Um... yeah. NT Doesn't scale by default, as in processes must take advantage of the NT Cluster Services API -and- do other funky things to scale. Off the top of my head, the only things that will run faster on two machines are Oracle and IIS (feel free to add to the list, these are what I know). IIS will run on up to two NT servers, Oracle will run on more if you can get the shared-disk hardware configured:-). Exchange won't scale:-). Before MS killed Alpha-NT, Oracle and Digital had (I believe) a 6-way scaling demonstration cluster. I'm not aware of any more-than-2-way NT clusters in production, but what do I know.
Setting up an NT cluster is a non-trivial exercise (we did it for our HA services, but we backed down as the clustering sw caused as many crashes as it saved us from) (yes, we used an MCSE). It's about as hard as setting up any other clustered system:-) But monkeys like me can "run" it with a little expert guidance.
ObUnix: Of course, 8 way Unix and VMS clusters are old hat. Linux is still developing into the HA and scalability market, but it has roots to grow on.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. -- US Constitution, Article III, Section 3.
Unless he has actually levyed war agains the government, or conspired to, or given aid or comfort to a country with which we are at war, he's not being investigated for treason. In any case, it would have to be proven that integrating encryption in a software standard constitued an overt act of treason (as so defined). I think it's rather an uphill battle to show that conspiring to arrange it so that others might have to violate an export restriction to voluntarily participate in a standard rises to that level...
No, we're saying that no 8-year old is allowed to photocopy _House_at_Pooh_Corner_ and give it to his friends, unless he has a letter from the publisher giving him that right. A EULA is just a letter from the legal author or someone licensed by the legal author giving you the right to copy something that you ordinarily would not have the right to copy. All that oh-by-the-way-you-can't-sue-us stuff may or may not be hogwash, maybe depending on your majority, but the grant of the right to copy and the ability to restrict it applies to anyone.
If they're REQUIRED to put such a clause in their license, then they're REQUIRED not to redistribute GPL'd code, since the GPL REQUIRES that the distribution not exclude one or more classes of people (in this case minors).
Oracle on Linux has been very stable for some time now... I've used it since version 8.0.5 and I can say it is really stable... The main problems are installation related: [...]
The only problem I have is that architecturally, Linux doesn't allow synchronous writes (you can ask for them, but they're not really synchronous), so you can possibly lose committed records which would be recoverable on other systems. It's not really a problem for development or low-criticality environments, but for e-commerce or other high-liability environments it's a serious problem. You can take the order and forget to ship if the power goes off or the motherboard blows before the disk write. Fortunately the kernel guys seem to be working on it...
I'd been hearing that Oracle on linux wasn't quite ready for big time yet... Has this changed - is it pretty stable now? Anyone using it commercially care to comment?
Not quite yet.
I"m not running it yet on an "official" test box, but the kernel team needs to support real synchronous writes (and IMHO real raw device support) before Oracle on Linux will really be ready to take off. I do however plan to "officially" study the platform when these issues are resolved (and supported by Oracle). Supposedly the 2.4 kernel will have these features. I'll then consider Linux on PC boxen as an option vs NT. It can't really compete Solaris/Sun and Tru64/Compaq, until we get advanced RAID and Fibre Channel controller support. But soon it'll be a contender for relatively low-use servers, like small business servers, development boxes or servers dedicated to a single application.
To compete with the bigger Unices, we need better multiple processor/NIC support (for throughput in the Mindcraft zone) and drivers for high-end RAID and disk sharing schemes (and raw device support for those). Then we'll probably see a port of Oracle Parallel Server, and Linux will become a contender across the board.
But it's almost ready to take over the NT market now. I have had some "challenges" with Oracle tuning on NT boxes, due to the odd nature of NT memory usage and (previously) problems with NTFS drivers when the disks are heavily used. Any *ix based solution will make more efficient use of resource dollars, IMHO, if it supports commodity hardware. Since the problems and limitations of NT servers (26 drive letters, etc) sorta limit the high-end applications there, too, Linux doesn't have to go as far to compete in that market. I'll definitely look at the pros and cons for my shop when we get that really-synchronous disk write and Oracle uses it.
