Encourage employees to use the 20% time to Innovate within the existing projects;
for example, by finding ways to make them better or lower their costs.
The value of people doing more than their jobs doesn't go away --- they just need to be more
focused, in exactly, what those 20% projects are.
It's also only fair that the benefit of their 20% projects get included in their productivity.
If an employee uses their intellectual resources to do something particularly innovative,
they should be given an opportunity to reduce their required working hours by 50%
with a net increase in pay and benefits, or an opportunity to move from "20% time" to
"40% time" working on their own projects.
That is: the value delivered via the employee's hard work should be shared with the employee fairly.
When the employee delivers more value than the average employee; they should be given back more opportunity.
On the other hand: if their 20% time doesn't win over management with a benefit within a year, perhaps they should
get 15% time instead, from then on, until they can do better.
It will add new ammunition to prosecute them --- suddenly they are guilty of the federal crime of evading the tax man.
With the FCC; if you fail to file and pay fees, they can assess massive forfeitures.
For example mom and pop ISPs or VoIP providers that buy PSTN connectivity from a wholesalers that fail to meet the new complicated FCC Reporting requirements, about their number of customers down to the level of ZIP code and Census tract, can be assessed fines of millions of dollars a day, and thrown in jail until they pay.
any lawyer who specializes in such, and there are many, would have it set up in a jiffy.
He prepaid 5 years of hosting in advance, and you think he was shelling out probably a minimum of $1000 plus a few hundred bucks an hour to have a lawyer setup a trust?:)
If you have long-term arrangements such as a trust -- it makes little sense to prepay 5 years, and take the risk you might not even get the hosting or get your money back (if the account is terminated before term); the money should be sitting in your bank account earning interest, until it needs to be paid out for the service, possibly with an annual check.
If he had a trust; his site would already be back up on a new provider.
Dead people don't have rights, so the poster who asked about Manley's lawyers is right on the money, hopefully he set up a legal trust to deal with these issues. If Manley had set this up with Japanese hoster they probably wouldn't have thought twice about hosting the site.
--
Yahoo has a policy that they close your account if they die.
I think setting up a legal trust would involve a level of research and planning
not suggested by his choice to simply use Yahoo hosting.
Furthermore --- suing Yahoo would be expensive and probably unsuccessful.
A much better option is to demand a refund and switch hosting providers to something like
NearlyFreeSpeech.net
If I were setting something like this up; I would have a foundation with prepaid custodians, and
a duty to hold ownership of the domain and move the site or DNS services to different providers
as necessary to keep the site up.
And if I was concerned about them failing in their duties --- i'd launch two or more sites, with different
custodians for redundancy.
The custodians would be required to demonstrate 99% uptime for the site,
and a MD5 digest match on the author's page content, using a 3rd party independent website monitoring provider
(MD5 match to prevent custodians from framing my content or changing my message or inserting advertising).
After each year, the custodian would receive ~$1000; plus after showing invoices and proof of payment with the costs -- reimbursement for domain registration cost of up to 4 domains for each site (not more than the average.COM domain renewal price), plus reimbursment for cost of website hosting with a national hosting provider not more than $100 a year adjusted for inflation, after producing reports from a minimum of two independent 3rd party monitoring website monitoring services to my foundation.
And then get sued for fraud, because that's what charging sales tax that is not in fact due is.
No, because they have a right to do this. They just have to list the line item as "Taxes and Fees"
Essentially, they are being told the vendor is collecting and assuring they will pay the tax due, but the customer isn't informed as to how much the tax turns out to be, because the retailer doesn't know at the time of the transaction, and instead the customer is being required to pay an administrative Fee to cover the retailer's maximum possible liability.
I'm going to rent $50,000 worth of Textbooks. When they come in; I'll pack them in my car and drive across 10 states... all the way to Seattle, Washington, to return them in person.
Of course they won't be able to charge my CC $50,000, and they won't have a chance of collecting payment for the books in full.
Who's with me?
OK... well maybe not... for those of you who aren't that courageous.... rent a few books, take them across state lines maybe, take photos of the whole thing... Go back home, return them, and don't tell Amazon a thing about it. Post on Twitter long afterwards.
In fact.... take 'em across state lines as frequently as possible.
Especially if you go to school in a different state than your mailing address?
