More tenants also means more clogging of the tubes. Plumbing backups can be a bitch to cleanup if you don't have a plunger handy. All Netflix needs to do is implement a "digital plunger" technology that cuts off low-priority streams when their is higher demand for other streams. Honestly, if shouldn't be too hard for NF to program a mechanism for users to automatically "download" and hour or two of content during non-peak hours so that they don't need to use a stream when they what to watch it during the peak time. I'm a infrequent Daily Show viewer through Hulu Plus. I watch 1 or 2 episodes per week. I don't care if I'm watching the latest one, so if I could get HD without fear of buffering by selecting from a limited menu of "autodownload" episodes, I'd do that instead. My entire queue has 10-15 episodes. All I'd ever want in my "autodownload" dropbox is 2 episodes. It's not a stretch to offload some of the content downloading capabilities to off-peak hours to help balance the load in the network.
He only knows who is backing it and therefore pushes it right through.
The point of the government is to represent his constituents. If his jurisdiction receives massive benefits from any measure that stops "piracy" then he is obligated to provide representation to anti-piracy measures. OTOH, anybody who is hurt by this should write a simple, short letter to their representatives within the government of Tennessee and explain how this new law hurts them. Bonus points for writing a letter that doesn't read like a bitchfest along the lines, "Not being able to share Netflix from my pisses me off." Honestly, it's difficult to articulate that the ability to share resources without interference from the courts is an important characteristic of a free nation. Supposedly certain cultures teach that "sharing answers" during tests in high school and college is a fair way of getting through the curriculum. America culture... entrepreneurial spirit... generally disagrees with this notion. The behavior is known as "academic dishonesty" and can get you expelled if you get caught. Sharing answers isn't so different from sharing Netflix passwords, though. There are those who are "Pro-sharing" and those who think of the sharers as a bunch of filthy cheats who don't know what it's like to work hard and earn their keep.
Trouble is that RMS's message is meant to benefit the "content consumer" market, hurt the "content distribution" market, and effectively marginalize the "content creation" market. Marginalizing the people who distribute content is all fine and good. Nobody gives a shit about that particular group except when distributors actually do something right (i.e. Steam) and provide a valuable service. OTOH, marginalizing content creators only serves to piss the content creators off.
Believe me... when consumers find a way to support creators without the (traditional) distributors there will be more willingness to publish with Creative Commons and other "user friendly" licenses.
Seems like ISPs are pulling somewhat of a bait and switch with their business models. It troubles me that they are more than happy to give out "Unlimited Access" as long as there aren't any high bandwidth applications that are used by the masses. Now, it seems, Netflix is more popular than BitTorrent ever was (mostly because it doesn't leverage copyright infringement) and the ISPs are all too happy to tighten their pricing controls to prevent this.
This proves that the ISPs are either incompetent (because they didn't anticipate this) or outright malicious (because they did). My experience so far with streaming Hulu through my PS3 has been generally positive (save for the PSN outtakes) until a few days ago when I started noticing buffering while trying to watch TV after dinner. I really hope this isn't being caused by my ISP overselling their network - though that's the only reasonable explanation.
I only hope and pray that your rabbit friend hasn't been exposed to Malware or bullying. And assuming that she's active on Farmville, I hope her carrot crop is during well this spring.
Seriously though... there's no reason for minors or animals to have social networking accounts. Unequivocally no reason. Not one. Same thing goes for e-mail accounts, though I will at least allow for the possibility that 4th graders may be old enough to submit essays through e-mail to save paper. Saving paper fits into the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle mantra that we ought to be teaching them.
That being said, the caretakers of minors or animals who have social networking profiles should be punished for their lack of judgment.
I think we agree. Part of my point was that as a developer, I can route around the processes while writing either good or bad code. Generally, I write good code. Occasionally there are mistakes which eventually get caught by process. On occasions, code with bugs can survive "in the wild" for an amazing amount of time before it's discovered.
