I fucking love your username. Ok, as to the actual argument, think of your likeness as software: You put it out there, either for free as a service, or people pay you to use your likeness. Either way, if a company came along and started using your software to make money without your permission, wouldn't you be angry? If their likeness is so mundane, why did they have to copy the face, jersey, stats of a player, why not just make them up entirely? And why should companies get to use a person's likeness for free to make money? I'm not famous, and that would creep me the fuck out.
Because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the wealthy would be taxed proportionally lower than everybody else, and that is a problem. It is a problem now, this proposed solution would make the problem even worse. It turns into a "let them have cake" level of ignorance, not seeing how raising sales taxes to account for the loss of income from the income tax would impact the price of necessities, and why that is such a nasty problem.
You do fail to see the problem. You are putting more weight on those who can least afford it, which, ethics aside, strangles an economy so dependent upon consumption. You are also removing taxes from the wealthy who invest, which ethics aside, is removing a source of income for the state. Problematic, to say the least.
If you go hyperlocal enough, how big is your market, and does that justify the cost of printing papers and distributing them?
The bigger question for me is, what is the future of investigative journalism? Will we have a media that is available globally, that asks the questions people in power (corporate, state, religious) don't want asked? And how to we pay for that - is there enough of a market there?
You are entirely missing the economic side of a healthy diet. Your financial situation directly impacts access to healthy food, and the resources to obtain it on a regular basis.
I don't think you have any basis for making such a claim. The real problem is the selling of data. Would paying customers expect more privacy, and how would that impact their business model? Knowing Facebook, it wouldn't. They would insist on continuing as is, with the addendum that paying users are now a lucrative segment of their market to feed advertisers. Who wouldn't want data on people who have that kind of disposable income that they choose to spend it on Facebook?
Since my comment got modded down and you got modded up for basic bullshit, I guess things like investment in cures (not profitable treatment) for disease, or investment in education designed to produce citizens vs consumers/worker bees, just isn't worthwhile. Let's trust companies and rich people to invest. Yay trickle down!
Judging by the moderation and scorn, looks like some slashdot readers have a real bug up their ass about taxes, and an absurd love for and trust of private enterprise. That's been working out just dandy so far, hasn't it?
False. All that is necessary is to show it is a positive return for society, vs for profit. An individual or a corporation might invest for profit, or to further a pet cause. The promise of government invention, when it is done right (such an essential caveat), is that "we the people" can invest in areas profit has no concern with. That's a very good thing.
It's as if drones pose such a threat to traditional means of aerial warfare that the flying service's historically kneejerk resistance to anything too closely aligned with sweeping technological change finds it bristling today at prospective gamechangers of the unmanned sort.
Let me stop you right there chief. You are sorely mistaken. About most everything you said. Much of the blueprint for Obamacare came from Romney's work in MA. Romney is a Republican, and it was very much a compromise effort.That being said, real liberals (not Obama) want health care to be a fundamental right, and single payer is the most popular method for achieving the practical side of this. Republicans want health care to be a choice, a market commodity. Obamacare was an attempt to get more people covered, and slightly widen patient rights (eg coverage for people with pre-existing conditions). Additionally, the biggest mistake you can make is to consider Dems liberals. They are centrists, with a few liberals and a good chunk of conservatives (google blue dog democrats) rounding out party composition.
It was never a war. It was a balance between two options, each with advantages and drawbacks. Three, if you count the Enlightenment libraries, and I would very much like to. Choice is healthy.
Your source supports your statement about union membership. I should have clarified, I was curious about the sweeping generalization about what unions do:
all they do is take money out of workers' pockets to line the bosses' nests and send money to Democrat politicians.
Especially when a single counter example of unions leading protests (Wisconsin) is sufficient to disprove the "all they do" aspect of the claim, nevermind the suspicious "line the bosses' nests" claim.
It simplifies life for corporations who want free code. It is worth taking the time to decide who you want to use your code, and why. That's not involving lawyers. Its deciding whether or not to use protection.
So we need controls on private entities then. This case might be justified, but having rules to keep a company like Microsoft from acting inappropriately would be a nice thing to have. Also, given the US government's willingness to forgo warrants entirely when interacting with private entities, information they'd need a warrant to get from you, they might be able to get from the company's whose products you use.
Slashdot Mirror
In combination with the Tor javascript vulnerability, that's a pretty worrying development.
I don't envy fools, but I do wish we'd move beyond victim blaming and focus on predator jailing. Companies get away with far too much shit.