The problem is not big government, the problem is that the politicians rarely do what they lead us to believe they will do.
When was the last time someone campaigning in your area said "I will take your money and spend it in ways you don't approve of, while reducing your ability to find out or complain about it!"? No, they promise to "end the abuses of power" or "get the government off our backs". But put them in there and surprise, they end the sensible programs and tighten the bonds and gags....
What's the answer? Get involved, get elected and then follow through!
I think it's strategic -- any settlement coming from a Posner-mediated negotiation will be seen as bullet-proof should one side or the other fail to live up to it. In other words, if MS transgresses the agreement no court in the land will listen to "we didn't understand" or "but it was unfair anyway". And if the mediation fails, MS can't blame the mediator, as if anything the deck is stacked in their favor. Finally, Posner will probably have to 1) not serve on an appeals court and 2) testify on appeal (issue a friend-of-the-court breif, at least) if the negotiations break down and this goes to appeal.
As for punishment, legal precedent indicates that breaking up a company is the most viable option. Regulation of a company would have to be very well crafted, would be subject to all sorts of potential legal boobytraps, and would generally make far more of a mess than there already is.
Yet they do it for power companies and insurance....
In fact, a remedy must address one (or more) of the two sides of the problem. Microsoft appears to have a monopoly and abuse its monopoly power. However, the FOF observes a monopoly in the desktop operating system market, not in the office product, server OS or other markets, so a breakup along market lines would neither break the monopoly nor prevent unfair competition in maintenance of the monopoly (although it would remove some of MS's interest in maintaining the barrier to entry in the applications market). I suspect the Judge may look at other ways to force competition at the desktop level, or regulate MS's behavior. A breakup into two or three giant divisions is possible to reduce the temptation factor, but I'd still expect to see one of
Opening the Source
Coercion to comply with ISO/OMG/W3C standards fully and fairly
forced retirement or "vacations at Club Fed" for the executives and the Board
So, what other strategies would address the problem of 1) Breaking the Desktop Headlock or 2) Chaining the Beast from Redmond?
Haynes. Snapper. McDonald's. With computers this cheap, the primary purpose they're put to will be "smart" materials and "smart" products. Your hamburger wrapper will flash and sparkle an ad for whatever product you didn't buy. Your socks will beep at you if you put on a mismatched pair.... All for an extra fifty cents (and an extra cost of a penny or two).
In order to build the quantum computers, you need to machine the gates fine enough (and regular enough) to force the quantum states to "decide" at the right time.
Sounds like this tech will be more likely to be able to provide that. Also, quantum computing may well have limited applications (good at searching and sorting, lousy at running a Window Manager). We still need quicker, smaller, cheaper processors that work with understood logic to solve these macro-scale problems.
Still, I can see quantum processors combined with Turing-style memory readers and semi-mechanical procedural processors to make kick-butt systems that store and process their terabytes in the space of a shirt-button.
Well, at the speed of light, would it not be possible to execute an infinite amount of instructions in no time what so ever?
From the point of view of the photon, yes. Unfortunately we're moving so much slower than the photon that there's a significant difference in our perception of time...:-)
We'd see c / [circut length] cycles per second, but a conventionally-shaped CPU could be printed in the width of the traces on a current CPU, so as Feynman says, there's plenty of room (at the bottom) for improvement.
Despite the blather from the "national borders are just speedbumps on the information highway!" crowd, for regulatory purposes there's no real difference between Internet and mail-order transations. Mail-order hasn't exactly lead to the collapse of national borders, has it?
In the US, mail order isn't taxed (with a sales tax) unless both parties to the transaction are in the same state. Now the seller can originate the tranaction from Tonga....
Maybe, but it may pass (if only to hush up the groundlings that aren't looking past the end of their noses). The cost of administration for an internet tax (not to mention the problem of jurisdiction and flight from it) make the whole thing a hot potato. McCain has picked an issue he can't lose on -- if they vote him down he can run against Congress, if they uphold him he's a hero. And either way, it just means we don't do something we don't know how to do. Cool...
I agree with those that laud McCain for his integrity, as well as the cynics -- the guy has managed to grandstand with a good idea.