In general, I think code inspection, test coverage, and integration testing are a powerful recipe for consistently developing high-quality code. I've never scrummed or worked a project following an agile process. In general I've made a career working towards the next contractual deadline... which is actually what the article says to do when there are contractual deadlines.
But in the space between... there are definitely places where worrying about code inspection and testing is idiotic. When you are mucking around with a new concept... KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. No burdensome process required in those instances. But with any piece of code, I wouldn't dare assign it the label "mature" without the inspection, coverage, and integration quality milestones. And I'd caution that even "mature" code might have defects waiting in the lurch.
The main issue is that measuring whether code is good or not is impossible. I promise you that I can write code that has the prescribed level of unit testing and complexity that also doesn't work. Software reliability/dependability was a problem in the 1960s. It's still a problem today. No silver bullet, and all that.
Where private industry can do it, and do it better, we should let them.
I think the sticking point is that private industry cannot serve under-developed areas of the country because of the basic need for profitability. Those people in under-developed neighborhoods (sic) are probably ill-equipped to be having this debate online. The government is the necessary defender of this silent minority. That's why the USPS needs to be saved. For all I care, kill it in my city. Kill it in every major city. Raising prices will only serve to have the mass-spam companies do business through UPS/FedEx. Ya know? Or maybe it wouldn't. That's what the Google eggheads will figure out.
Point is... killing the USPS would significantly harm rural communities and as a country we ought to strive to preserve those resources. Strong rural communities create a lovely counterpoint to strong urban communities.
Pirates are groups of people who rape, torture, steal, and ransom for their own benefit. They're known for phrases like "Shiver me timbers, matey" though that stereotype may no longer be quite accurate as piracy has be forced to evolve since the times of "walking the plank". In any case, DHS has every right to put a stop to rapists, torturers, thieves, and child pornographers.
I think what you mean is "copyright infringers" and "child porn" websites shouldn't be in the same category. Indeed, though claims have been made that copyright infringement has cost the industry upwards of 72 trillion dollars, there is a plethora of evidence that copying bits over a network for free generates more sales than would occur if the "try before you buy" method was not in place.
Also unacknowledged is the issue that most people don't have thousands of disposable income per year to devote to movies, television shows, books, video games, and music. The content production industry should rest assured knowing that people are up to their necks in housing and gasoline price debt that the mild enjoyment received from copyright infringed material is a blessing.
That's right... I said it. DHS should go after corrupt real estate businesses and oil companies.
The most practical solution would be for the government to adopt a trustworthy approach to secrecy and build the public's confidence in their honesty.
Your assumption is that the public is trustworthy. In fact, one main reason why the government exists is to protect those who are trustworthy from those who aren't. If everybody was trustworthy, there would be no need for a government.
Could the government employ more transparent means to identify untrustworthy people who endanger a trustworthy person's well-being? Maybe. Probably not. Opaque is critical in this instance. It's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle... you can't know both velocity and position. The untrustworthy people will change/adapt their behaviors if they know that they're being watched. You only lie on your taxes when you reasonably believe the IRS won't catch-up with you. A receipt deducted from something that wasn't actually a business lunch? A charitable "donation" made to buy uniforms for your son's Little League team? These aspects of your untrustworthiness don't endanger a trustworthy person's well-being so they're fine. Because there are real crooks to catch... rapists, thieves, and dishonest businessmen.
The point is that having a government with accountability forces these real crooks to consider ways of conducting their business without getting caught... because getting caught has strongly negative implications. If the government was transparent about all of their investigations, the real crooks would never get caught because they'd be able to stay one step ahead of their pursuers. That's why I don't see too much harm allowing the government to collect and archive vast amounts of information. Maybe this is sort of what you're advocating, though it seems like you want less secrecy and everything to be done in the open.
One thing I will concede... as information becomes easier/cheaper to obtain, agency budgets should be slashed. Taxpayers don't need to foot the bill for government to go after small-time crime. As long as dangerous crime is not increasing the federal budgets shouldn't either. Does that make sense? To me, it seems like a reasonable compromise between "Big Brother" and "Mad Max".
