First, you said it yourself, they went into the trialware zone. That means that they're trialware. Not Shareware.
I've been a shareware author since the late 80's. It's sickening to see people like you mutate the definition to essentially mean freeware--which it is not.
Some terms for you to study, as they've been used since at least the 80's:
Public Domain - Means that the author is essentially making the whole dang thing public for the benefit of humanity, no strings attached. Use it for personal, commercial, or any other use you see fit.
Freeware - Means the software is completely free, but still belongs to the author. That basically just means he doesn't want any money but doesn't want anyone else making any money off of it either.
Shareware - Means the author encourages people to share the unregistered version of the software with others. This accomplishes distribution without shrink-wrapped expenses and has the added benefit of letting the user try before he buys. It's win-win. The user is legally and morally required to buy the software if he/she continues to use the software after its "trial period." Whether the trial period is enforced or more features are available to registered users does not change its status as shareware.
Commercial Software - This is what shrink-wrapped programs are normally called. You don't get to try before you buy and they don't want you to share any version with anyone else.
Read and re-read the above until you understand it.
Shareware is SHAREware because the author encourages people to share the unregistered version of the software; not because the author is some altruisitic individual whos is sharing the fruits of his hard work for free.
Since day-one of shareware there have been disclaimers saying "Shareware is a method of software distribution. If you use this software useful and continue to use it you are morally and legally required to buy it."
Software that doesn't expire, doesn't nag, and doesn't have any restricted features is essentially "freeware" with a tip jar. And has been stated and even demonstrated, it doesn't work. At least not to make any money.
Before harping on programmers using the "shareware" term, go back and do some investigation as to what it really means. It is entirely clear that you WEREN'T on the scene when the term was coined.
The only tax that makes sense is income tax. Even sales tax doesn't make sense, let alone all these weird specialized taxes.
Income tax doesn't make sense, and it is counterproductive. A long post in this thread pointed out the problems and "benefits" of each type of tax very well.
The income tax:
1. Reduces privacy (government needs to know how much you make).
2. Punishes success (the more you earn, the more you pay).
3. Punishes honest people and benefits crooks (honest tax payers get the shaft, tax evaders don't pay).
4. Doesn't tax illegal income (drug dealers don't pay income tax on their drug money).
5. Encourages evasion (there is financial incentive to not report all your income).
On the other hand, a sales-tax only (no income tax) has the following aspects:
1. Increases privacy (no government agency needs to care how much you make).
2. Is success-neutral (making money doesn't punish you).
3. Taxes honest and dishonest people the same (drug dealers still have to spend most of their money at legitiment businesses).
4. Doesn't encourage income tax evasion (there's nothing to evade).
5. Encourages national savings (people will tend to save more of their income if it's not being taxed, which provides more capital to banks to lend money to encourage business borrowing to encourage growth.).
What DOESN'T make sense is any combination of income and sales tax. Income tax screws you for every dollar you earn and sales tax screws you for every dollar you spend. Screwing you both ways is something normally reserved only for pr0n.
I'm for reducing and simplifying taxes. This could best be done with a sales tax. But even if we just simplify INCOME taxes, they need to be exclusive. Having both an income and a sales tax is logically and morally wrong.
PS--I also think property tax is wrong. It eventually means everything belongs to the government and they are just renting it to you. That's bogus. If you buy it, it's yours (or should be). But I won't get into that rant right now.
While I was in Mexico this winter, one thing I kept thinking to myself over and over was how it just isn't fair that they can't go to the United States.
I am an American who has lived in Mexico for over 6 years.
Immigration is a bummer, both ways. Every year I have to renew my permit to stay and live in Mexico. Of course, it's just paperwork--they're not going to tell me "no."
I, too, would like open borders between Canada, U.S., and Mexico. I believe the U.S./Canada border should be open immediately. U.S. citizens should be able to work in Canada and vice versa.
The Mexican border can be opened once the standard of living increases. To do so before that happens would cause a massive and fast fall in the stnadard of living in the United States and Canada. But once Mexican income were to reach, say, 80% of the average income in the U.S./Canada, do it.
you're kind of missing the point that Israel was CREATED in the middle of Palestine. Palestine is an OCCUPIED country - they have EVERY right to do WHATEVER is necessary to free themselves. Israel HAS NO RIGHT to exist at all. Were the French resistance wrong to kill Germans during WWII?
Israel has the right to exist. It was granted to them by the international community. Prior to Israel's creation the entire area was under a British mandate. So it was the BRITISH that could do whatever they wanted to.
They chose to give some of the land (a very small part, BTW) to form a Jewish state and leave the rest to the Palestinians. Then they left.
Both Jews and Muslims can try to claim Jerusalem on a religious basis, but from a political standpoint Israel has as much right to exist as a Palestinian state. Even moreso because Israel was created by the international community. A Palestinian state has not, yet.
Since the falldown of the russian army, several nukes have gone 'lost'. If America uses nukes against his enemies, what will stop them from using nukes on the US?
Those that have "found" the "lost" nukes most likely aren't waiting for us to nuke them. As soon as they get them and know how to use and deploy them, they will. Whether or not we use nukes on them is not going to affect their decision to use it themselves.
That allows the graffiti area to be virtual. (You can get extra screen space or graffiti area. Good idea!)
Perhaps a good idea, but no-one (developer) will use it. Why write your application to count on that screen real-estate and thus make your program incomaptible with every other Palm device out there?
Hopefully this isn't Sony practicing Microsoft's "adopt and extend" policy, thus killing standards.