If you reread that amendment again, you'll see that law enforcement DOES have the right to access your information if it is REASONABLE for them to access it.
As I read it they may read what is written, and search and take your stuff, but they cannot force you to solve a riddle for them. Although I believe people have been held in contempt of court for not producing a decrypted version of, for instance, coded ledgers, all that law enforcement can (and should) be allowed to do is seize the information. The burden of proof should be on the State to show that the information is 1) relevant to an investigation and 2) incriminating. They can take it if they prove (1), and use it against you if they prove (2), but you can't be required to aid them in proving their case, nor should your refusal be incriminating (under Amendment V).
Don't like it? Complain. Vote for someone else. Exercise your citizenship, not your feet.
I'm surprised that people aren't looking at this from the philosophical side. Nobody has questioned the philosophical basis behind the right of goverment to tax.
They did, in 1776. In 1789 they had to reformulate government:-).
I'm not sure what other people feel is the philosophical basis for taxation. It seems to me perfect taxes are basically usage taxes: what you pay exactly matches the benefit you get. For example, rich people should probably pay for for police protection because they have more to lose in a theft.
... but poor people are stolen from more often. For every Old Master stolen, a lot of pension checks go missing...
However, when I buy from the Internet, the local government is much less involved. Does my city or state government have the right to tax transactions at the same rate as before?
If you're buying from an in-state firm, yes. most of the cost of government is administration of the law and maintenance of the infrastructure, not cops and robbers. The laws that keep the firm from running off with your money shouting "caveat emptor" and the ones that make sure you pay apply, but so do rules for merchantability, property transfer, your right to sue.... and if the firm is out-of-state (I assume we're talking USA here) then your locality can't tax the transaction as it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government (over interstate commerce). That was one of the reasons for that 1789 convention, because different rates and philosophies of taxation were making trouble for interstate commerce.
The FBI tracks down credit card fraud, which effectively lowers your credit card fees, but you don't pay for that protection. Likewise, shipping your books from Amazon.com creates wear-and-tear on the roads, but you don't pay for that.
Sure you do. (firstly, it's mostly the banks tracking down the fraud, and you pay them every month) You payed the government for it when you earned the money. The freight company bought a special license for heavy vehicles (the fee is shared amongst the states the truck operates in) and you payed for shipping. The company you purchased from pays tax on its income (your purchase price) and property tax.... the government has a lot of ways to get your money.
But none of these are user fees, exactly (and it's arguable that they shouldn't be, as sharing the burden levels the playing feild). The truck you were following yesterday, with the bumper sticker saying it payed $80,000 in taxes last year? It probably did $250,000 in damage to the roads (our interstates would last essentially forever if only passenger cars used them -- almost every maintenance crew you pass is there because of truck traffic). Most of the US federal government's money comes from income tax. Most state revenue comes from propery, sales and income tax.
A fuel tax springs to mind (which I like for other reasons) to tax shipments.
Ok, you're thinking, but you've missed all the virtual traffic. By the way, we already have fuel taxes in most states, and a federal tax on fuel IIRC...
In other words, rather than stifle all the small businesses which aren't equiped to deal with the taxes, why not shift the burden onto the big companies that can?
Hm... so a big company operates on a larger margin than a small one? Sales taxes don't work that way, and small business still spring up... Small businesses selling restored Rolls Royces might pay more than big ones selling $3.00 MP3 files, but so what? I'm all for a sales tax administered fairly if the cost of administration is low enough that the tax can be small (otherwise you'll revert to internet advertising, but sending in your order on paper).
There's no reason to treat internet sales as different from regular sales. If you want to create a Federal sales tax, or a state sales tax for in-state purchasing, fine. But you'd better work out the policy for foreign buyers, foreign sellers and be prepared to kill businesses that deliver virtual products in your country (or watch them flee).
General Internet taxation (taxing the consumers) is liable to destroy freedoms and hurt the online economy (likely both) in the country that adopts it first. Free stuff will dry up first, but the additional marginal cost will make the internet a lot less popular as a forum for expression and a place to do business.
