How about you support the real heroes today? The ones like the EFF, or in Europe EDRI, who are fighting this fight where it can actually be won - the legal and politics level - and have been doing so for years?
Do those organisation provide sharing service that i can use? Sharing information freely and securely on the internet - that is what i'm interested in and that is why i support megaupload and now me.ga. It's true, that Kim has done some pretty serious criminal activity in the past (see wiki) but he served the sentence for them so it is imo not fair to blame him for them now.
Trade only in games / movies / music / books / etc that you can legally share with others.
When media that can't be shared can't be sold (because nobody will buy it), that will be the end of piracy and a great day for all of humanity.
It's very idealistic to think that everyone will just stop buying media. For me, it's similar to saying "there would be no wars if all people just behave nicely to each other". If we wait for this, change will never come. we need to change the system instead. If we abolish copyright, piracy will be gone also.
Btw. what about pirating the stuff you cannot legaly share with others? This would theoreticaly also deprive the media companies of all sources of profit and you can enjoy the work as a bonus. In practice, pirating something spreads awarenes about the product and actualy increases the sales. Idea, that piracy is bad for media companies, is IMO myth.
Anyone not on the "free lunch" bandwagon understands that the creators of these works should be compensated. And copyright is what makes the GPL and its many related licenses possible
You are making mistake when you thing that compensation for authors and copyright must be the same think. There are certainly people (like me) who think that copyright is big obstacle (for sharing of information, culture and science, building upon it and extending it, archiving it for future generations, it's also dangerous to freedom on internet) but are not in any "free lunch" bandwagon. We just think that there are better ways to compensate authors without creating any artifical barriers (tax-payers funded foundations, where authors would sell their works to public using kickstarter-like systems for example). Without copyright, the big media associations would lose control over distribution channels, they woul lose their way to set new trends in entertainment. Public interest in their production would decrease and as a consequence, their profit. That is IMO the reason big media is fighting so hard for copyright. They want control over distribution.
You mentionet GPL. Sure, GPL would not exist without copyright (it was created in response to unreasonable copyright), but would it be needed? BSD-licenced open source programs are doing quite fine even when copyright still exists. Motivation for comercial companies to keep their sources closed would certainly decrease without copyright. Some my still do it in an attempt for vendor lock-in but IMO it's questionable if it would be major problem.
Well, if you live in an area which is (historically) earthquake prone, then saying it is not going to happen is not going to make much sense, especially if you are an authority on the subject. It always pays to be cautious on these things. Look at Japan. They have been telling stories about "the big one" for many years and it finally happened last year.
They didn't say the earthquake is not gonna happen. They said, it won't probably happen. They estimated the probability of greater eartquake to be around 1%. I realy don't think they did anything wrong and the judgement is nonsence and dangerous to science. I hope it will be overturned on appeal.
- "Oops.:) It's nice that they find the subtitles relevant, but they could've at least asked for permission. I'm sure we'll have a nice discussion with Netflix tomorrow", said Hakala thursday evening on the Facebook page of DivX Finland.
I wonder if the subtitles authors asked permission of the movie authors when they published the subtitles on the web site. If not, why should netflix ask permission to use their subtitles?
Commenting to undo accidental negative moderation, your post is actualy quite insightful.
I don't realy see any problem here. The subtitle community is creating the subtitles for the pirate versions of the movies in the first place and they are making them available for free on the internet.. What's wrong with netflix taking their subtitles, leaving atribution in them and using them in their service? (Considering they checked the quality of the subtitles first. Fan-made subtitles often have lots of errors in them). Why should netflix duplicate their work and make their own subtitles? Wouldn't the human resources be better spent on some more productive activity?
Either way, this is a very difficult case to call either way, there's far more to it then meets the eye on the first glance. Both sides have very compelling arguments to bring to the table.
I dont' realy see what's difficult about this case. are you suggesting, that google should part with some of it's earnings just becouse he earns too much?
I understand that news creators have it somehow difficult, selling content in on-line environment, where everyone is used to get it for free is indeed serious problem. But the proposed law won't solve anything. On the opposite - it will make the situation for the content creators worse, becaouse google will just stop indexing them at all and number of their readers will drop. It would maybe work if the law forced google to index the content and pay for it as well but i don't think that would be constitutional.
