and what are they going to do... When the average person starts a) hacking them for their own use b) shooting them down with whatever they can find or make?
- what do you mean "what are they going to do"? NDAA.
20 years of high taxes and inflation took away all sorts of purchasing power from the Japanese, whether they would or would not do more 'scientific philanthropy' if they had more purchasing power if government was not stealing their government, I don't know.
But I do know that there would have been much more investment capital in everybody's pockets, and the real driver of useful innovation is not government but private enterprise.
NDAA and this bill and TSA and Patriot Act and every other power that government is stealing from the people, including preventing people from moving their capital out of the country (if you are a US citizen, just try and open an account somewhere abroad), and a new 450USD fee to renounce your citizenship, which eventually can be made any arbitrary amount, why not USD45,000,000, even the fence on the US/Mexican border, all of this converging into one giant red signal - your country is being turned into a concentration camp and eventually you'll need a permit to move around, a permit to move your capital around, and once your government decides to turn it into a 'socialist heaven', there will be no just price, capital and exchange controls, but they'll 'exchange' your money 1 to 100 or 1 to 1000 or 1 to 10000 or 1 to 100000 to ensure none of you have even nominal dollars.
You still have a choice, you can still vote for Ron Paul and try and stop this before your country is turned into a bad parody of what USSR used to be.
The idiot who wrote this "story" believes that people exist to serve their government and to pay taxes, not that the people set up the government to protect individual liberties and freedoms, such as speech but also freedom of association and of doing business.
He believes that capital must be taxed regardless of whether the person who has it is SPENDING it or is INVESTING it. I didn't bother looking up who it is, that posted this story, but clearly, that person belongs in the most socialist of governments and I now wish him to get this desire and actually to live through everything that a socialist government has to offer, what it offered to the people of the former USSR and of-course I don't wish him to be on top of that ladder, just a 'common citizen'.
As to the story: Zuckerberg is going to pay 2 billion USD of taxes and he is not even putting a cent of the salary that is taxed into his own bank account, he is using ALL of the money he is going to draw to buy back outstanding stock options, he wants to own more of his company and I completely understand him, his model is equivalent of the model that Warren Buffet is using:
1. Re-invest every penny into your own business. 2. Live on dividends, and pay 15% tax AFTER the corporation is already taxed at 35%, which is HIS money, because he is a large stock holder, so whatever profit that the company makes is HIS MONEY, and it's being taxed at 35% and then the dividends are taxed at 15, making his real tax just over 44%.
This, of-course, is a highway robbery, and USA was fighting the British over a 3% tax, now look at it.
Executive branch: all regulations passed by it since the very first one are abolished and future regulations by it are prevented. All laws must originate in legislature.
Federal register: rolled back to 1912.
POTUS and VP: both elected by electoral college, but should go back to being able to elect them OUTSIDE of the people that are proposed by any of the parties, and VP is not somebody that POTUS chooses, it's just one of the second choices made to be the POTUS by the electoral college.
SCOTUS: put term limits on these people, say 20 years.
Government spending: cut by 99% across the board, regardless of any so called 'merits'.
All taxes must be apportioned.
All spending must be earmarked, so that no money is left over.
Wrong. In a world without copyright laws, everything does not automatically turn to BSD, it remains up to the author to release or not to release the software, and then plenty of software can be released based on a contract of some sort.
However there would be much more free software than there is today, nobody could prevent somebody from releasing it after all, and it wouldn't even be an issue in the first place.
It wasn't until Bill Gates that people started treating software as if it is truly unique in some way and not just a general extension of human THOUGHT.
It's the thought that counts, and copyrights and patents try to steal people's thoughts.
doesn't matter, they have hurt everybody plenty in every other way, and they will be used to destroy the Internet as well, SOPA was just the beginning.
Governor Palin issued a statement, in which she explained that as she was looking directly at the Russian probe as it was passing over her Alaska based house, she said: "Only dead fish go with the flow." - she then took out a rifle, put some lipstick on, yelled "Dr. Laura: don't retreat...reload!" and shot that turkey, turning it into a lame duck.
