If corporations are, indeed, people they should be accorded the rights and privileges of people. For instance, corporations might get to vote or get a drivers license.
But they should also suffer the various ills which befall organic people. For instance, people die in accidents or develop horrible diseases or get murdered or mugged. People commit crimes and go to jail or get executed - and sometimes even innocent people have that happen to them.
My proposal to extend full "personhood" to corporations is that, chosen by some random process and accurately reflecting what happens to organic persons, each year some percentage of corporate "persons" are declared to have been involved in accidents or were the victims of violent crimes. And are instantly and without warning terminated - disincorporated - killed off as it were.
Some other percentage are deemed to have developed a disease and are rendered capable of only limited activity for a time with most of those inflicted recovering but with the balance dying.
Some die at birth, some die in infancy, some live to ripe old ages. But they all die. And they die in ages as do organic persons - some statistical percentage die at different ages according to actuarial tables. And so should corporations. The oldest real person is maybe 115 years old so no corporation should be older.
Corporations which break laws should be prosecuted and, if convicted, suffer the same fate as would an organic person. Probation, jail time, or even execution. With some percentage of those being unjustly convicted and innocent of wrongdoing but suffering the punishments anyway.
We might even consider tax laws - why should a corporation get special tax laws? Make them do their taxes using form 1040 and the standard tax tables. And no multi-nationals. Do organic persons get to declare citizenship and residence simultaneously in multiple countries?
Or basic laws against slavery? If a corporation is a person, no corporate person should be allowed to own another corporate person. No wholly or partially owned subsidiaries allowed.
We need to do so much more to bring the rights of true organic personhood to corporate persons.
Bingo! Right answer! Zero technology, instantly understandable and accepted by even the most techno-illiterate among us. And essentially certain to prevail in court for just that reason. Suggestions to use the wayback machine or on-line source/version repositories are useless as evidence because they require that judges and juries (or even HR reps) understand what they represent.
Of course, all this technique will do is prove that you had access to the materials at the time they were mailed. Not that you own them or wrote them or invented them or whatever else may be your concern. BUT (and its a big and a good but) this will PROVE how the materials/project/invention looked at some time prior to the mailing date. So, if somebody who doesn't know you and was hired by the client some time after you mailed the package claims to be the author/inventer of the package contents, that claim will not pass any sort of scrutiny.
My wife used this very technique before she went to work as sales manager for a software vendor and took her extensive rolodex (aka contact list) with her after mailing a copy to herself. When she was moving on after an ugly commission dispute, that software vendor tried to claim that her contact list had been developed while she was in their employ and was therefore their property. They made dire legal threats about what would happen if she didn't give up her contact list or ever tried to use it again and had their attorney make threats of a lawsuit. Our attorney contacted their attorney, told him what my wife had mailed to herself prior to her employment, that the package was in a secure place, and would be produced as evidence if necessary. About two weeks later we got a letter from the other attorney suggesting that it all been a misunderstanding and then no further action would be taken.
Why doesn't Microsoft Support make available a downloadable ISO (or a program that creates one) of a bootable CD. After burning, that CD would contain a minimal operating system, something like System File Checker, and the name, path, and hash of every current system file for the OS to be tested.
Users would boot from that Microsoft-provided CD and let it diagnose their system. Files failing the hash would be noted and reported to the user who might then be offered the opportunity to download known good copies directly from Microsoft. A simple installer would place the good files where they belong and then allow the user to re-boot from his now clean hard drive.
Does this already exist and I've just missed knowing about it? I know that I'd use it if I had one. And not just for infestations, as it would also be very useful for repairing file corruption from degrading disk drives.
Living in an area with poor over-the-air digital TV reception, my daughter had to make the financial choice between broadband and cable TV. Wisely, she chose broadband. I bought her a Roku unit and she loves it.
With Roku for Netflix and Amazon access and her laptop plugged into her TV for Hulu access she doesn't really miss cable - but she'd really like to have a single set-top unit that provides both Netflix and Hulu.
I've been looking at the Myka ION as a possible Roku replacement/upgrade for her but it seems more capable than necessary and at least $100 over-priced. When something appears that provides Roku capability plus Hulu for around $200, I'll buy one for her. If it also provides access to the websites of CNN and broadcast networks, I'll pay $250 for it.
Note that if it also provided optional access to BBC America, Discovery, TLC, History, and NatGeo, I'd be willing to pay a reasonable subscription fee to each of those companies, buy a unit for myself, and drop my own cable TV serice in a heartbeat.
Now that I think about it, if TV broadcasters were streaming their own content to such a device, I'd also be willing to pay each of them a monthly subscription fee. How much? I don't know. But the fact that Fox was asking Time Warner $1 per month per subscriber tells me what a subscription should cost. $1 each month to each of the probably ten content providers I care about would be perfect - and save me over $60 per month compared to my current cable bill. Buying a new STB for $250 with a 4-month ROI looks like a good deal to me.