Also, remember that the content creators are offering the content for free. If google stopped making aggregated newd feeds from it, users would just use client side news aggregators (RSS readers).
Just because Google has *indexed* the content doesn't some how give them the right to profit from that content (as they do) and not give the creators a cut.
Why not? The content creators are providing the content for free.
And what about the content creators? shouldn't they give part of their profits to google, who provides free search services for them, driving more readers to their sites and thus increasing their profits?
Google is making money on this content - and isn't giving the creators of that content a cut of the money that they are making. Put it this way - say you wrote an amazing article. I summarize it and slap advertisements on it and provide a link to your original article. Lets say that my summary of your work brings me a ten thousand bucks. Shouldn't you be entitled to a cut of that ten thousand bucks? It was your work, I just summarized it and provided a link. Or is my only obligation to you a link that may or may not provide you with revenue?
What prevents the author of the article to make a deal with the news agregator to get some share of his profits? If the news agregator doesn't agree with the deal, the article author is free to block access to the article for the news agregator.
The proposed law is stupid, easily circumvented and will only lead to google droping the search results for your article alltogether. Remember that the news aggregators don't have to be server side, you can have client-side news aggregator (aka rss clients).
Also, why does profit matter? If google wouldn't include ads on its news agregator, you would be ok with it? Why?
Actually it's not a "book" as such. It is distinctly a collection of stories and letters that were at one stage compiled and bound together. The original authors never intended for them to be in a book. Many of the letters were probably never even meant for more than one person. Go figure.
What "ample evidence" is there that any individual part was rewritten?
There were religious councils held in europe through the middle-ages that specificaly focused on rewriting parts of the bible so they suited the changing views of church.
The key point that much be brought up in these discussions is this: Google is a money-making machine. Period. It exists to make metric tons of money for its owners and officers. Period. It might do some interesting things, even some nice things, along the way - but it exists to make money. Who is making the money on this scheme, how, and what are the incentives to pay whom? Be helpful to get some straight answers to those questions.
Why do money matter? Copyright is not there to provide money to people. It's there to promote creation of new culture and science. What google does (making an archive of existing works) is very much in spirit of copyright as it enables authors to easily access and build upon existing knowledge.
I would say anyone who attempts to redefine "life" in terms suited to his personal needs is a sort of stalinist
Redefining life implies that we already have definition of life. Care to share how does such definition looks like? Is it just everything with carbon-based body and DNA? What about conscious silicon based machines (if we ever manage to create them or transfer our consciousnes into one)? Would they also count as life?
It just was the easiest way to share larger files with people who normally don't use any kind of file-sharing technology. If someone was challenged by a USB drive, or multiple email attachments, I'd sent them the megaupload link and say "download it here."
I miss it for the illegal uses also. For example there were lot's of manga scanlations available on megaupload. Scanlation is fan-based translation of japanese manga. Now when megaupload is gone, those files are wery hard or imposible to track elsewhere. With no official (legal) english translation available, those manga series are effectively lost to me.
The Intel drivers are a better example: they are rock solid, Intel has contributed tons toward advancing the graphics stack, etc.
It's nice that the drivers are open source. But why hasn't it lead to drivers with at least comparable performace to windows? You are aware that intel drivers are like 20% - 30% slower in 3d under linux then under windows?
As far as i'm aware, there are no open source drivers for any modern 3d card which would provide simillar performance under linux as the windows driver does under windows.
Right, because promoting open source GPL-compatible drivers didn't work for Linux.
Oh, wait, it worked. The Linux hardware support is overall quite good (with many hardware manufacturers working with upstream to contribute drivers). In fact, Nvidia is a minority - Intel has the biggest market share [jonpeddie.com] in graphic chips (avobe 50%), AMD/ATI is second. Both have contributed open source drivers which are getting better and better.
Unfortunately, "supported" in this case means that it somehow works in 2d but utterly lacks in 3d performance.
If you want graphic card with 3d performace in linux comparable to windows (for example for gaming under wine), your only viable option is nvidia with it's proprietary drivers.
So what, exactly, is linux to you? If you want a proprietary operating system with closed drivers, there are plenty. Bending over sideways for a paranoid corporation just to get high definition pornography in 3D on your notebook sounds like a real bad idea to me.
I want free operating system with good performance. What does it have to do with the question GP asked (how will this decision affect linux)?