A significantly advanced organization wouldn't have a problem cracking such cryptography.
Ah, but to persecute... er... prosecute you they have to admit they can break it, thus spurring the rest of us to use an actually-secured system. Much better to let a hacker do something that's going to get done anyway than to lose the ability to eavesdrop on all the naughty emails and whatnot they're really after.
What do you do if the person who does not represent the majority of your fellow citizens' beliefs on a particular issue? Do you just give up and say, "Well, senator foobar is in charge, I'll just let him decide what to do." Bullshit, I'm going to bug hs ass to do what I (his constituent) demand he do. If others join me, he may put his own ideas aside and do his job, namely, representing us.
Usually I applaud -- we did elect Sen. Helms, you know, so obviously my majority is flawed.:-)
But I digress.... How did Sen. Foobar get the job, if you knew he was gonna do that? Who are you to Sen. Foobar? If he wants to raise taxes over your objections he will. It might be a good idea. He might think we need a tax break instead of paying down our debts. You might disagree. Tough! If he doesn't perform vote him out! Our representatives are there to do what they think is right, which is why we put them there. Sure, we should inform them that they're wrong, and if they don't listen enough we should kick 'em out at the next election. The information that they won't be coming back may be persuasive, but if my rep feels strongly about an issue, I want him to sacrifice his job to do the right thing (if it's that important). Even if that results in deadlock, sometimes nothing getting done is better than doing the wrong thing.
We don't live in a representative democracy. We live in a democratic republic -- our publicans do as they please with our only check on their vote being our vote (and the occasional recall clause, depending on your State constitution or articles of incorporation). By the way, the President is not above the Congress, nor is the Judiciary above the two of them. They all have roles in dynamic tension with the others. The day they stop disagreeing is the day your freedoms either flourish or expire (any bets?).
The idea of our system is that the will of the people trickles to the top and if it's not a bad idea it gets carried out. It takes a super-majority to bypass a Presidential veto... so you see, the President is there (partly) to disagree with the majority of Congress when in his judgement the Congress has done a bad thing. The reason is to protect us from the majority's shortsightedness. Congress can override his judgement if their cause is obviously right, but the framers are banking on at least 1/3 + 1 of one house or the other knowing when to bow to the President's arguement and when to stand up. Of course, real people (especially people without a point of view, who look to the polls to find out what they should think) sometimes screw the system up and let the Bad Law get passed... That's what the next Congress is for.
By the way, I agree that you should inform your representative of your opinion. But sometimes you'll be wrong and your neighbors will be wrong but it will be important that your rep goes the right way. It's equally important that you vote him out if you judge that, on the average, he's gone the other way too often. I reiterate -- if he always follows the majority's opinion, there's no reason for him to be there (we could do it better with a computer or a Harris poll). Heck, with human politicians, you have to try to find one that thinks like you do -- otherwise he won't always vote the majority line....;-)
I admit freely that we scan, but I'm careful not to say who we've scanned or when (to remind employees to be good). I repeat the policy that all requests must come from a manager of the employees being scanned, and that all requests are approved by an IS director, to prevent abuse both by managers and by me.
Of course, I never say what we find except in my report, which is delivered by hand...
I never like doing it, but I don't like the idea of slaving away while someone, somewhere is making my job harder in order to slack off... but making it known that they really are watching can have a couple of effects: the employees are less likely to engage in bad behavior (accomplishing HR's goal and making you feel less guilty when you don't find anything) and they're more likely to pressure management to stop it (or go somewhere else to work).
My only other contribution is to suggest that if you're going to be put in this situation, ask to be made accountable for such invasions of privacy. That is, ask that at least two managers approve each request for a scan in writing. That'll either get you fired or make them think about their actions. Either way -- problems solved:-)
Politicians must use their own judgement to decide what they think is best for their population, both their constituents and the bodies within which their consituents exist (what's good for Ohio isn't always good for the nation, and occasionally their Senators should know that). The people should elect representatives that have strong opinions that the people agree with. If Chicago elects Chuck Heston as mayor, they'd better want a batch of pro-gun legislation delivered to the city council on Day 1. And Chuck had better do it, too! If he said he'd be anti-gun, then Chicago had better recall him or vote him out at the next election (and I'll start distributing real-estate flyers there:).
