And you would request that we do this why? In the interest of "fairness"? What sort of a warped definition of the word "fair" would place this burden on one business but not any other? Brick and mortar stores don't need to do this -- they deal with one particular set of tax codes. Other online retailers COULDN'T do this -- the cost would be too high and they would be forced to go under. Amazon is playing by the rules. We can't simply change the rules because they are out-competing other businesses.
You really think that just because a business out-competes and sinks other businesses that it deserves to be hurt? Do you think that anyone who sells anything online should have to deal with the thousands of different sales tax rates in the United States? You do realize that this will only make Amazon that much more monolithic by presenting a barrier for up and coming e-tailers that could compete with them, right? Our nation was founded on capitalism, which is based on fair competition. Amazon has been playing fair (at least in this regard) and has demolished the competition by being the best, and now we want to punish them for it. This is an extremely stupid reaction and is consequently one of the main reasons our country is becoming such a turd -- we punish greatness and reward mediocrity.
Why should they be morally liable to do this? Should we honestly expect companies to make business decisions not required of them by law, which will in turn harm them? Why? From what I can see, it is not even actual dollars that Amazon has issue with -- it is the incredibly convoluted series of taxes they would have to follow. Not only do most states in the U.S. have their own sales tax rates, but many counties and municipalities do as well. Above and beyond this, many areas have specific tax laws for specific items (tobacco and alcohol typically have so-called "sin" taxes attached to them). Do you really think that Amazon ought to be paying someone to keep up on the tobacco tax in Frog Balls, Arkansas? None of this is anywhere near as much of an issue for brick and mortar stores, as they stay in one place and have to keep up with one series of tax codes, which is difficult enough. Far from 'leveling the playing field', this would be an unfair stab against Amazon that would cost them far more to implement and keep track of than would ever be collected for the government.
Not to mention the advantage of being able to walk into the store and leave with whatever it was you were looking for -- rather than having to wait a few days and then deal with the damn UPS guy who always seems to come in the 10 minutes that you left to go pick up a few things at the store.
It's all well and good to occasionally embrace your inner child -- but it is something else entirely when an entire nation is collectively incapable of every rising beyond that. You end up having people do stupid things.
Like not questioning unjust wars.
Like not questioning why we kill each other and attemping to do something about it.
Like allowing all of our entertainment to completely go to shit because we don't care about art anymore and just want big explosions.
If Cameron knew it was a silly premise, why not change the premise? Why not create something intelligent that challenges viewers? This will certainly be hugely popular either way, right? Why this notion that for something to be entertaining it has to be devoid of any thinking? It is this mentality that is quickly turning America into a nation of drooling retards. Skip this garbage and go pick up a copy of Blade Runner or 2001 if you want to see what sci fi really can be.
Seconded -- it actually almost makes me physically ill to think of the fact that Avatar will probably make close to (if not more than) a billion dollars while thousands of brilliant, thoughtful films wallow in obscurity. We are no longer a nation that takes pride in greatness -- we reward mediocrity and shun anything that might challenge our preconceived notions. Our entire nation is roughly at the emotional development level of an 11 year old -- just turn on the television, radio, or walk into your local multiplex if you don't believe me.
2012 deserved to be seen never, I am ashamed to live in a country where crap like that is not only tolerated, but encouraged. Seriously, what are we, a nation of 11 year old boys?
Not to be too much of a language nerd... but the underlying implications of this fascinate me -- it is indicative of a totally different cultural worldview.
Dude, there is a reason these people are called 'bums'. We don't say it to be mean, it is simply a matter of fact that someone who lives on the street is likely to be less well socialized and will not be very good at cleaning up after themselves. It is not at all 'draconian' or even unfair to try to prevent these types from coming inside a building you own at night -- it is called looking after your own property and preventing it from damage by people who will inevitably do so. If you love bums so much, why don't you just let a few move in with you? That's what I thought. Shut the fuck up and get off your high horse, asshole.
This also prevents the people in power from abusing the libel system -- if the newspaper had to be able to prove that everything they printed was true, politicians would be able to squash all dissent immediately. Right off the top of my head I can say that the Watergate scandal would likely have never broken if this were the case.
Why is this scary? If we put the burden of proof on journalists, it puts politicians in a place where they can very easily silence dissent -- the burden of proof in libel NEEDS to be on the plaintiff or it will be abused too often. When it comes to free speech issues, we always need to err on the side of freedom rather than civility.