Don't you know the different between variable costs and fixed costs? It's $0.10 per bullet. The breakeven point is only 50 bullets. Tell me, how many thousands of times can you swing a wretch before it becomes any less effective? Meanwhile, bullets are one trick ponies.
How do servers assess whether they've got the translation correct without having a human-in-the-loop to listen to the conversation and concurrently read what the server translated? Maybe the data is anonymous by the time it gets to a human, but it seems like humans need to interface with the voice data somehow to validate that the server is translating accurately.
unethical or unenforceable about making colleges take the hit if their grads don't perform
Because it gives students a way to milk the system. The same rationale is used to make sure educational debt sticks around even if you declare bankruptcy. The trouble is the 2% of assholes who would graduate, declare bankruptcy, and then get jobs.
this is a public university
I guess I'm thinking more about ALL colleges/universities being tuition / graduation-debt regulated... not just the public ones. I know private companies HATE, HATE, HATE to compete with the government, but the top schools are all private and that's where I want to learn. It's tough to say what the best way of doing it might be, but my main point is that saddling students with more than $60,000 of education debt at graduation is a dick move.
(I should mention that the easy availability of student loans, as noble as they are in concept, is accelerating this process.)
I think there's more to this off-hand comment than you even intended. As colleges are institutions that benefit the greater good, the government ought to be obligated to do something to regulate costs. I don't think saddling graduating seniors with $400-1200/month education bills for 30 years at 6-10% is reasonable, though I know people in this situation.
New regulation to ensure students won't graduate with unreasonable debt obligations should be legislated. I'd say that new tuition debt per student per year should be capped at $15,000 and colleges should be charged with the duty of ensuring that their students can afford to pay their educational expenses.
Oh... that's a devilish idea... if educational loans made to students got transferred back to the educational institute if the student defaults on his or her loan! It wouldn't be ethical or enforceable... but in a perfect world it would be an awesome way of keeping colleges honest.
Cable companies are good at managing the wires from the content provides to your home. They suck at being able to manage the content that flows across those wires. If Microsoft is competing with Hulu and Netflix, power to them. They are not competing with Comcast or Verizon. Those companies are losing Cable Subscribers in large quantities because Hulu and Netflix offer better service (or at the very least, better PRICED service) than traditional Cable + DVR + Pay-Per-View plans.
It'll be fun to watch this play out. Admittedly, Microsoft, Hulu, and Netflix NEED Comcast (and other Cable TV Companies) to provide affordable Internet service for their own services to be worthwhile as most subscribers are more willing to ditch their Cable bills and switch to an Internet-only Plan. I hope Comcast doesn't ass-rape subscribers of Internet-only service. I really hope Comcast figures out that they are a wire company and fully leave the Cable TV business.
Patents on high-cost-to-develop products are not evil. The university labs you cite are likely patenting their major inventions and milking them through licensing deals to fund future research (which correctly spurs innovation rather than stifling it because it correctly separates research businesses from manufacturing businesses. Innovation is stiffed when it comes from companies that have no intention to sell it or license it (i.e. strategically keep it out of the market). In general, though, companies don't allocate resources towards "high-cost-to-develop" products to keep those products out of the market.
Meanwhile, patents on easy-to-develop innovations are dumb. A way of storing credit card and shipping information in a database so users can make purchases with 1-click? Yeah, I'm pretty sure Amazon's patent was invalidated/overturned, but it was a clear example where patents shouldn't apply. User interface patents, in general, are dumb. They usually come about because somebody realizes "so-and-so interface sucks" and then they spend ten minutes figuring out how to improve the "so-and-so interface". Ten minutes of work shouldn't be granted a patent, but the "obviousness test" never seems to get applied for most (easy) patents (or if it does, the "testers" are not adequately trained to do their jobs). This leads to software companies building patent arsenals. It also leads to patent troll companies who want to get as many patents as possible so they can sue the pants off the companies who actually do want to put innovative products into the market.