A democracy that depends entirely on polls and the "voice of the people" will automatically become a tyrrany by the majority. We require politicians to exercise their principles and judgement to protect our freedoms, even when it's inconvenient to the majority (even when it doesn't "protect the children" or "fight the terrorists").
Unfortunately, parties don't like to put forward opinionated candidates. They're more worried about losing the your minority here vote than they are interested in principled leadership.
The politician must put the good of the people before his own good (i.e., he must avoid exercising power to enrich himself) but he must advance an agenda that he believes in, or why bother with representation?
If your thesis holds, we don't need choice -- just poll the people, or eject anyone who votes against the political wind and appoint another milksop....
I beleive there was another company, Silver Queen, that made an all-metal vacuum cleaner that used water filtration. But yeah, Rainbow patented some improvements (probably to do with making plastic water filtration vacuums) and has undercut and eliminated their competition.
Of course, this means you can file an improvement (if it's not trivial) and run them out of business, too! If your pockets are deep enough to outlast their patent challenges...
But its not in the governments best interest to have the government kept in check, is it?
Actually, it is. If the government keeps its policies "in bounds" (as defined by the governed), the government will be safe. But when you average together all the instincts of all the politicians, and factor in their knowledge and the public's knowledge about the topic, the enlightened self-interest of the body tends to give way to greed and the lust for power... or fear of change and the unknown.
I still don't understand why organized crime hasn't instituted their own PKI (I know, "they're not that organized"). Or if they have, why the FBI hasn't complained...
Slashdot Mirror
Setting up an NT cluster is a non-trivial exercise (we did it for our HA services, but we backed down as the clustering sw caused as many crashes as it saved us from) (yes, we used an MCSE). It's about as hard as setting up any other clustered system :-) But monkeys like me can "run" it with a little expert guidance.
ObUnix: Of course, 8 way Unix and VMS clusters are old hat. Linux is still developing into the HA and scalability market, but it has roots to grow on.
Unless he has actually levyed war agains the government, or conspired to, or given aid or comfort to a country with which we are at war, he's not being investigated for treason. In any case, it would have to be proven that integrating encryption in a software standard constitued an overt act of treason (as so defined). I think it's rather an uphill battle to show that conspiring to arrange it so that others might have to violate an export restriction to voluntarily participate in a standard rises to that level...
Espionage and antisocial acts are other issues.
No, we're saying that no 8-year old is allowed to photocopy _House_at_Pooh_Corner_ and give it to his friends, unless he has a letter from the publisher giving him that right. A EULA is just a letter from the legal author or someone licensed by the legal author giving you the right to copy something that you ordinarily would not have the right to copy. All that oh-by-the-way-you-can't-sue-us stuff may or may not be hogwash, maybe depending on your majority, but the grant of the right to copy and the ability to restrict it applies to anyone.
If they're REQUIRED to put such a clause in their license, then they're REQUIRED not to redistribute GPL'd code, since the GPL REQUIRES that the distribution not exclude one or more classes of people (in this case minors).
The only problem I have is that architecturally, Linux doesn't allow synchronous writes (you can ask for them, but they're not really synchronous), so you can possibly lose committed records which would be recoverable on other systems. It's not really a problem for development or low-criticality environments, but for e-commerce or other high-liability environments it's a serious problem. You can take the order and forget to ship if the power goes off or the motherboard blows before the disk write. Fortunately the kernel guys seem to be working on it...
Not quite yet.
I"m not running it yet on an "official" test box, but the kernel team needs to support real synchronous writes (and IMHO real raw device support) before Oracle on Linux will really be ready to take off. I do however plan to "officially" study the platform when these issues are resolved (and supported by Oracle). Supposedly the 2.4 kernel will have these features. I'll then consider Linux on PC boxen as an option vs NT. It can't really compete Solaris/Sun and Tru64/Compaq, until we get advanced RAID and Fibre Channel controller support. But soon it'll be a contender for relatively low-use servers, like small business servers, development boxes or servers dedicated to a single application.