I fucking love your username. Ok, as to the actual argument, think of your likeness as software: You put it out there, either for free as a service, or people pay you to use your likeness. Either way, if a company came along and started using your software to make money without your permission, wouldn't you be angry? If their likeness is so mundane, why did they have to copy the face, jersey, stats of a player, why not just make them up entirely? And why should companies get to use a person's likeness for free to make money? I'm not famous, and that would creep me the fuck out.
Because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the wealthy would be taxed proportionally lower than everybody else, and that is a problem. It is a problem now, this proposed solution would make the problem even worse. It turns into a "let them have cake" level of ignorance, not seeing how raising sales taxes to account for the loss of income from the income tax would impact the price of necessities, and why that is such a nasty problem.
You do fail to see the problem. You are putting more weight on those who can least afford it, which, ethics aside, strangles an economy so dependent upon consumption. You are also removing taxes from the wealthy who invest, which ethics aside, is removing a source of income for the state. Problematic, to say the least.
This kind of taxation hits people who spend vs people who hoard or invest. Aka, it would hit the poor/middle class harder. Bad idea.
Shorter Anonymous Coward: "Hahaha, women think with feelings, but men think with hard facts." You are quite the budding comic.
For a split second I thought the Academy President was quite old indeed.
If you go hyperlocal enough, how big is your market, and does that justify the cost of printing papers and distributing them?
The bigger question for me is, what is the future of investigative journalism? Will we have a media that is available globally, that asks the questions people in power (corporate, state, religious) don't want asked? And how to we pay for that - is there enough of a market there?
You are entirely missing the economic side of a healthy diet. Your financial situation directly impacts access to healthy food, and the resources to obtain it on a regular basis.
I don't think you have any basis for making such a claim. The real problem is the selling of data. Would paying customers expect more privacy, and how would that impact their business model? Knowing Facebook, it wouldn't. They would insist on continuing as is, with the addendum that paying users are now a lucrative segment of their market to feed advertisers. Who wouldn't want data on people who have that kind of disposable income that they choose to spend it on Facebook?
I wonder who would be hurt or what would be damaged by a falling drone...
Smart move. They are sure to go up in value over time. Like Furbies.
Exactly. "awesome and bizarre" sounds about as detached from the reality of having to actually experience it as possible.
Since my comment got modded down and you got modded up for basic bullshit, I guess things like investment in cures (not profitable treatment) for disease, or investment in education designed to produce citizens vs consumers/worker bees, just isn't worthwhile. Let's trust companies and rich people to invest. Yay trickle down!
Judging by the moderation and scorn, looks like some slashdot readers have a real bug up their ass about taxes, and an absurd love for and trust of private enterprise. That's been working out just dandy so far, hasn't it?
False. All that is necessary is to show it is a positive return for society, vs for profit. An individual or a corporation might invest for profit, or to further a pet cause. The promise of government invention, when it is done right (such an essential caveat), is that "we the people" can invest in areas profit has no concern with. That's a very good thing.
That sentence is an absolute mess.
Let me stop you right there chief. You are sorely mistaken. About most everything you said. Much of the blueprint for Obamacare came from Romney's work in MA. Romney is a Republican, and it was very much a compromise effort.That being said, real liberals (not Obama) want health care to be a fundamental right, and single payer is the most popular method for achieving the practical side of this. Republicans want health care to be a choice, a market commodity. Obamacare was an attempt to get more people covered, and slightly widen patient rights (eg coverage for people with pre-existing conditions). Additionally, the biggest mistake you can make is to consider Dems liberals. They are centrists, with a few liberals and a good chunk of conservatives (google blue dog democrats) rounding out party composition.
It was never a war. It was a balance between two options, each with advantages and drawbacks. Three, if you count the Enlightenment libraries, and I would very much like to. Choice is healthy.
Especially when a single counter example of unions leading protests (Wisconsin) is sufficient to disprove the "all they do" aspect of the claim, nevermind the suspicious "line the bosses' nests" claim.
Source?
I should clarify - avoiding licenses simplifies life for corporations.
It simplifies life for corporations who want free code. It is worth taking the time to decide who you want to use your code, and why. That's not involving lawyers. Its deciding whether or not to use protection.
So we need controls on private entities then. This case might be justified, but having rules to keep a company like Microsoft from acting inappropriately would be a nice thing to have. Also, given the US government's willingness to forgo warrants entirely when interacting with private entities, information they'd need a warrant to get from you, they might be able to get from the company's whose products you use.