Just wait until they take away your right to non-procreational sex, and you can't argue about it because they took away all those other rights that you didn't care about... Before they do that though, they'll probably take away your right to raise your child the way you want to (they've already started), and perhaps they'll even force your child to go to war...
The excise tax and the income tax are two different things. You would have to pay both. You don't usually pay income tax on a vehicle because you bought it with money you already paid income tax on, but if I *gave* you a vehicle, that would be a different story.
Point out why it is absurd then. [...] So you openly admit your that firefox giving you a popup because you're running an exe file is the reason you hate vista.
Ok, here you go. I'm only doing this once. I've spent too much time on this thread already... That sentence is absurd for the for the following reasons:
It assumes that I hate Vista, which I never said. I merely said that it actually does prompt you for confirmation all the time. It claims I "openly admitted" something. That's putting words in my mouth, and it's also really obnoxious. It claims that the popup is coming from Firefox, when I clearly stated that there were two popups. The one you get from Firefox on every platform, and an additional one from Vista for no good reason whatsoever informing you that a program is running another program. (If it happens to be a setup program that needs Administrator access, you get a third dialog). It displays such a lack of familiarity with Vista that I really have to question if you actually run it, or if the copy you're running had some of this stuff turned off for you before you started using it.
That's why it's absurd.
Business applications are the LAST to get broken by a security model like this installed on them, not the first as you imply.
You continue to insist that I'm claiming the apps are broken by the security model, when I've stated explicitly I'm talking about the driver model. You can make all the assertions you want about how everything should work fine with Vista UAC, but if something else in Vista stops the app from working correctly, the app still isn't compatible with Vista even if it is compatible with the security model. At one of the companies I admin for, their main database app (made by Exact software, a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner) won't run on Vista). At the company I work for full time, the telephone system software won't work on Vista (It's supposed to run on every desktop to interface to the VoIP handsets). Every app that installs with an older version of InstallShield (That is a lot of apps) fails to install. These are just a couple of examples. It's been getting better. When I started with Vista, about half of the apps that I relied on day to day under XP didn't work. Now it's about a third, because vendors are releasing new versions. Search the net. Everybody is having these same problems if they have non-Microsoft business apps.
Facts: Vista pops up a lot of annoying confirmation dialogs, even when it doesn't need to elevate privileges, and lots of apps have incompatibilities with Vista.
For me it's not a tradeoff. I already own a hardware PS2 (Same one since release day), and I don't see any reason to buy another one. The only incentive for me to "upgrade" is if it adds features. Otherwise "PS2 support" is just text on the packaging.
You'd have to show me some numbers to convince me it's "worse than the Xbox 360's emulator". The only numbers I've seen that could suggest that compared the European support list against the US release list to create a meaningless statistic. The official number from Sony is 72%.
As for upscaling, it's supported on a subset of the supported PS2 games, and supposedly additional support will be added with future firmware updates. The hardware PS2 "emulation" doesn't upscale *any* PS2 games.
Microsoft's long term goal in this is to have a microsoft box at the core of a home's media center. Their first attempt was, aptly, 'XP Media Center.' Basically, they want in the living room, and they want in badly.
Sorry, don't buy it. I don't buy it because it doesn't make any sense.
That's too much work. They don't want to sell "boxes". They've never wanted to sell boxes. They want cash for nothing. They can't maintain their high margins with your theoretical plan, and their stock price would tank.
All they want is for their DRM to become the standard. Then they can license it. In fact you basically couldn't publish commercial content anymore without giving them money. Then they have more cash, and can use the proprietary technology as another prop for their cash cow (Windows).
The only place Microsoft wants "in" is your wallet.
Naturally, the police can attack your security any way their please without your help and can lift your biometrics in many ways without going threw the court and I suspect when that situation is raised they possibly will extend the line of thought started on this case.
Repeat: Something you know, Something you have... Something you know, Something you have...
Your biometric alone does not provide security or authentication.
Technically, their cash value counts as income. Realistically, they'll be overlooked until sold because there's no way to track them.
If I gave you a brand new car, however, you'd be forced to pay income tax on the value or reject the gift, because there would be a simple, practical way for the government to realized you received it.
If this weren't the case, people would probably push to be paid part of their salary in food and clothing.
I think you overestimate people's willingness to disrupt stability for the sake of a political statement.