I wonder what the device will do with the other 160 pixels of height when running one of the thousands of existing applications that count on 160x160. I can see those easily being used in a 320x320 environment, but what do you do in a 320x480?
Same thing goes for China, don't fuck with these people. Bombing Afganistan is one thing. War against a countery with more then a billion people and nuclear weapons is just not a good idea. China proberly won't ignore an attack on North Korea.
I personally doubt China would get involved in a U.S./S. Korea/N. Korea conflcit.
Especially with this talk about smaller tactical nukes that can easily be used.
In fact, China (if smart) is one of the last countries that should consider a war with the United States. Their sheer numbers GUARANTEES that our only response would be nuclear because we're certainly not going to get into a conventional war with them. We'd lose just by the numbers.
But we'd wipe their millions of conventional troops out with a number of well-placed nukes.
So, no, I don't think China will interfere.
Basicly nuking anyone will mean the death of millions of americans.
Nuking anyone with nukes and a way to deliver them will probably mean the death of millions of Americans, yes.
The only enemies that could currently take out millions of Americans are Russia and China. I'd rather not wait around until North Korea, Iraq, and Iran are added to that list.
A little blast from the past:
First we got the bomb and that was good, 'cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb but that's ok, 'cause the balance of power maintains that way. Who's next?
France got the bomb but don't you agrieve, they're on our side, I believe.
China got the bomb but have no fears, they can't wipe us out for at least five years, who's next?
Then Indonesia claimed that they were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right, one for the black and one for the white. Who's next?
Egypt's gonna get one too, just to use on you know who.
So... Israel's getting tense, wants one in self-defense. The Lord's our Shepherd says the psalm, but just in case... WE BETTER GET A BOMB! Who's next?
Luxembourgh is next to go, and who knows maybe Monocco. We'll try to stay sirene and calm, when ALABAMA get's the bomb..."
So you mean that we're moving away from weapons that we could never possibly use, to weapons that we can?
Exactly. Right now the nuclear threat is almost useless because most everyone knows and accepts the facts that they would not be used. They were not used in Iraq, they were not used in Afghanistan. They're a trump card against a total invasion of the U.S., but that's about it.
In the more typical and common regional conflict, Afghanistan never had to worry about us using nukes. They knew we wouldn't. And that knowledges means they only had to fear our conventional forces. Deadly as they may be, they are a lot less "scary" than the thought of being nuked.
If the low-potency enemgy (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) know we have smaller nukes that we CAN use, that will make them less likely to create conflicts in which they would be used.
It brings the nuke threat back into the equation. And that's a good thing when those doing the math are little countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, and they don't affect the big players that already have hundreds or thousands of ICBMS.
BTW, why isn't there three times as much coverage of Palestinians dying?
Because when Israelis die it is normally because some dimwit Palestinian terrorist has exploded a suicide bomb in an area full of civilians with NO military objective. That is terrorism.
When Israel RESPONDS, it is a retaliation for a previous terrorist act.
Israel has just as much right to retaliate for terrorism against Israel as we in the U.S. had to dump the Taliban after what they did in NYC.
Why is it not news that so many Palestinians die? Because, while not politically correct to say it, THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS. Not all Palestinians are bad, but to blame Israel for the problems in the Middle East is to close your eyes to reality.
If Palestinians stopped launching terrorist attacks against pizza parlors, discos, and civilian busses perhaps: 1) Israel would stop retaliating. 2) The world would care a little more if Isreal engaged in unprovoked violence.
Whether you want to believe that Jews control the media, it doesn't change the fact that the Palestinians are the ones PROVOKING the violence in the Middle East. Sure, Israel responds. But the Palestinians provoke it.
Is that an argument? Should one sell Mercedes, Caterpillars, and Boeings there for lower prices too?
If Mercedes, Caterpillar, and Boeing thought they would increase their profits by selling their products in those countries at a reduced price, they would. The fact that they don't indicates they believe they'll make more money by foregoing certain sales (at reduced prices) but preventing their products from becoming commodities--which would eventually lead to worldwide lower prices.
The poster is simply saying that, in the case of DVDs, the target market is "the masses" so you have to offer a fair and attractive price. The price you choose to sell your product has to be in line with what the market values your product at. Otherwise, people won't buy your product (but may look for alternatives). This is basic capitalism.
Piracy is truly a fact of life in any intellectual property business. I'm not saying piracy is RIGHT, but it's a fact of life and a cost of doing that kind of business.
Generally, a business should price their products to maximimze profits. That means that if they've decided to sell their DVDs at $20 each they've decided that, taking into account piracy, that is the highest price they can charge. Perhaps if they sold their DVDs for $3 there would be virtually no piracy, but their total profit would actually be less due to the reduced price. So despite piracy, they've maximized their profit and in all honesty have nothing to complain about unless someone is committing highway robbery and stealing their physical product.
What they are doing when they ask for all kinds of absurd copy protection, etc. is asking the government to legislate laws that reduce their costs of doing business. That's a luxury virtually no industry is going to receive, and is akin to government-endorsed protectionism.
It is NOT the government's job to protect companies--or entire industries--from becoming obsolete.
What I don't understand is how MS has a constitutional issue between the separation of powers of the executive and judicial branch.
WTF? Where is the executive even involved here?
I can see a states-rights/federal question, but where is there a separation of powers issue between the judiciary and executive??
Besides, it's not a matter of the hold-out states not having the power to regulate interstate commerce. They have a valid complaint against a company that is in another state and the issue is being resolved, as it should be, in federal court.
