From an audiophiles perspective you may be right. Nevertheles I'm pretty happy with the Bose in-ear headphones. While not cheap they are reasonably priced at 100EUR and the sound is not comparable with those cheapo 29cent buds that come with an iPod and which, to my amazement, so few people are actually replacing.
The client could have transfered the money through several foreign banks already before wiring it on to his Swiss account
It doesn't work that way. If there is an account with a Swiss bank at one point the account owner must identify himself in person. You can't just wire money, which is then withdrawn by Joe Shmoe as per order by the Sinister Bank of Panama. They want to see Mr. Shmoes passport before the money is wired.
any reasonably sophisticated person and certainly most intelligence agencies around the world would quite easily be able to conjur up a fake person identity (with supporting documentation) out of thin air
This may be possible in theory, but there's not only the identity that is looked at, but surrounding circumstances too. A trivialized example: If Mr. Shmoe opens an account and then suddenly gets 250M Euros wired by a bank from a country considered suspect Mr. Shmoe will be asked a few hard questions. If the bankers have doubts they will severe all relotionships with Shmoe and inform the authorities. (Swiss banking secrecy is not absolute)
If there is a will then there is a way given enough money.
Sure, provided you find a crooked banker willing to break the law. This will be very hard to achieve with any of the major Swiss banks (including private banks).
HOWEVER, tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland. Which is one reason Swiss banks are so popular
Just to clarify that statement (since a lot of folks think tax evasion is actually legal; it's not). Tax evasion is considered a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and backtaxes & interest.
Anyone that needs one of those accounts is going to be willing to pay that added fee. So besides the Swiss making a little more money off their money hiding, what changes?
A numbered account means that the counterparty is codifyed by a number for bank internal purposes. That means that only very few, usually very high level employees know the identity behind the number.
Until twenty years ago it was possible to circumvent the "know your customer" rule, by using a shady lawyer as an intermediary. This is no more possible. So unless you find a bank that is willing to commit a crime you cannot open an annonymous account in Switzerland; period.
Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware. They prevent you from improving upon a certain work and they effectively lock the competition
Actually that's completely upside down.
Patents, in theory, are a deal between an inventor and society. For a limited, government enforced monopoly the inventor must document and register his invention with the patent office. Others can look at those patents and build upon them as long they either license the patent, wait until it's expired or build upon it in a way that the patent is not violated.
Now, this is the theory of course which doesn't seem to be very much related to nowadays reality.
However, patents where certainly not invented to hinder innovation, actually - due its documentation requirements - quite the opposite.
People constantly ask "so protectionism is the answer?" Right now, yes it is!
You may wish to look up Messrs Smoot and Hawley, two honorable congressmen that shared your opinion.
The two gentlemen are widely credited for being significantly responsible in triggering the depression of the 30s,l which brought so much misery and economic chaos over the US and the world.
It's also somewhat hypocritical that the developed world yells (and partially strong arms) for low tariffs in developing world and yells bloody murder and demands protection if the shit hits the fan.
Mind you, I'm not accusing the US of being the sole reponsible here. Monsieur Sarkozy, who was thankfully called to reason by the rest of his EU peers, seems to be on an equally bad trip.
In other words: Protectionism is probably the absolute worst that could happen to the global eceonomy while it's completely down on it's knees and history pretty much proves that.
Of course, USA has it better here, they don't need a passport to travel to a different state.
Dude, before publicly sprouting your ignorance it would be a good thing to inform yourself.
You can travel without any identification whatsoever between all Schengen countries. That includes the entire EU (maybe except the two newest memebers and they're also set to join), Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.
As a citizen of a non-Schengen agreement country that even goes for sniveling anonymous uninformed cowards like you. That is once you entered the Schengen area.
The main difference between the US and EU might be some aspect of data retention, where usually in the EU the data is deleted after one or two years and there are a few more limitations on who can get to see that data, unlike the US.
While this is certainly one of the differences an even more major difference are the privacy laws (or total lack thereof in the US).
This, in my opinion, is a very important distinction, since the (rather private) data can't just be sold to some sleazy marketoids. I have no way of knowing what happens with my data once collected by US officials.
I also recognize that every government on this planet exercises sovereignty over their borders and that said governments have a legitimate interest in preventing known bad actors from entering their country
Absolutely! No argument here.