As there is no way that phone companies would want to (or be allowed to) abandon millions of miles of copper wire and the tasty franchises and monopolies that went along with their installation, there will be no switch to a wireless-only phone network. Phone companies aren't suggesting any such thing, don't have and don't want to build the required wireless bandwidth, and have invested a ton of money in digital switches and fiber connections between their facilities.
I'd guess that the switch-to-subscriber last-mile connection is probably about the only analog left in most phone systems. However, changing that last mile from analog to digital would be the way to go - and would be hugely less expensive than replacing wire with fiber.
Each current subscriber would receive either a new digital handset or an A-to-D converter if they wanted to keep their current handset. Note that this seems to have worked out OK for the TV switchover.
The new system would continue to provide DC current to power the customer handsets or converters so should continue to work even in case of AC power outs. The new digital handset/converter would provide some sort of packet-based transmission to the (probably already digital) switch where it would enter (certainly already digital) long distance system.
Why bother to do this? New markets for new products from the phone company; new features on your newly-digital POTS handset. Why fire up a PC to get VOIP service - or non-voice communication? How about email directly to grandma's phone? A real videophone? Digital service to every home with universal Internet access? Multiple subscribers in remote areas on a single piece of wire without party lines? Multiple concurrent phone calls from/to your home phone with only one phone number?
A pile of new products and services to sell. Big profits. If I owned a phone company, I'd want to do it. Especially if I could get the A-to-D converters subsidized by the government.
If we're concerned about the public expense implications of municipal broadband, perhaps it's time to eliminate some of the entries in tax codes that allow some individuals (or entities) to avoid paying their fair share. For instance:
1) Income tax exemptions for having children. Is there any reason for this? Does any one think that people won't reproduce without tax incentives? Even should such exemptions be deemed acceptable, should there be an upper bound? Perhaps exemptions for the first two children, but not for the third and beyond? Families with large numbers of children not only pay less in income tax, but they are a significantly larger burden on the local school systems. These people are, in essence, getting paid through income taxes to increase their neighbor's property taxes to support government spending on schools.
2) Property tax exemptions for "religious" institutions. OK, let the actual place of worship be tax exempt. And maybe even the church-provided residence of the minister/shaman/rabbi/whatever. But no properties beyond those two. Starting immediately, it should be a requirement that tax assessors annually publish the complete roll of tax exempt properties, their owners, the assessed valuation of the property, and the taxes lost through the exemption. Having some small amount of firsthand experience, I can assure you that you'd be astonished to see how much money is lost through these tax exemptions - and on what sorts of properties. Probably more than enough to pay for public broadband.
3) Income tax exemptions for interest on home loans and property taxes. Especially for rich folks. Any compelling reason why the guy with a $500K income buying a $3M house needs to be able to write off all the interest and taxes? If prefered, why not simply cap the write offs at some reasonable amount? Perhaps only allow a write-off of the first $20K in interest expense and $5K in taxes? These numbers are reasonably consistent with purchasing a $400K home. Being rich enough to pay more means being reach enough to pay your taxes.
4) Income tax exemptions on donations to a religious institution. No reason for this whatsoever. None.
The point being that any tax policy isn't necessarily bad, but neither is it fair or equitable. If because of tax implications we decide not to implement programs that benefit the public, we should also consider the tax implications of rewarding the behavior of some individuals.
Data General was a bad decision 20+ years ago and hasn't improved with age.
For those who don't know the story, consider this scenario and see what you think: As a small startup company Data General designed, engineered, and began manufacture of a 16-bit minicomputer of proprietary architecture. As a part of that effort, Data General also designed and coded an operating system for their architecture. Over a period of years Data General successfully developed and grew a market, becoming a major provider of minicomputers.
At some time during Data General's growth, Digidyne either reverse-engineered or simply copied the Data General architecture (easy to do as components were large and off-the-shelf, PC boards had only a few layers, and schematics were readily available) and began to manufacture a line of knock-off hardware. Digidyne recognized that potential purchasers of such knock-offs also wanted an operating system but Digidyne were not willing or able to develop one of their own. Asserting that not allowing potential purchasers of their knock-off hardware to use software developed and owned by Data General was inhibiting their ability to sell such hardware, Digidyne successfully sued Data General to allow such use.
Digidyne did not design the hardware, develop a market for it, or design and code an operating system. Digidyne made essentially no investment other than in lawyers. And it worked for them.
The "tying" decision comes down to Digidyne successfully arguing that their knock-offs were worthless without an operating system and that Data General should make one available to them.
Contemplating the essential rightness and correctness of the court decision or comparing and contrasting the circumstances to Apple v Pystar (or vice versa) are exercises left to the reader.
