's none of my business why you decided to do DSL LAN setups for $50 and not a different price. As a potential customer I have a right to know the price you want to charge, but not the considerations that made you decide on it. Similarly, as a potential buyer of Foo brand TV, I have the right to know that it costs $x at Wal*Mart, $x+50 at Target, and $x+200 at the mall. I do not have a right to know what made each vendor chose that price, so I do not have the right to know that Foo Inc. made them each sign a contract not to sell it for less than $x.
Lie by omission is when somebody is expected to disclose something and doesn't. For example, when you buy food, you expect the packaging to have a warning if it contains peanuts because some people are allergic to them. If a package of peanuts does not have "may contain peanuts" on it, that's a lie by omission.
Fraud is when somebody lies to you. Fraud is not when somebody says; "You may buy this product from me, provided you agree not to sell it for less than $x". Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it dishonest.
This issue is ideal for a soundbite. "Government stipends for thinkers? Sounds good for thinkers who are the politicians' lap dogs, producing their propaganda for them".
Would you rather be awarded the patent and then have a court overturn it? This way you save on litigation costs if you're going to file a patent for which there is prior art.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I am not a fan of taxes by any means, but I dislike free riders even more. Using your logic, it would be ok for all of Mircosoft's employees to declare themselve personal corporations in the state of Nevada, and then claim their wages as revenue of such a corporation.
Technically, yes. Of course, if they want to keep living in Washington, they probably own or rent property there. This property can be subject to property taxes. If they want to eat in the state of Washington, they probably buy food. This transaction, which takes place in the state of Washington, can be subject to a sales tax.
I'm opposed to income taxes because income is so easy to shift. Consumption is a lot easier to define, identify, and tax.
There are other benefits that accrue to the share holders of Microsoft, such as the fire protection, roads, etc. It makes sense to make Microsoft pay for those, for example by having a property tax on their offices in Washington (which, IIRC, exists and they do pay). I was objecting to the claim that Microsoft needs to pay the state of Washington for the education of its employees - not to corporate taxes in general.
I didn't realize that the education I got from the government, for which my parents paid by taxes, made me the property of that government (since I cannot be parted from that education without killing me). It's only a short logical jump from saying that the employee's education obligates the employer to saying that it obligated the employees themselves and therefore they may not leave the jurisdiction that paid to have them educated. I seem to recall the USSR, may it rest in pieces, used that argument.
The fact is that having a well educated workforce does benefit the state of Washington. It means a workforce that makes more money (= state income tax), spends more money (= sales tax), and gets more expensive houses (= property taxes). This is true, and pays the state of Washington for the costs of educating the children who grew up to work in Microsoft, regardless of how Microsoft runs its business.
Who decides which creator gets which piece of this pie? The Canadian RIAA, or the Canadian ministry of culture? Either way, is there any reason to assume their money allocation will be anything similar to what music consumers actually want?
I didn't realize the US software industry is dead. I guess all the employed programmers confused me.
An employer is a customer, who buys your labor. Suing your customers is usually a bad idea, as the RIAA is slowly discovering. Suing your one big customer is an even worse idea.
Not really a joke. This is the same as paying people a small amount for telecommuting 7:30-10, driving to work 10:30 and working 10:30-5 instead of driving 7:15-8 and working 8-5.
That's the way the market is supposed to work to allocate resources more efficiently.
It seems especially silly as most (all!?) of the nations that contain the source of the current generation of terrorists are excluded.
That is precisely the reason. They don't trust that law enforcement in those countries isn't compromised (= has people whose true loyalties are terrorist organizations). We don't know if US and UK intelligence services trust Saudi Arabia. We do know that they don't trust Iran and Syria.
For the member list see http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/Members/default.asp
Probably not. Linden Labs can easily keep track of the sources of money that is used to buy their currency.
What makes you think having more college student voters would lead to better elected officials? Are they somehow smarter than people who finished college ten years ago, for example?
9.09999% Five nines, as promised. ;-)
Corporate Copyrights are not just Music and Videos produced by Evil Inc. They also include a lot of software, which is the livelihood of many slashdot posters. Are you sure we can live without commercial software development?
This is the reason military training includes a huge component of impulse control - the point is to train soldiers to be violence when appropriate.
You think war is always avoidable. So did Neville Chamberlain. I do not.
What sort of opposition will the US public have for a just war? Or a necessary one?
I, for one, would rather have our soldiers safe. Even if it means that third world dictators lose their power more often.
Judaism isn't a race, because you can't join a race and you can convert to Judaism - even if it's harder than converting to Islam.
I didn't bring Saudi Arabia as an example because it excuses Israel, but because it doesn't make sense to boycott Israel and not boycott Saudi. And if you drive a car, you probably can't boycott Saudi.
Would you also review your patronage of companies that do business with Saudi Arabia, which forbids any exercise of non-Muslim religion? Israel isn't perfect, but it does have non-Jewish citizens, and allows the exercise of other religions. It does discriminate, but it goes both ways. Non Jewish citizens aren't usually forced to serve in the military, although they can volunteer.
But the UN makes it Illegal I guess it is back to the good old Night Stick where you just beat the guy to near death and at risk of hurting yourself.
The UN is not really a government, and cannot make things legal or illegal. It has all the legal authority of a debating society.
In all seriousness, Canada's immigration rate is nearly double that of the US. The rest of the world disagress with your statement. Except maybe Russians - most of them are accustomed to living in a police state already.
Is that because more people want to immigrate to Canada, or because Canada allows more immigrants to come in?
The Middle East has had a thriving scientific and technological tradition long before 600 AD. It's not referred to as "Islamic" or "Arab", because neither term is used for what is today the Arab World prior to that time.
Early Islam did not retard scientific and technological progress, but it didn't necessarily help them either.
Developing a plan to implement a deterrent doesn't mean stopping 100% of illegal downloading, or even 50%. It just means that you have some policy that looks like it'll work when you don't examine it too closely. That may sound stupid to you and me, but doing something that looks like it might work, without verifying in some way that it'll actually do some good, is what politics is all about. It's not about solving problems as much as it is about appearing to solve problems.
It's none of my business why you decided to do DSL LAN setups for $50 and not a different price. As a potential customer I have a right to know the price you want to charge, but not the considerations that made you decide on it. Similarly, as a potential buyer of Foo brand TV, I have the right to know that it costs $x at Wal*Mart, $x+50 at Target, and $x+200 at the mall. I do not have a right to know what made each vendor chose that price, so I do not have the right to know that Foo Inc. made them each sign a contract not to sell it for less than $x.
Lie by omission is when somebody is expected to disclose something and doesn't. For example, when you buy food, you expect the packaging to have a warning if it contains peanuts because some people are allergic to them. If a package of peanuts does not have "may contain peanuts" on it, that's a lie by omission.
Fraud is when somebody lies to you. Fraud is not when somebody says; "You may buy this product from me, provided you agree not to sell it for less than $x". Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it dishonest.
This issue is ideal for a soundbite. "Government stipends for thinkers? Sounds good for thinkers who are the politicians' lap dogs, producing their propaganda for them".
Would you rather be awarded the patent and then have a court overturn it? This way you save on litigation costs if you're going to file a patent for which there is prior art.