Right, and because of this, it's a zero-sum game, and the rest of your analysis falls apart.
How do you figure?
You are claiming that someone selling the stock is then taking that money and using it to stimulate the economy. But, they had to buy the stock in the first place. In the long term, only their profit can really be called "stimulus".
This is only true if your desktop firewall actually filters out something that the server-based solutions do not.
Desktop firewalls are generally not there to prevent packets from coming in to the machine...that's handled by hardware firewalls that separate departments, etc. Desktop firewalls are there to selectively allow outbound packets on a per-process basis.
For example, it would be corporate suicide to set up hardware firewalls to generally disallow outbound connections to port 80, although some more draconian places do this. But, it's easy enough to set up a software (i.e., desktop) firewall so that only approved_browser.exe is allowed to connect to non-private IPs on port 80. This might stop some trojans from phoning home.
Actually, already created shares of stock are finite resources.
Right, and because of this, it's a zero-sum game, and the rest of your analysis falls apart.
Only the issuer of the stock can guarantee a profit on the sale, while the rest of the sellers have to take their chances, since they had to buy it in the first place. This results in taking money out of the pockets of the construction workers you mention, since the homeowner had to choose to buy the stock instead of add on to their home.
Are you not aware that the high-profile RIAA/MPAA cases are a tiny fraction of the copyright litigation that occurs? Have you failed to notice that even in those cases, while the industry groups are pushing for outrageous outcomes, the trend has been toward moderation (or, one might say, "common sense") for a long time now?
It is not shocking news that the court is hearing this argument, and it will not be shocking news if this argument prevails.
Based on past copyright suits, I think it will actually be quite shocking if both these things happen.
The big issue is that copyright law specifically lists enormous awards, so that's what every copyright lawsuit shoots for. With legal fees so high, settlements are common, which means it's likely this argument might never actually make it to a final ruling in favor of the defendant, or the defendant might win on some other non-precedent setting ruling. These things happen all the time in copyright lawsuits, and it means that the current bad laws stay in force.
I earn a reasonably comfortable salary that is quite a bit more than most people, but someone with a $200,000 salary is earning much more in a month than I make in a year. And that's before I pay income tax. And I pay 18% income tax.
If you earn less than $17K per year ($200K / 12), that's not "reasonably comforable", that's close to the poverty level, and you would pay about $750 in US income taxes (assuming filing single and standard deductions), which would be about 4% of your gross income.
But, I do agree that an indivdual making enough more than $200K to feel "hurt" by this certainly isn't worrying about the next house payment, much less the where their next meal will come from.
I'm making two points. One, making $200,000 is not at all like having million dollar homes or yachts. Anyone can do this. There's no reason to punish people for being successful, responsible producers in this economy.
First, not "anyone" can make $200K per year. In almost all of the US, that is in the top 10% of incomes in the area.
Second, are you saying that someone who only makes $50K/year is not a "successful, responsible producer in the economy"? And, if this tax is enacted, should they also pay? Or, should there be no taxes at all?
Third, there are millions of people making money in other states would would consider having to pay only 5% in state income tax to be a windfall.
Last, the point is that this tax only affects people who don't have any problem with normal bills and likely have a lot of "fun" money left over. Yes, it sucks that they didn't have to pay tax before and now they do, but they are the least likely to be hurt by it, and it's most likely that the economy will be helped by them having to pay the tax.
Given money the rich do not spend. They already have all necessities paid for. They invest.
Absolutely accurate, but I just wanted to point out for other readers that don't understand: "spending" money on buying a 2nd house is actually "investment".
This is what the parent meant...most of what the very rich "spend" money on is really investment of some sort.
Any income tax passed will mostly be the burden of the middle class.
I don't think many people could afford to live someplace where "middle class" was more than a $400K household income, since this tax plan is $0 for incomes below that.
Although it's a large jump in income tax for the state of Washington (which has none right now), it's a very reasonable rate compared to other state income tax. Up to about $2M in household income, it's less still lower than pretty much every state.
With no real deductions, it's certainly a "soak the rich" tax, but that would make it the only such tax in the country, as every other tax that supposedly gets most of the money from the very top earners actually hits the upper middle class (i.e., the $100-250K household income) the worst.