And I have the right not to visit a country that has procedures in place to violate my privacy, snoop on me on a constant basis and reserve the right to sell my most private data to some sleazy marketoids. Add to that the most arrogant and unfriendly immigration officers that I encountered anywhere
This is one of the major reasons I didn't go to the US since 2002, before which I visited the country (including the US Virgins) about 20 times.
Interesting that you should mention Canada, btw.
While I was asked the most innane, private and partially embarassing questions by US officials the only question the Canadian counterpart had was: "Do you carry any weapons?"
I think this program is security theater more than anything else but our entry/exit requirements still aren't that onerous compared to other countries I can think of.
Look, I've been to the US and hence through immigration for over 20 times between 1990 and 2002 and I'm sorry to say that the procedures, convenience and friendliness of officials is at the absolute bottom when compared to other countries I travelled to (including South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe) and I'm not inclined to believe that it got better since then.
Granted, it very much depends on the airport of entry, with Miami being probably the worst airport anywhere, in the world to deal with immigration and Chicago O'Hare (surprise!) actually being the fastest and most convenient of US airports where I went through the hassle.
So what countries are you referring to, where immmigration is even worse then in the US? (I'm really curious, not trying to flamebait).
Granted, this me be slightly off-topic, but here goes my last experience with police in a city that we shall name Z for this purpose.
We where celabrating a party in an art installation consisting of a number of shipping containers somewhere in the industrial wasteland of Z. A renowned DJ was DJaying and we had food and drinks and fun all that goes with a proper party.
To celebrate the birthday of our esteemed fearless leader some of the dudes brought some pyrotechnique delights along which we fired off somewhere around midnight, which is technically not quite legal apart from the national holiday and New Years eve.
Pray tell, the cops where called and sent a patrol car along our way.
A guy, let's call him K who is incidentally a lawyer and just loves to chat with cops went out and talked to them.
The discussion as recalled from witnesses went something around:
Cops: Well, what's up here?
K: We're having a party and to celebrate we had us some fireworks.
C: Yeah, but you know, that's actually verboten.
K: Well yeah, we're anyway finished with the fireworks part.
C: OK, do you intend to cause general trouble and unrest?
K: No.
C: Alright, please keep the music down and have a nice party.
Then they took off, we kept the music down and had a nice party.
Now, I believe their reaction was curtous and professional and reading some of the horror stories along the line of "if you don't stop your drooling and spasms from when I just zapped you with my Taser I need to zap you again;" zap! zap! I can just shake my head. The way they dealt with the situation gives me far more confidence in our cops then any confrontation whatsoever would.
For that matter: the worst don't seem to be cops, but semi-cops like power hungry airport security assholes (I recognize there are friendly and professional airport security personel all around the world), transit cops who are usually badly trained dolts with a high school education, or rent-a-cops who, thinking about it, have no more rights then you and me.
Treating people like shit is just not excusable, especially when you're in a position of power.
I think the problem is the managers who make decisions based on what can be sold to the public, as long as the public doesn't find out some small dark secret...
Diebo^H^H^H^H^H, er!, Premier Solutions anyone, cough, cough ?
You could check out the ETH (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich, which has a good reputation in the field. My wild ass guess is that the teaching language is English, you'd have to verify this, though. Google allegedly opened their biggest European outfit in Zurich due to the vicinity of the ETH among other reasons. Niklaus Wirth (inventor of Pascal) was a professor there and it counts Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen and Albert Einstein as alumni. Einstein was also a professor at the school.
Zurich is a city which consistently scored the highest in Mercers Quality of Life Survey for a number of years now. Mind you, it's not the cheapest place to live or study.
Much like extreme veganism, where you are not supposed to eat anything from a plant where you end up killing the entire plant
If your nutrition consists of birch bark and you find enlightenment in that, be my guest, you're not hurting anybody. (Granted, you probably find a group of wackos taking exception because of the poor birchs)
If however a major manufacturer uses noxious materials in the manufacturing or packaging process it hurts all of us.
What you just described is already taken care of with laws against inciting riots.
As usual in life things are not that black and white as you point them out.
For example: Denying the holocaust, which is illegal in a lot, if not in most European countries, may not incite violence per se, it arguably does construct the basis from which it's but a small step into violence and acting out towards a minority.
Personally, as an European, I have mixed feelings on the issue. In principal I believe, that dick headed arguments should be argued on their lack of merits. Given European history however such laws are not only understandable, I even go so far to support them, alas reluctantly.
