Not necessarily; it's entirely possible for two companies to compete each other into oblivion, leaving us with no delivery service. Remember Kozmo/Urbanfetch?
In the US, we are motivated by one thing - Money.
If CS Majors made as much as doctors or lawyers, more people would take math and Computer science courses.
I don't know about that, the impression I get from a lot of people I know who majored in computer science is that they were doing it because they were interested in the field. In fact, I think it's more likely the overseas computer science students are overall more in it for the money, as in a lot of places it's the only way for a reasonably intelligent person to get ahead.
If CS Majors made as much as doctors or lawyers, more people would take math and Computer science courses.
They get comparative amounts of money for the amount of education they have.
From the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:
According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, starting offers for graduates with a doctoral degree in computer science averaged $93,050 in 2005. Starting offers averaged $50,820 for graduates with a bachelor's degree in computer science; $46,189 for those with a degree in computer systems analysis; $44,417 for those with a degree in management information systems; and $44,775 for those with a degree in information sciences and systems.
Compare that with a median salary of $55,000 for newly graduated JDs.
This case isn't about trade secret law, this is about Steve Jobs being so goddamn paranoid and taking things like this bizarrely personal. I can just imagine him bursting into the corporate counsel office in a rage and screeching at the top of his lungs that whoever did this had to be tracked down.
It may be reasonable, it's also unconstitutional. From the article:
The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.
A little broad, eh? So now we get some neopuritan in the FCC or whoever gets to control this deciding what constitutes "sexually explicit". And what constitues a commercial website? Most museums and non-profits may be safe, but what about newspapers? Magazines? This is prior restraint, and this is one of the reasons the First Amendment was passed.
I'm not a lawyer, just been through law school. But anyway...
I normally do not believe stuff like this, but it is reinforced by the simple fact that every constitutional Amendment specifically authorizes congress to enforce that amendment, but the 16th amendment does not specifically authorize congress to enforce it.
Well by it's very wording such a clause is unnecessary; its already authorizing Congress to levy taxes. Saying "Congress shall have the right to enforce this article" would just create something circular. Congress authorizing itself to authorize itself to collect taxes? Unlike the amendments you cited this one actually starts with the phrase "Congress shall have power...", so a second clause starting with that line would seem superfluous.
As for the Puerto Rico thing, the Tax Protester FAQ addresses that with all the other issues.
If you want to call income taxes illegitimate from a moral, philosophical, or practical ground, there is plenty of ammunition for that. I don't personally believe they are, but there are legitimate arguments you can make on all those grounds. To say that they are illegal though is something else; the courts have addressed all these issues, and pretty decisively decided them. To maintain that you can legitimately refuse to pay income tax really is kooky.
When they wrote the word "judge" the meant a judge as understood in the british system. When they wrote the word trial, they meant a trial as understood in the british system.
More importantly, when they said "common law" in the Constitution they meant British common law, as by its very nature it had to be that, there being no purely American precedent at the very instant America as a country was created.
There's a school of thought (Justice Scalia seems to be the most prominent member of it) that says American common law includes British common prior to 1792 (I think that's the year). It probably won't matter much here, most contract law is statutory and is done under the Uniform Commercial Code (or whatever variant of it that a state has adopted), which has specific rules regarding what constitutes a contract.
Well take it from someone who, unlike you, has actually has been through law school, your reading is completely incorrect and borderline crazy. The code I cited to says straight out, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income...a tax", do you honestly maintain because you don't understand what a taxable year means the entire code is thereby invalid? You obviously know very little about statutory construction if you think that has any legal validity.
Furthermore, first you complain that everyday words "are legal terms in here and are redifined[sic]", then go on to complain that "taxable year" wasn't redefined. The fact that they didn't define "taxable year" should have clued you in to the fact that it wasn't necessary to define it; for an individual, it's a calendar year.
The Internal Revenue Code says you have to pay taxes if you make a certain income. The courts have unanimously interpreted it to say so. Any wingnut who tries to raise that defense in court is laughed out of court. I know you really, really hate paying taxes. But so what? You're going to have to keep doing it if you don't want your stuff confiscated and yourself thrown in prison. Life sucks, huh?
Technically, the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly ratified, but the Supreme Court has already called bollocks on any attempt to use that to get out of tax liability...