If "subjective bad faith" as the cause of Universal's behavior is eliminated, they're left with only "stupidity" or "ignorance of the law" as their excuses. Since neither of those is likely to make their lawyers look good, I'm guessing they'll go with with some variation on the general theme of "ignorance".
Sample: "Sadly, your honor, in spite of the many requirements we placed in their contract, we were not informed by a third-party subcontractor of a computer or software error for which they were entirely to blame."
Fascinating that you suggest that "proper music" and "highly-skilled artists" cannot exist without the existence of controlled technologies. This means that that neither such music nor such artists existed prior to approximately 1877 when the phonograph was invented.
That anti-Midas ability is correctly known as the "Bandini Touch".
Named after a Southern California fertilizer company which used the radio and TV advertising slogan "Bandini is the name for steer manure" spoken in provocative tones by a female voice. The company also ran TV spots featuring a skier attempting to make a run down a huge pile of processed manure with the slogan "Ski Bandini Mountain". Great fun.
The "Bandini Touch" is the ability to turn into shit everything you contact.
That the best you got? I remember having a line of 10Mb drives connected to our Burroughs B5500. Each drive cabinet was the height and depth and about half the width of a washing machine. They had platters over two feet in diameter spinning on a horizontal axle. Every day or two we had to put them back into line as they precessed as the earth rotated. Great fun. Oh, we also had one of those IBM 1401 with a model 1405 drive which provided 10Mb in a cabinet about the size of a new side-by-side refrigerator/freezer. Good times.
Not just electronics firms. Foreign automobile companies do the same thing. Toyota USA, Nissan USA, Honda USA, BMW USA, etc. are simply importers, buying cars from their parent companies in Japan or Germany or wherever (and at a handsome profit to the parent) and then selling them to dealers at a small markup. Said small markup is then applied to advertising and other expenses resulting in no taxable income for the importer. Neat. All the profits stay in the parent country and the only income taxes come from the independent dealers.
At least Ford, GM, and Chrysler avoid paying taxes the old-fashioned way: they don't make a profit.
Somewhere over 20 years ago SDG&E (San Diego Gas & Electric) was offering customers an outside unit that connected between the AC compressor unit (the real energy hog) and the power line. Same trick. SDG&E could turn off your compressor at will - with the promise that they'd only do so when necessary and for not more than an hour a day. In exchange for accepting the unit, they knocked $10 per month (IIRC) off your billing. Each month. Whether or not they cycled your AC. Best deal ever.
"...pump in water from two states away" Which state might that be that California pumps water from?
California is bordered by Oregon, Arizona, and Nevada. No water pipelines cross those states.
On the other side of the bordering states are Washington, Idaho, Utah and New Mexico. No water is "pumped" from any of those states.
I suspect you're suggesting that using water from the Colorado River (which forms the border between California and Arizona) is equivalent to pumping water from two states away.
In any case, feel free to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Stay away or don't visit California unless you bring your own water supply.
Articles on massive scale solar power systems almost inevitably include some sort of a comparison showing that solar power generation is not cost-competitive with systems which burn oil or natural gas as fuel. The implication is that solar systems will force consumers to pay more for electricity, thereby discouraging their construction.
There are two critical issues that such cost comparisons ignore:
1) They never account for the long-term costs of pumping more carbon dioxide (plus various pollutants) into the atmosphere and,
2) They never tell us the price of crude oil used for the cost justification.
It is extremely unlikely that any such comparison will give oil quite so much of an advantage if computed at $100+ per barrel (today's price) for imported crude. Or at $200 per barrel. Or if imported crude isn't available at any price.
Yes, I know that I ignored coal as a fuel. I live in California and every fuel-burning power plant around here runs on oil or natural gas depending on weather conditions. Coal isn't an option for pollution reasons. And we do have thousands of square miles of desert that are ideal for solar power plants.
Gambling, real gambling in real brick and mortar casinos, is very heavily supervised and regulated by governments. They do this not simply to collect their share of the revenues, but because many (probably most) casinos prior to such supervision and regulation were busily fleecing their customers whenever and however possible. With such oversight, your chance of getting ripped-off by the casino is about zip.
Compare and contrast to online gambling where you have no way to know (and really, no reason to even believe) that the game is honest or that you'll collect if you win big.
While we frequently hear of some big winner in Las Vegas (think of the picture of some grinning stranger holding a check larger than he or she is made out for a zillion dollars), have you ever seen any such thing from an online casino? Me either. Know anybody who gambled online, won a pile of money and had a check show up in a few days? Me either.
First, how much of the dual core performance advantage comes from some intrinsic improvement in the way instructions are executed within the cores (fewer clocks per instruction/more instructions per clock)?
Second, how much from more recent technologies giving faster bus speeds and memory?