It seems that here's an irreconcilable difference in perspective between Americans and Europeans. While Americans may believe that free speech is almost absolute, they also seem to believe in the right to legislate morality. For example: I can freely buy a dildo in Düsseldorf, while according to the state attorney you should not be allowed to buy one in Texas. In Texas you can also be sent to the slammer for four years for the possession of 15 XTC tablets. A substance, which is not even classified as a hard drug here around.
Personally I prefer from being prohibited to deny a genocide publicly. But your perspective may vary, of course.
Here's what the paper has to say on the subject in its typically witty style:
WHAT do you and Sarah Palin have in common? Answer: You both read The Economist. After flubbing a question on her reading habits the first time around, Mrs Palin specifically mentioned our paper when asked the same question last night. Because of our own privacy rules, we cannot disclose whether or not she is a subscriber. But I can tell you that we have a paid circulation of 2,168 in Alaska.
.
Or in other words (and that's strictly my interpretation as a subsriber): Miss Palin is full of shit. (Apart from the fact that this woman never has the intelectual curiosity to read a paper like the Economist).
Customers of the products and brands you list usually don't turn into foaming, babbling, completely incoherent and irrational fanatics just because somebody states on a board that McDonalds food tastes like crap, or that a Toyotas performance leaves much to be desired.
Your'e right. The essay was provided as an interesting read and not necessarily as a backup for my assumption.
If you look deeper into the musician and the engineer however, you'll learn a few things that tell you why Mr. Albini would disagree.
For example, he is one of the few recording engineers that still uses analog tape and works strictly analog. He argues that there's nothing he ever wanted to do, that he couldn't perform with analog gear and he very much prefers the results.
If you record at his studio you can bring in a laptop with Powertools and hook it up. He however does not provide it or any other software based digital equipment. At least it's what he claims in interviews
When you look at his carreer and his credentials I think you must agree that he's not just some whackohead who' s stuck with old tech since he's too lazy or stupid to learn something new. Analog seems to be very much a concious decision in his case.
My point is that while you certainly can set up a basic digital recording and production facility for 5000$ you sure as hell can't do that if you work and engineer like Mr. Albini. Sound seems to be of paramount importance to engineers like him and in order to get as close as possible to the bands and his vision you need far more money then 5000 bucks.
There still are a lot of old school engineers that loath how digital technology is abused in music recording and production. See also loudness wars for some interesting insight.
Slashdot Mirror
Market forces don't apply to monopolies. And copyright is a government granted monopoly.
So Valve Software has an absolute monoloy on all computer games in the entire universe?
Dude, look up Strawman before spouting rubbish in public.
earbuds are crap, period.
From an audiophiles perspective you may be right. Nevertheles I'm pretty happy with the Bose in-ear headphones. While not cheap they are reasonably priced at 100EUR and the sound is not comparable with those cheapo 29cent buds that come with an iPod and which, to my amazement, so few people are actually replacing.
The client could have transfered the money through several foreign banks already before wiring it on to his Swiss account
It doesn't work that way. If there is an account with a Swiss bank at one point the account owner must identify himself in person. You can't just wire money, which is then withdrawn by Joe Shmoe as per order by the Sinister Bank of Panama. They want to see Mr. Shmoes passport before the money is wired.
any reasonably sophisticated person and certainly most intelligence agencies around the world would quite easily be able to conjur up a fake person identity (with supporting documentation) out of thin air
This may be possible in theory, but there's not only the identity that is looked at, but surrounding circumstances too. A trivialized example: If Mr. Shmoe opens an account and then suddenly gets 250M Euros wired by a bank from a country considered suspect Mr. Shmoe will be asked a few hard questions. If the bankers have doubts they will severe all relotionships with Shmoe and inform the authorities. (Swiss banking secrecy is not absolute)
If there is a will then there is a way given enough money.
Sure, provided you find a crooked banker willing to break the law. This will be very hard to achieve with any of the major Swiss banks (including private banks).
HOWEVER, tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland. Which is one reason Swiss banks are so popular
Just to clarify that statement (since a lot of folks think tax evasion is actually legal; it's not). Tax evasion is considered a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and backtaxes & interest.
Anyone that needs one of those accounts is going to be willing to pay that added fee. So besides the Swiss making a little more money off their money hiding, what changes?
A numbered account means that the counterparty is codifyed by a number for bank internal purposes. That means that only very few, usually very high level employees know the identity behind the number.
Until twenty years ago it was possible to circumvent the "know your customer" rule, by using a shady lawyer as an intermediary. This is no more possible. So unless you find a bank that is willing to commit a crime you cannot open an annonymous account in Switzerland; period.