I don't think I do. I think the combination of limiting a corporations political influence to the local of their employees would reduce, or even eliminate all but the most egregious offenses to the employees through political action, and I think people are willing to quit over something more serious. If they aren't, they should be. I know *I* would.
Well clearly Microsoft's sole care this generation is positioning DirectX and Windows Media as essential technologies for downloadable and interactive content, thus maintaining the Windows monopoly for another decade.
I haven't quite figured out what Sony's motivation is... Presumably to make money from hardware sales and software license fees just like last generation... But maybe just to have BluRay win? They're clearly not fighting the same battle as Microsoft though. They're just fighting on the same battlefield.
We know that the PS3 over in Europe already lost its PS2 hardware in favor of a software emulator for PS2 game backwards compatibility. It's only a matter of time before that change shows up in PS3s elsewhere.
You say that like it's a negative thing. I wish they'd announce whether the older units were going to support the newer software emulation. It actually *adds features*, and when the compatibility improves it will probably become the preferred emulation. I won't buy a PS3 right now, since there's a chance I may end up stuck with the non-upgradable, non-upscaling hardware emulation. (Well, that and there are no good games for the PS3 yet.)
I still disagree. Corporations should be allowed to influence their environment in their favor. Less influence than they have today, clearly (since I'm proposing to severely limit the number of public servants they can lobby), but they should be able to try to have their position heard. Only good can come of that, as that would force the company to be a good local citizen if it wanted any hope of having the candidate it supports elected.
Corporations absolutely should not be running their own political advertising. I'm not even sure I like candidates running political ads. One-way messages are an abomination of democratic debate. I wouldn't complain at all if candidates were only be allowed to spend campaign dollars on travel. Their ad should be getting out and spreading their message in person in forums provided for them by those with an vested interest.
But you're not going to see people give up their livelihood for the sake of political protest of corporate policies.
Not their livelihood, their job. Huge difference. And we've really lowered our standards if we're not willing to do things like that anymore. jobs are more transient now than they were in the past, yet people are still less willing to make a political statement with their job? That kind of thing used to happen all the time.
Translation of the parent post out of brainwashed consumer lemming speak:
The hard drives are a means of selling you content that you can't resell as used. It adds absolutetly no other functionality that you wouldn't have if said media was on an optical disk.
You're right about the desktop applications, but you're just plain wrong about the development tools. In my experience, commercial linux development shops (I've worked at four such places now, and contracted at three others, and they've *all* spent tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on dev tools) are actually more likely to buy dev tools than a commercial distribution. I'm talking about things like text editors, debuggers, debugging tools, libraries, code auditing tools, source control... Everything but the compiler basically. The same as in commercial Unix and Windows shops.
ake Amazon. If it sells books to a certain region, is it of that locality? Or do they have to employ someone there? How many someones?
For the purposes of campaign contributions, they should have to employ somebody there. How many? Just one. But, the amount they can contribute should be based on the number of employees. I'd say $50, or $100 per employee would be fair.
First, I think it is an incredible mistake to continue to build new economic systems based on locality.
This isn't an economic system, it's political, and as such it isn't new. Our political system is already based on localities.
Secondly, I think that it is against the idea of "One Person, One Vote" to allow a few people in charge of large companies to pool the resources of those companies - against the potential interests of all the employees, nevermind the customer base - and spend it to influence the political process.
They can't. The employees are employees at will, and if they quit the employer loses all political influence. They can also vote against the candidate the company contributes to, while the corporation has no vote.
Corporate influence is in a similar category, and truth be told, I would not oppose the banning of all corporate contributions - for campaigns or otherwise. I see it as undermining my vote.
Yeah, yeah.. Stick it to the man, and whatnot. The fact of the matter is that our society needs corporations to maintain the levels of freedom and quality of life that we're used to. It's in your best interests to have strong local businesses, and without them your vote is completely worthless because the people you elect will have no resources to work with.
Unless the patent hasn't been granted yet, in which case you're just screwed. You can develop an entire software product, release it, and sell thousands in the time it takes for a patent application to go through.
When that happens, the patent should be automatically revoked for obviousness, but it is not.
Linux users, by nature, do not use proprietary closed-source programs for development; therefore, they are not going to be buying Silverlight development tools even if they were available for Linux.