Phantasy Star Online was easily one of the most gorgeous games I've ever seen; vibrant colors, detailed artwork, and the music was pretty kickass too. The gameplay was more like a networked Gauntlet rather than a real MMORPG, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The cheating, however, made it completely and utterly unplayable. Stupid game genie or gameshark or whatever the hell those cretins used.
While it's unlikely console will be pulled from shelves, it's one way to generate some publicity.
Alright that statement is meaningless and confusing even by Slashdot standards. Why exactly does Lucent want this "publicity"? Can we get something other than cryptic comments like this at the end of slashdot stories?
But it's completely unfair, I mean, if you invite a guy to your party doesn't he suddenly gain some property rights to your house? I mean, you let him in, why shouldn't he be able to control your stuff?
Maybe. The lives of the stockholders, customers, and employees might outweigh the right of the heirs to participate in the running of the company. Imagine you were working for Hilton, Corp. when Paris inherits controlling interest of it.
How would the lives of anyone be affected? If you're talking about pure economic damage then, no, that's not a good enough reason for you to take my property.
Well I have to disagree. You seem to think inefficient management of a company is something immoral; I don't think it is. I do, however, think interfering with someone's (or their estate's) property rights IS immoral. Should you be able to annex my lawn simply because you'd do a far better job of maintaining it?
There are corporate entities the partial ownership of which are not intended to pass to heirs. If MS wasn't set up as one of them in the beginning then Gates shouldn't even think of screwing over Allen's estate. So Allen's heirs mess things up? Tough, they're partial owners and they have a right to participate in the company's actions, whether for good or for ill.
They didn't bribe the prosecution, there was just a regime change while the case was still going on. Bush and company are rabid anti-monopoly laws, and while I detest their stupidity, immorality, dishonesty and incompetence as much as anyone, I don't think any of it had to do with bribes, just ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily; it's entirely possible for two companies to compete each other into oblivion, leaving us with no delivery service. Remember Kozmo/Urbanfetch?
Neither ?
Or, "Both" is also a possible answer. You're right, a few holes in that question logically.
I don't know about that, the impression I get from a lot of people I know who majored in computer science is that they were doing it because they were interested in the field. In fact, I think it's more likely the overseas computer science students are overall more in it for the money, as in a lot of places it's the only way for a reasonably intelligent person to get ahead.
If CS Majors made as much as doctors or lawyers, more people would take math and Computer science courses.
They get comparative amounts of money for the amount of education they have.
From the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Compare that with a median salary of $55,000 for newly graduated JDs.
This case isn't about trade secret law, this is about Steve Jobs being so goddamn paranoid and taking things like this bizarrely personal. I can just imagine him bursting into the corporate counsel office in a rage and screeching at the top of his lungs that whoever did this had to be tracked down.
It may be reasonable, it's also unconstitutional. From the article:
The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.
A little broad, eh? So now we get some neopuritan in the FCC or whoever gets to control this deciding what constitutes "sexually explicit". And what constitues a commercial website? Most museums and non-profits may be safe, but what about newspapers? Magazines? This is prior restraint, and this is one of the reasons the First Amendment was passed.
The obvious point is that he's a respected environmentalist, and not a bought and paid for lobbyist of the nuclear industry.
Ummm, no, he IS a bought and paid for lobbyist of the nuclear industry.
I'm not a lawyer, just been through law school. But anyway...
I normally do not believe stuff like this, but it is reinforced by the simple fact that every constitutional Amendment specifically authorizes congress to enforce that amendment, but the 16th amendment does not specifically authorize congress to enforce it.
Well by it's very wording such a clause is unnecessary; its already authorizing Congress to levy taxes. Saying "Congress shall have the right to enforce this article" would just create something circular. Congress authorizing itself to authorize itself to collect taxes? Unlike the amendments you cited this one actually starts with the phrase "Congress shall have power...", so a second clause starting with that line would seem superfluous.
As for the Puerto Rico thing, the Tax Protester FAQ addresses that with all the other issues.
If you want to call income taxes illegitimate from a moral, philosophical, or practical ground, there is plenty of ammunition for that. I don't personally believe they are, but there are legitimate arguments you can make on all those grounds. To say that they are illegal though is something else; the courts have addressed all these issues, and pretty decisively decided them. To maintain that you can legitimately refuse to pay income tax really is kooky.
When they wrote the word "judge" the meant a judge as understood in the british system. When they wrote the word trial, they meant a trial as understood in the british system.