To compete with the bigger Unices, we need better multiple processor/NIC support (for throughput in the Mindcraft zone) and drivers for high-end RAID and disk sharing schemes (and raw device support for those). Then we'll probably see a port of Oracle Parallel Server, and Linux will become a contender across the board.
But it's almost ready to take over the NT market now. I have had some "challenges" with Oracle tuning on NT boxes, due to the odd nature of NT memory usage and (previously) problems with NTFS drivers when the disks are heavily used. Any *ix based solution will make more efficient use of resource dollars, IMHO, if it supports commodity hardware. Since the problems and limitations of NT servers (26 drive letters, etc) sorta limit the high-end applications there, too, Linux doesn't have to go as far to compete in that market. I'll definitely look at the pros and cons for my shop when we get that really-synchronous disk write and Oracle uses it.
When was the last time someone campaigning in your area said "I will take your money and spend it in ways you don't approve of, while reducing your ability to find out or complain about it!"? No, they promise to "end the abuses of power" or "get the government off our backs". But put them in there and surprise, they end the sensible programs and tighten the bonds and gags....
What's the answer? Get involved, get elected and then follow through!
Nooo... read it again. You must distribute source for anything you give to others if it came to you under the GPL, whether you've modified it or not.
I think it's strategic -- any settlement coming from a Posner-mediated negotiation will be seen as bullet-proof should one side or the other fail to live up to it. In other words, if MS transgresses the agreement no court in the land will listen to "we didn't understand" or "but it was unfair anyway". And if the mediation fails, MS can't blame the mediator, as if anything the deck is stacked in their favor. Finally, Posner will probably have to 1) not serve on an appeals court and 2) testify on appeal (issue a friend-of-the-court breif, at least) if the negotiations break down and this goes to appeal.
Yet they do it for power companies and insurance....
In fact, a remedy must address one (or more) of the two sides of the problem. Microsoft appears to have a monopoly and abuse its monopoly power. However, the FOF observes a monopoly in the desktop operating system market, not in the office product, server OS or other markets, so a breakup along market lines would neither break the monopoly nor prevent unfair competition in maintenance of the monopoly (although it would remove some of MS's interest in maintaining the barrier to entry in the applications market). I suspect the Judge may look at other ways to force competition at the desktop level, or regulate MS's behavior. A breakup into two or three giant divisions is possible to reduce the temptation factor, but I'd still expect to see one of
So, what other strategies would address the problem of 1) Breaking the Desktop Headlock or 2) Chaining the Beast from Redmond?
Haynes. Snapper. McDonald's. With computers this cheap, the primary purpose they're put to will be "smart" materials and "smart" products. Your hamburger wrapper will flash and sparkle an ad for whatever product you didn't buy. Your socks will beep at you if you put on a mismatched pair.... All for an extra fifty cents (and an extra cost of a penny or two).
Sounds like this tech will be more likely to be able to provide that. Also, quantum computing may well have limited applications (good at searching and sorting, lousy at running a Window Manager). We still need quicker, smaller, cheaper processors that work with understood logic to solve these macro-scale problems.
Still, I can see quantum processors combined with Turing-style memory readers and semi-mechanical procedural processors to make kick-butt systems that store and process their terabytes in the space of a shirt-button.
How many buttons can you sew on a shirt, anyway?
You know, ten years is a long time to work at McDonald's -- just take a job that will pay for your Physics PhD...
From the point of view of the photon, yes. Unfortunately we're moving so much slower than the photon that there's a significant difference in our perception of time... :-)
We'd see c / [circut length] cycles per second, but a conventionally-shaped CPU could be printed in the width of the traces on a current CPU, so as Feynman says, there's plenty of room (at the bottom) for improvement.
In the US, mail order isn't taxed (with a sales tax) unless both parties to the transaction are in the same state. Now the seller can originate the tranaction from Tonga....
I agree with those that laud McCain for his integrity, as well as the cynics -- the guy has managed to grandstand with a good idea.