Buying 100,000 shares of already issued stock is an investment, but does nothing to create jobs. Only some sort of venture capital (defined loosely, e.g., funding a new company or increasing production at a company) creates jobs.
I also suspect that the state of Washington believes it has created an economic climate that allowed people to become very rich, but many of those very rich are investing in things outside the state of Washington. This tax keeps more of the money in the state.
To be clear, you agree with my point that lawsuits are often brought for damages which far exceed actual damages?
Yes, but again the difference is that with the damage amounts codified into copyright law, juries are more likely to award the requested values (and also because they aren't described as "punitive").
For a regular lawsuit, the reasons for the damages above "actual" (which can be fuzzy) need to be listed (like "emotional distress") to allow the jury reason to grant those damages. For copyright lawsuits, you just need to say "that's what the law says I'm allowed to get".
ACTA isn't JUST about internet filesharing, but also about counterfeint pharmacuticals and other stuff.
You, sir, are the dream of the ACTA negotiators.
The whole point of bundling "file sharing" with "counterfeit pharmaceuticals" is so that you can get the same sort of penalties for both. I don't think anyone will disagree that labeling sugar pills as some vital drug is a huge danger, but the way ACTA is written, a generic is also considered "counterfeit". Likewise all the following are treated the same by ACTA:
file sharing
copying DVDs
copying DVDs and selling them
creating your own DVD, labeling it as if it were the legitimate DVD and selling it
But to answer your ignorant rhetorical questions: yes, you can seek punitive damages against someone who causes your harm, in addition to actual damages.
The difference is that copyright damage awards permitted by the law are not considered "punitive". In other words, they are not intended to be a punishment, but rather a recovery of either actual or reasonable theoretical losses.
So, using high damages to "punish" file sharers is an incorrect application of the law.
The key bottle neck is the network, if you can run LAN cables no worries, if you decide to go wireless 802.11n will do fine for 720p, 1080p is pushing it
If you are serving up native BluRay, then you might run into problems, but a transcode to less than 15Mbps will still keep 1080p24 looking stunning on anything less than a 60" display.
Now, if you have some 1080p60 source that really is that (and not 24fps film with duplicate frames in a 60fps stream), then you'll need nearly 25Mbps, so wireless would be iffy.
This is one of the reasons I went with an actual HTPC...there are very few media players with a BluRay drive (other than the PS3), so you unless you can rip the disc, you can't watch it.
My cable connection peaks at 10mbit/s but usually sustains around 5-6mbit/s during peak hours. I'm perfectly content with that.
This sort of attitude is the reason that Verizon has issues with getting permission to lay more fiber.
Once you realize that you can pay the same price per month for 24/7 speeds that aren't "up to", you wonder why you would consider anything else. The reason, of course, is that you don't have a choice due to monopolies that are enforced by Comcast, et.al., contributing large sums to local politicians.
My 25/15 FiOS connection has no problem running at those speeds at any time of the day. In fact, I have often seen speeds higher than the "max" I am paying for. 15/5 is currently going for $55/month. No other service can touch that, and that makes them all very scared.
but really, thats the current/near future needs of the "family car" although, i could settle for needing to pull a small trailer or use a roof top carrier, for ${STUFF}
If you're willing to pull a trailer, then you're probably better off using a trailer-hitch carrier than a roof-top, as you generally don't suffer any wind drag penalties for the hitch carrier.
And, I'm right with you on a similar needs of a "family car". If a VW Jetta SportWagon TDI would have been big enough, it would have been the no-brainer purchase (33mpg with 67 cu.ft. of cargo space...150% of a Prius, and 80% of the 18mpg Honda Pilot). As it is, I can't afford to own both a "small" and "large" car, so I have to pick something large enough without being too over the top.
They would just need to provide the energy cost used as the basis. You see it all the time on appliances. (actually, in the US its required on new appliances)
Since most appliances use so little energy compared to what recharging a car would require, it's not really a big deal if the number on the appliance is off a bit.