When asked why she did it, she simply responded with:
"I haven't heard the president state that we're at war. That's why I too am not knowing -- do we use the term intervention? Do we use war? Do we use squirmish? What is it?"
Oh, and probably more criminal charges and more people accused of things that weren't crime before, and using any of this for creating the fake war on terror and war on drugs, more racism, more of everything that should be decreased, not increased.
As always, always, with government involvement expect these (in no particular order)
Increased costs and thus prices
Decreased competition and thus quality
Increased corruption, thus more laws, fewer choices, higher prices
More licensing, all sorts of licensing and all sorts of certifications, all with more fees, all with less competition, all with higher prices
Decreased security, not increased security. Decreased security, especially FROM government officials themselves
Eventual crash of the system
The only 'redeeming' quality of this just maybe creation of alternative Internet infrastructure driven by user demand, outside of normal channels, but this will happen much later.
He is just not that smart, period. Say you run a company, some schmuck breaks through some web-app and steal some documents and then blackmails you with these documents to get a job? So what does he expect exactly, an actual job from you?
Let me put it this way - I wouldn't call cops on him, I would invite him for an 'interview' and clean his clock.
"Your internet browser is the key component for the use of services on the Web and thus represents the main target for cyber-attacks," said BSI in its published advice. "By using Google Chrome in conjunction with the other measures outlined above, you can significantly reduce the risk of a successful IT attack."... "This [sandbox] protection is implemented most consistently in Chrome...[and] similar mechanisms in other browsers are currently either weaker or non-existent," explained BSI.
Chrome is not very private
- and this is correct, they said nothing about privacy.
Stand up meetings are terrible, they always felt to me like a bad version of an homage paid either towards communism or fascism. The feeling is akin to that of a komsomol meeting, and that's probably what hitlerjugend must have felt like, especially those, who weren't devoted followers, but those who only attended it out of sense of self-preservation.
Maybe this comparison is a bit too strong, but that's the first thing that comes to mind.
As to the merits of such meetings - these are always denigrating, and totally worthless, nothing of any value can really be discussed in them because they are not aimed at solving any particular problem, just a reminder that the ant-farm is still in operation for some ridiculous reason.
Anything government argues will be passed by a judge, that's how they didn't strike down every unconstitutional thing that happened for 100 years, from income taxes, to minimum wage, to SS and Medicare and every business regulation that is passed by the unelected executive branch without bothering with the Congress.
It is irrelevant for me to have to prove that in every single case government gets what it wants, I can point out plenty of cases where completely irrational and illogical things were deemed to be lawful in court, like this case of a farmer getting fined by government and having his product destroyed that he created for his own use.
Again, he was fined and his product was destroyed which he was not selling, and the reasoning was that he was using the product that he was not selling.
The reasoning was that he was PRODUCING SOMETHING WITHOUT SELLING and thus he was found guilty, this is absolutely irrational and illogical and the government was found to be within its rights to enforce this by a court, thus anything that is illogical and irrational can be enforced by a court and I don't have to prove that every combination of illogical and irrational thing will be enforced, it is simply by example is shown to be a POSSIBILITY.
Your stupid argument is what, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a court to judge that government cannot control people based on the fact that they are breathing air?
Well, you cannot prove it simply because you find it to be irrational and illogical, the courts have proven that they can take an irrational and illogical position that government takes and rule in its favour.
Slashdot Mirror
and what are they going to do... When the average person starts a) hacking them for their own use b) shooting them down with whatever they can find or make?
- what do you mean "what are they going to do"? NDAA.
20 years of high taxes and inflation took away all sorts of purchasing power from the Japanese, whether they would or would not do more 'scientific philanthropy' if they had more purchasing power if government was not stealing their government, I don't know.
But I do know that there would have been much more investment capital in everybody's pockets, and the real driver of useful innovation is not government but private enterprise.
