On average it probably will be a win for the customers. Now a certain % of them won't have to replace their device out of their own pocket when it breaks. If the % is high enough, then the price is effectively lower.
What if your device has faulty capacitors that fail just after a year? Even if the damage is easily visible when the device is open, just opening it will usually void the warranty.
EU still sticks to dictating what people and companies can do within it's own borders. Meanwhile, the US is trying to dictate laws to the entire world.
No. It's the equivalent of getting your driver's license suspended when they SAY you didn't pay one of their fees. No proof necessary, no complaint possible.
Do you think prices would decrease if corporate taxes were abolished? No. Corporations would just pocket the money and invest it in more bonuses.
Meanwhile, income taxes would increase to make up for the reduced tax income.
Also, people pass on their taxes to their customers and employers too. So why not have identical taxes for corporations and individuals? Why not tax people on profit instead of income? Why should a person that spends all of his income on basic needs like food and shelter pay taxes, while a corporation that spends it's entire earning on production costs pay nothing?
You might argue that the corporation employs people - but then so does the individual. He keeps farmers and his landlord employed at the least.
Let's have some balance. They do their best to make sure you can't give up ownership of the game you just bought. So why not glue and staple the payment to their faces? Fair is fair after all.
I'm not advocating tariffs on ALL imports. Just on those from countries that use unfair trade practices. If China decides to sell rare earths to foreign companies for ten times the price that domestic companies pay, then why shouldn't their products be 'taxed'? I'm sure China's neighbors will be more then happy to ramp up production if China is no longer able to compete with them.
So the government prohibiting the export of something is a level playing field? Can the US also choose to impose a 1000% tariff on Chinese products and also call it a level playing field?
Those things aren't going to go away. Parking and traffic have to do with the number of cars, not just their driver's skill. And driving death will still happen until EVERY car is driven by an infallable AI. Which won't happen for at least a few generations after the AI is developed, since people are much to attached to driving cars.
The appropriate response would now be to do the following: a) Fine the business for the cost of all cleanup (basically push them into bankruptcy, since the cleanup will take just about forever. b) Prosecute the executives for negligence.
Do this a few times and any new powerplants will be much safer.
It's a question of 'will it hit MY country/city/house or not?'. People mostly don't care what happens to others. So you have to reduce the chances of an impact by the percentage of the surface of the Earth they care about.
Isn't a DDos also a form of speech? It might just be screaming nonsense at someone, making it impossible for anyone to hear what that person is saying, but it's still speech.
But it would be totally different in a western country. They would be liable for any damage they caused. You could report them to the local poli..... oh, well,... you could still report them to themselves! I'm sure they'd give a very stern talking to themselves, then make themselves promise to NEVER do it again. Then charge the taxpayers a few million for the service.
Well in some ways it might be good to return to that kind of an arrangement for a few days each year. Just long enough to lynch the outgoing politicians on the day after elections. Now that would be a pretty good motivator to stop pissing voters off.
So how do you determine which attack was motivated by hate? Let's say the guy in the bar had beaten up a black guy, and it was well known that he hated blacks. What if the black guy was just the most convenient target when he got drunk? What if he'd have attacked anyone that was near him when he got drunk enough?
That's what sentencing is for. If the judge feels that the crime was 'justified', then he can impose a lighter sentence, within the guidelines.
Don't create separate definitions of the basically identical crime, just because you don't trust judges. Prosecutors that want to be seen as 'hard on crime' will charge everyone with the most severe charge they can find - even if they know it's not the most appropriate one. So don't give them the chance to blow things out of proportion.
So would a company be liable if a person they fire commits suicide? What if the fireing was illegal? Does every crime that ends up 'causing' a person to commit suicide count as a hate crime?
It's pretty hard to prove something isn't harmful to people. Even if a person seems fine, the product might be increasing risk of cancer, heart disease or something similar. It might take decades to notice the effects, and most studies don't last that long.
Slashdot Mirror
On average it probably will be a win for the customers. Now a certain % of them won't have to replace their device out of their own pocket when it breaks. If the % is high enough, then the price is effectively lower.
What if your device has faulty capacitors that fail just after a year? Even if the damage is easily visible when the device is open, just opening it will usually void the warranty.
EU still sticks to dictating what people and companies can do within it's own borders. Meanwhile, the US is trying to dictate laws to the entire world.
