I see you are tired of having multiple levels of government and wish to abolish the state anf local levels. I am sure that will go over real well, especially when the federal government does not have the authority to do that.
Because not all income is reported to the IRS in that manner. Cash tips, small gambling proceeds, money earned by self-employment, etc. are all income that needs to be reported but for which there is no reporting done.
If you start a side business teaching people how to use computers and it is a cash business, you are required to report the income and pay the income tax. The self-employed have to pay taxes and report income too, even if they only do it part time.
If you work as a drug dealer or prostitute or any other criminal activity, you are required to report the income and pay the tax. Al Capone was arrested for tax evasion, not murder, conspiracy, etc.
If you work as wait staff or pizza delivery or , you are supposed to report your cash tips.
Took a trip to Vegas and won $500 at the slots? You don't have to pay the taxes then, and the casino does not report it to the IRS. That is your job. The casinos only have to report wins over a certain amount.
The only way the IRS could calculate one's tax bill would be if the IRS knew everything you did and everything you earned, or if the tax law was simplified a great deal. The problem comes in during itemized deductions and deductible expenses. There are many things that can be deducted, such as business expenses, job hunting expenses, moving expenses, etc. Drive your car for work? You can deduct some or all of gas, maintenance and depreciation. Home office used solely for work? You can deduct part of your mortgage or rent. New suit for job hunting? Deductible. Continuing education? Deductible.
So, not all income is reported and not all deductions and credit are reported, so one is required to report everything to IRS when one files one's income tax form.
Actually, the RIAA generally doesn't file suit unless one refuses to stop infringing and/or refuses their settlement offer.
The RIAA says "You knowingly infringed on our copyright. Stop it and pay us a few thousand dollars for violating our rights or we will sue you" After all the hoopla over it, no one can say they didn't know they were violating copyright when they are "sharing" a song on the internet without the copyright holder's permission. The money the RIAA asks for is quite a bit less than the minimum they will get at trial, and I think I read somewhere that they will even set up a payment plan if you don't have the cash on hand.
Most people who fight the suits end up losing because they make claims that can not be supported, such as "I didn't know I was doing something wrong" or "I have a fair use right to put this song on the internet for the purposes of giving other people copies." And, when the people lose in court, the RIAA is awarded massive damages as is allowed under the copy right law and everyone has a hissy fit and completely forgets that the RIAA originally only asked for about US$3,000.00.
They may not have intended to infringe. However they DID distribute, therefore they DID infringe.
For which, the FSF would get a maximum pay out of $200.00. That wouldn't even pay for the lawyer to write the letter.
I'm pretty sure Apple would much rather pay a small fine for copyright infringement than open up their phone.
Which is why Apple would be best off simply pulling the offending app, and possibly all GPLed apps. Then, Apple can pay the $200.00 and never have to worry about it again, ever.
Of course, the fact that we are finding these weird systems may simply be because they are the easiest to detect and all the stars with planetary systems like ours are thought to not have planets because we can't detect the planets using current methods and data.
Remember, Jupiter orbits the sun once every 12 years. So, if we were trying to detect our own solar system at 10 light years, how long would it take to detect Jupiter's effect on Sol's position?
The RIAA sues people for willful and continuing infringement after having a settlement offer rejected.
If Apple pulls the app, then there is no continuing infringement. The section of the GPL Apple would be violating concerns distribution and Apple has an affirmative defense in claiming they did not intend nor did they know they were infringing as the infringing app was provided by a third party.
All that is kind of irrelevant. The simplest course of action and the path of least resistance for Apple is to exercise it's option to remove the app. If Apple removes the app, then it also removes any problems Apple may have.
The FLOSSies are saying "We don't want you to remove the app, we want you to comply with this section of the GPL." But, for Apple, the quickest, simplest, and most prudent thing to do is to remove the app, regardless of whether that is what the FLOSSies actually want.
If I were Apple, I would just pull the app and call it done. Why bother mucking around with the GPL and the like? Why run the risk of having to deal with demands for access, etc?
Just get rid of the app and make the problem go away.
Is your god a just, good, and loving god or an evil, selfish, vindictive god?
A good example of this would be to teach the reality that many of the men who founded our nation (the U.S.) were devout and active Christians,
That is a lie. Most of the men who found the United States of America were, in fact, deists, not christians.
From there, you can easily teach that while we may have been founded as a Christian nation, we are not exclusively Christian now, nor even then
That is also a lie: Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
Heed your own advise and "Get the facts right first, please."
When the second amendment was written, there was a weak federal government and the word STATE referred to the individual states making up the United States of America. The militias referred to were for the defense of the individual states.