Commercial linux application developers *do*, in fact, purchase non-free development tools and libraries. It happens all the time, and it doesn't mean the end user has to buy any third party stuff at all.
Enterprise linux users pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for linux applications. Frequently, in fact. (Though, there's usually no linux desktop involved.)
I can't believe I'm responding to such an obvious troll..
Your logic is absurd. Your first sentence is giving me a headache it's so stupid and broken. I have nothing else to say about it.
Assuming you don't think vista's crap because firefox gives you exe-file related popups, then you think vista's crap because a setup.exe file you downloaded requires root access, i.e. you still do not understand why UAC is a good thing.
I didn't say it's crap. I said it's annoying.
Many, possibly most businesses have NT domains and credential sets set up. They do not allow users to write to c:\program files etc. "business applications" are primarily targeted for such environments. UAC is exactly that environment. If it breaks a business app, running said business app under an NT domain would also break it.
Are you really so stupid that you can't see that something other than the domain access model would break an application? Like driver signing, for example? There are plenty of other incompatibilities too. Search the web. I'm not going to do your homework for you. THOUSANDS of apps don't work on Vista. It's a fact. You cannot dispute it and still retain any credibility.
If a PAC takes contributions from somebody in a particular district, they are then forbidden from giving any money at all to any candidate that doesn't represent that district. Even $1 in a pool of billions.
The ways an individual can contribute should always be greater than a non-human entity.
I disagree with this. Corporations are citizens of a locality. They pay taxes like a citizen, and they provide jobs and services. They should have some form of influence (short of an actual vote), but only in their locality, and limited by the number of people they employ there.
If they have any presence in the geographical area, that tilts the playing field in the favor even more towards corporations. And by tightening the money supply inflates their influence.
It inflates their influence with the local candidate, but it reduces their influence with all the others. Absolute influence over one vote is worthless compared to even slight influence over many votes.
Corporations should be able to have influence as long it is in the direct interests of the constituents of the politician they are lobbying. I would assert it is only in the constituents interests when their locality is receiving signifigant tax income, and/or those constituents are employed by the corporation. If a corporation employed 30,000 people in my locality, I wouldn't mind them having the ear of our local representative, but I do mind when a big corporation that has no stake in my locality has the ear of my representative.
Incidentally, the problem with matching funds is that you suddenly have hundreds of candidates.
A better solution to the expense of campaignes (and this wouldn't really work in the presidential campaign, but it would work for every other office) is to disallow contributions from outside of the represented region. For example, a senator would only be able to raise funds in their home state. If a company wanted to contribute they would be limited to a fixed amount ($5?) per full-time employee in that state. Replace "state" with "district" for representatives, and keep in mind that the political campaigns being run (ridiculously early) right now are running partially off left over senate campaign funds. Candidates can start raising money for a presidential bid early by running a national campaign for a senate seat today. Not only does that cause overpriced campaigns, but it does a disservice to the home state.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wait until they take away your right to non-procreational sex, and you can't argue about it because they took away all those other rights that you didn't care about... Before they do that though, they'll probably take away your right to raise your child the way you want to (they've already started), and perhaps they'll even force your child to go to war...
That's what you're missing.
The excise tax and the income tax are two different things. You would have to pay both. You don't usually pay income tax on a vehicle because you bought it with money you already paid income tax on, but if I *gave* you a vehicle, that would be a different story.
Read this article about this guy who had to turn down a free trip to space because he couldn't afford the income taxes on the prize.
Point out why it is absurd then. [...] So you openly admit your that firefox giving you a popup because you're running an exe file is the reason you hate vista.
Ok, here you go. I'm only doing this once. I've spent too much time on this thread already... That sentence is absurd for the for the following reasons:
It assumes that I hate Vista, which I never said. I merely said that it actually does prompt you for confirmation all the time.
It claims I "openly admitted" something. That's putting words in my mouth, and it's also really obnoxious.
It claims that the popup is coming from Firefox, when I clearly stated that there were two popups. The one you get from Firefox on every platform, and an additional one from Vista for no good reason whatsoever informing you that a program is running another program. (If it happens to be a setup program that needs Administrator access, you get a third dialog).
It displays such a lack of familiarity with Vista that I really have to question if you actually run it, or if the copy you're running had some of this stuff turned off for you before you started using it.
That's why it's absurd.