As I read it they may read what is written, and search and take your stuff, but they cannot force you to solve a riddle for them. Although I believe people have been held in contempt of court for not producing a decrypted version of, for instance, coded ledgers, all that law enforcement can (and should) be allowed to do is seize the information. The burden of proof should be on the State to show that the information is 1) relevant to an investigation and 2) incriminating. They can take it if they prove (1), and use it against you if they prove (2), but you can't be required to aid them in proving their case, nor should your refusal be incriminating (under Amendment V).
Don't like it? Complain. Vote for someone else. Exercise your citizenship, not your feet.
They did, in 1776. In 1789 they had to reformulate government :-).
I'm not sure what other people feel is the philosophical basis for taxation. It seems to me perfect taxes are basically usage taxes: what you pay exactly matches the benefit you get. For example, rich people should probably pay for for police protection because they have more to lose in a theft.
However, when I buy from the Internet, the local government is much less involved. Does my city or state government have the right to tax transactions at the same rate as before?
If you're buying from an in-state firm, yes. most of the cost of government is administration of the law and maintenance of the infrastructure, not cops and robbers. The laws that keep the firm from running off with your money shouting "caveat emptor" and the ones that make sure you pay apply, but so do rules for merchantability, property transfer, your right to sue.... and if the firm is out-of-state (I assume we're talking USA here) then your locality can't tax the transaction as it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government (over interstate commerce). That was one of the reasons for that 1789 convention, because different rates and philosophies of taxation were making trouble for interstate commerce.
The FBI tracks down credit card fraud, which effectively lowers your credit card fees, but you don't pay for that protection. Likewise, shipping your books from Amazon.com creates wear-and-tear on the roads, but you don't pay for that.
Sure you do. (firstly, it's mostly the banks tracking down the fraud, and you pay them every month) You payed the government for it when you earned the money. The freight company bought a special license for heavy vehicles (the fee is shared amongst the states the truck operates in) and you payed for shipping. The company you purchased from pays tax on its income (your purchase price) and property tax.... the government has a lot of ways to get your money.
But none of these are user fees, exactly (and it's arguable that they shouldn't be, as sharing the burden levels the playing feild). The truck you were following yesterday, with the bumper sticker saying it payed $80,000 in taxes last year? It probably did $250,000 in damage to the roads (our interstates would last essentially forever if only passenger cars used them -- almost every maintenance crew you pass is there because of truck traffic). Most of the US federal government's money comes from income tax. Most state revenue comes from propery, sales and income tax.
A fuel tax springs to mind (which I like for other reasons) to tax shipments.
Ok, you're thinking, but you've missed all the virtual traffic. By the way, we already have fuel taxes in most states, and a federal tax on fuel IIRC...
In other words, rather than stifle all the small businesses which aren't equiped to deal with the taxes, why not shift the burden onto the big companies that can?
Hm... so a big company operates on a larger margin than a small one? Sales taxes don't work that way, and small business still spring up... Small businesses selling restored Rolls Royces might pay more than big ones selling $3.00 MP3 files, but so what? I'm all for a sales tax administered fairly if the cost of administration is low enough that the tax can be small (otherwise you'll revert to internet advertising, but sending in your order on paper).
There's no reason to treat internet sales as different from regular sales. If you want to create a Federal sales tax, or a state sales tax for in-state purchasing, fine. But you'd better work out the policy for foreign buyers, foreign sellers and be prepared to kill businesses that deliver virtual products in your country (or watch them flee).
General Internet taxation (taxing the consumers) is liable to destroy freedoms and hurt the online economy (likely both) in the country that adopts it first. Free stuff will dry up first, but the additional marginal cost will make the internet a lot less popular as a forum for expression and a place to do business.
Ah, but to persecute ... er... prosecute you they have to admit they can break it, thus spurring the rest of us to use an actually-secured system. Much better to let a hacker do something that's going to get done anyway than to lose the ability to eavesdrop on all the naughty emails and whatnot they're really after.
just give up and say, "Well, senator foobar is in charge, I'll just let him decide what to do." Bullshit, I'm going to bug hs ass to do
what I (his constituent) demand he do. If others join me, he may put his own ideas aside and do his job, namely, representing us.