Third, how much from the simple fact that having one CPU to run dozens of background processes frees the other to run just the application?
While I'm not sure what modern testing would reveal, I recall that direct apples-to-apples (same processor, same motherboard, same memory, same peripherals) testing done 15+ years ago on dual processor UNIX systems, consistently proved number three to be the winner. Typical improvements in performance by enabling the second CPU were in the range of 20%. Increasing bus or memory speeds provided essentially identical performance boosts in both single and dual CPU tests. Running threaded benchmark software and allowing some of the threads to utilize the second CPU also provided performance improvements but obviously required thread-enabled code - which still isn't the norm.
A 2.4GHz CPU plus that 20% improvement = approx. 2.9GHz of effective performance. Close enough to make us think we're getting something worthwhile from that second CPU above what we'd get from a single 3.0GHz chip.
I'd like to see that comparison myself. In fact, I'd like to see a series of common software products and benchmarks run in that comparison - not just those that have "tweaked" to take advantage of some zippy new feature in the latest graphics card supported in Vista but not XP.
Fact is, I'd like to see similar comparisons run between a stock 32-bit single processor system (maybe at 3GHz) and a 32-bit dual-core system (maybe at 2.4GHz) - each running the same speed memory and disks. And definitely not running two copies of the benchmark software and adding the results in an attempt to convince me that running two copies of Photoshop simultaneously will give me faster editing of one a single image.
My experience with multiprocessor systems suggests that with a 2-CPU system 1+1 does not equal 2 CPUs when computing performance except for software very specifically written for such an environment. Or for users who want to run a compute-intensive video editor while simultaneously compiling software. And even then not if some other resource is the limiting factor.
I suspect that the huge majority of users will usually see better performance from a single 3GHz CPU than from two 2.4GHz CPUs. And they won't see anything at all from adding more processors.
I do have lots of free time and I'm not looking to actually restore old photos, just to make some simple improvements to their color quality. Scanning old photos isn't really all that time consuming. I've been scanning a couple of hundred a day, limited only by my fairly low tolerance for boring routine.
What I do see is that old Kodacolor prints (ditto Polaroid images) tend to change color because of differential fading of pigments in very similar ways. There seem to be consistent patterns of color changes in the various batches of photos I've been scanning apparently related to the age of the prints and probably paper and processing quality.
What I'd like to find is a tool which already knows (or can be trained to know) about that differential fading. It should apply some standard correction to an image for my review. It should then allow me to indicate an area on the image (not just a pixel or two) and assign it my preferred color value (grass should be green, the US flag should have red stripes, etc) and adjust RGB values accordingly over the entire image. It should then default to that RGB correction on the next image unless I overrule it.
Simple needs probably easily met by a simple program. If I could just find it.
Rather than having multiple versions of Photoshop or simplifying the interface, I'd be happy if Adobe would provide a "wizard" to help me. A few questions at the front end "are you a professional photographer wanting to do complex image manipulations?" "are you preparing images for a multicolor printing press?" "do you want to retouch jpg images downloaded from your digital camera?" "do you want to correct fading on older Kodacolor prints you've scanned?" "Do you want to do color correction on Polaroid prints you've scanned?"
Those last two wizard choices are the ones I really want to see as I've got thousands of color prints taken by my parents and grandparents over the last 50+ years that I'd really like to scan and clean up so I can distribute them on CD to the rest of the family. If anybody knows of some software that can do those last two things with minimum fuss and bother (I've got thousands of images to fix), please post.
So, if the government should stop funding this research and the companies that have the financial wherewithal to continue it are just as bad as the government, then who will provide the funding? And, equally importantly, how can we trust whomsoever that might be?
Sure, let's eliminate taxpayer funding and wait for private industry to fill the void. I'm just as certain as can be that we can expect Exxon, BP, and Shell to provide many millions of dollars for research into the role of fossil fuels in climate change with no strings attached.
Between the "ah-ha" moment of a new idea and the delivery of a complex manufactured product incorporating that idea to consumers, comes a time when the inventor has to decide if it is worth his trouble and if he can turn a profit. Patents, no matter how flawed the system, give the inventor a period of time to make an attempt to do so.
Patents do not not necessarily stifle innovation, but they stifle competition from those who didn't innovate but are attempting to make a profit from the ideas of someone who did. Without some sort of patent system an inventor might struggle to bring his product to market, see it gain acceptance, and then see it ripped-off by a predatory company with lower manufacturing costs and none of that annoying development cost. The inventor loses market share, goes belly-up, and vows to never bother to invent anything again. The predator makes the profits and lurks quietly waiting for another fool to bring something new to market.
Does the consumer win in this scenario? Only until true innovators recognize that it's useless to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
If corporations are, indeed, people they should be accorded the rights and privileges of people. For instance, corporations might get to vote or get a drivers license.