False. Look into the case of Simon Singh. The statements that he is currently being sued for (and he will most likely lose) are 100% true by any reasonable interpretation of the facts. Even if you are acquitted, you still will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars (or pounds), as well as a great deal of your time, defending yourself.
Do a little bit of research before you go spouting your opinions online. Simon Singh, a British science write, is on trial for calling chiropractic bogus. What was his basis for saying this? Well, he was responding to a series of patently, provably false statements by the British Chiropractic Association. They said that their bogus treatments would cure some diseases, which they provably could not, and then sued Singh for calling them out on it. Since libel law in England places the burden of proof on the defendant (this would be unconstitutional in America, due to that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" thing), meaning that Singh now has to PROVE that the statements were indeed bogus. Due to a rather creative take on the English language, the presiding judge decided that to rule the statements bogus, it must be proven that Singh not only knew that the BCA's claims were false, Singh also has to prove that the BCA knew that these statements were false. That is not reasonable. That is insane.
I'm not quite sure you are correct there -- I was not in the market for an e-book reader (I like the dead tree editions, personally), but if I were, I would specifically seek out one that did not use DRM. For something that I am interested in -- I would have been on board with iTunes years ago had they not used DRM. As someone who spends a LOT of money on music, I can say with 100% certainty that the time they had DRM on their files, they lost literally thousands of dollars in sales from me alone. I know that there are not many people that are knowledgeable enough (or care enough) to do this, but I am also sure that I am not alone. I am also fairly certain that the types of people who are inclined to care are also people that would invest a great deal in a quality collection -- so they are in effect turning away a large amount of really good customers. This is the main problem with DRM -- it significantly lowers the value of your product. When the only way to obtain a product is with DRM, the pirated version is by default the better product. Even if removing the DRM would increase piracy, it would also drastically increase sales, as I'm sure there are a great deal of people on the fence, as I was with iTunes, going on to purchase rival e-Book readers and picking up books from different stores to ensure that they can still access the books that they paid for 5 years from now.
Huh? Children being exposed to pornography makes adults more likely to have sex with children? How does that even make sense?
Let me try one -- Many commenters in this thread have made the point that until recently in human history creative works were not covered by copyright. They use that past behavior to argue that copyrights are not totally necessary. So from an anti-piracy perspective it makes sense to bring in slavery and genocide, both of which were much more common in the past than today, but are pretty much universally condemned in our society.
Computer science is far more practical/pragmatic (and really productive for society as a whole) and monetarily rewarding later in life than football.
The mean annual incomes of professionals in the fields of computer science and football might call into question the "monetarily rewarding" part of that statement.
...There already are not enough tech jobs for us. Sure, we had a hard time in high school (at least I know I did), but we get our day eventually. Particularly for me, my day was last week when I saw one of the biggest, douchiest jocks from my high school working at the local car wash.
I will say this very slowly for you in case you don't get it -- We. Are. Hardwired. For. Sex. Our ancestors evolved from microbes to microbiologists simply by being the best at reproducing and passing on their genetic information. That means that no matter what happens in life, we are always going to be obsessed with sex. Nothing can change this. Moralization comes off as incredibly hollow and vacuous, particularly to children. The best thing we can do it proper education. Instead of trying in vain to hide this information and coyly telling our children to just say no, we should be open about all the information, and give them all the solid, factual reasons that they are better off waiting for a while. My parents gave me the birds and the bees talk at a very young age, and if they had to refer to a 'penis' or a 'vagina' would use the proper word, rather than trying to hide behind some silly childish euphemism. Kids may not be fully developed, but they are remarkably perceptive. They can tell when they are being treated with respect, and are more than sophisticated enough to appreciate it.
When a person engages in intercourse with a child, it is not "sex", it is rape. Rape is not sex. Rape is an assault, it is an act of violence. Being a victim of violence scars people for life, this is both common sense and proven fact. If, when you are talking of sex scarring children, you are referring to them viewing pornography, you are going to need to back that claim up with evidence, simply declaring that it is the case does not make it true. Furthermore, your attempts to equate rape, torture, and murder with sex are absurd and only serve to make you look like an anti-intellectual zealot.
Slashdot Mirror
And you would request that we do this why? In the interest of "fairness"? What sort of a warped definition of the word "fair" would place this burden on one business but not any other? Brick and mortar stores don't need to do this -- they deal with one particular set of tax codes. Other online retailers COULDN'T do this -- the cost would be too high and they would be forced to go under. Amazon is playing by the rules. We can't simply change the rules because they are out-competing other businesses.
