I'm sorry, but the parent post is just nutso. France alone is the 4th largest economy on the planet, comparing more closely to California than lowly Alabama.
Pay attention. The post concerned per capita GDP. That's not the same as total GDP. When you look at per capita GDP, France does very poorly.
France has an economy comparable in size to California's only because France has a population of 60 million, while California has a population of just over 35 million.
I just can't believe anybody would recite such claptrap. The poster must have never been to Europe to be able to type such rubbish.
And visiting all the tourist traps in Europe makes you an expert?
Next time you're in Europe, get away from the popular (among tourists) cities. You'll find very large numbers of people living in what amount to shacks.
Would be a great boost for Linux though if they did.
The mere fact that europeans have much less to spend than USians is a great boost for Linux.
If the European Union were a U.S. state, it would rank forty-seventh in per capita GDP, according to a report from Timbro, a Swedish free-market think tank. (Yes, there really is one.) In annual income the average European is on a par with residents of Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas. (And the report excludes the newer, poorer EU nations of Eastern Europe.) The picture isn't much rosier even in wealthier European states like France and Britain, both of which have per capita GDPs slightly lower than Alabama's. Only tiny Luxembourg scores better than the American average. The United States' material advantage extends beyond income: Americans spend 77 percent more annually than Europeans, own more appliances, and (presumably thanks to our wide open spaces) have homes providing, on average, 721 square feet per person--nearly twice the average size of European residences. The study's authors allow that fast-growing GDP is "not the be all and end all of happiness and prosperity," citing more "intangible" (and quintessentially European) factors such as equality, leisure time, and the environment. But they note, with a defensiveness undoubtedly endemic among Swedish free-marketeers, that "material resources" are a "precondition of much of the wellbeing which people like to call intangible."
"the commission has to verify the requirement that Microsoft refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or less functional."
So, Microsoft has to remove Media Player from Windows, but Windows can't be less functional?
I don't see why those on the conservative right are so interested in defending copyright.
They are protecting the profits of people they hate, aren't they?
Why not let the honor system work? If the music/movies you make appeal to a crowd that wants to break the law and take the music/movie for free, then maybe you should just stop making that sort of music/movie in the first place. If the message you're selling includes glorifying theft or being a thug or whatever, don't be surprised if the people that like that sort of thing ignore copyright.
You can't preach one message then expect people to act differently.
So conservatives should give up on copyright and just let things play out.
The industry as it stands now deserves to sink into oblivion. Let it.
Now, think about Gmail, which, in a broadband situation (I'll deal with that in a couple of paragraphs), is probably more responsive than Outlook;
Amen, brother.
It's a sure sign of bloat and poor MS engineering that a mail program like Gmail, running javascript, beats the hell out of Outlook running on a local machine.
This guy does the same amount of work and expects $50000+. Why is the difference so high?
Same amount of work? Really? How long did it take him to become a programmer? What about the time it took him to learn the Win32 API? He didn't get anything for that work until he turned it into software that users could take advantage of.
And the qualitative difference in the type of work is important too. Most people can, in some way, apply brute labor to help build a road. A smaller percentage of people have the skill to write software. This fact seems to suggest that the task of producing software is in general more difficult than the simple application of a person's labor.
You also seem to be suggesting that the value in something comes from the labor put into it. This labor theory of value is a poor performer. One reason is the subjective nature of value. People's degree of desire for a thing has little to do with the labor put into that thing and varies greatly from person to person.
It's because the software vendor has the capability to perfectly replicate his product, and while automatic replication of work is the key to wealth, it's hardly a fair situation.
Why should it matter to the users of the software how much money or wealth the programmer might earn? So what. He asks for money for his services. People can say yes or no. What's the problem besides the envy some might feel?
People are known for dishonesty when they feel they're being ripped off.
This feeling of being "ripped off" is silly and is hardly an excuse for dishonesty.
Look. This guy wrote a cheap program to do a job many people needed done. You might think it was too easy a job to justify his charging $25.
But where were the cheaper alternatives? Surely if it was such an easy task for the typical person, there'd be other options.
The amount of money he made should have little to do with how much work he did. Instead, it should correlate with how much service he did for others.
I think he should be applauded for serving so many with so little of his own effort. There are those that put plenty of effort into pointless tasks and serve no one.
Instead this man was able to, with just a few days work, provide something useful to thousands.
So what did those he served give him in return? Well, those that were honest, gave him money. Those that were dishonest did nothing for him.
Money is a promise to serve. Giving someone your money is a promise that they'll get something something back from you, directly or indirectly. It's a form of reciprocity.
Are you really defending those that would use this man's services and not even give him a "thank you"?
In the article here, shareware author Colin Messit discovered that less than 20% of the people using his software would pay for it voluntarily.