Although I really see no difficulty: rent a PO box at school and tell Amazon to use the mailing address in whichever state you school at -- or use a mail forwarding service. Then you can receive the books anywhere, without having to transport them across state lines.
Just be sure to mail them back in the same place you got them.
There's no need to tell Amazon about it at all.. is there.
Just don't reveal the fact that you are at school out of state, and don't do something dumb like mailing them back in from an out of state address ----- although I suspect once you've boxed them up it's OKAY.
Otherwise... how could you possibly return them?
The address you are returning them to by mail is probably across state lines; so you will be violating the agreement from the second you put them in the mailbox at home?
You don't need physical presence in a state to be considered as having a nexus in that state and subject to collecting taxes.
What you can maybe do is have a company that doesn't exist in any state; E.g. Canadian headquartered company that owns a subsidiary in various states, and another foreign subsidiary.
There is one subsidiary that owns the website, that makes all the buys/sells with peoples.
The company that owns the website doesn't own any real-estate, doesn't have any facilities, doesn't own the products that are sold; they just collect the payment, and hold the liability for delivery of the product.
Then they have contracts with various subsidiaries to fulfill those transactions with product.
E.g. You buy the product from one company; that company doesn't have an office or headquarters in ANY state. Instead of importing the product from Canada to the US, they call up their sister company that has the physical product: in exchange for the use of certain intellectual property, they have an agreement in place that allows them to buy a contract for delivery of the product to the final consumer, at a price that essentially nothing above the cost of shipping.
It's not as easy as collect the tax when there are quite a few permutations that don't tell you when they change.
Find the highest sales tax rate any state or region charges, and bill the buyer that amount for tax recovery.
Transfer the money to a subsidiary whose job is to figure out which tax rate applies, pay to the relevant authorities, and keep the difference between the highest tax anywhere and the tax they had to pay as their profit.
good reason or not i have a feeling that the rest of the world has just about had it with us.
The whole world has a lot to learn; including the US, and including the rest of the world that is not the US.
Anyways; it doesn't matter other country's opinions about how the US handles its internal affairs.
The US is sovereign. If they want to abolish free speech; and prefer copyright.... It would be very disappointing and contrary to their founding ideals ---- however, it would be their rights to do so as a sovereign nation.
And the "rest of the world" could be fed up with it all they want; short of war, it's outside their rights or ability to interfere with internal governance of another country.
People who live in 3rd world countries don't have a choice. These people do. They say they expect to die. Under what circumstances would they even consider having children?
Expect to die doesn't mean will die. And certainly doesn't mean their children would die.
Soldiers go to war expecting to die. That doesn't mean we sterilize the women, so they don't get pregnant, and have a child at risk.
This is a false equivalency. The US government is allowed to regulate it's own money - that is - the sovereign currency that it issues. Bitcoins aren't defined or issued by the US government, so it has as much right to regulate Bitcoins as it has to regulate the Euro.
It used to be unconstitutional for congress to restrict the purchase or sale of a product once you legally owned it.
It required a constitutional ammendment to prohibit the production, possession, and trade of Alcohol.
Fast forward decades later..... new precedent was set by the drug laws.
These days; They can regulate the Euro or the trade of the Euro on US soil.;
And they can ban Bitcoin;
probably without congress having to pass any law to do so --- since the laws are designed such that almost anything innovative will probably be at odds with the laws on the books somehow.
The first batch reveals that the Feds had indeed been looking into Swartz since the publication of his 2008 'Guerilla Open Access Manifesto,'
While I appreciate his point of view. He wrote a manifesto specifically desiring to persuade people to break the law, and implying that he had.
It's impressive and scary that the feds discovered and interpreted this manifesto --- I would of thought it beyond their level of intelligence to be capable of understanding it.
But it's not surprising or wrong, that he was to be investigated for publishing something so explicitly begging people to break the law and essentially confessing to copyright breaking.
Expressing such a message is sure to get you extra scrutiny -- that's the way the world works.
Everything you do after publishing such a document, and anyone anybody can find you've done in the past -- better be on the up-and-up, or you risk arrest.
And you better be prepared to be found guilty, too; maybe, even if the charges were bogus and contrived by our dark overlords to suppress the throes of rebellion.