And yes, IAAB.
Have you considered to lay off GTA for a while?
Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware. They prevent you from improving upon a certain work and they effectively lock the competition
Actually that's completely upside down.
Patents, in theory, are a deal between an inventor and society. For a limited, government enforced monopoly the inventor must document and register his invention with the patent office. Others can look at those patents and build upon them as long they either license the patent, wait until it's expired or build upon it in a way that the patent is not violated.
Now, this is the theory of course which doesn't seem to be very much related to nowadays reality.
However, patents where certainly not invented to hinder innovation, actually - due its documentation requirements - quite the opposite.
People constantly ask "so protectionism is the answer?" Right now, yes it is!
You may wish to look up Messrs Smoot and Hawley, two honorable congressmen that shared your opinion.
The two gentlemen are widely credited for being significantly responsible in triggering the depression of the 30s,l which brought so much misery and economic chaos over the US and the world.
It's also somewhat hypocritical that the developed world yells (and partially strong arms) for low tariffs in developing world and yells bloody murder and demands protection if the shit hits the fan.
Mind you, I'm not accusing the US of being the sole reponsible here. Monsieur Sarkozy, who was thankfully called to reason by the rest of his EU peers, seems to be on an equally bad trip.
In other words: Protectionism is probably the absolute worst that could happen to the global eceonomy while it's completely down on it's knees and history pretty much proves that.
Bernie Maddoff was reviewed by these guys
And they found nothing wrong
So it's OK to shoplift since the other guy is a bank robber?
Of course, USA has it better here, they don't need a passport to travel to a different state.
Dude, before publicly sprouting your ignorance it would be a good thing to inform yourself.
You can travel without any identification whatsoever between all Schengen countries. That includes the entire EU (maybe except the two newest memebers and they're also set to join), Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.
As a citizen of a non-Schengen agreement country that even goes for sniveling anonymous uninformed cowards like you. That is once you entered the Schengen area.
The main difference between the US and EU might be some aspect of data retention, where usually in the EU the data is deleted after one or two years and there are a few more limitations on who can get to see that data, unlike the US.
While this is certainly one of the differences an even more major difference are the privacy laws (or total lack thereof in the US).
This, in my opinion, is a very important distinction, since the (rather private) data can't just be sold to some sleazy marketoids. I have no way of knowing what happens with my data once collected by US officials.
I also recognize that every government on this planet exercises sovereignty over their borders and that said governments have a legitimate interest in preventing known bad actors from entering their country
Absolutely! No argument here.
And I have the right not to visit a country that has procedures in place to violate my privacy, snoop on me on a constant basis and reserve the right to sell my most private data to some sleazy marketoids. Add to that the most arrogant and unfriendly immigration officers that I encountered anywhere
This is one of the major reasons I didn't go to the US since 2002, before which I visited the country (including the US Virgins) about 20 times.
Interesting that you should mention Canada, btw.
While I was asked the most innane, private and partially embarassing questions by US officials the only question the Canadian counterpart had was: "Do you carry any weapons?"
Go figure...
Look, I've been to the US and hence through immigration for over 20 times between 1990 and 2002 and I'm sorry to say that the procedures, convenience and friendliness of officials is at the absolute bottom when compared to other countries I travelled to (including South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe) and I'm not inclined to believe that it got better since then.
Granted, it very much depends on the airport of entry, with Miami being probably the worst airport anywhere, in the world to deal with immigration and Chicago O'Hare (surprise!) actually being the fastest and most convenient of US airports where I went through the hassle.
So what countries are you referring to, where immmigration is even worse then in the US? (I'm really curious, not trying to flamebait).
We where celabrating a party in an art installation consisting of a number of shipping containers somewhere in the industrial wasteland of Z. A renowned DJ was DJaying and we had food and drinks and fun all that goes with a proper party.
To celebrate the birthday of our esteemed fearless leader some of the dudes brought some pyrotechnique delights along which we fired off somewhere around midnight, which is technically not quite legal apart from the national holiday and New Years eve.
Pray tell, the cops where called and sent a patrol car along our way.
A guy, let's call him K who is incidentally a lawyer and just loves to chat with cops went out and talked to them.
The discussion as recalled from witnesses went something around:
Cops: Well, what's up here?
K: We're having a party and to celebrate we had us some fireworks.
C: Yeah, but you know, that's actually verboten.
K: Well yeah, we're anyway finished with the fireworks part.