The states don't have the power to affect interstate commerce. The federal judge, however, definitely does.
This MS motion will be struck down. Quickly, I believe.
Even if that was true I'd still rather be an alarmist than dogmatically block everything that's contrary to my beliefs in endless economic growth (which is an insane concept, of course).
I dont block everything that's contrary to my beliefs. I personally think recycling is obviously a good thing. I'm for sensible waste management.
I just don't think PCs are dangerous. Yes, I'm aware of what's in them. But the quantities of material that are dangerous in a PC are so low as to be insignificant.
As for erring on the side of caution, the problem is the environmentalists tend to caution about everything and anything. If we always went with the environmentalists we'd be living in caves and living off of brussel sprouts, "just in case."
In my opinion the industrialised world could very well reduce the standards of living. I do not mean scaling down something like health care, but limiting private car ownership, non-essential industry etc. Just to be on the safe side.
I'm not even going to touch that. Limiting private car ownership? Limiting how often I can upgrade to a new computer?
I'm sorry. These incremental losses in our freedom are just not acceptable, even to be on the safe side as far as the environment goes.
As another Slashdot poster mentioned yesterday, "I'd rather die a free man, even if being a free man kills me. And I mean that."
Agreed on Mr. Carter, but to attribute the recovery to Reagan (or any one person) is the gross oversimplification to which I referred.
I actually agree with you there. It's not Reagan that did it all by himself. But Reagan, with a willing Congress, passed policies that within a few years had the desired effects.
And on a related note, inflation is only part of any economic picture, so I don't put nearly as much stock in it as you.
I agree it's only part of the economic picture. But it is a big part. When prices spiral higher and incomes don't do the same you end up with a net reduction in buying power, even if everyone were gainfully employed.
How about checking unemployment rates? Seems they were pretty bad until the mid-'90s, which was well after the Reagan/Bush era.
Unemployment was 7.1% in 1980, peaked at 9.7% in 1982 and was down to 5.3% in 1989 when Reagan left--that's nearly half. It pretty much stayed in the 5% neighborhood until about 1997 when it admitedly dropped to 4%--due in large part due to the tech bubble.
But to ignore the achievements of Reagan's policies is to ignore reality. I invite you to check the data. It's out there and it's hard to twist it into anything that suggest anything other than the fact that Reagan's policies worked.
As a completely off-topic point, check out U.S. Census. You can see the mean income for each fifth of the U.S. population. Browsing over it quickly I can't find a single fifth of the population that suggests "the rich got richer while the poor got poorer." Everyone's income seems to have increased quite substantially in the 80s in real dollars.
And today, inflation is still lower than in 1990, but unemployment is up from two years ago, and would you label that as an indicator that the economy is doing well?
No, it's not doing well. But it's not doing that bad, either. The tech bubble burst. I think things surged way ahead of reality in the last three years and now we're seeing a correction. It's a mild recession by any measure.
My point is that you cannot legitimately claim that taxes are universally a drain on economic efficiency just because the benefits of infrastructure happen in the long term.
I'll grant you that in the case of the highway system. That was truly an investment that I think was worthwhile and certainly helped the country.
I would be interested in how many other taxes you can find that simililary increased U.S. efficiency or productivity?
This is true of any investment, not just government spending, which spurred my rebuttal in the first place.
This is true of any economic investment. In the case of fees and taxes on things such as 100% clean PC disposal there is no economic benefit--only an environmental one. So in that case it most definitely is a strict cost/benefit analysis.
The military is quite productive, even above its listed function. It provides jobs and training to many. It performs research that finds its way back to private industry. It provides an infrastructure for huge investment in public works (the much-maligned Army Core of Engineers has put together stuff that private industry would never consider, but that has such effects on economy as disaster prevention/relief and power production). So I must dispute that the military is simply a necessary evil and a money sink.
Again, you've put me in an awkward position of trying to attack something that I personally am not against. I think the U.S. military is necessary and does lead to development of other products that are useful in the commercial sector as well. This is true of NASA, too.
Nevertheless, I honestly don't think the U.S. military produces this research and these benefits as efficienctly as they could be produced in a non-military environment. The military truly exists to defend the United States, and that's what it does very well. Sure, it leads to technological development--but that is not it's purpose. And if our $300 billion annual defense budget were truly spent on just R&D I don't think neither you nor I can imagine the types of technologies that would come out of it.
So I'm not disagreeing that the military produces side benefits. But I am disagreeing that it is the most efficient way to achieve those benefits, if those benefits are themselves the goal.
I think I've proven that long term gains in efficiency rebut this statement. You are right that misappropriated taxes are a waste, and you'd be right in thinking that a not-negligible percentage of taxes are misappropriated, but then that's not what you stated.
I stand by what I said. I said that all taxes and fees have a tendency to reduce the efficiency of the economy. This is true.
Now, you picked the case of the highway system in rebuttal. That's a good response, I'll admit. But I also believe it is most certainly atypical. It was truly an investment in the country. Most taxes and fees are not investments, they are costs that do little more than support the buearacracy or are punitive to discourage certain behaviors.
I'll go so far as to say there are exceptions to every rule. I'll give you that the highway system is an exception to the rule I've mentioned. But I seriously doubt you'll find that those kinds of economic investments are the norm.
Your reply is so full of crap that for a while I thought about not even bothering to reply to it.
Should have gone with your original instincts. No-one would have suffered.