But they should also suffer the various ills which befall organic people. For instance, people die in accidents or develop horrible diseases or get murdered or mugged. People commit crimes and go to jail or get executed - and sometimes even innocent people have that happen to them.
My proposal to extend full "personhood" to corporations is that, chosen by some random process and accurately reflecting what happens to organic persons, each year some percentage of corporate "persons" are declared to have been involved in accidents or were the victims of violent crimes. And are instantly and without warning terminated - disincorporated - killed off as it were.
Some other percentage are deemed to have developed a disease and are rendered capable of only limited activity for a time with most of those inflicted recovering but with the balance dying.
Some die at birth, some die in infancy, some live to ripe old ages. But they all die. And they die in ages as do organic persons - some statistical percentage die at different ages according to actuarial tables. And so should corporations. The oldest real person is maybe 115 years old so no corporation should be older.
Corporations which break laws should be prosecuted and, if convicted, suffer the same fate as would an organic person. Probation, jail time, or even execution. With some percentage of those being unjustly convicted and innocent of wrongdoing but suffering the punishments anyway.
We might even consider tax laws - why should a corporation get special tax laws? Make them do their taxes using form 1040 and the standard tax tables. And no multi-nationals. Do organic persons get to declare citizenship and residence simultaneously in multiple countries?
Or basic laws against slavery? If a corporation is a person, no corporate person should be allowed to own another corporate person. No wholly or partially owned subsidiaries allowed.
We need to do so much more to bring the rights of true organic personhood to corporate persons.
Bingo! Right answer! Zero technology, instantly understandable and accepted by even the most techno-illiterate among us. And essentially certain to prevail in court for just that reason. Suggestions to use the wayback machine or on-line source/version repositories are useless as evidence because they require that judges and juries (or even HR reps) understand what they represent.
Of course, all this technique will do is prove that you had access to the materials at the time they were mailed. Not that you own them or wrote them or invented them or whatever else may be your concern. BUT (and its a big and a good but) this will PROVE how the materials/project/invention looked at some time prior to the mailing date. So, if somebody who doesn't know you and was hired by the client some time after you mailed the package claims to be the author/inventer of the package contents, that claim will not pass any sort of scrutiny.
My wife used this very technique before she went to work as sales manager for a software vendor and took her extensive rolodex (aka contact list) with her after mailing a copy to herself. When she was moving on after an ugly commission dispute, that software vendor tried to claim that her contact list had been developed while she was in their employ and was therefore their property. They made dire legal threats about what would happen if she didn't give up her contact list or ever tried to use it again and had their attorney make threats of a lawsuit. Our attorney contacted their attorney, told him what my wife had mailed to herself prior to her employment, that the package was in a secure place, and would be produced as evidence if necessary. About two weeks later we got a letter from the other attorney suggesting that it all been a misunderstanding and then no further action would be taken.
Why doesn't Microsoft Support make available a downloadable ISO (or a program that creates one) of a bootable CD. After burning, that CD would contain a minimal operating system, something like System File Checker, and the name, path, and hash of every current system file for the OS to be tested.
Users would boot from that Microsoft-provided CD and let it diagnose their system. Files failing the hash would be noted and reported to the user who might then be offered the opportunity to download known good copies directly from Microsoft. A simple installer would place the good files where they belong and then allow the user to re-boot from his now clean hard drive.
Does this already exist and I've just missed knowing about it? I know that I'd use it if I had one. And not just for infestations, as it would also be very useful for repairing file corruption from degrading disk drives.
Living in an area with poor over-the-air digital TV reception, my daughter had to make the financial choice between broadband and cable TV. Wisely, she chose broadband. I bought her a Roku unit and she loves it.
With Roku for Netflix and Amazon access and her laptop plugged into her TV for Hulu access she doesn't really miss cable - but she'd really like to have a single set-top unit that provides both Netflix and Hulu.
I've been looking at the Myka ION as a possible Roku replacement/upgrade for her but it seems more capable than necessary and at least $100 over-priced. When something appears that provides Roku capability plus Hulu for around $200, I'll buy one for her. If it also provides access to the websites of CNN and broadcast networks, I'll pay $250 for it.
Note that if it also provided optional access to BBC America, Discovery, TLC, History, and NatGeo, I'd be willing to pay a reasonable subscription fee to each of those companies, buy a unit for myself, and drop my own cable TV serice in a heartbeat.
Now that I think about it, if TV broadcasters were streaming their own content to such a device, I'd also be willing to pay each of them a monthly subscription fee. How much? I don't know. But the fact that Fox was asking Time Warner $1 per month per subscriber tells me what a subscription should cost. $1 each month to each of the probably ten content providers I care about would be perfect - and save me over $60 per month compared to my current cable bill. Buying a new STB for $250 with a 4-month ROI looks like a good deal to me.