C: OK, do you intend to cause general trouble and unrest?
K: No.
C: Alright, please keep the music down and have a nice party.
Then they took off, we kept the music down and had a nice party.
Now, I believe their reaction was curtous and professional and reading some of the horror stories along the line of "if you don't stop your drooling and spasms from when I just zapped you with my Taser I need to zap you again;" zap! zap! I can just shake my head. The way they dealt with the situation gives me far more confidence in our cops then any confrontation whatsoever would.
For that matter: the worst don't seem to be cops, but semi-cops like power hungry airport security assholes (I recognize there are friendly and professional airport security personel all around the world), transit cops who are usually badly trained dolts with a high school education, or rent-a-cops who, thinking about it, have no more rights then you and me.
Treating people like shit is just not excusable, especially when you're in a position of power.
Heating, water heater, clothes dryer and stove could be gas or electric.
Or you could just hang your clothes on clothe line to dry. You know, like in the good old days...
I think the problem is the managers who make decisions based on what can be sold to the public, as long as the public doesn't find out some small dark secret...
Diebo^H^H^H^H^H, er!, Premier Solutions anyone, cough, cough ?
The Wikipedia entry is here.
Zurich is a city which consistently scored the highest in Mercers Quality of Life Survey for a number of years now. Mind you, it's not the cheapest place to live or study.
I plan a couple weeks of chilling on the pristine Thai beaches, come February, you insensitive clod!
Much like extreme veganism, where you are not supposed to eat anything from a plant where you end up killing the entire plant
If your nutrition consists of birch bark and you find enlightenment in that, be my guest, you're not hurting anybody. (Granted, you probably find a group of wackos taking exception because of the poor birchs)
If however a major manufacturer uses noxious materials in the manufacturing or packaging process it hurts all of us.
What you just described is already taken care of with laws against inciting riots.
As usual in life things are not that black and white as you point them out.
For example: Denying the holocaust, which is illegal in a lot, if not in most European countries, may not incite violence per se, it arguably does construct the basis from which it's but a small step into violence and acting out towards a minority.
Personally, as an European, I have mixed feelings on the issue. In principal I believe, that dick headed arguments should be argued on their lack of merits. Given European history however such laws are not only understandable, I even go so far to support them, alas reluctantly.
It seems that here's an irreconcilable difference in perspective between Americans and Europeans. While Americans may believe that free speech is almost absolute, they also seem to believe in the right to legislate morality. For example: I can freely buy a dildo in Düsseldorf, while according to the state attorney you should not be allowed to buy one in Texas. In Texas you can also be sent to the slammer for four years for the possession of 15 XTC tablets. A substance, which is not even classified as a hard drug here around.
Personally I prefer from being prohibited to deny a genocide publicly. But your perspective may vary, of course.
Here's what the paper has to say on the subject in its typically witty style:
. Or in other words (and that's strictly my interpretation as a subsriber): Miss Palin is full of shit. (Apart from the fact that this woman never has the intelectual curiosity to read a paper like the Economist).
BUT, If they ever think they are going to get a dime from me for these things they are wrong
This depends, of course, on the fact that they don't hold your data hostage.
I believe that outsourcing your data is a main concern of Mr. Stallman
You insensitive clod.
Customers of the products and brands you list usually don't turn into foaming, babbling, completely incoherent and irrational fanatics just because somebody states on a board that McDonalds food tastes like crap, or that a Toyotas performance leaves much to be desired.
If you look deeper into the musician and the engineer however, you'll learn a few things that tell you why Mr. Albini would disagree.
For example, he is one of the few recording engineers that still uses analog tape and works strictly analog. He argues that there's nothing he ever wanted to do, that he couldn't perform with analog gear and he very much prefers the results.
If you record at his studio you can bring in a laptop with Powertools and hook it up. He however does not provide it or any other software based digital equipment. At least it's what he claims in interviews
When you look at his carreer and his credentials I think you must agree that he's not just some whackohead who' s stuck with old tech since he's too lazy or stupid to learn something new. Analog seems to be very much a concious decision in his case.
My point is that while you certainly can set up a basic digital recording and production facility for 5000$ you sure as hell can't do that if you work and engineer like Mr. Albini. Sound seems to be of paramount importance to engineers like him and in order to get as close as possible to the bands and his vision you need far more money then 5000 bucks.
There still are a lot of old school engineers that loath how digital technology is abused in music recording and production. See also loudness wars for some interesting insight.