NDAA and this bill and TSA and Patriot Act and every other power that government is stealing from the people, including preventing people from moving their capital out of the country (if you are a US citizen, just try and open an account somewhere abroad), and a new 450USD fee to renounce your citizenship, which eventually can be made any arbitrary amount, why not USD45,000,000, even the fence on the US/Mexican border, all of this converging into one giant red signal - your country is being turned into a concentration camp and eventually you'll need a permit to move around, a permit to move your capital around, and once your government decides to turn it into a 'socialist heaven', there will be no just price, capital and exchange controls, but they'll 'exchange' your money 1 to 100 or 1 to 1000 or 1 to 10000 or 1 to 100000 to ensure none of you have even nominal dollars.
You still have a choice, you can still vote for Ron Paul and try and stop this before your country is turned into a bad parody of what USSR used to be.
It is the implied truth.
The idiot who wrote this "story" believes that people exist to serve their government and to pay taxes, not that the people set up the government to protect individual liberties and freedoms, such as speech but also freedom of association and of doing business.
He believes that capital must be taxed regardless of whether the person who has it is SPENDING it or is INVESTING it. I didn't bother looking up who it is, that posted this story, but clearly, that person belongs in the most socialist of governments and I now wish him to get this desire and actually to live through everything that a socialist government has to offer, what it offered to the people of the former USSR and of-course I don't wish him to be on top of that ladder, just a 'common citizen'.
As to the story: Zuckerberg is going to pay 2 billion USD of taxes and he is not even putting a cent of the salary that is taxed into his own bank account, he is using ALL of the money he is going to draw to buy back outstanding stock options, he wants to own more of his company and I completely understand him, his model is equivalent of the model that Warren Buffet is using:
1. Re-invest every penny into your own business.
2. Live on dividends, and pay 15% tax AFTER the corporation is already taxed at 35%, which is HIS money, because he is a large stock holder, so whatever profit that the company makes is HIS MONEY, and it's being taxed at 35% and then the dividends are taxed at 15, making his real tax just over 44%.
This, of-course, is a highway robbery, and USA was fighting the British over a 3% tax, now look at it.
A much BETTER proposal:
Income tax: 0.
Payroll tax: 0.
Corporate tax: 0.
Capital gains tax: 0.
Dividends tax: 0.
Death tax: 0.
All other income related taxes: 0.
Executive branch: all regulations passed by it since the very first one are abolished and future regulations by it are prevented. All laws must originate in legislature.
Federal register: rolled back to 1912.
POTUS and VP: both elected by electoral college, but should go back to being able to elect them OUTSIDE of the people that are proposed by any of the parties, and VP is not somebody that POTUS chooses, it's just one of the second choices made to be the POTUS by the electoral college.
SCOTUS: put term limits on these people, say 20 years.
Government spending: cut by 99% across the board, regardless of any so called 'merits'.
All taxes must be apportioned.
All spending must be earmarked, so that no money is left over.
Federal reserve: abolished.
Money: competition allowed.
Real money: gold.
IRS: abolished.
FDIC: abolished.
EPA, FDA, FAA, FCC, FHA, FBI, dep't of education, energy, commerce, interior, agriculture: Abolished.
Drug war: stopped. All non-violent drug-war related prisoners pardoned.
All wars: stopped.
All troops: brought home immediately.
POTUS: prohibited from starting wars single-handedly and his 'executive-order' power taken away.
BTW., copyrights and patents: abolished
I think this is a good start to rebuild the economy.
Wrong. In a world without copyright laws, everything does not automatically turn to BSD, it remains up to the author to release or not to release the software, and then plenty of software can be released based on a contract of some sort.
However there would be much more free software than there is today, nobody could prevent somebody from releasing it after all, and it wouldn't even be an issue in the first place.
It wasn't until Bill Gates that people started treating software as if it is truly unique in some way and not just a general extension of human THOUGHT.
It's the thought that counts, and copyrights and patents try to steal people's thoughts.
Profits are fine as long as they are made the honest way - satisfying customer demand, as opposed to buying political power with bribes.
I absolutely hope that GPL disappears as long as copyright disappears, you are not the first on this wrong side of the argument either.
doesn't matter, they have hurt everybody plenty in every other way, and they will be used to destroy the Internet as well, SOPA was just the beginning.