He wrote his software in such a way that a user installing it would have a 50/50 chance of getting a crippled version or a non-crippled version at time of installation. When people registered, they sent their serial numbers which encoded whether or not they had the crippled version or the "honor system" version.
He discovered that the crippled version was registered (people sent money) 5 times as often as the "honor system" version.
The real reason there isn't the incredible outcry over conmen like Bernie Ebbers, Ken Lay, and the man linked is because people don't realize that they, too, are part of the "investor class."
Why do you say that?
Aren't these men employees of these companies?
It seems to me the problem is that shareholders have basically given control of their companies to people that go on to pay themselves huge amounts of money at the expense of everyone else.
And why shouldn't they? They aren't investors in the company. They don't have an interest in the long term future of the company because they can make the company pay them big money RIGHT NOW.
Money is the absolute most important thing needed. Without it there is no startup.
and THAT is the hardest thing to get.
Getting money is easy. Keeping it is hard.
Many people have earned more than enough money to begin a startup, but they didn't keep that money. They spent it on a larger house, a second car, or restaurants.
And it is still ridiculous if you'd bother doing the actual math instead of listening to Fox News.
Of course I haven't done the math and you haven't either.
So how do you know if it's ridiculous? You don't. My statements offend your biases and that's enough for you. You're a typical leftist. You call your prejudices "thinking".
What you've done instead, is to cherry-pick some piece of data that suits you and ignore the mountain of information that counters your theory.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
The deductabilility of state and local taxes is a fact. People that pay taxes for city provided services don't pay federal tax on that money and that's also a fact. People that pay money directly for the same services are forced to pay taxes on that money -- another fact.
There is no other conclusion but that federal deductability of state and local taxes amounts to a subsidy.
Most economists agree. A 5 second search shows that most people writing on the subject agree.
You're hand-waving about differences in property taxes does nothing more than create a red-herring.
You do worse than cherry-pick pieces of data. You don't provide any data at all. Where is this mountain of data you claim refutes my theory? You have nothing.
You are the epitome of leftist arrogance. And what's worse, your conceit will always prevent you from educating yourself because you think you know it all and anyone that disagrees is just a red-state bumpkin.
And it is still ridiculous if you'd bother doing the actual math instead of listening to Fox News.
I take from your statement that it's you that hasn't bothered to do the math.
The state and local tax deduction last year amounted to a savings of $47 billion. Sure, not huge compared to the rest of the budget, but it actually represents 10% of the deficit. That's significant.
And nothing changes the fact that people using cities to pay for services that others pay for directly get a tax subsidy for doing so.
That is completely backwards. It's the urban areas that are supporting the rural areas - not vice versa. Do you really think the six of you living out there are paying enough in taxes to build that road?
I said, A city, not cities.
Those cities with lower taxes subsidize those cities with higher taxes.
So the rest of us means those living in cities that are frugal versus those cities with high taxes.
Erhm, I think there's other little things like wars, a huge military spread round the world, and of course social security that tend to cost a lot more than services from states/cities : )
The deduction cost the Federal government about $46 billion.
That certainly isn't a big portion of the budget, but it isn't insignificant.
Seeing as city dwellers are subisidizing the rest of the country right now this seems pretty fair.
Not really.
What about those city dwellers that don't provide these extra services? They end up subsidizing those cities that do.
So if you live in a city and you pay money directly for a service that the city doesn't provide, you pay a federal tax on that money.
But the same person in a place paying the city through taxes for the same service doesn't pay federal tax on that money.
It's unfair for two people getting the same service to have different tax burdens simply because one purchases the service throught the city and one does not.
Who decides what is "too costly"? If the citizens of an urban area decide they want to pay for Wi-Fi, why does a state representative from downstate Hooterville think they can say otherwise?
But they don't end up paying for all of it. State and local taxes are deductable, so the Federal government ends up subsidizing this.
The more and more services a city provides, the less and less they pay a share of Federal taxes.
And some states let you deduct city taxes from your state income tax, so the rest of the state also helps pay for it.
So next time you wonder how a city can have high taxes, but still get by economically, remember that they're being subsidized by the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but the parent post is just nutso. France alone is the 4th largest economy on the planet, comparing more closely to California than lowly Alabama.
Pay attention. The post concerned per capita GDP. That's not the same as total GDP. When you look at per capita GDP, France does very poorly.
France has an economy comparable in size to California's only because France has a population of 60 million, while California has a population of just over 35 million.
I just can't believe anybody would recite such claptrap. The poster must have never been to Europe to be able to type such rubbish.
And visiting all the tourist traps in Europe makes you an expert?
Next time you're in Europe, get away from the popular (among tourists) cities. You'll find very large numbers of people living in what amount to shacks.
If you remove the top few percent from both the US and European numbers (ie: the richest people) then the numbers become more or less equal.
There is actually more income inequality in Europe than in the United States.