Please tell me, how will free trade and consumption benefit you when you and the rest of the human kind has gone extinct because of the crap your precious "free" enterprise produced.
Uhm, I'll let you know when it happens and I'll bet the farm I'll never have to let you know because it won't happen.
Here's a clue for you: If the human race goes extinct it will be because we got hit by an asteroid or decided to nuke ourselves. It won't be because we threw PCs in the garbage.
That's the problem with environmentalists. They're alarmists. Everything is an emergency to them. Nuclear waste? Big problem (agreed). Computers being thrown in landfills? Big problem (disagree).
The psycho-babble fear-mongering of a typical environmnetalist is like a baby taking a dump. It just keeps on oozing out...
..is that when all of the toxic crap that bleeds out of China into the ocean travels around the Pacific basin, the first people it'll kill are the Californians. (sarcasm off) Now shoo until you can learn to think farther ahead than your next meal.
See my posts in the thread yesterday about the topic of Chinese recycling of computers.
Fact remains most of it wouldn't get to California. Most--if not all--of the chemicals in question are heavier than water and will tend to fall to the ocean floor not far off the Chinese coast.
Don't worry, surfers in CA won't be at any risk anytime soon...
your right! people will spend 50 dollars on gas, just to save 20 dollars on a computer!
First, it'd be more like 10 or 20 dollars in gas, max.
Second, believe it or not, people DO do things like that whether it is logical or not.
Third, who said the trip would be JUST to get a computer? Perhaps on a weekend trip to Las Vegas or Reno you pick up that computer you've been meaning to get at Best Buy since it's cheaper.
I currently live in Mexico where prices are higher than they are in Texas. I often put off purchases so that the next time I drive up to the border I stock up on everything I need.
Delightful rhetoric, but it merely demonstrates that you grossly oversimplify to prove your point. If you think that lowering taxes, and only lowering taxes, contributed to the boom of the 1980's, you're deluding yourself.
Yes, I grossly oversimplified. This is a thread about recycling, not economics. To go into the entire cause/effect of the boom that ended last year would be both off-topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
But lowering taxes was a major stimulus for the recovery and subsequent boom.
The boom was in no small part a response of a recovering economy that had taken massive beatings in the '70s and was going strong before Mr. Reagan took office.
I'm sorry, the economy was NOT going strong when Reagan took over. Check your data. Check the inflation rates. The economy was toast when Reagan took over which, in large part, is what he won the election.
In case you forgot, that means that the start of the boom could by your logic be credited to Jimmy Carter, but I imagine that would be blasphemy too blatant for you to accept.
Nope, the recovery started around 1984 or 85, if memory serves me. In fact, there was a rebound recession a year after Reagan took office. Only after almost half a decade of Reagan policies did things start to get better--and except for a pause in the previous Bush administration, after raising taxes, the boom lasted until last year.
The recovery was totally attributable to Reagan. I like Carter as a person, but he was a terrible president.
To take an obvious example, let's consider the interstate highway system. Are you able to present any rational argument that this system could have been put together by private industry? Nobody in the '40s could either, and so it was delegated to the government.
Ok, you weren't listening to what I said. I didn't say that I'm opposed to all government and all taxes. I said all fees and taxes tend to put upward pressure on inflation and make the economy less efficient. That is true.
However, I also clearly said--and you quoted--"The only question is whether society feels the negative effect of the fee/tax is outweighed by the potential benefit." In the case of the highway system the benefit clearly outweighs the cost.
On the other hand in Mexico (where I currently live), they have a terrible highway system of 2-lane roads. If you want U.S.-quality highways you have to take toll roads. We're talking $15 for a 60 mile drive. It's self-funded by the tolls, so don't tell me a highway system requires taxes. I personally prefer free usage of the highway having paid my taxes, but it is definitely NOT the only way to accomplish it.
Now, extend that to the military, or police or fire departments, or a host of other public systems like utilities or the phone system that would, without government regulation, never have developed the way they did.
You are talking about legitimate functions of government, which I do not dispute.
Is the military necessary? Yes. Is it productive? NO. The money spent on the military could be better spent on something else. But we all know that we NEED a military and it is a legitimate function of government, and the benefit (our security) is worth the cost. The same is true of police, fire stations, etc.
But the fact remains all these things--military, free highways, fire stations, police--exact an economic cost on society due to the costs paid to support them.
Then he was right. You decide that you don't want the problem so you pretend it doesn't exist. The problem with tech waste is HUGE and UNDENIABLE. The fact that you "don't see it" is because you have your head in the sand like all good pubs do.
Thank you for your very valuable contribution, anonymous coward.
I don't deny there is huge tech waste as there is huge waste of every kind. What I dispute is that it's dangerously toxic. Read the environmental wackos 56-page report that was mentioned here yesterday and read for yourself. The percentage of a computer that is "toxic" is miniscule.
The waste problem itself, in terms of volume, is another issue. But I haven't seen anything that shows that computers are toxic in anything but trace amounts.
Every piece of non-biodegradable crap like a transistor radio that we put into a landfill simply represents permanent consumption of the constituent elements like copper, gold, etc. Eventually, we run out of that stuff. Our great grandchildren's grandchildren will be forced to dig up the centuries-old landfills and to pay the cost of disassembling what we selfish bastards refused to disassemble.
Environmentalists have been saying this for decades to make us feel bad to the point of doing what they say.
While I'm not against recycling, this argument doesn't hold. Despite how destructive environmentalists think humans are, there are no signs of any natural resource being depleted. Even petroleum--which was supposed to be used up by 2000--suddenly has decades more to go.