More importantly, when they said "common law" in the Constitution they meant British common law, as by its very nature it had to be that, there being no purely American precedent at the very instant America as a country was created.
There's a school of thought (Justice Scalia seems to be the most prominent member of it) that says American common law includes British common prior to 1792 (I think that's the year). It probably won't matter much here, most contract law is statutory and is done under the Uniform Commercial Code (or whatever variant of it that a state has adopted), which has specific rules regarding what constitutes a contract.
In an adversarial system the lawyer's job is to do what he or she can, within the bounds of the law, to protect their client. How is this "sleazy"?
Well take it from someone who, unlike you, has actually has been through law school, your reading is completely incorrect and borderline crazy. The code I cited to says straight out, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income...a tax", do you honestly maintain because you don't understand what a taxable year means the entire code is thereby invalid? You obviously know very little about statutory construction if you think that has any legal validity.
Furthermore, first you complain that everyday words "are legal terms in here and are redifined[sic]", then go on to complain that "taxable year" wasn't redefined. The fact that they didn't define "taxable year" should have clued you in to the fact that it wasn't necessary to define it; for an individual, it's a calendar year.
The Internal Revenue Code says you have to pay taxes if you make a certain income. The courts have unanimously interpreted it to say so. Any wingnut who tries to raise that defense in court is laughed out of court. I know you really, really hate paying taxes. But so what? You're going to have to keep doing it if you don't want your stuff confiscated and yourself thrown in prison. Life sucks, huh?
Technically, the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly ratified, but the Supreme Court has already called bollocks on any attempt to use that to get out of tax liability...
Thereby making it technically properly ratified.
Oh good. You can show me the law that says who's liable for taxes then, because the IRS can't.
Chapter 1, Subchapter A ("Determination of Tax Liability"), Part I of the Internal Revenue Code states quite explicitly who's liable for taxes.
Phantasy Star Online was easily one of the most gorgeous games I've ever seen; vibrant colors, detailed artwork, and the music was pretty kickass too. The gameplay was more like a networked Gauntlet rather than a real MMORPG, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The cheating, however, made it completely and utterly unplayable. Stupid game genie or gameshark or whatever the hell those cretins used.
While it's unlikely console will be pulled from shelves, it's one way to generate some publicity.
Alright that statement is meaningless and confusing even by Slashdot standards. Why exactly does Lucent want this "publicity"? Can we get something other than cryptic comments like this at the end of slashdot stories?
"For those of you who bought one of the first generation Macbook Pros..."
I ask, what the hell's the matter with you? Don't buy first generation apple stuff, that's just insane.
But it's completely unfair, I mean, if you invite a guy to your party doesn't he suddenly gain some property rights to your house? I mean, you let him in, why shouldn't he be able to control your stuff?
Maybe. The lives of the stockholders, customers, and employees might outweigh the right of the heirs to participate in the running of the company. Imagine you were working for Hilton, Corp. when Paris inherits controlling interest of it.
How would the lives of anyone be affected? If you're talking about pure economic damage then, no, that's not a good enough reason for you to take my property.
Well I have to disagree. You seem to think inefficient management of a company is something immoral; I don't think it is. I do, however, think interfering with someone's (or their estate's) property rights IS immoral. Should you be able to annex my lawn simply because you'd do a far better job of maintaining it?
There are corporate entities the partial ownership of which are not intended to pass to heirs. If MS wasn't set up as one of them in the beginning then Gates shouldn't even think of screwing over Allen's estate. So Allen's heirs mess things up? Tough, they're partial owners and they have a right to participate in the company's actions, whether for good or for ill.
call me old fashioned but I like a phone that is good at keeping my phone numbers handy and making calls.
Luddite!
Then we can go back to the usual, REAL, lame stories.
What they did this year is mildly amusing. Which compared to the past few April Fool's makes it a roaring success.
That's the exact same reason I don't use Calculus, not being an Egyptian nor a Greek myself.
No, that's the exact same reason you don't buy your papyrus back in the year 2000 BC.
They didn't bribe the prosecution, there was just a regime change while the case was still going on. Bush and company are rabid anti-monopoly laws, and while I detest their stupidity, immorality, dishonesty and incompetence as much as anyone, I don't think any of it had to do with bribes, just ideology.
Maybe the story should have started with "If you live in Britain and...". If you're an American this article is worthless to you.