This has been shown by sociologist Glen Firebaugh in his book The New Geography of Global Income Inequality.
So if we take away the top X%, the numbers become even more unequal.
The whole Euro market is bigger than the US..
Would be a great boost for Linux though if they did.
The mere fact that europeans have much less to spend than USians is a great boost for Linux.
If the European Union were a U.S. state, it would rank forty-seventh in per capita GDP, according to a report from Timbro, a Swedish free-market think tank. (Yes, there really is one.) In annual income the average European is on a par with residents of Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas. (And the report excludes the newer, poorer EU nations of Eastern Europe.) The picture isn't much rosier even in wealthier European states like France and Britain, both of which have per capita GDPs slightly lower than Alabama's. Only tiny Luxembourg scores better than the American average. The United States' material advantage extends beyond income: Americans spend 77 percent more annually than Europeans, own more appliances, and (presumably thanks to our wide open spaces) have homes providing, on average, 721 square feet per person--nearly twice the average size of European residences. The study's authors allow that fast-growing GDP is "not the be all and end all of happiness and prosperity," citing more "intangible" (and quintessentially European) factors such as equality, leisure time, and the environment. But they note, with a defensiveness undoubtedly endemic among Swedish free-marketeers, that "material resources" are a "precondition of much of the wellbeing which people like to call intangible."
"the commission has to verify the requirement that Microsoft refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or less functional."
So, Microsoft has to remove Media Player from Windows, but Windows can't be less functional?
Interesting judgement.
A literal no-win situation!
Seems odd to me that they want media player removed, but still want to play media under certain conditions.
I don't see why those on the conservative right are so interested in defending copyright.
They are protecting the profits of people they hate, aren't they?
Why not let the honor system work? If the music/movies you make appeal to a crowd that wants to break the law and take the music/movie for free, then maybe you should just stop making that sort of music/movie in the first place. If the message you're selling includes glorifying theft or being a thug or whatever, don't be surprised if the people that like that sort of thing ignore copyright.
You can't preach one message then expect people to act differently.
So conservatives should give up on copyright and just let things play out.
The industry as it stands now deserves to sink into oblivion. Let it.
So, your company paid you to write free software for everyone, even their competitors.
Your employer might be upset with you.
But keep in mind that it's the code that's licensed. The invention, if their is one, can still be protected.
And you can also pull a Stallman: reimplement a version of the code that's GPL'd.
It can't be the same code, but it can do the same thing.
outlook is a bloated piece of crap, but it is unrealistic to compare it to a standalone mail client.
Well, Outlook express is nearly as bad.
Amen, brother.
It's a sure sign of bloat and poor MS engineering that a mail program like Gmail, running javascript, beats the hell out of Outlook running on a local machine.
This guy does the same amount of work and expects $50000+. Why is the difference so high?
Same amount of work? Really? How long did it take him to become a programmer? What about the time it took him to learn the Win32 API? He didn't get anything for that work until he turned it into software that users could take advantage of.
And the qualitative difference in the type of work is important too. Most people can, in some way, apply brute labor to help build a road. A smaller percentage of people have the skill to write software. This fact seems to suggest that the task of producing software is in general more difficult than the simple application of a person's labor.
You also seem to be suggesting that the value in something comes from the labor put into it. This labor theory of value is a poor performer. One reason is the subjective nature of value. People's degree of desire for a thing has little to do with the labor put into that thing and varies greatly from person to person.
It's because the software vendor has the capability to perfectly replicate his product, and while automatic replication of work is the key to wealth, it's hardly a fair situation.
Why should it matter to the users of the software how much money or wealth the programmer might earn? So what. He asks for money for his services. People can say yes or no. What's the problem besides the envy some might feel?
People are known for dishonesty when they feel they're being ripped off.
This feeling of being "ripped off" is silly and is hardly an excuse for dishonesty.
Look. This guy wrote a cheap program to do a job many people needed done. You might think it was too easy a job to justify his charging $25.
But where were the cheaper alternatives? Surely if it was such an easy task for the typical person, there'd be other options.
The amount of money he made should have little to do with how much work he did. Instead, it should correlate with how much service he did for others.
I think he should be applauded for serving so many with so little of his own effort. There are those that put plenty of effort into pointless tasks and serve no one.
Instead this man was able to, with just a few days work, provide something useful to thousands.
So what did those he served give him in return? Well, those that were honest, gave him money. Those that were dishonest did nothing for him.
Money is a promise to serve. Giving someone your money is a promise that they'll get something something back from you, directly or indirectly. It's a form of reciprocity.
Are you really defending those that would use this man's services and not even give him a "thank you"?
Ah, but the light flashes at 120hz. When the current is near 0 A, the light goes out, and that happens twice for every cycle.
In the article here, shareware author Colin Messit discovered that less than 20% of the people using his software would pay for it voluntarily.