It also assumes that our great grandchildren are going to being using the same raw materials that we do. They very well may have a need for other raw materials at that point.
Besides, China is currently taking care of the need to recycle these parts by removing the copper and gold from the computers. It's the environmentalists that apparently do want that to continue.
We can do better than to push the cost (of disassembly) to our great grandchildren's grandchildren.
Yeah, let's push it to China. Or, rather, let's let China buy our old PCs, let them disassemble them and make some bucks in the process. Then we aren't wasting these valuable resources and everyone makes a buck in the process.
They fought with tough and nail to oppose pollution-control devices in cars and claimed that these devices would drive up costs and hurt the economy.
And they did. It's common sense. As always, the question is not whether regulations and taxes hurts the economy and raises costs--the question is whether society believes the benefits by the regulation and tax outweight teh cost.
But Ford, GM and Chrysler all were right. Any and every regulation and tax increases costs and hurts the economy and should be carefully considered.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been a shareware author since the late 80's. It's sickening to see people like you mutate the definition to essentially mean freeware--which it is not.
Some terms for you to study, as they've been used since at least the 80's:
Public Domain - Means that the author is essentially making the whole dang thing public for the benefit of humanity, no strings attached. Use it for personal, commercial, or any other use you see fit.
Freeware - Means the software is completely free, but still belongs to the author. That basically just means he doesn't want any money but doesn't want anyone else making any money off of it either.
Shareware - Means the author encourages people to share the unregistered version of the software with others. This accomplishes distribution without shrink-wrapped expenses and has the added benefit of letting the user try before he buys. It's win-win. The user is legally and morally required to buy the software if he/she continues to use the software after its "trial period." Whether the trial period is enforced or more features are available to registered users does not change its status as shareware.
Commercial Software - This is what shrink-wrapped programs are normally called. You don't get to try before you buy and they don't want you to share any version with anyone else.
Read and re-read the above until you understand it.
Shareware is SHAREware because the author encourages people to share the unregistered version of the software; not because the author is some altruisitic individual whos is sharing the fruits of his hard work for free.
Since day-one of shareware there have been disclaimers saying "Shareware is a method of software distribution. If you use this software useful and continue to use it you are morally and legally required to buy it."
Software that doesn't expire, doesn't nag, and doesn't have any restricted features is essentially "freeware" with a tip jar. And has been stated and even demonstrated, it doesn't work. At least not to make any money.
Before harping on programmers using the "shareware" term, go back and do some investigation as to what it really means. It is entirely clear that you WEREN'T on the scene when the term was coined.
Income tax doesn't make sense, and it is counterproductive. A long post in this thread pointed out the problems and "benefits" of each type of tax very well.
The income tax:
1. Reduces privacy (government needs to know how much you make).
2. Punishes success (the more you earn, the more you pay).
3. Punishes honest people and benefits crooks (honest tax payers get the shaft, tax evaders don't pay).
4. Doesn't tax illegal income (drug dealers don't pay income tax on their drug money).
5. Encourages evasion (there is financial incentive to not report all your income).
On the other hand, a sales-tax only (no income tax) has the following aspects:
1. Increases privacy (no government agency needs to care how much you make).
2. Is success-neutral (making money doesn't punish you).
3. Taxes honest and dishonest people the same (drug dealers still have to spend most of their money at legitiment businesses).
4. Doesn't encourage income tax evasion (there's nothing to evade).
5. Encourages national savings (people will tend to save more of their income if it's not being taxed, which provides more capital to banks to lend money to encourage business borrowing to encourage growth.).
What DOESN'T make sense is any combination of income and sales tax. Income tax screws you for every dollar you earn and sales tax screws you for every dollar you spend. Screwing you both ways is something normally reserved only for pr0n.
I'm for reducing and simplifying taxes. This could best be done with a sales tax. But even if we just simplify INCOME taxes, they need to be exclusive. Having both an income and a sales tax is logically and morally wrong.
PS--I also think property tax is wrong. It eventually means everything belongs to the government and they are just renting it to you. That's bogus. If you buy it, it's yours (or should be). But I won't get into that rant right now.
So nice of you to say what Clinton wanted to say for eight years but never could because he KNEW it'd get his ass voted out off office.
Knee-jerk Left-wing commie bastards. :)
I am an American who has lived in Mexico for over 6 years.
Immigration is a bummer, both ways. Every year I have to renew my permit to stay and live in Mexico. Of course, it's just paperwork--they're not going to tell me "no."
I, too, would like open borders between Canada, U.S., and Mexico. I believe the U.S./Canada border should be open immediately. U.S. citizens should be able to work in Canada and vice versa.
The Mexican border can be opened once the standard of living increases. To do so before that happens would cause a massive and fast fall in the stnadard of living in the United States and Canada. But once Mexican income were to reach, say, 80% of the average income in the U.S./Canada, do it.
Israel has the right to exist. It was granted to them by the international community. Prior to Israel's creation the entire area was under a British mandate. So it was the BRITISH that could do whatever they wanted to.
They chose to give some of the land (a very small part, BTW) to form a Jewish state and leave the rest to the Palestinians. Then they left.
Both Jews and Muslims can try to claim Jerusalem on a religious basis, but from a political standpoint Israel has as much right to exist as a Palestinian state. Even moreso because Israel was created by the international community. A Palestinian state has not, yet.