It wouldn't bother me if the only change to the patent system was to (1) attempt to measure the "cost-of-development" for every patent and to (2) dismiss any patent lawsuit from companies who own patents that they haven't brought to the market, licensed to the market, or attempted to bring to the market. After five or ten years I *bet* they'll find that the majority of patent troll lawsuits fit into the "low-cost-to-develop" category, and then they can evaluate whether further changes are needed.
A consumption tax will get the people who spend money.
Not if they take their business (luxury purchases) offshore. If I were rich, I'd go to London, Paris, or Milan to buy fancy jewelery and clothes if America taxed 20-30% on the things I buy. This is small potatoes for $100-200 items, but the rich can afford to spend $10,000 to $100,000 on luxury goods. It's a simple matter to compare the cost of things in America (with hefty consumption taxes) versus the cost of things elsewhere (without aforementioned taxes). You can't regulate this type of consumption that occurs outside our borders... and that's what would happen if rich people were given incentives to spend in other countries.
Taking the transit is simply not an option as its between 3.75 to 5.00 each way from any suburb. Which is MORE than it costs for gasoline on the same trip, even with gas being 1.31/L currently.
Not sure about Canada, but I live in a US suburb where my company pays $90/month so I can ride the bus. Commuting costs are $0... but would be $90 if I were actually paying for the monthly pass. So you save money as a commuter with monthly passes compared to the "Per Trip" rate. Secondly, I calculate my car expenses as "Car+Insurance+Repairs+Gas" not just "Gas" because doing it this way illustrates that owning a car is WAY more expensive than taking public transit IF PUBLIC TRANSIT IS REASONABLE (which for me, it is). A problem for most people is that there are no reasonable public transit options, but that's a different debate.
Slashdot Mirror
More tenants also means more clogging of the tubes. Plumbing backups can be a bitch to cleanup if you don't have a plunger handy. All Netflix needs to do is implement a "digital plunger" technology that cuts off low-priority streams when their is higher demand for other streams. Honestly, if shouldn't be too hard for NF to program a mechanism for users to automatically "download" and hour or two of content during non-peak hours so that they don't need to use a stream when they what to watch it during the peak time. I'm a infrequent Daily Show viewer through Hulu Plus. I watch 1 or 2 episodes per week. I don't care if I'm watching the latest one, so if I could get HD without fear of buffering by selecting from a limited menu of "autodownload" episodes, I'd do that instead. My entire queue has 10-15 episodes. All I'd ever want in my "autodownload" dropbox is 2 episodes. It's not a stretch to offload some of the content downloading capabilities to off-peak hours to help balance the load in the network.
He only knows who is backing it and therefore pushes it right through.
The point of the government is to represent his constituents. If his jurisdiction receives massive benefits from any measure that stops "piracy" then he is obligated to provide representation to anti-piracy measures. OTOH, anybody who is hurt by this should write a simple, short letter to their representatives within the government of Tennessee and explain how this new law hurts them. Bonus points for writing a letter that doesn't read like a bitchfest along the lines, "Not being able to share Netflix from my pisses me off." Honestly, it's difficult to articulate that the ability to share resources without interference from the courts is an important characteristic of a free nation. Supposedly certain cultures teach that "sharing answers" during tests in high school and college is a fair way of getting through the curriculum. America culture... entrepreneurial spirit... generally disagrees with this notion. The behavior is known as "academic dishonesty" and can get you expelled if you get caught. Sharing answers isn't so different from sharing Netflix passwords, though. There are those who are "Pro-sharing" and those who think of the sharers as a bunch of filthy cheats who don't know what it's like to work hard and earn their keep.
How about making it illegal to lend your car to your friends?
So all the ZipCar people should be locked up, tarred, and feathered?
Trouble is that RMS's message is meant to benefit the "content consumer" market, hurt the "content distribution" market, and effectively marginalize the "content creation" market. Marginalizing the people who distribute content is all fine and good. Nobody gives a shit about that particular group except when distributors actually do something right (i.e. Steam) and provide a valuable service. OTOH, marginalizing content creators only serves to piss the content creators off.
Believe me... when consumers find a way to support creators without the (traditional) distributors there will be more willingness to publish with Creative Commons and other "user friendly" licenses.