I'm thinking a misdemeanor at most for leaving a wifi connection open. That's still stretching it.
Even this is too much. Making open wifi should'n be prosecuted at all, on the opossite, it should be encouraged. Building communication infrastructure is good think. Think of the possibilities (ad hoc mesh networks, better routing protocols etc.)
Prosecuting providers of open internet access for crimes commited using their networks is in my opinion similary stupid like prosecuting road construction companies for every stolen car which use their road.
Only if you had a shared secret that had NEVER gone through any other channels that could be intercepted, and which you could then use to set up your encrypted channel, could you reasonably trust a system that routes through someone else's hardware. But that takes an outside-of-the-network connection to set up, and thus is useless in any kind of any-to-any communications network.
Why do you think it's useless? I think it's much better than using no ecryption at all. You can either exchange the secret by other channel (personaly for example) or you can exchange the key before the channel is intercepted (i.e. before you start doing anything suspicious or illegal)
Seeing as we can not see the edge of the universe from where we are.... how can we really tell if yesterday the edge was 1.2 km less then it is today?
Are we saying that all objects are moving away from each other at that rate? Of course not, they have gravity and orbits and all that.... so what are they using to gauge the edge of the universe has extended from yesterday?
Our universe has probably no edge, at least not in our three dimensional space. Some studies sugest it looks like four dimensional expanding dodecahedron. What that menas is if you travel in one direction for a very long distance, you will return to the point where you started. You can imagine that quite easily if you take away one dimension and imagine three dimensional curved and expanding space i.e. inflanting air baloon. If you draw black dots on the surface of the baloon (representing galaxies), you will find out that each galaxy is traveling away from each other galaxy as the baloon inflates. Also if you walk on the surface of the balloon for a long time, you will arive to the point where you started.
We are not measuring the expansion rate by observing the border of the universe (we cannot see any border and there is probably no border as i explained above). Instead, we look at distant galaxies. We measure the distance to far away galaxies using supernovae explosions (i.e. standart candles) and the red-shift effect which influence the light as it travels from the distant galaxy to us.
I don't know the details here (astrophysics is just my hobby) but we know somehow that the more distant a galaxy is, the faster it travels from us. Very far galaxies are traveling faster than light from us.
...meanwhile you stay hamstrung by whatever binding and/or regulation they say you've broken. After all, no corporation can freeze your bank accounts, remove your right to drive a car, take your children, shut off your home's power/water supply, force you to remain in certain areas (and be barred from others) or lock you in jail while you pursue said lawsuits.
PayPal surely frozed accounts of some of its customers. Dunno about cars but airlines could remove your right to fly if you are on no-fly list. Power and water companies certainly can shut off your power and water suply for example if you dont pay the bills. Private companies cannot force you to remain in certain areas but can barr you from entering on their property.
Also, there are other evil things that corporations can do and goverment cannot. What are you trying to say by composing such lists? That private corporations are always better then goverment agencies? That's certainly not true. It depends on the specific situation and needs.
If I can reduce the chance of damage to literally the most valuable thing in my life by wearing a $25 helmet OF COURSE I'M GOING TO WEAR A HELMET DO YOU THINK I'M STUPID?
Are you wearing helmet all the time then? Or just while biking? Why not while walking? Or while entering bath tub?
I'm not sure whether to be more impressed by:
1) the scale of the universe itself
2) the ability of some insignificant bags of protoplasm on an insignificant planet near a run of the mill star, in a less than impressive galaxy could find a way to actually see that far
3) the fact that they held the camera that steady for 2 million seconds (23 days)
4) That the camera moved 36 million miles during those 23 days and it didn't make any difference in the final image.
What i find fascinating about this news is, that there were galaxies formed mere 0.75 bilion years after big bang. AFAIK astronomers do not know exactly how and when were first galaxies formed and that galaxies so old exist is quite surprising.
Hiring Google ex-employees and even more hiring Google employees is something that Apple is _expected_ to do by Californian law. Free market. Free choice of employees to work for whoever pays most.
Employees are forced to work for whoever pays most in California even if it is evil corporation like apple?:)
Slashdot Mirror
How about you support the real heroes today? The ones like the EFF, or in Europe EDRI, who are fighting this fight where it can actually be won - the legal and politics level - and have been doing so for years?