Those that have "found" the "lost" nukes most likely aren't waiting for us to nuke them. As soon as they get them and know how to use and deploy them, they will. Whether or not we use nukes on them is not going to affect their decision to use it themselves.
Perhaps a good idea, but no-one (developer) will use it. Why write your application to count on that screen real-estate and thus make your program incomaptible with every other Palm device out there?
Hopefully this isn't Sony practicing Microsoft's "adopt and extend" policy, thus killing standards.
I personally doubt China would get involved in a U.S./S. Korea/N. Korea conflcit.
Especially with this talk about smaller tactical nukes that can easily be used.
In fact, China (if smart) is one of the last countries that should consider a war with the United States. Their sheer numbers GUARANTEES that our only response would be nuclear because we're certainly not going to get into a conventional war with them. We'd lose just by the numbers.
But we'd wipe their millions of conventional troops out with a number of well-placed nukes.
So, no, I don't think China will interfere.
Basicly nuking anyone will mean the death of millions of americans.
Nuking anyone with nukes and a way to deliver them will probably mean the death of millions of Americans, yes.
The only enemies that could currently take out millions of Americans are Russia and China. I'd rather not wait around until North Korea, Iraq, and Iran are added to that list.
A little blast from the past:
First we got the bomb and that was good, 'cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb but that's ok, 'cause the balance of power maintains that way. Who's next?
France got the bomb but don't you agrieve, they're on our side, I believe.
China got the bomb but have no fears, they can't wipe us out for at least five years, who's next?
Then Indonesia claimed that they were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right, one for the black and one for the white. Who's next?
Egypt's gonna get one too, just to use on you know who.
So... Israel's getting tense, wants one in self-defense. The Lord's our Shepherd says the psalm, but just in case... WE BETTER GET A BOMB! Who's next?
Luxembourgh is next to go, and who knows maybe Monocco. We'll try to stay sirene and calm, when ALABAMA get's the bomb..."
--Tom Lehrer, c. 1965.
Exactly. Right now the nuclear threat is almost useless because most everyone knows and accepts the facts that they would not be used. They were not used in Iraq, they were not used in Afghanistan. They're a trump card against a total invasion of the U.S., but that's about it.
In the more typical and common regional conflict, Afghanistan never had to worry about us using nukes. They knew we wouldn't. And that knowledges means they only had to fear our conventional forces. Deadly as they may be, they are a lot less "scary" than the thought of being nuked.
If the low-potency enemgy (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) know we have smaller nukes that we CAN use, that will make them less likely to create conflicts in which they would be used.
It brings the nuke threat back into the equation. And that's a good thing when those doing the math are little countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, and they don't affect the big players that already have hundreds or thousands of ICBMS.
Because when Israelis die it is normally because some dimwit Palestinian terrorist has exploded a suicide bomb in an area full of civilians with NO military objective. That is terrorism.
When Israel RESPONDS, it is a retaliation for a previous terrorist act.
Israel has just as much right to retaliate for terrorism against Israel as we in the U.S. had to dump the Taliban after what they did in NYC.
Why is it not news that so many Palestinians die? Because, while not politically correct to say it, THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS. Not all Palestinians are bad, but to blame Israel for the problems in the Middle East is to close your eyes to reality.
If Palestinians stopped launching terrorist attacks against pizza parlors, discos, and civilian busses perhaps: 1) Israel would stop retaliating. 2) The world would care a little more if Isreal engaged in unprovoked violence.
Whether you want to believe that Jews control the media, it doesn't change the fact that the Palestinians are the ones PROVOKING the violence in the Middle East. Sure, Israel responds. But the Palestinians provoke it.
Well said. That's exactly what I've thought for decades but it is obviously entirely non-PC to say (or even think) it.
We also had a land war with Mexico 150 years ago and took close to half of their land. You don't see anyone crying about how we treated the Mexicans.
Oh well, the contradictions of the "politically correct" crowd. :)
If Mercedes, Caterpillar, and Boeing thought they would increase their profits by selling their products in those countries at a reduced price, they would. The fact that they don't indicates they believe they'll make more money by foregoing certain sales (at reduced prices) but preventing their products from becoming commodities--which would eventually lead to worldwide lower prices.
The poster is simply saying that, in the case of DVDs, the target market is "the masses" so you have to offer a fair and attractive price. The price you choose to sell your product has to be in line with what the market values your product at. Otherwise, people won't buy your product (but may look for alternatives). This is basic capitalism.
Piracy is truly a fact of life in any intellectual property business. I'm not saying piracy is RIGHT, but it's a fact of life and a cost of doing that kind of business.
Generally, a business should price their products to maximimze profits. That means that if they've decided to sell their DVDs at $20 each they've decided that, taking into account piracy, that is the highest price they can charge. Perhaps if they sold their DVDs for $3 there would be virtually no piracy, but their total profit would actually be less due to the reduced price. So despite piracy, they've maximized their profit and in all honesty have nothing to complain about unless someone is committing highway robbery and stealing their physical product.
What they are doing when they ask for all kinds of absurd copy protection, etc. is asking the government to legislate laws that reduce their costs of doing business. That's a luxury virtually no industry is going to receive, and is akin to government-endorsed protectionism.
It is NOT the government's job to protect companies--or entire industries--from becoming obsolete.
The fact you have a political axe to grind doesn't reduce the value of the analogy provided.
Take your political, PC-based trolling elsewhere.
WTF? Where is the executive even involved here?
I can see a states-rights/federal question, but where is there a separation of powers issue between the judiciary and executive??