Also, there are many locations with "peak hour" electricity costs. For many appliances, this isn't really important, as you generally don't get a choice when to use them (like stoves). For others (like dishwashers), you do get a choice, and electric cars would fall into this category (since you should be able to charge them during the non-peak hours).
One other thing I noticed on the one sample sticker is that they have used the assumption of 15000 miles/year to compute the "savings". The problem is that the car on the sample sticker can only travel 100 miles before it needs a 4-hour recharge. Technically, this car could travel 15K miles in a year, but it's highly unlikely. But, based on that and the 34kwh/100 miles, the car would use 425kwh every month. That means that it uses as much in 2 months as the fridge in your sample sticker uses in a year.
So, as 6 times the usage, you need more accurate numbers for the rate to make a truly informed decision compared to other vehicles that use a different power source (hybrid, gasoline, diesel, E85, etc.).
Presumably, your Ford Ranger would have had a sticker like "over five years, this vehicle costs $5,200 more than average"
Unless the sticker had a lot of fine print explanations, this would just cause more confusion and complaints. What, exactly, is the "average" that is being compared to? The average for all "similar" vehicles? The average for all passenger cars? Or passenger cars plus "light trucks"?
And, since fuel prices change, will the price per gallon assumption on the sticker change? If so, will it happen such that a dealer might have two identical cars on the lot with different "costs $XXX more/less" stickers? What about diesel and premium...will vehicles that use those have different costs per gallon?
Right now with only the EPA mileage rating on the sticker, there is no confusion, and it's enough information to compare to any other car at any car dealership. It's also one of the few things that can be objectively tested but only over longer than a typical test drive.
For a purchase as large as a car, there's no way to put everything you need to know for an "informed comparison" on the window sticker. A lot of other costs (repair costs, insurance, etc.) might dwarf the savings/penalty for fuel cost listed on the sticker. If you haven't done your homework about those things and rely only on the window sticker, it's likely you're going to be making a bad decision.
Compared to a $90+ cable bill a month $2 an episode and being able to keep them forever isn't such a bad deal. After all, for $90+ for cable, you're only "renting" anyway.
Actually, cable turns out to be pretty good unless you just like one show.
Throughout the year, you get between 1-2 new episodes per month for each show. If you watch 10 series regularly, that's $40/month to Apple, and you get nothing live. A family that watches 30 different series (not much of a stretch) would be paying Apple upwards of $100/month. Plus, I suspect that there's a lot not available from Apple at all.
It's also pretty easy to keep all the TV you record. It takes me about 5 minutes to manually remove commercials from a recording, and automated systems require no effort.
For a digital copy I don't even get to keep, well, I'd expect not to have to pay. The "watch this but don't keep a copy" model has been ad-supported on aerial TV for decades, and on YouTube for the better part of one.
Especially for recent TV shows, there should be no charge. I have no moral problem downloading a torrent of a TV show when my personal recording isn't good for some reason (DVR error, local pre-emption, etc.), since I don't keep the recording, anyway.
Since I would not have watched the commercials anyway, there really is no difference for me as far as ad revenue. This is yet another case similar to games with invasive DRM, where the pirate version is much more convenient and usable than the "official" version.
I doubt it's going to go well if you try to disable, remove, or relocate the device. It's probably legal but I wouldn't want to be the one to go to trial to prove that.
The whole point of a GPS tracker is that they aren't actively watching you. So, I think the chances of getting caught removing it are somewhere between slim and none, if you just ditch it in a sewer or by the side of the road.
If you attach it to another vehicle, they'd probably be able to show that you were the most likely to have done that.
On the other hand, although these devices are weather-resistant, they aren't really weather-proof. If you are in a winter weather area, just yank the device while you are at home and drop it in a pot of boiling salt water overnight, then put it back.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the most popular ISP, Free Telecom, sent them a paper listing (they are vocal opponents to this law).
Hopefully, the personal details were printed in 6-point type.
How do you figure?
You are claiming that someone selling the stock is then taking that money and using it to stimulate the economy. But, they had to buy the stock in the first place. In the long term, only their profit can really be called "stimulus".