Seems like ISPs are pulling somewhat of a bait and switch with their business models. It troubles me that they are more than happy to give out "Unlimited Access" as long as there aren't any high bandwidth applications that are used by the masses. Now, it seems, Netflix is more popular than BitTorrent ever was (mostly because it doesn't leverage copyright infringement) and the ISPs are all too happy to tighten their pricing controls to prevent this.
This proves that the ISPs are either incompetent (because they didn't anticipate this) or outright malicious (because they did). My experience so far with streaming Hulu through my PS3 has been generally positive (save for the PSN outtakes) until a few days ago when I started noticing buffering while trying to watch TV after dinner. I really hope this isn't being caused by my ISP overselling their network - though that's the only reasonable explanation.
I only hope and pray that your rabbit friend hasn't been exposed to Malware or bullying. And assuming that she's active on Farmville, I hope her carrot crop is during well this spring.
Seriously though... there's no reason for minors or animals to have social networking accounts. Unequivocally no reason. Not one. Same thing goes for e-mail accounts, though I will at least allow for the possibility that 4th graders may be old enough to submit essays through e-mail to save paper. Saving paper fits into the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle mantra that we ought to be teaching them.
That being said, the caretakers of minors or animals who have social networking profiles should be punished for their lack of judgment.
I think we agree. Part of my point was that as a developer, I can route around the processes while writing either good or bad code. Generally, I write good code. Occasionally there are mistakes which eventually get caught by process. On occasions, code with bugs can survive "in the wild" for an amazing amount of time before it's discovered.
In general, I think code inspection, test coverage, and integration testing are a powerful recipe for consistently developing high-quality code. I've never scrummed or worked a project following an agile process. In general I've made a career working towards the next contractual deadline... which is actually what the article says to do when there are contractual deadlines.
But in the space between... there are definitely places where worrying about code inspection and testing is idiotic. When you are mucking around with a new concept... KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. No burdensome process required in those instances. But with any piece of code, I wouldn't dare assign it the label "mature" without the inspection, coverage, and integration quality milestones. And I'd caution that even "mature" code might have defects waiting in the lurch.
Also, code for your next php-driven social-thingy must be written with passion. Code for the satellite, not so much.
I want to write a php-driven social-satellite. Should I be formal about my passion?
Or maybe I should switch from php to python.... import antigravity
The main issue is that measuring whether code is good or not is impossible. I promise you that I can write code that has the prescribed level of unit testing and complexity that also doesn't work. Software reliability/dependability was a problem in the 1960s. It's still a problem today. No silver bullet, and all that.
Where private industry can do it, and do it better, we should let them.
I think the sticking point is that private industry cannot serve under-developed areas of the country because of the basic need for profitability. Those people in under-developed neighborhoods (sic) are probably ill-equipped to be having this debate online. The government is the necessary defender of this silent minority. That's why the USPS needs to be saved. For all I care, kill it in my city. Kill it in every major city. Raising prices will only serve to have the mass-spam companies do business through UPS/FedEx. Ya know? Or maybe it wouldn't. That's what the Google eggheads will figure out.
Point is... killing the USPS would significantly harm rural communities and as a country we ought to strive to preserve those resources. Strong rural communities create a lovely counterpoint to strong urban communities.
Pirates are groups of people who rape, torture, steal, and ransom for their own benefit. They're known for phrases like "Shiver me timbers, matey" though that stereotype may no longer be quite accurate as piracy has be forced to evolve since the times of "walking the plank". In any case, DHS has every right to put a stop to rapists, torturers, thieves, and child pornographers.
I think what you mean is "copyright infringers" and "child porn" websites shouldn't be in the same category. Indeed, though claims have been made that copyright infringement has cost the industry upwards of 72 trillion dollars, there is a plethora of evidence that copying bits over a network for free generates more sales than would occur if the "try before you buy" method was not in place.