As there is no way that phone companies would want to (or be allowed to) abandon millions of miles of copper wire and the tasty franchises and monopolies that went along with their installation, there will be no switch to a wireless-only phone network. Phone companies aren't suggesting any such thing, don't have and don't want to build the required wireless bandwidth, and have invested a ton of money in digital switches and fiber connections between their facilities.
I'd guess that the switch-to-subscriber last-mile connection is probably about the only analog left in most phone systems. However, changing that last mile from analog to digital would be the way to go - and would be hugely less expensive than replacing wire with fiber.
Each current subscriber would receive either a new digital handset or an A-to-D converter if they wanted to keep their current handset. Note that this seems to have worked out OK for the TV switchover.
The new system would continue to provide DC current to power the customer handsets or converters so should continue to work even in case of AC power outs. The new digital handset/converter would provide some sort of packet-based transmission to the (probably already digital) switch where it would enter (certainly already digital) long distance system.
Why bother to do this? New markets for new products from the phone company; new features on your newly-digital POTS handset. Why fire up a PC to get VOIP service - or non-voice communication? How about email directly to grandma's phone? A real videophone? Digital service to every home with universal Internet access? Multiple subscribers in remote areas on a single piece of wire without party lines? Multiple concurrent phone calls from/to your home phone with only one phone number?
A pile of new products and services to sell. Big profits. If I owned a phone company, I'd want to do it. Especially if I could get the A-to-D converters subsidized by the government.
If we're concerned about the public expense implications of municipal broadband, perhaps it's time to eliminate some of the entries in tax codes that allow some individuals (or entities) to avoid paying their fair share. For instance:
1) Income tax exemptions for having children. Is there any reason for this? Does any one think that people won't reproduce without tax incentives? Even should such exemptions be deemed acceptable, should there be an upper bound? Perhaps exemptions for the first two children, but not for the third and beyond? Families with large numbers of children not only pay less in income tax, but they are a significantly larger burden on the local school systems. These people are, in essence, getting paid through income taxes to increase their neighbor's property taxes to support government spending on schools.
2) Property tax exemptions for "religious" institutions. OK, let the actual place of worship be tax exempt. And maybe even the church-provided residence of the minister/shaman/rabbi/whatever. But no properties beyond those two. Starting immediately, it should be a requirement that tax assessors annually publish the complete roll of tax exempt properties, their owners, the assessed valuation of the property, and the taxes lost through the exemption. Having some small amount of firsthand experience, I can assure you that you'd be astonished to see how much money is lost through these tax exemptions - and on what sorts of properties. Probably more than enough to pay for public broadband.
3) Income tax exemptions for interest on home loans and property taxes. Especially for rich folks. Any compelling reason why the guy with a $500K income buying a $3M house needs to be able to write off all the interest and taxes? If prefered, why not simply cap the write offs at some reasonable amount? Perhaps only allow a write-off of the first $20K in interest expense and $5K in taxes? These numbers are reasonably consistent with purchasing a $400K home. Being rich enough to pay more means being reach enough to pay your taxes.
4) Income tax exemptions on donations to a religious institution. No reason for this whatsoever. None.
The point being that any tax policy isn't necessarily bad, but neither is it fair or equitable. If because of tax implications we decide not to implement programs that benefit the public, we should also consider the tax implications of rewarding the behavior of some individuals.
Data General was a bad decision 20+ years ago and hasn't improved with age.
For those who don't know the story, consider this scenario and see what you think: As a small startup company Data General designed, engineered, and began manufacture of a 16-bit minicomputer of proprietary architecture. As a part of that effort, Data General also designed and coded an operating system for their architecture. Over a period of years Data General successfully developed and grew a market, becoming a major provider of minicomputers.
At some time during Data General's growth, Digidyne either reverse-engineered or simply copied the Data General architecture (easy to do as components were large and off-the-shelf, PC boards had only a few layers, and schematics were readily available) and began to manufacture a line of knock-off hardware. Digidyne recognized that potential purchasers of such knock-offs also wanted an operating system but Digidyne were not willing or able to develop one of their own. Asserting that not allowing potential purchasers of their knock-off hardware to use software developed and owned by Data General was inhibiting their ability to sell such hardware, Digidyne successfully sued Data General to allow such use.
Digidyne did not design the hardware, develop a market for it, or design and code an operating system. Digidyne made essentially no investment other than in lawyers. And it worked for them.
The "tying" decision comes down to Digidyne successfully arguing that their knock-offs were worthless without an operating system and that Data General should make one available to them.
Contemplating the essential rightness and correctness of the court decision or comparing and contrasting the circumstances to Apple v Pystar (or vice versa) are exercises left to the reader.