You say:
it has to do with the security of the STATE, not individuals. You criticize the ACLU for not interpreting the second amendment the way you'd like
however, nothing you have said changes the following:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You will note that the amendment does not say "the right of the state" or "the right of the government", but rather "the right of the people". It is a right of the people to keep and bear arms, as stated.
Yeah, I know, but the people complaining about the iDevices and Apple today are the same ones that complained about being unable to mod game consoles in the past.
What they don't get is that general, joe-average user doesn't care about what they care about.
And, it sounds like a monarchical thing to do. And, it sounds like a communist thing to do. And, it sounds like a theocratic thing to do. And, it sounds like something a junta would do.
Actually, it is something that any authoritarian government would do.
We keep making the web browser do things it never was and should never have been intended to do. Instead of writing an actual interactive, client-server application, we kludge together something for a browser which then becomes vulnerable to bugs in the browser, the various technologies used to make the page interactive, the back-end services, etc.
We have a hammer, the current WWW stack, and we see all problems as nails, even when said problems are screws and would be better handled with a screwdriver.
Please explain how it is cheaper to pay someone else who will have to pay for their R&D and make a profit.
The next flagship NASA space telescope is being launched on an Ariane 5 because we don't have a lift vehicle to launch it with because the shuttle is being retired and Obama canceled the Aries program.
So, we are going to use LEO with no ships of our own capable of getting to LEO, instead paying someone else to get us there. This is going to save money how?
Inclusion of their software is a decision that should be left to the consumer who owns the device.
As the consumer agreed to allow Apple to control access to application, that statement is false.
And for how long do you think this is going to be true? Just because Apple hasn't yet made a media player plugin doesn't mean they can't make one. And if they did it would be just like IE and Microsoft.
Irrelevant until it happens. If it never happens your statement is invalid. And, if they did, it still wouldn't be like Microsoft and IE because Microsoft did not prevent others from making or using other browsers.
Um. You contradict yourself there, but whatever.
It is not a contradiction. The developers will still purchase the tools to develop Flash applications because of the laptop and desktop devices, which greatly outnumber the iDevices, still use it. The developers will only lose out on possible revenue that would be generated by users of the iDevices.
I'm not saying that the absence of Flash on the iPad will destroy Adobe, rather, I'm arguing that this is a bad precedent to be set in the business world.
Except that Apple's business model has always been about tying their software to their hardware and controlling access, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the rest of the industry with Windows running on commodity hardware. Anyone can start a company providing Windows (or Linux) computers, but just try to create a company that competes directly with Apple hardware and uses OS X. The precedent you are so worried about being set was set back when the iPhone app store opened. You will notice that the control exerted by Apple is being used as an argument against Apple and that devices that use the general industry model (Android phones, etc) are not following in Apple's footsteps.
Outsourcing to whom, exactly? Who are we going to pay to get up to low earth orbit? Who are we going have to rely on to get us up there? And, how will paying someone else going to cost less?
Private companies here in the U.S., none of which currently have a lift vehicle capable of getting us there? Or foreign nations, meaning Russia and Europe, one of which is a fair-weather friend and the other is having similar financial issues?
BTW, how does one get to Mars without accessing LEO? Are we going to lift a vehicle capable of being lived in by the crew for two years, including all supplies and the crew, directly from the surface of the Earth to Mars trajectory? Or, would it make more sense to build a modular ship on Earth, lift the pieces into LEO and assemble it there, then lift the supplies and crew?
why should Apple be able to block Adobe's media platform out of their hardware?
Why shouldn't Apple be able to block Adobe's media platform out of Apple's hardware and operating system? Especially when said software causes huge problems and eats resources on Apple's hardware and operating system that do support Adobe's "media platform"?
Isn't this just like Microsoft bundling IE with Windows, leaving other browsers at a huge disadvantage?
Actually, no it isn't. Apple does not have an application that competes with Adobe's. There is no "huge disadvantage" because there is no competition at all. It is Adobe's software or nothing at all. MS was using its position as the OS maker to push its browser, but Apple isn't pushing its own competitor to Flash.
Isn't this worse because Adobe isn't even getting a chance to gain iPad customers?
No. There are no "customers" involved because the plug-in that would allow flash to be available on the iPad browser is free. Adobe makes its money from developers, not those that use the plug-in. As the various iDevices that do not support Adobe's plug-in are a small part of the market, there is little lost to the developers. If anyone "isn't even getting a chance to gain iPad customers", it is the developers, not Adobe.
Finally, slippery slope is not a valid argument. The following response to your last paragraph will demonstrate why:
Or, not.