You want to count each sale of the stock as "stimulus", but that's the fallacy of the broken window, and the same poor logic that leads the BSA to say that software piracy costs the economy hundreds of billions per year.
This is only true if your desktop firewall actually filters out something that the server-based solutions do not.
Desktop firewalls are generally not there to prevent packets from coming in to the machine...that's handled by hardware firewalls that separate departments, etc. Desktop firewalls are there to selectively allow outbound packets on a per-process basis.
For example, it would be corporate suicide to set up hardware firewalls to generally disallow outbound connections to port 80, although some more draconian places do this. But, it's easy enough to set up a software (i.e., desktop) firewall so that only approved_browser.exe is allowed to connect to non-private IPs on port 80. This might stop some trojans from phoning home.
What does low 4 digit mean?
That you are actually dead and your post was made by a highly evolved AI that you wrote many years ago.
You are being far too generous. Households making over 180k are in the top 5%.
Yeah, I didn't want to do the detailed research, so I figured underestimating with a number that's still pretty shocking wouldn't hurt.
Actually, already created shares of stock are finite resources.
Right, and because of this, it's a zero-sum game, and the rest of your analysis falls apart.
Only the issuer of the stock can guarantee a profit on the sale, while the rest of the sellers have to take their chances, since they had to buy it in the first place. This results in taking money out of the pockets of the construction workers you mention, since the homeowner had to choose to buy the stock instead of add on to their home.
Are you not aware that the high-profile RIAA/MPAA cases are a tiny fraction of the copyright litigation that occurs? Have you failed to notice that even in those cases, while the industry groups are pushing for outrageous outcomes, the trend has been toward moderation (or, one might say, "common sense") for a long time now?
It is not shocking news that the court is hearing this argument, and it will not be shocking news if this argument prevails.
Based on past copyright suits, I think it will actually be quite shocking if both these things happen.
The big issue is that copyright law specifically lists enormous awards, so that's what every copyright lawsuit shoots for. With legal fees so high, settlements are common, which means it's likely this argument might never actually make it to a final ruling in favor of the defendant, or the defendant might win on some other non-precedent setting ruling. These things happen all the time in copyright lawsuits, and it means that the current bad laws stay in force.
I earn a reasonably comfortable salary that is quite a bit more than most people, but someone with a $200,000 salary is earning much more in a month than I make in a year. And that's before I pay income tax. And I pay 18% income tax.
If you earn less than $17K per year ($200K / 12), that's not "reasonably comforable", that's close to the poverty level, and you would pay about $750 in US income taxes (assuming filing single and standard deductions), which would be about 4% of your gross income.
But, I do agree that an indivdual making enough more than $200K to feel "hurt" by this certainly isn't worrying about the next house payment, much less the where their next meal will come from.
I'm making two points. One, making $200,000 is not at all like having million dollar homes or yachts. Anyone can do this. There's no reason to punish people for being successful, responsible producers in this economy.
First, not "anyone" can make $200K per year. In almost all of the US, that is in the top 10% of incomes in the area.
Second, are you saying that someone who only makes $50K/year is not a "successful, responsible producer in the economy"? And, if this tax is enacted, should they also pay? Or, should there be no taxes at all?
Third, there are millions of people making money in other states would would consider having to pay only 5% in state income tax to be a windfall.
Last, the point is that this tax only affects people who don't have any problem with normal bills and likely have a lot of "fun" money left over. Yes, it sucks that they didn't have to pay tax before and now they do, but they are the least likely to be hurt by it, and it's most likely that the economy will be helped by them having to pay the tax.
Given money the rich do not spend. They already have all necessities paid for. They invest.
Absolutely accurate, but I just wanted to point out for other readers that don't understand: "spending" money on buying a 2nd house is actually "investment".
This is what the parent meant...most of what the very rich "spend" money on is really investment of some sort.
Any income tax passed will mostly be the burden of the middle class.
I don't think many people could afford to live someplace where "middle class" was more than a $400K household income, since this tax plan is $0 for incomes below that.
Although it's a large jump in income tax for the state of Washington (which has none right now), it's a very reasonable rate compared to other state income tax. Up to about $2M in household income, it's less still lower than pretty much every state.