Do those organisation provide sharing service that i can use? Sharing information freely and securely on the internet - that is what i'm interested in and that is why i support megaupload and now me.ga. It's true, that Kim has done some pretty serious criminal activity in the past (see wiki) but he served the sentence for them so it is imo not fair to blame him for them now.
Trade only in games / movies / music / books / etc that you can legally share with others.
When media that can't be shared can't be sold (because nobody will buy it), that will be the end of piracy and a great day for all of humanity.
It's very idealistic to think that everyone will just stop buying media. For me, it's similar to saying "there would be no wars if all people just behave nicely to each other". If we wait for this, change will never come. we need to change the system instead. If we abolish copyright, piracy will be gone also.
Btw. what about pirating the stuff you cannot legaly share with others? This would theoreticaly also deprive the media companies of all sources of profit and you can enjoy the work as a bonus. In practice, pirating something spreads awarenes about the product and actualy increases the sales. Idea, that piracy is bad for media companies, is IMO myth.
Anyone not on the "free lunch" bandwagon understands that the creators of these works should be compensated. And copyright is what makes the GPL and its many related licenses possible
You are making mistake when you thing that compensation for authors and copyright must be the same think. There are certainly people (like me) who think that copyright is big obstacle (for sharing of information, culture and science, building upon it and extending it, archiving it for future generations, it's also dangerous to freedom on internet) but are not in any "free lunch" bandwagon. We just think that there are better ways to compensate authors without creating any artifical barriers (tax-payers funded foundations, where authors would sell their works to public using kickstarter-like systems for example). Without copyright, the big media associations would lose control over distribution channels, they woul lose their way to set new trends in entertainment. Public interest in their production would decrease and as a consequence, their profit. That is IMO the reason big media is fighting so hard for copyright. They want control over distribution.
You mentionet GPL. Sure, GPL would not exist without copyright (it was created in response to unreasonable copyright), but would it be needed? BSD-licenced open source programs are doing quite fine even when copyright still exists. Motivation for comercial companies to keep their sources closed would certainly decrease without copyright. Some my still do it in an attempt for vendor lock-in but IMO it's questionable if it would be major problem.
Of course, this is another example of how royalties are ruining the culture.
I think it's another example of how copyright is ruining our culture
Well, if you live in an area which is (historically) earthquake prone, then saying it is not going to happen is not going to make much sense, especially if you are an authority on the subject. It always pays to be cautious on these things. Look at Japan. They have been telling stories about "the big one" for many years and it finally happened last year.
They didn't say the earthquake is not gonna happen. They said, it won't probably happen. They estimated the probability of greater eartquake to be around 1%. I realy don't think they did anything wrong and the judgement is nonsence and dangerous to science. I hope it will be overturned on appeal.
- "Oops. :) It's nice that they find the subtitles relevant, but they could've at least asked for permission. I'm sure we'll have a nice discussion with Netflix tomorrow", said Hakala thursday evening on the Facebook page of DivX Finland.
I wonder if the subtitles authors asked permission of the movie authors when they published the subtitles on the web site. If not, why should netflix ask permission to use their subtitles?
Commenting to undo accidental negative moderation, your post is actualy quite insightful.
I don't realy see any problem here. The subtitle community is creating the subtitles for the pirate versions of the movies in the first place and they are making them available for free on the internet.. What's wrong with netflix taking their subtitles, leaving atribution in them and using them in their service? (Considering they checked the quality of the subtitles first. Fan-made subtitles often have lots of errors in them). Why should netflix duplicate their work and make their own subtitles? Wouldn't the human resources be better spent on some more productive activity?
Either way, this is a very difficult case to call either way, there's far more to it then meets the eye on the first glance. Both sides have very compelling arguments to bring to the table.
I dont' realy see what's difficult about this case. are you suggesting, that google should part with some of it's earnings just becouse he earns too much?
I understand that news creators have it somehow difficult, selling content in on-line environment, where everyone is used to get it for free is indeed serious problem. But the proposed law won't solve anything. On the opposite - it will make the situation for the content creators worse, becaouse google will just stop indexing them at all and number of their readers will drop. It would maybe work if the law forced google to index the content and pay for it as well but i don't think that would be constitutional.
Also, remember that the content creators are offering the content for free. If google stopped making aggregated newd feeds from it, users would just use client side news aggregators (RSS readers).