In a mixed ruling for Fourth Amendment rights, a federal judge today ruled that NYC's Stop-and-Frisk program violated constitutional rights due to disproportionately targeting minorities.
This is a real stretch.
So they are making a statistical argument (using a fast and loose statistical technique of highly dubious value);
that if someone measures more people who are minorities to be affected by something, then it must mean that the thing is discriminatory.
Whereas, in reality: obviously the so called disparate impact would more likely be a coincidence with no discrimination involved.
The ruling against it on this basis sucks; because that means they can still have a stop and frisk policy.
They just have to make it intentionally discriminatory by specifically targetting non-minorities; to overcome the false perception of disparate effects.
If the child is part of this group then it will die of starvation or whatever, just as they will, except of course, they chose to die, and the child didn't. It's an ethical minefield.
No... if having a child on mars is an ethical minefield, then having a child on earth is also an ethical minefield.
How come people living in 3rd world countries on earth aren't required to sterilzie themselves?
Survival of the human race depends on reproduction.
Forced sterilization is a cop-out.
Oh, and instead of $38 each, they should be paying $38000000 dollars apiece.
No... they should spend $38 each to get there.... but before they leave, they should sell all the rest of their assets, and use the proceeds to create an enormous foundation whose purpose for existing is to get them back to earth: in case they later realize the mistake they have made.
Early visitors mostly died or went home. You seem to be under the impression that these volunteers will be starting families and chowing down on turkey dinners with the natives. A manned trip to mars is very ambitious, and with no way back these volunteers will probably die. Even if they had a return ship
Or not... assuming the plans are suitably laid out ahead of time, and they receive appropriate training.
To be successful they do not a reasonable plan that results in a sustainable settlement, where the inhabitants can be expected to live out the rest of their natural lives without starving, getting suffocated, irradiated, or freezing to death, etc.
Now alluvasudden Samsung is in trouble for infringing on this same patent.
I suppose that would be different then. Infringements after the patent was invalidated by the USPTO are not actionable.
But Samsung can still be sued for infringements of the patent that took place before the USPTO invalidated it.
When the patent was in full force, infringing the patent creates liability. Later invalidation of the patent by the USPTO does not negate or invalidate that liability for past infringements.
On the other hand... if the court finds the patent to have been invalid, then the liability can be erased or deemed nothing by the court.
Or you can just buy Apple products, which don't have the TPM in them, last I knew.
Like other hardware that just has the header and no TPM chip; they can probably be modded for TPM easily.
If not... they may be obsolete in the future, when you eventually want to use a software program that requires a TPM-enabled system.
If you don't have SW requiring a TPM enabled system, then you can always turn off the capability in the CMOS, and ignore the fact your board has that feature -- the OS won't be able to use it.
Whether the whole traffic stream is encrypted is entirely up to the email provider and not under your control.
That's just not true. I can configure my mail server to refuse to accept MAIL FROM, RCPT TO, or DATA from any domain's mail server that has not negotiated TLS with me.
I can configure my mail server to refuse to send mail to any server that will not accept my server's TLS negotiation.
The result will be, all messages are encrypted; headers, body, and all, in transit from my server to the domain's MX and from any domain's MX to my server.
You make a good point, no one should ever use any non-open source browser plugins for anything. Down with shockwave! Down with flash! Down with iTunes! Down with Google Docs!
I don't know about the last 2, but if you avoid the first two, then you have provided yourself some significant protection from malware which often exploits vulnerabilities in Flash, Shockwave, Adobe Abrocat reader plugin, Java plugin,.
HTML5 with Javascript and WebGL is not the dark ages
If Apple were willing to license those patents they could do the usual exchange with Samsung and avoid paying anything at all for the FRAND patents it needs.
Perhaps Apple should sell off its patents and the right to continue the litigation to a patent-troll company, and get out of this nasty litigation business...
Slashdot Mirror
it's basically stuff that to the end-user looks exactly like cable
You didn't notice that with the right set top box Hulu on the screen looks just like Cable?
They are pretty indistinguishable, and you can be sure they had to license or reuse a broadcast right to that content to stream it....
Encourage employees to use the 20% time to Innovate within the existing projects; for example, by finding ways to make them better or lower their costs.
The value of people doing more than their jobs doesn't go away --- they just need to be more focused, in exactly, what those 20% projects are.