Business applications are the LAST to get broken by a security model like this installed on them, not the first as you imply.
You continue to insist that I'm claiming the apps are broken by the security model, when I've stated explicitly I'm talking about the driver model. You can make all the assertions you want about how everything should work fine with Vista UAC, but if something else in Vista stops the app from working correctly, the app still isn't compatible with Vista even if it is compatible with the security model. At one of the companies I admin for, their main database app (made by Exact software, a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner) won't run on Vista). At the company I work for full time, the telephone system software won't work on Vista (It's supposed to run on every desktop to interface to the VoIP handsets). Every app that installs with an older version of InstallShield (That is a lot of apps) fails to install. These are just a couple of examples. It's been getting better. When I started with Vista, about half of the apps that I relied on day to day under XP didn't work. Now it's about a third, because vendors are releasing new versions. Search the net. Everybody is having these same problems if they have non-Microsoft business apps.
Facts: Vista pops up a lot of annoying confirmation dialogs, even when it doesn't need to elevate privileges, and lots of apps have incompatibilities with Vista.
Two things:
First, no such add-on is being sold by Microsoft... If their goal was to go in that direction, don't you think they would sell the add on?
Second, The hard drive sizes are pathetic, even in the "Elite". They would make for a poor DVR.
Additionally, there is no business case for such support beyond internet rumor and analyst speculation.
For me it's not a tradeoff. I already own a hardware PS2 (Same one since release day), and I don't see any reason to buy another one. The only incentive for me to "upgrade" is if it adds features. Otherwise "PS2 support" is just text on the packaging.
You'd have to show me some numbers to convince me it's "worse than the Xbox 360's emulator". The only numbers I've seen that could suggest that compared the European support list against the US release list to create a meaningless statistic. The official number from Sony is 72%.
As for upscaling, it's supported on a subset of the supported PS2 games, and supposedly additional support will be added with future firmware updates. The hardware PS2 "emulation" doesn't upscale *any* PS2 games.
Sorry, don't buy it. I don't buy it because it doesn't make any sense.
That's too much work. They don't want to sell "boxes". They've never wanted to sell boxes. They want cash for nothing. They can't maintain their high margins with your theoretical plan, and their stock price would tank.
All they want is for their DRM to become the standard. Then they can license it. In fact you basically couldn't publish commercial content anymore without giving them money. Then they have more cash, and can use the proprietary technology as another prop for their cash cow (Windows).
The only place Microsoft wants "in" is your wallet.
Repeat: Something you know, Something you have... Something you know, Something you have...
Your biometric alone does not provide security or authentication.
Technically, their cash value counts as income. Realistically, they'll be overlooked until sold because there's no way to track them.
If I gave you a brand new car, however, you'd be forced to pay income tax on the value or reject the gift, because there would be a simple, practical way for the government to realized you received it.
If this weren't the case, people would probably push to be paid part of their salary in food and clothing.
It'll end up being more like gambling...
You get taxed when you cash out, but you can't deduct more than your winnings as losses.
Also, the (HoursPlayed*MinWage*PercentMultiplier) is a bit of a stretch.... Unless you propose day traders start paying themselves minimum wage?
I don't think I do. I think the combination of limiting a corporations political influence to the local of their employees would reduce, or even eliminate all but the most egregious offenses to the employees through political action, and I think people are willing to quit over something more serious. If they aren't, they should be. I know *I* would.
Well clearly Microsoft's sole care this generation is positioning DirectX and Windows Media as essential technologies for downloadable and interactive content, thus maintaining the Windows monopoly for another decade.
I haven't quite figured out what Sony's motivation is... Presumably to make money from hardware sales and software license fees just like last generation... But maybe just to have BluRay win? They're clearly not fighting the same battle as Microsoft though. They're just fighting on the same battlefield.
On a device with no video input...
How do you propose they do that without downloading content?
You say that like it's a negative thing. I wish they'd announce whether the older units were going to support the newer software emulation. It actually *adds features*, and when the compatibility improves it will probably become the preferred emulation. I won't buy a PS3 right now, since there's a chance I may end up stuck with the non-upgradable, non-upscaling hardware emulation. (Well, that and there are no good games for the PS3 yet.)