Just because Google has *indexed* the content doesn't some how give them the right to profit from that content (as they do) and not give the creators a cut.
Why not? The content creators are providing the content for free.
And what about the content creators? shouldn't they give part of their profits to google, who provides free search services for them, driving more readers to their sites and thus increasing their profits?
Google is making money on this content - and isn't giving the creators of that content a cut of the money that they are making. Put it this way - say you wrote an amazing article. I summarize it and slap advertisements on it and provide a link to your original article. Lets say that my summary of your work brings me a ten thousand bucks. Shouldn't you be entitled to a cut of that ten thousand bucks? It was your work, I just summarized it and provided a link. Or is my only obligation to you a link that may or may not provide you with revenue?
What prevents the author of the article to make a deal with the news agregator to get some share of his profits? If the news agregator doesn't agree with the deal, the article author is free to block access to the article for the news agregator.
The proposed law is stupid, easily circumvented and will only lead to google droping the search results for your article alltogether. Remember that the news aggregators don't have to be server side, you can have client-side news aggregator (aka rss clients).
Also, why does profit matter? If google wouldn't include ads on its news agregator, you would be ok with it? Why?
Actually it's not a "book" as such. It is distinctly a collection of stories and letters that were at one stage compiled and bound together. The original authors never intended for them to be in a book. Many of the letters were probably never even meant for more than one person. Go figure.
What "ample evidence" is there that any individual part was rewritten?
There were religious councils held in europe through the middle-ages that specificaly focused on rewriting parts of the bible so they suited the changing views of church.
The key point that much be brought up in these discussions is this: Google is a money-making machine. Period. It exists to make metric tons of money for its owners and officers. Period. It might do some interesting things, even some nice things, along the way - but it exists to make money. Who is making the money on this scheme, how, and what are the incentives to pay whom? Be helpful to get some straight answers to those questions.
Why do money matter? Copyright is not there to provide money to people. It's there to promote creation of new culture and science. What google does (making an archive of existing works) is very much in spirit of copyright as it enables authors to easily access and build upon existing knowledge.
Btw why are you spelling 'period' literally?
I would say anyone who attempts to redefine "life" in terms suited to his personal needs is a sort of stalinist
Redefining life implies that we already have definition of life. Care to share how does such definition looks like? Is it just everything with carbon-based body and DNA? What about conscious silicon based machines (if we ever manage to create them or transfer our consciousnes into one)? Would they also count as life?
I miss Megaupload for its entirely legal uses.
It just was the easiest way to share larger files with people who normally don't use any kind of file-sharing technology. If someone was challenged by a USB drive, or multiple email attachments, I'd sent them the megaupload link and say "download it here."
I miss it for the illegal uses also. For example there were lot's of manga scanlations available on megaupload. Scanlation is fan-based translation of japanese manga. Now when megaupload is gone, those files are wery hard or imposible to track elsewhere. With no official (legal) english translation available, those manga series are effectively lost to me.
The Intel drivers are a better example: they are rock solid, Intel has contributed tons toward advancing the graphics stack, etc.
It's nice that the drivers are open source. But why hasn't it lead to drivers with at least comparable performace to windows? You are aware that intel drivers are like 20% - 30% slower in 3d under linux then under windows?
As far as i'm aware, there are no open source drivers for any modern 3d card which would provide simillar performance under linux as the windows driver does under windows.
Right, because promoting open source GPL-compatible drivers didn't work for Linux.
Oh, wait, it worked. The Linux hardware support is overall quite good (with many hardware manufacturers working with upstream to contribute drivers). In fact, Nvidia is a minority - Intel has the biggest market share [jonpeddie.com] in graphic chips (avobe 50%), AMD/ATI is second. Both have contributed open source drivers which are getting better and better.
Unfortunately, "supported" in this case means that it somehow works in 2d but utterly lacks in 3d performance.
If you want graphic card with 3d performace in linux comparable to windows (for example for gaming under wine), your only viable option is nvidia with it's proprietary drivers.
So what, exactly, is linux to you? If you want a proprietary operating system with closed drivers, there are plenty. Bending over sideways for a paranoid corporation just to get high definition pornography in 3D on your notebook sounds like a real bad idea to me.
I want free operating system with good performance. What does it have to do with the question GP asked (how will this decision affect linux)?