Also unacknowledged is the issue that most people don't have thousands of disposable income per year to devote to movies, television shows, books, video games, and music. The content production industry should rest assured knowing that people are up to their necks in housing and gasoline price debt that the mild enjoyment received from copyright infringed material is a blessing.
That's right... I said it. DHS should go after corrupt real estate businesses and oil companies.
Ministry of Peace would have been another fine choice. Or Plenty. Or Truth. Or Love.
Because war, rationing, lies, and torture are not becoming of a centralized government.
Administering networks is best left to wizards and warlocks.
The most practical solution would be for the government to adopt a trustworthy approach to secrecy and build the public's confidence in their honesty.
Your assumption is that the public is trustworthy. In fact, one main reason why the government exists is to protect those who are trustworthy from those who aren't. If everybody was trustworthy, there would be no need for a government.
Could the government employ more transparent means to identify untrustworthy people who endanger a trustworthy person's well-being? Maybe. Probably not. Opaque is critical in this instance. It's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle... you can't know both velocity and position. The untrustworthy people will change/adapt their behaviors if they know that they're being watched. You only lie on your taxes when you reasonably believe the IRS won't catch-up with you. A receipt deducted from something that wasn't actually a business lunch? A charitable "donation" made to buy uniforms for your son's Little League team? These aspects of your untrustworthiness don't endanger a trustworthy person's well-being so they're fine. Because there are real crooks to catch... rapists, thieves, and dishonest businessmen.
The point is that having a government with accountability forces these real crooks to consider ways of conducting their business without getting caught... because getting caught has strongly negative implications. If the government was transparent about all of their investigations, the real crooks would never get caught because they'd be able to stay one step ahead of their pursuers. That's why I don't see too much harm allowing the government to collect and archive vast amounts of information. Maybe this is sort of what you're advocating, though it seems like you want less secrecy and everything to be done in the open.
One thing I will concede... as information becomes easier/cheaper to obtain, agency budgets should be slashed. Taxpayers don't need to foot the bill for government to go after small-time crime. As long as dangerous crime is not increasing the federal budgets shouldn't either. Does that make sense? To me, it seems like a reasonable compromise between "Big Brother" and "Mad Max".
Don't you know the different between variable costs and fixed costs? It's $0.10 per bullet. The breakeven point is only 50 bullets. Tell me, how many thousands of times can you swing a wretch before it becomes any less effective? Meanwhile, bullets are one trick ponies.
How do servers assess whether they've got the translation correct without having a human-in-the-loop to listen to the conversation and concurrently read what the server translated? Maybe the data is anonymous by the time it gets to a human, but it seems like humans need to interface with the voice data somehow to validate that the server is translating accurately.
Ahh... very well. There was another correct usage of "their" in there as well.
unethical or unenforceable about making colleges take the hit if their grads don't perform
Because it gives students a way to milk the system. The same rationale is used to make sure educational debt sticks around even if you declare bankruptcy. The trouble is the 2% of assholes who would graduate, declare bankruptcy, and then get jobs.
this is a public university
I guess I'm thinking more about ALL colleges/universities being tuition / graduation-debt regulated... not just the public ones. I know private companies HATE, HATE, HATE to compete with the government, but the top schools are all private and that's where I want to learn. It's tough to say what the best way of doing it might be, but my main point is that saddling students with more than $60,000 of education debt at graduation is a dick move.
(I should mention that the easy availability of student loans, as noble as they are in concept, is accelerating this process.)
I think there's more to this off-hand comment than you even intended. As colleges are institutions that benefit the greater good, the government ought to be obligated to do something to regulate costs. I don't think saddling graduating seniors with $400-1200/month education bills for 30 years at 6-10% is reasonable, though I know people in this situation.
New regulation to ensure students won't graduate with unreasonable debt obligations should be legislated. I'd say that new tuition debt per student per year should be capped at $15,000 and colleges should be charged with the duty of ensuring that their students can afford to pay their educational expenses.
Oh... that's a devilish idea... if educational loans made to students got transferred back to the educational institute if the student defaults on his or her loan! It wouldn't be ethical or enforceable... but in a perfect world it would be an awesome way of keeping colleges honest.