With no real deductions, it's certainly a "soak the rich" tax, but that would make it the only such tax in the country, as every other tax that supposedly gets most of the money from the very top earners actually hits the upper middle class (i.e., the $100-250K household income) the worst.
Those investments are what create jobs.
Buying 100,000 shares of already issued stock is an investment, but does nothing to create jobs. Only some sort of venture capital (defined loosely, e.g., funding a new company or increasing production at a company) creates jobs.
I also suspect that the state of Washington believes it has created an economic climate that allowed people to become very rich, but many of those very rich are investing in things outside the state of Washington. This tax keeps more of the money in the state.
Loaned books, especially free ones, strike me as one of the few valid uses of DRM I've seen.
All eBooks with DRM are loaned.
To be clear, you agree with my point that lawsuits are often brought for damages which far exceed actual damages?
Yes, but again the difference is that with the damage amounts codified into copyright law, juries are more likely to award the requested values (and also because they aren't described as "punitive").
For a regular lawsuit, the reasons for the damages above "actual" (which can be fuzzy) need to be listed (like "emotional distress") to allow the jury reason to grant those damages. For copyright lawsuits, you just need to say "that's what the law says I'm allowed to get".
ACTA isn't JUST about internet filesharing, but also about counterfeint pharmacuticals and other stuff.
You, sir, are the dream of the ACTA negotiators.
The whole point of bundling "file sharing" with "counterfeit pharmaceuticals" is so that you can get the same sort of penalties for both. I don't think anyone will disagree that labeling sugar pills as some vital drug is a huge danger, but the way ACTA is written, a generic is also considered "counterfeit". Likewise all the following are treated the same by ACTA:
But to answer your ignorant rhetorical questions: yes, you can seek punitive damages against someone who causes your harm, in addition to actual damages.
The difference is that copyright damage awards permitted by the law are not considered "punitive". In other words, they are not intended to be a punishment, but rather a recovery of either actual or reasonable theoretical losses.
So, using high damages to "punish" file sharers is an incorrect application of the law.
The key bottle neck is the network, if you can run LAN cables no worries, if you decide to go wireless 802.11n will do fine for 720p, 1080p is pushing it
If you are serving up native BluRay, then you might run into problems, but a transcode to less than 15Mbps will still keep 1080p24 looking stunning on anything less than a 60" display.
Now, if you have some 1080p60 source that really is that (and not 24fps film with duplicate frames in a 60fps stream), then you'll need nearly 25Mbps, so wireless would be iffy.
This is one of the reasons I went with an actual HTPC...there are very few media players with a BluRay drive (other than the PS3), so you unless you can rip the disc, you can't watch it.
My cable connection peaks at 10mbit/s but usually sustains around 5-6mbit/s during peak hours. I'm perfectly content with that.
This sort of attitude is the reason that Verizon has issues with getting permission to lay more fiber.
Once you realize that you can pay the same price per month for 24/7 speeds that aren't "up to", you wonder why you would consider anything else. The reason, of course, is that you don't have a choice due to monopolies that are enforced by Comcast, et.al., contributing large sums to local politicians.
My 25/15 FiOS connection has no problem running at those speeds at any time of the day. In fact, I have often seen speeds higher than the "max" I am paying for. 15/5 is currently going for $55/month. No other service can touch that, and that makes them all very scared.
but really, thats the current/near future needs of the "family car" although, i could settle for needing to pull a small trailer or use a roof top carrier, for ${STUFF}
If you're willing to pull a trailer, then you're probably better off using a trailer-hitch carrier than a roof-top, as you generally don't suffer any wind drag penalties for the hitch carrier.
And, I'm right with you on a similar needs of a "family car". If a VW Jetta SportWagon TDI would have been big enough, it would have been the no-brainer purchase (33mpg with 67 cu.ft. of cargo space...150% of a Prius, and 80% of the 18mpg Honda Pilot). As it is, I can't afford to own both a "small" and "large" car, so I have to pick something large enough without being too over the top.
They would just need to provide the energy cost used as the basis. You see it all the time on appliances. (actually, in the US its required on new appliances)
Since most appliances use so little energy compared to what recharging a car would require, it's not really a big deal if the number on the appliance is off a bit.