In two words, I have invalidated your entire paragraph long argument.
innovation, which is in fact nothing more than doing the "wrong" thing at the "wrong" time in a way that soon comes to be lauded as "revolutionary" in retrospect.
Slashdot Mirror
Summary execution for all drug dealers and drug abusers via a .45 caliber bullet in the back of the head upon conviction, retroactive to 1970.
Just think of all the tax money, prison space, and law time that can be saved.
I see you are tired of having multiple levels of government and wish to abolish the state anf local levels. I am sure that will go over real well, especially when the federal government does not have the authority to do that.
Because not all income is reported to the IRS in that manner. Cash tips, small gambling proceeds, money earned by self-employment, etc. are all income that needs to be reported but for which there is no reporting done.
If you start a side business teaching people how to use computers and it is a cash business, you are required to report the income and pay the income tax. The self-employed have to pay taxes and report income too, even if they only do it part time.
If you work as a drug dealer or prostitute or any other criminal activity, you are required to report the income and pay the tax. Al Capone was arrested for tax evasion, not murder, conspiracy, etc.
If you work as wait staff or pizza delivery or , you are supposed to report your cash tips.
Took a trip to Vegas and won $500 at the slots? You don't have to pay the taxes then, and the casino does not report it to the IRS. That is your job. The casinos only have to report wins over a certain amount.
The only way the IRS could calculate one's tax bill would be if the IRS knew everything you did and everything you earned, or if the tax law was simplified a great deal. The problem comes in during itemized deductions and deductible expenses. There are many things that can be deducted, such as business expenses, job hunting expenses, moving expenses, etc.
Drive your car for work? You can deduct some or all of gas, maintenance and depreciation.
Home office used solely for work? You can deduct part of your mortgage or rent.
New suit for job hunting? Deductible.
Continuing education? Deductible.
So, not all income is reported and not all deductions and credit are reported, so one is required to report everything to IRS when one files one's income tax form.
Understand now?
Actually, the RIAA generally doesn't file suit unless one refuses to stop infringing and/or refuses their settlement offer.
The RIAA says "You knowingly infringed on our copyright. Stop it and pay us a few thousand dollars for violating our rights or we will sue you" After all the hoopla over it, no one can say they didn't know they were violating copyright when they are "sharing" a song on the internet without the copyright holder's permission. The money the RIAA asks for is quite a bit less than the minimum they will get at trial, and I think I read somewhere that they will even set up a payment plan if you don't have the cash on hand.
Most people who fight the suits end up losing because they make claims that can not be supported, such as "I didn't know I was doing something wrong" or "I have a fair use right to put this song on the internet for the purposes of giving other people copies." And, when the people lose in court, the RIAA is awarded massive damages as is allowed under the copy right law and everyone has a hissy fit and completely forgets that the RIAA originally only asked for about US$3,000.00.
For which, the FSF would get a maximum pay out of $200.00. That wouldn't even pay for the lawyer to write the letter.
Which is why Apple would be best off simply pulling the offending app, and possibly all GPLed apps. Then, Apple can pay the $200.00 and never have to worry about it again, ever.
Of course, the fact that we are finding these weird systems may simply be because they are the easiest to detect and all the stars with planetary systems like ours are thought to not have planets because we can't detect the planets using current methods and data.
Remember, Jupiter orbits the sun once every 12 years. So, if we were trying to detect our own solar system at 10 light years, how long would it take to detect Jupiter's effect on Sol's position?
The RIAA sues people for willful and continuing infringement after having a settlement offer rejected.
If Apple pulls the app, then there is no continuing infringement. The section of the GPL Apple would be violating concerns distribution and Apple has an affirmative defense in claiming they did not intend nor did they know they were infringing as the infringing app was provided by a third party.
You are comparing Apples to tuna.
All that is kind of irrelevant. The simplest course of action and the path of least resistance for Apple is to exercise it's option to remove the app. If Apple removes the app, then it also removes any problems Apple may have.
The FLOSSies are saying "We don't want you to remove the app, we want you to comply with this section of the GPL." But, for Apple, the quickest, simplest, and most prudent thing to do is to remove the app, regardless of whether that is what the FLOSSies actually want.
If I were Apple, I would just pull the app and call it done. Why bother mucking around with the GPL and the like? Why run the risk of having to deal with demands for access, etc?
Just get rid of the app and make the problem go away.
They haven't been omitted. You need to read the second link. IOPs and read/write speeds are about 1/3 and 2/3 of the way down the page, respectively.
Is your god a just, good, and loving god or an evil, selfish, vindictive god?
That is a lie. Most of the men who found the United States of America were, in fact, deists, not christians.