Corporations absolutely should not be running their own political advertising. I'm not even sure I like candidates running political ads. One-way messages are an abomination of democratic debate. I wouldn't complain at all if candidates were only be allowed to spend campaign dollars on travel. Their ad should be getting out and spreading their message in person in forums provided for them by those with an vested interest.
Not their livelihood, their job. Huge difference. And we've really lowered our standards if we're not willing to do things like that anymore. jobs are more transient now than they were in the past, yet people are still less willing to make a political statement with their job? That kind of thing used to happen all the time.
Model? Version?
SKU isn't a word, thus it cannot be the right word.
Translation of the parent post out of brainwashed consumer lemming speak:
The hard drives are a means of selling you content that you can't resell as used. It adds absolutetly no other functionality that you wouldn't have if said media was on an optical disk.
You're right about the desktop applications, but you're just plain wrong about the development tools. In my experience, commercial linux development shops (I've worked at four such places now, and contracted at three others, and they've *all* spent tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on dev tools) are actually more likely to buy dev tools than a commercial distribution. I'm talking about things like text editors, debuggers, debugging tools, libraries, code auditing tools, source control... Everything but the compiler basically. The same as in commercial Unix and Windows shops.
For the purposes of campaign contributions, they should have to employ somebody there. How many? Just one. But, the amount they can contribute should be based on the number of employees. I'd say $50, or $100 per employee would be fair.
This isn't an economic system, it's political, and as such it isn't new. Our political system is already based on localities.
They can't. The employees are employees at will, and if they quit the employer loses all political influence. They can also vote against the candidate the company contributes to, while the corporation has no vote.
Yeah, yeah.. Stick it to the man, and whatnot. The fact of the matter is that our society needs corporations to maintain the levels of freedom and quality of life that we're used to. It's in your best interests to have strong local businesses, and without them your vote is completely worthless because the people you elect will have no resources to work with.
Unless the patent hasn't been granted yet, in which case you're just screwed. You can develop an entire software product, release it, and sell thousands in the time it takes for a patent application to go through.
When that happens, the patent should be automatically revoked for obviousness, but it is not.
Linux users, by nature, do not use proprietary closed-source programs for development; therefore, they are not going to be buying Silverlight development tools even if they were available for Linux.
Commercial linux application developers *do*, in fact, purchase non-free development tools and libraries. It happens all the time, and it doesn't mean the end user has to buy any third party stuff at all.
Enterprise linux users pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for linux applications. Frequently, in fact. (Though, there's usually no linux desktop involved.)
Your logic is absurd. Your first sentence is giving me a headache it's so stupid and broken. I have nothing else to say about it.
Easy fix.
If a PAC takes contributions from somebody in a particular district, they are then forbidden from giving any money at all to any candidate that doesn't represent that district. Even $1 in a pool of billions.
The ways an individual can contribute should always be greater than a non-human entity.
I disagree with this. Corporations are citizens of a locality. They pay taxes like a citizen, and they provide jobs and services. They should have some form of influence (short of an actual vote), but only in their locality, and limited by the number of people they employ there.
It inflates their influence with the local candidate, but it reduces their influence with all the others. Absolute influence over one vote is worthless compared to even slight influence over many votes.
Corporations should be able to have influence as long it is in the direct interests of the constituents of the politician they are lobbying. I would assert it is only in the constituents interests when their locality is receiving signifigant tax income, and/or those constituents are employed by the corporation. If a corporation employed 30,000 people in my locality, I wouldn't mind them having the ear of our local representative, but I do mind when a big corporation that has no stake in my locality has the ear of my representative.
Incidentally, the problem with matching funds is that you suddenly have hundreds of candidates.
A better solution to the expense of campaignes (and this wouldn't really work in the presidential campaign, but it would work for every other office) is to disallow contributions from outside of the represented region. For example, a senator would only be able to raise funds in their home state. If a company wanted to contribute they would be limited to a fixed amount ($5?) per full-time employee in that state. Replace "state" with "district" for representatives, and keep in mind that the political campaigns being run (ridiculously early) right now are running partially off left over senate campaign funds. Candidates can start raising money for a presidential bid early by running a national campaign for a senate seat today. Not only does that cause overpriced campaigns, but it does a disservice to the home state.
Simple solution: You can't donate to a campaign and lobby the candidate. Pick one.
Sure, you'd have to be more specific than that in order to avoid loopholes, but you get the general idea...