You really think that just because a business out-competes and sinks other businesses that it deserves to be hurt? Do you think that anyone who sells anything online should have to deal with the thousands of different sales tax rates in the United States? You do realize that this will only make Amazon that much more monolithic by presenting a barrier for up and coming e-tailers that could compete with them, right? Our nation was founded on capitalism, which is based on fair competition. Amazon has been playing fair (at least in this regard) and has demolished the competition by being the best, and now we want to punish them for it. This is an extremely stupid reaction and is consequently one of the main reasons our country is becoming such a turd -- we punish greatness and reward mediocrity.
Why should they be morally liable to do this? Should we honestly expect companies to make business decisions not required of them by law, which will in turn harm them? Why? From what I can see, it is not even actual dollars that Amazon has issue with -- it is the incredibly convoluted series of taxes they would have to follow. Not only do most states in the U.S. have their own sales tax rates, but many counties and municipalities do as well. Above and beyond this, many areas have specific tax laws for specific items (tobacco and alcohol typically have so-called "sin" taxes attached to them). Do you really think that Amazon ought to be paying someone to keep up on the tobacco tax in Frog Balls, Arkansas? None of this is anywhere near as much of an issue for brick and mortar stores, as they stay in one place and have to keep up with one series of tax codes, which is difficult enough. Far from 'leveling the playing field', this would be an unfair stab against Amazon that would cost them far more to implement and keep track of than would ever be collected for the government.
Not to mention the advantage of being able to walk into the store and leave with whatever it was you were looking for -- rather than having to wait a few days and then deal with the damn UPS guy who always seems to come in the 10 minutes that you left to go pick up a few things at the store.
It's all well and good to occasionally embrace your inner child -- but it is something else entirely when an entire nation is collectively incapable of every rising beyond that. You end up having people do stupid things.
Like not questioning unjust wars.
Like not questioning why we kill each other and attemping to do something about it.
Like allowing all of our entertainment to completely go to shit because we don't care about art anymore and just want big explosions.
That one has been on my must-watch list for a while -- thanks for the reminder dzfoo!
If Cameron knew it was a silly premise, why not change the premise? Why not create something intelligent that challenges viewers? This will certainly be hugely popular either way, right? Why this notion that for something to be entertaining it has to be devoid of any thinking? It is this mentality that is quickly turning America into a nation of drooling retards. Skip this garbage and go pick up a copy of Blade Runner or 2001 if you want to see what sci fi really can be.
Seconded -- it actually almost makes me physically ill to think of the fact that Avatar will probably make close to (if not more than) a billion dollars while thousands of brilliant, thoughtful films wallow in obscurity. We are no longer a nation that takes pride in greatness -- we reward mediocrity and shun anything that might challenge our preconceived notions. Our entire nation is roughly at the emotional development level of an 11 year old -- just turn on the television, radio, or walk into your local multiplex if you don't believe me.
2012 deserved to be seen never, I am ashamed to live in a country where crap like that is not only tolerated, but encouraged. Seriously, what are we, a nation of 11 year old boys?
Not to be too much of a language nerd... but the underlying implications of this fascinate me -- it is indicative of a totally different cultural worldview.
This isn't even a bug in software design -- it's simple physics. Darker skin = less contrast = software has a harder time seeing him.
Dude, there is a reason these people are called 'bums'. We don't say it to be mean, it is simply a matter of fact that someone who lives on the street is likely to be less well socialized and will not be very good at cleaning up after themselves. It is not at all 'draconian' or even unfair to try to prevent these types from coming inside a building you own at night -- it is called looking after your own property and preventing it from damage by people who will inevitably do so. If you love bums so much, why don't you just let a few move in with you? That's what I thought. Shut the fuck up and get off your high horse, asshole.
This also prevents the people in power from abusing the libel system -- if the newspaper had to be able to prove that everything they printed was true, politicians would be able to squash all dissent immediately. Right off the top of my head I can say that the Watergate scandal would likely have never broken if this were the case.
Why is this scary? If we put the burden of proof on journalists, it puts politicians in a place where they can very easily silence dissent -- the burden of proof in libel NEEDS to be on the plaintiff or it will be abused too often. When it comes to free speech issues, we always need to err on the side of freedom rather than civility.