He wrote his software in such a way that a user installing it would have a 50/50 chance of getting a crippled version or a non-crippled version at time of installation. When people registered, they sent their serial numbers which encoded whether or not they had the crippled version or the "honor system" version.
He discovered that the crippled version was registered (people sent money) 5 times as often as the "honor system" version.
Conclusion? Most people only pay if they have to.
The real reason there isn't the incredible outcry over conmen like Bernie Ebbers, Ken Lay, and the man linked is because people don't realize that they, too, are part of the "investor class."
Why do you say that?
Aren't these men employees of these companies?
It seems to me the problem is that shareholders have basically given control of their companies to people that go on to pay themselves huge amounts of money at the expense of everyone else.
And why shouldn't they? They aren't investors in the company. They don't have an interest in the long term future of the company because they can make the company pay them big money RIGHT NOW.
I thought people got their kicks out of car-jacking and beating up prostitutes.
Well, good thing there are still some people that enjoy kicking bad-guy ass.
One complaint I have about those that oppose videogame violence is that they never talk about the context of the violence.
There seems a world of difference between videogame violence "for great justice" and simple thug violence.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
[snip]
And we "socialist" fit #1 fairly well if I do say so myself.
Hmmm.
What happens when the socialist philosophy itself becomes orthodox or dogmatic?
Maybe you're confusing "liberal" with "leftist". They're not the same thing.
Money is the absolute most important thing needed. Without it there is no startup.
and THAT is the hardest thing to get.
Getting money is easy. Keeping it is hard.
Many people have earned more than enough money to begin a startup, but they didn't keep that money. They spent it on a larger house, a second car, or restaurants.
I believe the patent office now allows you to view applications online.
Yes I would consider it a fair trade.
In fact, get rid of all subsidies. How's that?
And it is still ridiculous if you'd bother doing the actual math instead of listening to Fox News.
Of course I haven't done the math and you haven't either.
So how do you know if it's ridiculous? You don't. My statements offend your biases and that's enough for you. You're a typical leftist. You call your prejudices "thinking".
What you've done instead, is to cherry-pick some piece of data that suits you and ignore the mountain of information that counters your theory.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
The deductabilility of state and local taxes is a fact. People that pay taxes for city provided services don't pay federal tax on that money and that's also a fact. People that pay money directly for the same services are forced to pay taxes on that money -- another fact.
There is no other conclusion but that federal deductability of state and local taxes amounts to a subsidy.
Most economists agree. A 5 second search shows that most people writing on the subject agree.
You're hand-waving about differences in property taxes does nothing more than create a red-herring.
You do worse than cherry-pick pieces of data. You don't provide any data at all. Where is this mountain of data you claim refutes my theory? You have nothing.
You are the epitome of leftist arrogance. And what's worse, your conceit will always prevent you from educating yourself because you think you know it all and anyone that disagrees is just a red-state bumpkin.
And it is still ridiculous if you'd bother doing the actual math instead of listening to Fox News.
I take from your statement that it's you that hasn't bothered to do the math.
The state and local tax deduction last year amounted to a savings of $47 billion. Sure, not huge compared to the rest of the budget, but it actually represents 10% of the deficit. That's significant.
And nothing changes the fact that people using cities to pay for services that others pay for directly get a tax subsidy for doing so.
That's simply unfair.
That is completely backwards. It's the urban areas that are supporting the rural areas - not vice versa. Do you really think the six of you living out there are paying enough in taxes to build that road?
I said, A city, not cities.
Those cities with lower taxes subsidize those cities with higher taxes.
So the rest of us means those living in cities that are frugal versus those cities with high taxes.
Erhm, I think there's other little things like wars, a huge military spread round the world, and of course social security that tend to cost a lot more than services from states/cities : )
The deduction cost the Federal government about $46 billion.
That certainly isn't a big portion of the budget, but it isn't insignificant.
Seeing as city dwellers are subisidizing the rest of the country right now this seems pretty fair.
Not really.
What about those city dwellers that don't provide these extra services? They end up subsidizing those cities that do.
So if you live in a city and you pay money directly for a service that the city doesn't provide, you pay a federal tax on that money.
But the same person in a place paying the city through taxes for the same service doesn't pay federal tax on that money.
It's unfair for two people getting the same service to have different tax burdens simply because one purchases the service throught the city and one does not.
Who decides what is "too costly"?
If the citizens of an urban area decide they want to pay for Wi-Fi, why does a state representative from downstate Hooterville think they can say otherwise?
But they don't end up paying for all of it. State and local taxes are deductable, so the Federal government ends up subsidizing this.
The more and more services a city provides, the less and less they pay a share of Federal taxes.
And some states let you deduct city taxes from your state income tax, so the rest of the state also helps pay for it.
So next time you wonder how a city can have high taxes, but still get by economically, remember that they're being subsidized by the rest of us.