If "subjective bad faith" as the cause of Universal's behavior is eliminated, they're left with only "stupidity" or "ignorance of the law" as their excuses. Since neither of those is likely to make their lawyers look good, I'm guessing they'll go with with some variation on the general theme of "ignorance".
Sample: "Sadly, your honor, in spite of the many requirements we placed in their contract, we were not informed by a third-party subcontractor of a computer or software error for which they were entirely to blame."
Fascinating that you suggest that "proper music" and "highly-skilled artists" cannot exist without the existence of controlled technologies. This means that that neither such music nor such artists existed prior to approximately 1877 when the phonograph was invented.
That anti-Midas ability is correctly known as the "Bandini Touch".
Named after a Southern California fertilizer company which used the radio and TV advertising slogan "Bandini is the name for steer manure" spoken in provocative tones by a female voice. The company also ran TV spots featuring a skier attempting to make a run down a huge pile of processed manure with the slogan "Ski Bandini Mountain". Great fun.
The "Bandini Touch" is the ability to turn into shit everything you contact.
That the best you got? I remember having a line of 10Mb drives connected to our Burroughs B5500. Each drive cabinet was the height and depth and about half the width of a washing machine. They had platters over two feet in diameter spinning on a horizontal axle. Every day or two we had to put them back into line as they precessed as the earth rotated. Great fun. Oh, we also had one of those IBM 1401 with a model 1405 drive which provided 10Mb in a cabinet about the size of a new side-by-side refrigerator/freezer. Good times.
Not just electronics firms. Foreign automobile companies do the same thing. Toyota USA, Nissan USA, Honda USA, BMW USA, etc. are simply importers, buying cars from their parent companies in Japan or Germany or wherever (and at a handsome profit to the parent) and then selling them to dealers at a small markup. Said small markup is then applied to advertising and other expenses resulting in no taxable income for the importer. Neat. All the profits stay in the parent country and the only income taxes come from the independent dealers.
At least Ford, GM, and Chrysler avoid paying taxes the old-fashioned way: they don't make a profit.
Somewhere over 20 years ago SDG&E (San Diego Gas & Electric) was offering customers an outside unit that connected between the AC compressor unit (the real energy hog) and the power line. Same trick. SDG&E could turn off your compressor at will - with the promise that they'd only do so when necessary and for not more than an hour a day. In exchange for accepting the unit, they knocked $10 per month (IIRC) off your billing. Each month. Whether or not they cycled your AC. Best deal ever.
"...pump in water from two states away" Which state might that be that California pumps water from?
California is bordered by Oregon, Arizona, and Nevada. No water pipelines cross those states.
On the other side of the bordering states are Washington, Idaho, Utah and New Mexico. No water is "pumped" from any of those states.
I suspect you're suggesting that using water from the Colorado River (which forms the border between California and Arizona) is equivalent to pumping water from two states away.
In any case, feel free to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Stay away or don't visit California unless you bring your own water supply.
Articles on massive scale solar power systems almost inevitably include some sort of a comparison showing that solar power generation is not cost-competitive with systems which burn oil or natural gas as fuel. The implication is that solar systems will force consumers to pay more for electricity, thereby discouraging their construction.
There are two critical issues that such cost comparisons ignore:
1) They never account for the long-term costs of pumping more carbon dioxide (plus various pollutants) into the atmosphere and,
2) They never tell us the price of crude oil used for the cost justification.
It is extremely unlikely that any such comparison will give oil quite so much of an advantage if computed at $100+ per barrel (today's price) for imported crude. Or at $200 per barrel. Or if imported crude isn't available at any price.
Yes, I know that I ignored coal as a fuel. I live in California and every fuel-burning power plant around here runs on oil or natural gas depending on weather conditions. Coal isn't an option for pollution reasons. And we do have thousands of square miles of desert that are ideal for solar power plants.
...and the Puritans came here to escape what? Oh, yes, the religious tyranny they were subjected to.
Gambling, real gambling in real brick and mortar casinos, is very heavily supervised and regulated by governments. They do this not simply to collect their share of the revenues, but because many (probably most) casinos prior to such supervision and regulation were busily fleecing their customers whenever and however possible. With such oversight, your chance of getting ripped-off by the casino is about zip.
Compare and contrast to online gambling where you have no way to know (and really, no reason to even believe) that the game is honest or that you'll collect if you win big.
While we frequently hear of some big winner in Las Vegas (think of the picture of some grinning stranger holding a check larger than he or she is made out for a zillion dollars), have you ever seen any such thing from an online casino? Me either. Know anybody who gambled online, won a pile of money and had a check show up in a few days? Me either.
First, how much of the dual core performance advantage comes from some intrinsic improvement in the way instructions are executed within the cores (fewer clocks per instruction/more instructions per clock)?
Second, how much from more recent technologies giving faster bus speeds and memory?