It's also only fair that the benefit of their 20% projects get included in their productivity. If an employee uses their intellectual resources to do something particularly innovative, they should be given an opportunity to reduce their required working hours by 50% with a net increase in pay and benefits, or an opportunity to move from "20% time" to "40% time" working on their own projects.
That is: the value delivered via the employee's hard work should be shared with the employee fairly. When the employee delivers more value than the average employee; they should be given back more opportunity.
On the other hand: if their 20% time doesn't win over management with a benefit within a year, perhaps they should get 15% time instead, from then on, until they can do better.
What it won't include: Pirate Sites
It will add new ammunition to prosecute them --- suddenly they are guilty of the federal crime of evading the tax man. With the FCC; if you fail to file and pay fees, they can assess massive forfeitures.
For example mom and pop ISPs or VoIP providers that buy PSTN connectivity from a wholesalers that fail to meet the new complicated FCC Reporting requirements, about their number of customers down to the level of ZIP code and Census tract, can be assessed fines of millions of dollars a day, and thrown in jail until they pay.
any lawyer who specializes in such, and there are many, would have it set up in a jiffy.
He prepaid 5 years of hosting in advance, and you think he was shelling out probably a minimum of $1000 plus a few hundred bucks an hour to have a lawyer setup a trust? :)
If you have long-term arrangements such as a trust -- it makes little sense to prepay 5 years, and take the risk you might not even get the hosting or get your money back (if the account is terminated before term); the money should be sitting in your bank account earning interest, until it needs to be paid out for the service, possibly with an annual check.
If he had a trust; his site would already be back up on a new provider.
Internet streaming sites. Expanding the definition of cable service: the whole purpose is to get additional fees from media streaming.
MAYBE All Internet Service Providers.
Maybe other video streaming sites; and web site operators that embed streaming video from these providers ("rebroadcasters")
Dead people don't have rights, so the poster who asked about Manley's lawyers is right on the money, hopefully he set up a legal trust to deal with these issues. If Manley had set this up with Japanese hoster they probably wouldn't have thought twice about hosting the site. --
Yahoo has a policy that they close your account if they die.
I think setting up a legal trust would involve a level of research and planning not suggested by his choice to simply use Yahoo hosting. Furthermore --- suing Yahoo would be expensive and probably unsuccessful. A much better option is to demand a refund and switch hosting providers to something like NearlyFreeSpeech.net
If I were setting something like this up; I would have a foundation with prepaid custodians, and a duty to hold ownership of the domain and move the site or DNS services to different providers as necessary to keep the site up.
And if I was concerned about them failing in their duties --- i'd launch two or more sites, with different custodians for redundancy.
The custodians would be required to demonstrate 99% uptime for the site, and a MD5 digest match on the author's page content, using a 3rd party independent website monitoring provider (MD5 match to prevent custodians from framing my content or changing my message or inserting advertising).
After each year, the custodian would receive ~$1000; plus after showing invoices and proof of payment with the costs -- reimbursement for domain registration cost of up to 4 domains for each site (not more than the average .COM domain renewal price), plus reimbursment for cost of website hosting with a national hosting provider not more than $100 a year adjusted for inflation, after producing reports from a minimum of two independent 3rd party monitoring website monitoring services to my foundation.
And then get sued for fraud, because that's what charging sales tax that is not in fact due is.
No, because they have a right to do this. They just have to list the line item as "Taxes and Fees"
Essentially, they are being told the vendor is collecting and assuring they will pay the tax due, but the customer isn't informed as to how much the tax turns out to be, because the retailer doesn't know at the time of the transaction, and instead the customer is being required to pay an administrative Fee to cover the retailer's maximum possible liability.
I'm going to rent $50,000 worth of Textbooks. When they come in; I'll pack them in my car and drive across 10 states... all the way to Seattle, Washington, to return them in person.
Of course they won't be able to charge my CC $50,000, and they won't have a chance of collecting payment for the books in full.
Who's with me?
OK... well maybe not... for those of you who aren't that courageous.... rent a few books, take them across state lines maybe, take photos of the whole thing... Go back home, return them, and don't tell Amazon a thing about it. Post on Twitter long afterwards.
In fact.... take 'em across state lines as frequently as possible. Especially if you go to school in a different state than your mailing address?