Besides, it's not a matter of the hold-out states not having the power to regulate interstate commerce. They have a valid complaint against a company that is in another state and the issue is being resolved, as it should be, in federal court.
The states don't have the power to affect interstate commerce. The federal judge, however, definitely does.
This MS motion will be struck down. Quickly, I believe.
Actually, I don't apply for loans over the web.
And if you do submit an app over the web and want to check on it five days later, what's wrong with HTTP to do it?
I dont block everything that's contrary to my beliefs. I personally think recycling is obviously a good thing. I'm for sensible waste management.
I just don't think PCs are dangerous. Yes, I'm aware of what's in them. But the quantities of material that are dangerous in a PC are so low as to be insignificant.
As for erring on the side of caution, the problem is the environmentalists tend to caution about everything and anything. If we always went with the environmentalists we'd be living in caves and living off of brussel sprouts, "just in case."
In my opinion the industrialised world could very well reduce the standards of living. I do not mean scaling down something like health care, but limiting private car ownership, non-essential industry etc. Just to be on the safe side.
I'm not even going to touch that. Limiting private car ownership? Limiting how often I can upgrade to a new computer?
I'm sorry. These incremental losses in our freedom are just not acceptable, even to be on the safe side as far as the environment goes.
As another Slashdot poster mentioned yesterday, "I'd rather die a free man, even if being a free man kills me. And I mean that."
I actually agree with you there. It's not Reagan that did it all by himself. But Reagan, with a willing Congress, passed policies that within a few years had the desired effects.
And on a related note, inflation is only part of any economic picture, so I don't put nearly as much stock in it as you.
I agree it's only part of the economic picture. But it is a big part. When prices spiral higher and incomes don't do the same you end up with a net reduction in buying power, even if everyone were gainfully employed.
How about checking unemployment rates? Seems they were pretty bad until the mid-'90s, which was well after the Reagan/Bush era.
Unemployment was 7.1% in 1980, peaked at 9.7% in 1982 and was down to 5.3% in 1989 when Reagan left--that's nearly half. It pretty much stayed in the 5% neighborhood until about 1997 when it admitedly dropped to 4%--due in large part due to the tech bubble.
But to ignore the achievements of Reagan's policies is to ignore reality. I invite you to check the data. It's out there and it's hard to twist it into anything that suggest anything other than the fact that Reagan's policies worked.
As a completely off-topic point, check out U.S. Census. You can see the mean income for each fifth of the U.S. population. Browsing over it quickly I can't find a single fifth of the population that suggests "the rich got richer while the poor got poorer." Everyone's income seems to have increased quite substantially in the 80s in real dollars.
And today, inflation is still lower than in 1990, but unemployment is up from two years ago, and would you label that as an indicator that the economy is doing well?
No, it's not doing well. But it's not doing that bad, either. The tech bubble burst. I think things surged way ahead of reality in the last three years and now we're seeing a correction. It's a mild recession by any measure.
My point is that you cannot legitimately claim that taxes are universally a drain on economic efficiency just because the benefits of infrastructure happen in the long term.
I'll grant you that in the case of the highway system. That was truly an investment that I think was worthwhile and certainly helped the country.
I would be interested in how many other taxes you can find that simililary increased U.S. efficiency or productivity?
This is true of any investment, not just government spending, which spurred my rebuttal in the first place.
This is true of any economic investment. In the case of fees and taxes on things such as 100% clean PC disposal there is no economic benefit--only an environmental one. So in that case it most definitely is a strict cost/benefit analysis.
The military is quite productive, even above its listed function. It provides jobs and training to many. It performs research that finds its way back to private industry. It provides an infrastructure for huge investment in public works (the much-maligned Army Core of Engineers has put together stuff that private industry would never consider, but that has such effects on economy as disaster prevention/relief and power production). So I must dispute that the military is simply a necessary evil and a money sink.
Again, you've put me in an awkward position of trying to attack something that I personally am not against. I think the U.S. military is necessary and does lead to development of other products that are useful in the commercial sector as well. This is true of NASA, too.
Nevertheless, I honestly don't think the U.S. military produces this research and these benefits as efficienctly as they could be produced in a non-military environment. The military truly exists to defend the United States, and that's what it does very well. Sure, it leads to technological development--but that is not it's purpose. And if our $300 billion annual defense budget were truly spent on just R&D I don't think neither you nor I can imagine the types of technologies that would come out of it.
So I'm not disagreeing that the military produces side benefits. But I am disagreeing that it is the most efficient way to achieve those benefits, if those benefits are themselves the goal.
I think I've proven that long term gains in efficiency rebut this statement. You are right that misappropriated taxes are a waste, and you'd be right in thinking that a not-negligible percentage of taxes are misappropriated, but then that's not what you stated.
I stand by what I said. I said that all taxes and fees have a tendency to reduce the efficiency of the economy. This is true.
Now, you picked the case of the highway system in rebuttal. That's a good response, I'll admit. But I also believe it is most certainly atypical. It was truly an investment in the country. Most taxes and fees are not investments, they are costs that do little more than support the buearacracy or are punitive to discourage certain behaviors.
I'll go so far as to say there are exceptions to every rule. I'll give you that the highway system is an exception to the rule I've mentioned. But I seriously doubt you'll find that those kinds of economic investments are the norm.
Should have gone with your original instincts. No-one would have suffered.
Please tell me, how will free trade and consumption benefit you when you and the rest of the human kind has gone extinct because of the crap your precious "free" enterprise produced.