Third, how much from the simple fact that having one CPU to run dozens of background processes frees the other to run just the application?
While I'm not sure what modern testing would reveal, I recall that direct apples-to-apples (same processor, same motherboard, same memory, same peripherals) testing done 15+ years ago on dual processor UNIX systems, consistently proved number three to be the winner. Typical improvements in performance by enabling the second CPU were in the range of 20%. Increasing bus or memory speeds provided essentially identical performance boosts in both single and dual CPU tests. Running threaded benchmark software and allowing some of the threads to utilize the second CPU also provided performance improvements but obviously required thread-enabled code - which still isn't the norm.
A 2.4GHz CPU plus that 20% improvement = approx. 2.9GHz of effective performance. Close enough to make us think we're getting something worthwhile from that second CPU above what we'd get from a single 3.0GHz chip.
I'd like to see that comparison myself. In fact, I'd like to see a series of common software products and benchmarks run in that comparison - not just those that have "tweaked" to take advantage of some zippy new feature in the latest graphics card supported in Vista but not XP.
Fact is, I'd like to see similar comparisons run between a stock 32-bit single processor system (maybe at 3GHz) and a 32-bit dual-core system (maybe at 2.4GHz) - each running the same speed memory and disks. And definitely not running two copies of the benchmark software and adding the results in an attempt to convince me that running two copies of Photoshop simultaneously will give me faster editing of one a single image.
My experience with multiprocessor systems suggests that with a 2-CPU system 1+1 does not equal 2 CPUs when computing performance except for software very specifically written for such an environment. Or for users who want to run a compute-intensive video editor while simultaneously compiling software. And even then not if some other resource is the limiting factor.
I suspect that the huge majority of users will usually see better performance from a single 3GHz CPU than from two 2.4GHz CPUs. And they won't see anything at all from adding more processors.
I do have lots of free time and I'm not looking to actually restore old photos, just to make some simple improvements to their color quality. Scanning old photos isn't really all that time consuming. I've been scanning a couple of hundred a day, limited only by my fairly low tolerance for boring routine.
What I do see is that old Kodacolor prints (ditto Polaroid images) tend to change color because of differential fading of pigments in very similar ways. There seem to be consistent patterns of color changes in the various batches of photos I've been scanning apparently related to the age of the prints and probably paper and processing quality.
What I'd like to find is a tool which already knows (or can be trained to know) about that differential fading. It should apply some standard correction to an image for my review. It should then allow me to indicate an area on the image (not just a pixel or two) and assign it my preferred color value (grass should be green, the US flag should have red stripes, etc) and adjust RGB values accordingly over the entire image. It should then default to that RGB correction on the next image unless I overrule it.
Simple needs probably easily met by a simple program. If I could just find it.
Rather than having multiple versions of Photoshop or simplifying the interface, I'd be happy if Adobe would provide a "wizard" to help me. A few questions at the front end "are you a professional photographer wanting to do complex image manipulations?" "are you preparing images for a multicolor printing press?" "do you want to retouch jpg images downloaded from your digital camera?" "do you want to correct fading on older Kodacolor prints you've scanned?" "Do you want to do color correction on Polaroid prints you've scanned?"
Those last two wizard choices are the ones I really want to see as I've got thousands of color prints taken by my parents and grandparents over the last 50+ years that I'd really like to scan and clean up so I can distribute them on CD to the rest of the family. If anybody knows of some software that can do those last two things with minimum fuss and bother (I've got thousands of images to fix), please post.
Would "ten times less power" be anything like "one tenth as much power"?
So, if the government should stop funding this research and the companies that have the financial wherewithal to continue it are just as bad as the government, then who will provide the funding? And, equally importantly, how can we trust whomsoever that might be?
Sure, let's eliminate taxpayer funding and wait for private industry to fill the void. I'm just as certain as can be that we can expect Exxon, BP, and Shell to provide many millions of dollars for research into the role of fossil fuels in climate change with no strings attached.
Between the "ah-ha" moment of a new idea and the delivery of a complex manufactured product incorporating that idea to consumers, comes a time when the inventor has to decide if it is worth his trouble and if he can turn a profit. Patents, no matter how flawed the system, give the inventor a period of time to make an attempt to do so.
Patents do not not necessarily stifle innovation, but they stifle competition from those who didn't innovate but are attempting to make a profit from the ideas of someone who did. Without some sort of patent system an inventor might struggle to bring his product to market, see it gain acceptance, and then see it ripped-off by a predatory company with lower manufacturing costs and none of that annoying development cost. The inventor loses market share, goes belly-up, and vows to never bother to invent anything again. The predator makes the profits and lurks quietly waiting for another fool to bring something new to market.
Does the consumer win in this scenario? Only until true innovators recognize that it's useless to do so.