Although I really see no difficulty: rent a PO box at school and tell Amazon to use the mailing address in whichever state you school at -- or use a mail forwarding service. Then you can receive the books anywhere, without having to transport them across state lines. Just be sure to mail them back in the same place you got them.
There's no need to tell Amazon about it at all.. is there. Just don't reveal the fact that you are at school out of state, and don't do something dumb like mailing them back in from an out of state address ----- although I suspect once you've boxed them up it's OKAY.
Otherwise... how could you possibly return them? The address you are returning them to by mail is probably across state lines; so you will be violating the agreement from the second you put them in the mailbox at home?
You don't need physical presence in a state to be considered as having a nexus in that state and subject to collecting taxes.
What you can maybe do is have a company that doesn't exist in any state; E.g. Canadian headquartered company that owns a subsidiary in various states, and another foreign subsidiary.
There is one subsidiary that owns the website, that makes all the buys/sells with peoples. The company that owns the website doesn't own any real-estate, doesn't have any facilities, doesn't own the products that are sold; they just collect the payment, and hold the liability for delivery of the product.
Then they have contracts with various subsidiaries to fulfill those transactions with product.
E.g. You buy the product from one company; that company doesn't have an office or headquarters in ANY state. Instead of importing the product from Canada to the US, they call up their sister company that has the physical product: in exchange for the use of certain intellectual property, they have an agreement in place that allows them to buy a contract for delivery of the product to the final consumer, at a price that essentially nothing above the cost of shipping.
It's not as easy as collect the tax when there are quite a few permutations that don't tell you when they change.
Find the highest sales tax rate any state or region charges, and bill the buyer that amount for tax recovery.
Transfer the money to a subsidiary whose job is to figure out which tax rate applies, pay to the relevant authorities, and keep the difference between the highest tax anywhere and the tax they had to pay as their profit.
good reason or not i have a feeling that the rest of the world has just about had it with us.
The whole world has a lot to learn; including the US, and including the rest of the world that is not the US.
Anyways; it doesn't matter other country's opinions about how the US handles its internal affairs.
The US is sovereign. If they want to abolish free speech; and prefer copyright.... It would be very disappointing and contrary to their founding ideals ---- however, it would be their rights to do so as a sovereign nation.
And the "rest of the world" could be fed up with it all they want; short of war, it's outside their rights or ability to interfere with internal governance of another country.
People who live in 3rd world countries don't have a choice. These people do. They say they expect to die. Under what circumstances would they even consider having children?
Expect to die doesn't mean will die. And certainly doesn't mean their children would die.
Soldiers go to war expecting to die. That doesn't mean we sterilize the women, so they don't get pregnant, and have a child at risk.
This is a false equivalency. The US government is allowed to regulate it's own money - that is - the sovereign currency that it issues. Bitcoins aren't defined or issued by the US government, so it has as much right to regulate Bitcoins as it has to regulate the Euro.
It used to be unconstitutional for congress to restrict the purchase or sale of a product once you legally owned it.
It required a constitutional ammendment to prohibit the production, possession, and trade of Alcohol.
Fast forward decades later..... new precedent was set by the drug laws. These days; They can regulate the Euro or the trade of the Euro on US soil.;
And they can ban Bitcoin; probably without congress having to pass any law to do so --- since the laws are designed such that almost anything innovative will probably be at odds with the laws on the books somehow.
As you're apparently unaware of the difference between "of" and "have," I wouldn't go making fun of the intellect of others...
Are you claiming an ability to draft a 133 word comment on the first go, that nobody will ever claim there is an 'error' in?
Come try writing your comment in my native Basque or Ainu (Japanese).
If you claim your writing is deemed error-free by everyone; then you are not taking on enough challenges, which is intellectually tragic.
The first batch reveals that the Feds had indeed been looking into Swartz since the publication of his 2008 'Guerilla Open Access Manifesto,'
While I appreciate his point of view. He wrote a manifesto specifically desiring to persuade people to break the law, and implying that he had.
It's impressive and scary that the feds discovered and interpreted this manifesto --- I would of thought it beyond their level of intelligence to be capable of understanding it.
But it's not surprising or wrong, that he was to be investigated for publishing something so explicitly begging people to break the law and essentially confessing to copyright breaking.