Uhm, I'll let you know when it happens and I'll bet the farm I'll never have to let you know because it won't happen.
Here's a clue for you: If the human race goes extinct it will be because we got hit by an asteroid or decided to nuke ourselves. It won't be because we threw PCs in the garbage.
That's the problem with environmentalists. They're alarmists. Everything is an emergency to them. Nuclear waste? Big problem (agreed). Computers being thrown in landfills? Big problem (disagree).
The psycho-babble fear-mongering of a typical environmnetalist is like a baby taking a dump. It just keeps on oozing out...
He must be accessing a Microsoft-based server if he needs to get a result in five days! :)
See my posts in the thread yesterday about the topic of Chinese recycling of computers.
Fact remains most of it wouldn't get to California. Most--if not all--of the chemicals in question are heavier than water and will tend to fall to the ocean floor not far off the Chinese coast.
Don't worry, surfers in CA won't be at any risk anytime soon...
First, it'd be more like 10 or 20 dollars in gas, max.
Second, believe it or not, people DO do things like that whether it is logical or not.
Third, who said the trip would be JUST to get a computer? Perhaps on a weekend trip to Las Vegas or Reno you pick up that computer you've been meaning to get at Best Buy since it's cheaper.
I currently live in Mexico where prices are higher than they are in Texas. I often put off purchases so that the next time I drive up to the border I stock up on everything I need.
Yes, I grossly oversimplified. This is a thread about recycling, not economics. To go into the entire cause/effect of the boom that ended last year would be both off-topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
But lowering taxes was a major stimulus for the recovery and subsequent boom.
The boom was in no small part a response of a recovering economy that had taken massive beatings in the '70s and was going strong before Mr. Reagan took office.
I'm sorry, the economy was NOT going strong when Reagan took over. Check your data. Check the inflation rates. The economy was toast when Reagan took over which, in large part, is what he won the election.
In case you forgot, that means that the start of the boom could by your logic be credited to Jimmy Carter, but I imagine that would be blasphemy too blatant for you to accept.
Nope, the recovery started around 1984 or 85, if memory serves me. In fact, there was a rebound recession a year after Reagan took office. Only after almost half a decade of Reagan policies did things start to get better--and except for a pause in the previous Bush administration, after raising taxes, the boom lasted until last year.
The recovery was totally attributable to Reagan. I like Carter as a person, but he was a terrible president.
To take an obvious example, let's consider the interstate highway system. Are you able to present any rational argument that this system could have been put together by private industry? Nobody in the '40s could either, and so it was delegated to the government.
Ok, you weren't listening to what I said. I didn't say that I'm opposed to all government and all taxes. I said all fees and taxes tend to put upward pressure on inflation and make the economy less efficient. That is true.
However, I also clearly said--and you quoted--"The only question is whether society feels the negative effect of the fee/tax is outweighed by the potential benefit." In the case of the highway system the benefit clearly outweighs the cost.
On the other hand in Mexico (where I currently live), they have a terrible highway system of 2-lane roads. If you want U.S.-quality highways you have to take toll roads. We're talking $15 for a 60 mile drive. It's self-funded by the tolls, so don't tell me a highway system requires taxes. I personally prefer free usage of the highway having paid my taxes, but it is definitely NOT the only way to accomplish it.
Now, extend that to the military, or police or fire departments, or a host of other public systems like utilities or the phone system that would, without government regulation, never have developed the way they did.
You are talking about legitimate functions of government, which I do not dispute.
Is the military necessary? Yes. Is it productive? NO. The money spent on the military could be better spent on something else. But we all know that we NEED a military and it is a legitimate function of government, and the benefit (our security) is worth the cost. The same is true of police, fire stations, etc.
But the fact remains all these things--military, free highways, fire stations, police--exact an economic cost on society due to the costs paid to support them.
Thank you for your very valuable contribution, anonymous coward.
I don't deny there is huge tech waste as there is huge waste of every kind. What I dispute is that it's dangerously toxic. Read the environmental wackos 56-page report that was mentioned here yesterday and read for yourself. The percentage of a computer that is "toxic" is miniscule.
The waste problem itself, in terms of volume, is another issue. But I haven't seen anything that shows that computers are toxic in anything but trace amounts.
Tolls and trolls, tolls and trolls.
Environmentalists have been saying this for decades to make us feel bad to the point of doing what they say.
While I'm not against recycling, this argument doesn't hold. Despite how destructive environmentalists think humans are, there are no signs of any natural resource being depleted. Even petroleum--which was supposed to be used up by 2000--suddenly has decades more to go.
It also assumes that our great grandchildren are going to being using the same raw materials that we do. They very well may have a need for other raw materials at that point.
Besides, China is currently taking care of the need to recycle these parts by removing the copper and gold from the computers. It's the environmentalists that apparently do want that to continue.
We can do better than to push the cost (of disassembly) to our great grandchildren's grandchildren.
Yeah, let's push it to China. Or, rather, let's let China buy our old PCs, let them disassemble them and make some bucks in the process. Then we aren't wasting these valuable resources and everyone makes a buck in the process.
They fought with tough and nail to oppose pollution-control devices in cars and claimed that these devices would drive up costs and hurt the economy.
And they did. It's common sense. As always, the question is not whether regulations and taxes hurts the economy and raises costs--the question is whether society believes the benefits by the regulation and tax outweight teh cost.
But Ford, GM and Chrysler all were right. Any and every regulation and tax increases costs and hurts the economy and should be carefully considered.