I'm thinking a misdemeanor at most for leaving a wifi connection open. That's still stretching it.
Even this is too much. Making open wifi should'n be prosecuted at all, on the opossite, it should be encouraged. Building communication infrastructure is good think. Think of the possibilities (ad hoc mesh networks, better routing protocols etc.)
Prosecuting providers of open internet access for crimes commited using their networks is in my opinion similary stupid like prosecuting road construction companies for every stolen car which use their road.
Only if you had a shared secret that had NEVER gone through any other channels that could be intercepted, and which you could then use to set up your encrypted channel, could you reasonably trust a system that routes through someone else's hardware. But that takes an outside-of-the-network connection to set up, and thus is useless in any kind of any-to-any communications network.
Why do you think it's useless? I think it's much better than using no ecryption at all. You can either exchange the secret by other channel (personaly for example) or you can exchange the key before the channel is intercepted (i.e. before you start doing anything suspicious or illegal)
Seeing as we can not see the edge of the universe from where we are....
how can we really tell if yesterday the edge was 1.2 km less then it is today?
Are we saying that all objects are moving away from each other at that rate?
Of course not, they have gravity and orbits and all that....
so what are they using to gauge the edge of the universe has extended from yesterday?
Our universe has probably no edge, at least not in our three dimensional space. Some studies sugest it looks like four dimensional expanding dodecahedron. What that menas is if you travel in one direction for a very long distance, you will return to the point where you started. You can imagine that quite easily if you take away one dimension and imagine three dimensional curved and expanding space i.e. inflanting air baloon. If you draw black dots on the surface of the baloon (representing galaxies), you will find out that each galaxy is traveling away from each other galaxy as the baloon inflates. Also if you walk on the surface of the balloon for a long time, you will arive to the point where you started.
We are not measuring the expansion rate by observing the border of the universe (we cannot see any border and there is probably no border as i explained above). Instead, we look at distant galaxies. We measure the distance to far away galaxies using supernovae explosions (i.e. standart candles) and the red-shift effect which influence the light as it travels from the distant galaxy to us.
I don't know the details here (astrophysics is just my hobby) but we know somehow that the more distant a galaxy is, the faster it travels from us. Very far galaxies are traveling faster than light from us.
If I were the one with the gavel, my first instinct would be to let him sweat the fear of jail for a few days then drop the case.
Well maybe you should start with arresting Monty Pythons? They have jokes about second world war and jews, which must be offending to many.
...meanwhile you stay hamstrung by whatever binding and/or regulation they say you've broken. After all, no corporation can freeze your bank accounts, remove your right to drive a car, take your children, shut off your home's power/water supply, force you to remain in certain areas (and be barred from others) or lock you in jail while you pursue said lawsuits.
PayPal surely frozed accounts of some of its customers.
Dunno about cars but airlines could remove your right to fly if you are on no-fly list.
Power and water companies certainly can shut off your power and water suply for example if you dont pay the bills.
Private companies cannot force you to remain in certain areas but can barr you from entering on their property.
Also, there are other evil things that corporations can do and goverment cannot. What are you trying to say by composing such lists? That private corporations are always better then goverment agencies? That's certainly not true. It depends on the specific situation and needs.
If I can reduce the chance of damage to literally the most valuable thing in my life by wearing a $25 helmet OF COURSE I'M GOING TO WEAR A HELMET DO YOU THINK I'M STUPID?
Are you wearing helmet all the time then? Or just while biking? Why not while walking? Or while entering bath tub?
Ok, I officially feel small now.
I'm not sure whether to be more impressed by:
1) the scale of the universe itself
2) the ability of some insignificant bags of protoplasm on an insignificant planet near a run of the mill star, in a less than impressive galaxy could find a way to actually see that far
3) the fact that they held the camera that steady for 2 million seconds (23 days)
4) That the camera moved 36 million miles during those 23 days and it didn't make any difference in the final image.
What i find fascinating about this news is, that there were galaxies formed mere 0.75 bilion years after big bang. AFAIK astronomers do not know exactly how and when were first galaxies formed and that galaxies so old exist is quite surprising.
Hiring Google ex-employees and even more hiring Google employees is something that Apple is _expected_ to do by Californian law. Free market. Free choice of employees to work for whoever pays most.
Employees are forced to work for whoever pays most in California even if it is evil corporation like apple?:)