Expressing such a message is sure to get you extra scrutiny -- that's the way the world works.
Everything you do after publishing such a document, and anyone anybody can find you've done in the past -- better be on the up-and-up, or you risk arrest.
And you better be prepared to be found guilty, too; maybe, even if the charges were bogus and contrived by our dark overlords to suppress the throes of rebellion.
In a mixed ruling for Fourth Amendment rights, a federal judge today ruled that NYC's Stop-and-Frisk program violated constitutional rights due to disproportionately targeting minorities.
This is a real stretch.
So they are making a statistical argument (using a fast and loose statistical technique of highly dubious value); that if someone measures more people who are minorities to be affected by something, then it must mean that the thing is discriminatory.
Whereas, in reality: obviously the so called disparate impact would more likely be a coincidence with no discrimination involved.
The ruling against it on this basis sucks; because that means they can still have a stop and frisk policy.
They just have to make it intentionally discriminatory by specifically targetting non-minorities; to overcome the false perception of disparate effects.
I think I might have preferred a low-flying blimp, and a giant net.....
If the child is part of this group then it will die of starvation or whatever, just as they will, except of course, they chose to die, and the child didn't. It's an ethical minefield.
No... if having a child on mars is an ethical minefield, then having a child on earth is also an ethical minefield. How come people living in 3rd world countries on earth aren't required to sterilzie themselves?
Survival of the human race depends on reproduction. Forced sterilization is a cop-out.
Oh, and instead of $38 each, they should be paying $38000000 dollars apiece.
No... they should spend $38 each to get there.... but before they leave, they should sell all the rest of their assets, and use the proceeds to create an enormous foundation whose purpose for existing is to get them back to earth: in case they later realize the mistake they have made.
Early visitors mostly died or went home. You seem to be under the impression that these volunteers will be starting families and chowing down on turkey dinners with the natives. A manned trip to mars is very ambitious, and with no way back these volunteers will probably die. Even if they had a return ship
Or not... assuming the plans are suitably laid out ahead of time, and they receive appropriate training.
To be successful they do not a reasonable plan that results in a sustainable settlement, where the inhabitants can be expected to live out the rest of their natural lives without starving, getting suffocated, irradiated, or freezing to death, etc.
Now alluvasudden Samsung is in trouble for infringing on this same patent.
I suppose that would be different then. Infringements after the patent was invalidated by the USPTO are not actionable.
But Samsung can still be sued for infringements of the patent that took place before the USPTO invalidated it.
When the patent was in full force, infringing the patent creates liability. Later invalidation of the patent by the USPTO does not negate or invalidate that liability for past infringements.
On the other hand... if the court finds the patent to have been invalid, then the liability can be erased or deemed nothing by the court.
Or you can just buy Apple products, which don't have the TPM in them, last I knew.
Like other hardware that just has the header and no TPM chip; they can probably be modded for TPM easily.
If not... they may be obsolete in the future, when you eventually want to use a software program that requires a TPM-enabled system.
If you don't have SW requiring a TPM enabled system, then you can always turn off the capability in the CMOS, and ignore the fact your board has that feature -- the OS won't be able to use it.
Whether the whole traffic stream is encrypted is entirely up to the email provider and not under your control.
That's just not true. I can configure my mail server to refuse to accept MAIL FROM, RCPT TO, or DATA from any domain's mail server that has not negotiated TLS with me.
I can configure my mail server to refuse to send mail to any server that will not accept my server's TLS negotiation.
The result will be, all messages are encrypted; headers, body, and all, in transit from my server to the domain's MX and from any domain's MX to my server.
You make a good point, no one should ever use any non-open source browser plugins for anything. Down with shockwave! Down with flash! Down with iTunes! Down with Google Docs!
I don't know about the last 2, but if you avoid the first two, then you have provided yourself some significant protection from malware which often exploits vulnerabilities in Flash, Shockwave, Adobe Abrocat reader plugin, Java plugin,.
HTML5 with Javascript and WebGL is not the dark ages
If Apple were willing to license those patents they could do the usual exchange with Samsung and avoid paying anything at all for the FRAND patents it needs.
Perhaps Apple should sell off its patents and the right to continue the litigation to a patent-troll company, and get out of this nasty litigation business...