Ahh yes, this makes sense. If the insurance company is also paying the legal fees, it is far cheaper for them to make it quick and settle low.
False. Look into the case of Simon Singh. The statements that he is currently being sued for (and he will most likely lose) are 100% true by any reasonable interpretation of the facts. Even if you are acquitted, you still will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars (or pounds), as well as a great deal of your time, defending yourself.
Do a little bit of research before you go spouting your opinions online. Simon Singh, a British science write, is on trial for calling chiropractic bogus. What was his basis for saying this? Well, he was responding to a series of patently, provably false statements by the British Chiropractic Association. They said that their bogus treatments would cure some diseases, which they provably could not, and then sued Singh for calling them out on it. Since libel law in England places the burden of proof on the defendant (this would be unconstitutional in America, due to that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" thing), meaning that Singh now has to PROVE that the statements were indeed bogus. Due to a rather creative take on the English language, the presiding judge decided that to rule the statements bogus, it must be proven that Singh not only knew that the BCA's claims were false, Singh also has to prove that the BCA knew that these statements were false. That is not reasonable. That is insane.
I'm not quite sure you are correct there -- I was not in the market for an e-book reader (I like the dead tree editions, personally), but if I were, I would specifically seek out one that did not use DRM. For something that I am interested in -- I would have been on board with iTunes years ago had they not used DRM. As someone who spends a LOT of money on music, I can say with 100% certainty that the time they had DRM on their files, they lost literally thousands of dollars in sales from me alone. I know that there are not many people that are knowledgeable enough (or care enough) to do this, but I am also sure that I am not alone. I am also fairly certain that the types of people who are inclined to care are also people that would invest a great deal in a quality collection -- so they are in effect turning away a large amount of really good customers. This is the main problem with DRM -- it significantly lowers the value of your product. When the only way to obtain a product is with DRM, the pirated version is by default the better product. Even if removing the DRM would increase piracy, it would also drastically increase sales, as I'm sure there are a great deal of people on the fence, as I was with iTunes, going on to purchase rival e-Book readers and picking up books from different stores to ensure that they can still access the books that they paid for 5 years from now.
Huh? Children being exposed to pornography makes adults more likely to have sex with children? How does that even make sense?
Let me try one -- Many commenters in this thread have made the point that until recently in human history creative works were not covered by copyright. They use that past behavior to argue that copyrights are not totally necessary. So from an anti-piracy perspective it makes sense to bring in slavery and genocide, both of which were much more common in the past than today, but are pretty much universally condemned in our society.
Jesus dude, it was a joke (well it really happened, but it certainly did not actually make my life). I bet people hate watching movies with you...
We could stop using the word 'nerd', but I prefer to do what I can to make the word a badge of honor. That, to me, is a much easier fight.
The mean annual incomes of professionals in the fields of computer science and football might call into question the "monetarily rewarding" part of that statement.
Logic -- You're doing it wrong.
...There already are not enough tech jobs for us. Sure, we had a hard time in high school (at least I know I did), but we get our day eventually. Particularly for me, my day was last week when I saw one of the biggest, douchiest jocks from my high school working at the local car wash.
I will say this very slowly for you in case you don't get it -- We. Are. Hardwired. For. Sex. Our ancestors evolved from microbes to microbiologists simply by being the best at reproducing and passing on their genetic information. That means that no matter what happens in life, we are always going to be obsessed with sex. Nothing can change this. Moralization comes off as incredibly hollow and vacuous, particularly to children. The best thing we can do it proper education. Instead of trying in vain to hide this information and coyly telling our children to just say no, we should be open about all the information, and give them all the solid, factual reasons that they are better off waiting for a while. My parents gave me the birds and the bees talk at a very young age, and if they had to refer to a 'penis' or a 'vagina' would use the proper word, rather than trying to hide behind some silly childish euphemism. Kids may not be fully developed, but they are remarkably perceptive. They can tell when they are being treated with respect, and are more than sophisticated enough to appreciate it.
When a person engages in intercourse with a child, it is not "sex", it is rape. Rape is not sex. Rape is an assault, it is an act of violence. Being a victim of violence scars people for life, this is both common sense and proven fact. If, when you are talking of sex scarring children, you are referring to them viewing pornography, you are going to need to back that claim up with evidence, simply declaring that it is the case does not make it true. Furthermore, your attempts to equate rape, torture, and murder with sex are absurd and only serve to make you look like an anti-intellectual zealot.