Mod Parent Troll. The GP used the correct version of "their" and the economics of selling an education are not the same as selling widgets.
Cable companies are good at managing the wires from the content provides to your home. They suck at being able to manage the content that flows across those wires. If Microsoft is competing with Hulu and Netflix, power to them. They are not competing with Comcast or Verizon. Those companies are losing Cable Subscribers in large quantities because Hulu and Netflix offer better service (or at the very least, better PRICED service) than traditional Cable + DVR + Pay-Per-View plans.
It'll be fun to watch this play out. Admittedly, Microsoft, Hulu, and Netflix NEED Comcast (and other Cable TV Companies) to provide affordable Internet service for their own services to be worthwhile as most subscribers are more willing to ditch their Cable bills and switch to an Internet-only Plan. I hope Comcast doesn't ass-rape subscribers of Internet-only service. I really hope Comcast figures out that they are a wire company and fully leave the Cable TV business.
Patents on high-cost-to-develop products are not evil. The university labs you cite are likely patenting their major inventions and milking them through licensing deals to fund future research (which correctly spurs innovation rather than stifling it because it correctly separates research businesses from manufacturing businesses. Innovation is stiffed when it comes from companies that have no intention to sell it or license it (i.e. strategically keep it out of the market). In general, though, companies don't allocate resources towards "high-cost-to-develop" products to keep those products out of the market.
Meanwhile, patents on easy-to-develop innovations are dumb. A way of storing credit card and shipping information in a database so users can make purchases with 1-click? Yeah, I'm pretty sure Amazon's patent was invalidated/overturned, but it was a clear example where patents shouldn't apply. User interface patents, in general, are dumb. They usually come about because somebody realizes "so-and-so interface sucks" and then they spend ten minutes figuring out how to improve the "so-and-so interface". Ten minutes of work shouldn't be granted a patent, but the "obviousness test" never seems to get applied for most (easy) patents (or if it does, the "testers" are not adequately trained to do their jobs). This leads to software companies building patent arsenals. It also leads to patent troll companies who want to get as many patents as possible so they can sue the pants off the companies who actually do want to put innovative products into the market.
It wouldn't bother me if the only change to the patent system was to (1) attempt to measure the "cost-of-development" for every patent and to (2) dismiss any patent lawsuit from companies who own patents that they haven't brought to the market, licensed to the market, or attempted to bring to the market. After five or ten years I *bet* they'll find that the majority of patent troll lawsuits fit into the "low-cost-to-develop" category, and then they can evaluate whether further changes are needed.
Borderlands comes to mind. I played through that with a buddy. Good times. Funny game, too. Very entertaining. A bit repetitive, but what FPS isn't?
A consumption tax will get the people who spend money.
Not if they take their business (luxury purchases) offshore. If I were rich, I'd go to London, Paris, or Milan to buy fancy jewelery and clothes if America taxed 20-30% on the things I buy. This is small potatoes for $100-200 items, but the rich can afford to spend $10,000 to $100,000 on luxury goods. It's a simple matter to compare the cost of things in America (with hefty consumption taxes) versus the cost of things elsewhere (without aforementioned taxes). You can't regulate this type of consumption that occurs outside our borders... and that's what would happen if rich people were given incentives to spend in other countries.
Taking the transit is simply not an option as its between 3.75 to 5.00 each way from any suburb. Which is MORE than it costs for gasoline on the same trip, even with gas being 1.31/L currently.
Not sure about Canada, but I live in a US suburb where my company pays $90/month so I can ride the bus. Commuting costs are $0... but would be $90 if I were actually paying for the monthly pass. So you save money as a commuter with monthly passes compared to the "Per Trip" rate. Secondly, I calculate my car expenses as "Car+Insurance+Repairs+Gas" not just "Gas" because doing it this way illustrates that owning a car is WAY more expensive than taking public transit IF PUBLIC TRANSIT IS REASONABLE (which for me, it is). A problem for most people is that there are no reasonable public transit options, but that's a different debate.