Then she'll be sorry she did it. On the other hand what if we don't?
It's her choice. If she thinks it's better for her to give up the slim hope of using her real arm again for a bionic arm that's what she should get.
No. It's the equivalent of getting your driver's license suspended when they SAY you didn't pay one of their fees. No proof necessary, no complaint possible.
And this theory has shown itself to work in the digital marketplace? Products are 50% cheaper when downloaded compared to the retail version right?
Do you think prices would decrease if corporate taxes were abolished? No. Corporations would just pocket the money and invest it in more bonuses.
Meanwhile, income taxes would increase to make up for the reduced tax income.
Also, people pass on their taxes to their customers and employers too. So why not have identical taxes for corporations and individuals? Why not tax people on profit instead of income? Why should a person that spends all of his income on basic needs like food and shelter pay taxes, while a corporation that spends it's entire earning on production costs pay nothing?
You might argue that the corporation employs people - but then so does the individual. He keeps farmers and his landlord employed at the least.
Let's have some balance. They do their best to make sure you can't give up ownership of the game you just bought. So why not glue and staple the payment to their faces? Fair is fair after all.
I'm not advocating tariffs on ALL imports. Just on those from countries that use unfair trade practices. If China decides to sell rare earths to foreign companies for ten times the price that domestic companies pay, then why shouldn't their products be 'taxed'? I'm sure China's neighbors will be more then happy to ramp up production if China is no longer able to compete with them.
So the government prohibiting the export of something is a level playing field? Can the US also choose to impose a 1000% tariff on Chinese products and also call it a level playing field?
Those things aren't going to go away. Parking and traffic have to do with the number of cars, not just their driver's skill. And driving death will still happen until EVERY car is driven by an infallable AI. Which won't happen for at least a few generations after the AI is developed, since people are much to attached to driving cars.
The appropriate response would now be to do the following:
a) Fine the business for the cost of all cleanup (basically push them into bankruptcy, since the cleanup will take just about forever.
b) Prosecute the executives for negligence.
Do this a few times and any new powerplants will be much safer.
I'm sure jail is absolutely terrifying to them, when compared to the 100% chance of being blown into tiny bits if they are NOT discovered.
It's a question of 'will it hit MY country/city/house or not?'. People mostly don't care what happens to others. So you have to reduce the chances of an impact by the percentage of the surface of the Earth they care about.
Isn't a DDos also a form of speech? It might just be screaming nonsense at someone, making it impossible for anyone to hear what that person is saying, but it's still speech.
Did the government release the information that they poisoned the alcohol? If they did, then it WAS the fault of the bootleggers and the drinkers.
But it would be totally different in a western country. They would be liable for any damage they caused. You could report them to the local poli..... oh, well,... you could still report them to themselves! I'm sure they'd give a very stern talking to themselves, then make themselves promise to NEVER do it again. Then charge the taxpayers a few million for the service.
Well in some ways it might be good to return to that kind of an arrangement for a few days each year. Just long enough to lynch the outgoing politicians on the day after elections. Now that would be a pretty good motivator to stop pissing voters off.
Of course cameras are terrorism related - you're obviously planning on filming the execution of your hostages.
So why is choosing a person randomly because you hate the group worse then choosing a person randomly because he has money?
In both cases the person gets hurt/killed, and in both cases the criminal did not care about them personally.
So how do you determine which attack was motivated by hate? Let's say the guy in the bar had beaten up a black guy, and it was well known that he hated blacks. What if the black guy was just the most convenient target when he got drunk? What if he'd have attacked anyone that was near him when he got drunk enough?
That's what sentencing is for. If the judge feels that the crime was 'justified', then he can impose a lighter sentence, within the guidelines.
Don't create separate definitions of the basically identical crime, just because you don't trust judges. Prosecutors that want to be seen as 'hard on crime' will charge everyone with the most severe charge they can find - even if they know it's not the most appropriate one. So don't give them the chance to blow things out of proportion.
So would a company be liable if a person they fire commits suicide? What if the fireing was illegal? Does every crime that ends up 'causing' a person to commit suicide count as a hate crime?
It's pretty hard to prove something isn't harmful to people. Even if a person seems fine, the product might be increasing risk of cancer, heart disease or something similar. It might take decades to notice the effects, and most studies don't last that long.
What is to keep him/her from eating razors or drinking detergents? If the kid is stupid enough to do it, I say let him/her.