Usually I applaud -- we did elect Sen. Helms, you know, so obviously my majority is flawed. :-)
But I digress.... How did Sen. Foobar get the job, if you knew he was gonna do that? Who are you to Sen. Foobar? If he wants to raise taxes over your objections he will. It might be a good idea. He might think we need a tax break instead of paying down our debts. You might disagree. Tough! If he doesn't perform vote him out! Our representatives are there to do what they think is right, which is why we put them there. Sure, we should inform them that they're wrong, and if they don't listen enough we should kick 'em out at the next election. The information that they won't be coming back may be persuasive, but if my rep feels strongly about an issue, I want him to sacrifice his job to do the right thing (if it's that important). Even if that results in deadlock, sometimes nothing getting done is better than doing the wrong thing.
We don't live in a representative democracy. We live in a democratic republic -- our publicans do as they please with our only check on their vote being our vote (and the occasional recall clause, depending on your State constitution or articles of incorporation). By the way, the President is not above the Congress, nor is the Judiciary above the two of them. They all have roles in dynamic tension with the others. The day they stop disagreeing is the day your freedoms either flourish or expire (any bets?).
The idea of our system is that the will of the people trickles to the top and if it's not a bad idea it gets carried out. It takes a super-majority to bypass a Presidential veto
By the way, I agree that you should inform your representative of your opinion. But sometimes you'll be wrong and your neighbors will be wrong but it will be important that your rep goes the right way. It's equally important that you vote him out if you judge that, on the average, he's gone the other way too often. I reiterate -- if he always follows the majority's opinion, there's no reason for him to be there (we could do it better with a computer or a Harris poll). Heck, with human politicians, you have to try to find one that thinks like you do -- otherwise he won't always vote the majority line....
Of course, I never say what we find except in my report, which is delivered by hand...
I never like doing it, but I don't like the idea of slaving away while someone, somewhere is making my job harder in order to slack off... but making it known that they really are watching can have a couple of effects: the employees are less likely to engage in bad behavior (accomplishing HR's goal and making you feel less guilty when you don't find anything) and they're more likely to pressure management to stop it (or go somewhere else to work).
My only other contribution is to suggest that if you're going to be put in this situation, ask to be made accountable for such invasions of privacy. That is, ask that at least two managers approve each request for a scan in writing. That'll either get you fired or make them think about their actions. Either way -- problems solved :-)
Politicians must use their own judgement to decide what they think is best for their population, both their constituents and the bodies within which their consituents exist (what's good for Ohio isn't always good for the nation, and occasionally their Senators should know that). The people should elect representatives that have strong opinions that the people agree with. If Chicago elects Chuck Heston as mayor, they'd better want a batch of pro-gun legislation delivered to the city council on Day 1. And Chuck had better do it, too! If he said he'd be anti-gun, then Chicago had better recall him or vote him out at the next election (and I'll start distributing real-estate flyers there :).
A democracy that depends entirely on polls and the "voice of the people" will automatically become a tyrrany by the majority. We require politicians to exercise their principles and judgement to protect our freedoms, even when it's inconvenient to the majority (even when it doesn't "protect the children" or "fight the terrorists").
Unfortunately, parties don't like to put forward opinionated candidates. They're more worried about losing the your minority here vote than they are interested in principled leadership.
The politician must put the good of the people before his own good (i.e., he must avoid exercising power to enrich himself) but he must advance an agenda that he believes in, or why bother with representation?
If your thesis holds, we don't need choice -- just poll the people, or eject anyone who votes against the political wind and appoint another milksop....
Of course, this means you can file an improvement (if it's not trivial) and run them out of business, too! If your pockets are deep enough to outlast their patent challenges...
Actually, it is. If the government keeps its policies "in bounds" (as defined by the governed), the government will be safe. But when you average together all the instincts of all the politicians, and factor in their knowledge and the public's knowledge about the topic, the enlightened self-interest of the body tends to give way to greed and the lust for power... or fear of change and the unknown.
I still don't understand why organized crime hasn't instituted their own PKI (I know, "they're not that organized"). Or if they have, why the FBI hasn't complained...
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
vs.
"What the King says goes."
Elvis has left the building...