Also, there are many locations with "peak hour" electricity costs. For many appliances, this isn't really important, as you generally don't get a choice when to use them (like stoves). For others (like dishwashers), you do get a choice, and electric cars would fall into this category (since you should be able to charge them during the non-peak hours).
One other thing I noticed on the one sample sticker is that they have used the assumption of 15000 miles/year to compute the "savings". The problem is that the car on the sample sticker can only travel 100 miles before it needs a 4-hour recharge. Technically, this car could travel 15K miles in a year, but it's highly unlikely. But, based on that and the 34kwh/100 miles, the car would use 425kwh every month. That means that it uses as much in 2 months as the fridge in your sample sticker uses in a year.
So, as 6 times the usage, you need more accurate numbers for the rate to make a truly informed decision compared to other vehicles that use a different power source (hybrid, gasoline, diesel, E85, etc.).
Presumably, your Ford Ranger would have had a sticker like "over five years, this vehicle costs $5,200 more than average"
Unless the sticker had a lot of fine print explanations, this would just cause more confusion and complaints. What, exactly, is the "average" that is being compared to? The average for all "similar" vehicles? The average for all passenger cars? Or passenger cars plus "light trucks"?
And, since fuel prices change, will the price per gallon assumption on the sticker change? If so, will it happen such that a dealer might have two identical cars on the lot with different "costs $XXX more/less" stickers? What about diesel and premium...will vehicles that use those have different costs per gallon?
Right now with only the EPA mileage rating on the sticker, there is no confusion, and it's enough information to compare to any other car at any car dealership. It's also one of the few things that can be objectively tested but only over longer than a typical test drive.
For a purchase as large as a car, there's no way to put everything you need to know for an "informed comparison" on the window sticker. A lot of other costs (repair costs, insurance, etc.) might dwarf the savings/penalty for fuel cost listed on the sticker. If you haven't done your homework about those things and rely only on the window sticker, it's likely you're going to be making a bad decision.
Compared to a $90+ cable bill a month $2 an episode and being able to keep them forever isn't such a bad deal. After all, for $90+ for cable, you're only "renting" anyway.
Actually, cable turns out to be pretty good unless you just like one show.
Throughout the year, you get between 1-2 new episodes per month for each show. If you watch 10 series regularly, that's $40/month to Apple, and you get nothing live. A family that watches 30 different series (not much of a stretch) would be paying Apple upwards of $100/month. Plus, I suspect that there's a lot not available from Apple at all.
It's also pretty easy to keep all the TV you record. It takes me about 5 minutes to manually remove commercials from a recording, and automated systems require no effort.
For a digital copy I don't even get to keep, well, I'd expect not to have to pay. The "watch this but don't keep a copy" model has been ad-supported on aerial TV for decades, and on YouTube for the better part of one.
Especially for recent TV shows, there should be no charge. I have no moral problem downloading a torrent of a TV show when my personal recording isn't good for some reason (DVR error, local pre-emption, etc.), since I don't keep the recording, anyway.
Since I would not have watched the commercials anyway, there really is no difference for me as far as ad revenue. This is yet another case similar to games with invasive DRM, where the pirate version is much more convenient and usable than the "official" version.
I doubt it's going to go well if you try to disable, remove, or relocate the device. It's probably legal but I wouldn't want to be the one to go to trial to prove that.
The whole point of a GPS tracker is that they aren't actively watching you. So, I think the chances of getting caught removing it are somewhere between slim and none, if you just ditch it in a sewer or by the side of the road.
If you attach it to another vehicle, they'd probably be able to show that you were the most likely to have done that.
On the other hand, although these devices are weather-resistant, they aren't really weather-proof. If you are in a winter weather area, just yank the device while you are at home and drop it in a pot of boiling salt water overnight, then put it back.
http://googlesightseeing.com/2009/07/the-buzzer-uvb-76/
Anybody else find it scary that there is a cloud obscuring the site and pretty much nothing else?
You can see it on this zoomed-out map.
Forget about the radio...I want the Russian "cloud parking" technology.