He should win. Then finally it will become blatantly obvious that copyrights and patents must be abolished.
Watch the video, it's much more appropriate for it to bray. It's a ass, not a dog.
And more from Mel Watt, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet (Ranking Member).
Watch this part of Jon Stewart show, it has your questioned answered.
Governor Palin issued a statement, in which she explained that as she was looking directly at the Russian probe as it was passing over her Alaska based house, she said: "Only dead fish go with the flow." - she then took out a rifle, put some lipstick on, yelled "Dr. Laura: don't retreat...reload!" and shot that turkey, turning it into a lame duck.
When asked why she did it, she simply responded with:
"I haven't heard the president state that we're at war. That's why I too am not knowing -- do we use the term intervention? Do we use war? Do we use squirmish? What is it?"
Oh, and probably more criminal charges and more people accused of things that weren't crime before, and using any of this for creating the fake war on terror and war on drugs, more racism, more of everything that should be decreased, not increased.
All brought to you by your government.
As always, always, with government involvement expect these (in no particular order)
The only 'redeeming' quality of this just maybe creation of alternative Internet infrastructure driven by user demand, outside of normal channels, but this will happen much later.
A technical mistake is not the same thing as being a complete waste of skin.
I agree, it is very funny.
He is just not that smart, period. Say you run a company, some schmuck breaks through some web-app and steal some documents and then blackmails you with these documents to get a job? So what does he expect exactly, an actual job from you?
Let me put it this way - I wouldn't call cops on him, I would invite him for an 'interview' and clean his clock.
I don't care what the Germans claim.
- they said something about security:
"Your internet browser is the key component for the use of services on the Web and thus represents the main target for cyber-attacks," said BSI in its published advice. "By using Google Chrome in conjunction with the other measures outlined above, you can significantly reduce the risk of a successful IT attack." ... "This [sandbox] protection is implemented most consistently in Chrome...[and] similar mechanisms in other browsers are currently either weaker or non-existent," explained BSI.
Chrome is not very private
- and this is correct, they said nothing about privacy.
How time flies.
Stand up meetings are terrible, they always felt to me like a bad version of an homage paid either towards communism or fascism. The feeling is akin to that of a komsomol meeting, and that's probably what hitlerjugend must have felt like, especially those, who weren't devoted followers, but those who only attended it out of sense of self-preservation.
Maybe this comparison is a bit too strong, but that's the first thing that comes to mind.
As to the merits of such meetings - these are always denigrating, and totally worthless, nothing of any value can really be discussed in them because they are not aimed at solving any particular problem, just a reminder that the ant-farm is still in operation for some ridiculous reason.
just because you don't recognise a meaningful post doesn't mean nobody else does.
I didn't know I had 'sock puppets', but whoever moded me up must find this extremely amusing.
Anything government argues will be passed by a judge, that's how they didn't strike down every unconstitutional thing that happened for 100 years, from income taxes, to minimum wage, to SS and Medicare and every business regulation that is passed by the unelected executive branch without bothering with the Congress.
It is irrelevant for me to have to prove that in every single case government gets what it wants, I can point out plenty of cases where completely irrational and illogical things were deemed to be lawful in court, like this case of a farmer getting fined by government and having his product destroyed that he created for his own use.
Again, he was fined and his product was destroyed which he was not selling, and the reasoning was that he was using the product that he was not selling.
The reasoning was that he was PRODUCING SOMETHING WITHOUT SELLING and thus he was found guilty, this is absolutely irrational and illogical and the government was found to be within its rights to enforce this by a court, thus anything that is illogical and irrational can be enforced by a court and I don't have to prove that every combination of illogical and irrational thing will be enforced, it is simply by example is shown to be a POSSIBILITY.
Your stupid argument is what, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a court to judge that government cannot control people based on the fact that they are breathing air?
Well, you cannot prove it simply because you find it to be irrational and illogical, the courts have proven that they can take an irrational and illogical position that government takes and rule in its favour.
As I said, your nick is entirely appropriate.