That is also a lie:
Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America:
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:
Heed your own advise and "Get the facts right first, please."
When the second amendment was written, there was a weak federal government and the word STATE referred to the individual states making up the United States of America. The militias referred to were for the defense of the individual states.
You say:
however, nothing you have said changes the following:
You will note that the amendment does not say "the right of the state" or "the right of the government", but rather "the right of the people". It is a right of the people to keep and bear arms, as stated.
Yeah, I know, but the people complaining about the iDevices and Apple today are the same ones that complained about being unable to mod game consoles in the past.
What they don't get is that general, joe-average user doesn't care about what they care about.
And, it sounds like a monarchical thing to do.
And, it sounds like a communist thing to do.
And, it sounds like a theocratic thing to do.
And, it sounds like something a junta would do.
Actually, it is something that any authoritarian government would do.
We keep making the web browser do things it never was and should never have been intended to do. Instead of writing an actual interactive, client-server application, we kludge together something for a browser which then becomes vulnerable to bugs in the browser, the various technologies used to make the page interactive, the back-end services, etc.
We have a hammer, the current WWW stack, and we see all problems as nails, even when said problems are screws and would be better handled with a screwdriver.
Are you agreeing with me or are you suggesting the human space flight is not worth doing?
Please explain how it is cheaper to pay someone else who will have to pay for their R&D and make a profit.
The next flagship NASA space telescope is being launched on an Ariane 5 because we don't have a lift vehicle to launch it with because the shuttle is being retired and Obama canceled the Aries program.
So, we are going to use LEO with no ships of our own capable of getting to LEO, instead paying someone else to get us there. This is going to save money how?
As the consumer agreed to allow Apple to control access to application, that statement is false.
Irrelevant until it happens. If it never happens your statement is invalid. And, if they did, it still wouldn't be like Microsoft and IE because Microsoft did not prevent others from making or using other browsers.
It is not a contradiction. The developers will still purchase the tools to develop Flash applications because of the laptop and desktop devices, which greatly outnumber the iDevices, still use it. The developers will only lose out on possible revenue that would be generated by users of the iDevices.
Except that Apple's business model has always been about tying their software to their hardware and controlling access, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the rest of the industry with Windows running on commodity hardware. Anyone can start a company providing Windows (or Linux) computers, but just try to create a company that competes directly with Apple hardware and uses OS X. The precedent you are so worried about being set was set back when the iPhone app store opened. You will notice that the control exerted by Apple is being used as an argument against Apple and that devices that use the general industry model (Android phones, etc) are not following in Apple's footsteps.
How do you get to Mars without utilizing LEO? How is it going to be cheaper to pay someone to do it for us rather doing it ourselves?
Outsourcing to whom, exactly? Who are we going to pay to get up to low earth orbit? Who are we going have to rely on to get us up there? And, how will paying someone else going to cost less?
Private companies here in the U.S., none of which currently have a lift vehicle capable of getting us there?
Or foreign nations, meaning Russia and Europe, one of which is a fair-weather friend and the other is having similar financial issues?
BTW, how does one get to Mars without accessing LEO? Are we going to lift a vehicle capable of being lived in by the crew for two years, including all supplies and the crew, directly from the surface of the Earth to Mars trajectory? Or, would it make more sense to build a modular ship on Earth, lift the pieces into LEO and assemble it there, then lift the supplies and crew?
You mean besides all the technical innovation which has been supported and used by NASA? There is a list of 10 at HowStuffWorks.com but there are more out there. Those billions thrown at human space flight results in science and robots.
Why shouldn't Apple be able to block Adobe's media platform out of Apple's hardware and operating system? Especially when said software causes huge problems and eats resources on Apple's hardware and operating system that do support Adobe's "media platform"?
Actually, no it isn't. Apple does not have an application that competes with Adobe's. There is no "huge disadvantage" because there is no competition at all. It is Adobe's software or nothing at all. MS was using its position as the OS maker to push its browser, but Apple isn't pushing its own competitor to Flash.
No. There are no "customers" involved because the plug-in that would allow flash to be available on the iPad browser is free. Adobe makes its money from developers, not those that use the plug-in. As the various iDevices that do not support Adobe's plug-in are a small part of the market, there is little lost to the developers. If anyone "isn't even getting a chance to gain iPad customers", it is the developers, not Adobe.
Finally, slippery slope is not a valid argument. The following response to your last paragraph will demonstrate why:
In two words, I have invalidated your entire paragraph long argument.
Look! ROFLCOPTERS!
Bioterrorism is doubtful. But, criminal mischief, assault and battery, malicious wounding, and who knows what other laws it might fall under.
There, fixed that for ya.