By no stretch of logic could you support the claim that Washington in any way subsidizes Oregon. How we tax ourselves is our business; if you were brain-dead enough to vote in a sales tax, then *you* deal with it. Your tax woes aren't our problem.
Wrong. I claim it because it's true. Just as we have a problem here with RV buyers who drive to Portland to buy their RV to avoid the sales tax.
My point is that the Senator (who I like, by the way) has his state's interests at heart, and one must view his opinions about a Net sales tax compact with that knowledge.
This is also why many software firms choose to have businesses in Washington - then their high-paid employees can avoid income tax. Washington has a very large number of very high income earners, more than our fair share, partially for that reason. It makes more sense if you are someone who doesn't spend a lot but has a high salary, to live in our state.
One would expect/. to have more people whose jobs depend on Net firms, and thus more posters who are opposed to a uniform Net sales compact, of course.
There's nothing wrong with having a bias, it's just when you deny that you may be acting in your own self-interest.
[caveat - I own shares in firms which make money in the Net sphere, so I may be biased]
"Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who favored the simple extension, said Americans don't want to be taxed when they log on the Internet for their news, weather and sports."
Or, perhaps it's because Sen. Wyden represents a state with no sales tax. In other words, his state gains nothing from a Net sales tax, and thus it is in his state's favor to act in this manner.
Whereas I live in a state (Washington) with no Income tax, but a high Sales tax. So it is to my advantage to have a Net sales tax be imposed, so that my state captures the revenues it is entitled to, and does not subsidize his state.
For every stock transaction or purchase there is a buyer and a seller.
One of the problems with non-economists trying to decipher analyses of economic impacts of tax policy is that frequently you are looking at a very narrow viewpoint of the economic impacts.
Furthering the Internet tax ban merely delays the imposition of state sales tax on Net transactions.
The delay actually increases local instabilities, lowers the tax base, and thus drives up the local sales tax rates to recapture the income.
When you cheat taxes by not paying them (which is what this is), you force the local governments which have to meet those service needs to increase the rates on the bricks-and-mortar employers in the area, increase unemployment, and only the Net industries get a tax break.
What made sense in the 90s no longer makes sense in the 21st century.
There is no free lunch. When you drop taxes but expect the same net outflow, you either borrow the money or you raise taxes on all other participants. This is merely a shift of tax costs from the owners of Net-based shops onto the backs of people who actually create more jobs and have to pay higher property taxes to start with.
Well, yeah, but we just had to rib him with our sweater jokes.
It's the confusion between the role and the actor. Most people were more upset with the directors and writers who created the role, not Wil himself.
A reverse example of this effect would be Diane Keaton. In real life, she's not exceptionally smart and witty - that is the role she plays.
Hollywood frequently demands certain stereotypes. Wesley Crusher was one of those, and Wil Wheaton suffers our jibes because of the stereotype he played, not who he is as a person.
Nah, then you have to worry about the fact that you can't find any games that are rated for your kid's age.
Look at the titles.
The only parents who will buy xBox will have late teens (17+), the rest would be better off with GameCube.
-
Re:It's all about the Monopoly
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
If the store runs out of XBox, christmas shoppers will buy GameCube or PS2 instead.
If XBox sales are large but XBox game sales are small, developers will notice.
Hmmm. So basically, the point here is buy the xBox as a hack device to run Linux or BSD on and DON'T buy any games for it.
Sounds good to me. They halved their ship quotas anyway, and the devs will be watching to see what the game cart sales are anyway, not the box sales.
To give an example, it does a dev no good to gen for a platform that sells 2 games per box, when they could gen for a platform that sells 6 games per box.
xBox vs Gamecube - kids reaction
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
Well, they better be aiming for the 14-30 yo age range, cause my 10yo son tells me everyone is down on the xBox, even the ones who demo'd it at Pacific Place and other spots.
But the Gamecube definitely has the mind share there.
Re:Why we should buy the XBox
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
Remember that like most game systems, the console is sold at a loss, which the manufacturer recoups via game licensing fees. Microsoft loses at least $100 for every XBox they sell, with the red ink expected to approach $1 billion over the next 3 years.
And remember than Nintendo makes a profit on their consoles.
Plus the xBox is apparently Linux-friendly.
Time to use that 9gig drive and run an Apache web server in your dorm room!
Just say Bill G sent you, and thank him for the $100.
If it ain't broke, hack it...
-
Re:The killer online advantage...
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
Yes, the DCMA is very threatening to rights, but let's remember that the world "owns" the Net. In Canada they have the Internet Privacy Act, which gives one real rights to privacy, and in the EU (Europe) they have much stronger privacy rights, in fact they are outlawing cookies there.
So in some ways it doesn't matter. The Net will, as it has since it was created, reroute and heal the damage.
It's not that it allows free movement of goods and capital, it's that it does not allow free movement of labor and laws.
If low wage workers could shop around for where they want to work - say everyone in Africa wanted to work in Sweden, then it might be different.
But we have artificial barriers from the nation-states, and this is not true free trade, but one optimized for profit over labor, instead of balance.
Re:It's not globalization, it's corporate control
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
Good points.
For most of history, corporations had no rights, and in fact had charters which required good behaviour.
Nowhere in the EU or US constitution, or the UN, does it say that corporations should have a vote, or be able to lobby.
Originally, the motive for a corporation was not to maximize profits, but to do well and be a good corporate citizen assisting in the public welfare. Failing to meet that standard meant you could be dechartered, dissolved, fined, or executives or board members forcibly removed.
Also, for most of history, the historic split between profit and labor was 50/50 (sometimes it would vary, but that's the average). Only recently has it become socially acceptable to have a 75/25 split or an 80/20 split for profit/labor. Before, this would mean bad things would happen to such corporations.
And CEO/exec pay used to be in the 10 to 20 times low wage scale ratio, not the current 563:1 ratio. This is not including contracts, as many multinationals pay the real employees in sweat shops even less.
nope, everything I've been reading in the business sections seems to indicate it's more of a Sony vs Nintendo battle, with xBox a straggling third-place competitor.
And don't forget that Nintendo actually makes money on their boxes, not just their games; whereas this is not true of either Sony or Microsoft.
The first is a student paying his/her own way - no question.
The second is a student on a scholarship - still no question.
The third is a student on a work/study programme - then there might be a question.
Remember that most of the work that wins awards later in life was frequently done when people were in their teens and twenties. Especially patentable works.
If we continue the ageist ripping off of doctoral candidates for the profit of either the university or the supervising PhD, then we perpetuate a labor imbalance.
A brilliant patent is worth no less just because you're still a student.
And just as RIAA are vampires living off the fruits of the labors and inspirations of musicians, so are the universities and supervising PhDs in regards to doctoral candidates and their patents.
But it would still be better if it defaulted to public domain patent status, as was common in the first half of this nation's history, instead of private domain.
Gamecube will take the sales lead this season, with *gasp* X-Box right behind them. Sales of games for PS2 will be astronomical though as many buyers are now asking for titles instead of units.
Totally agree. As an example, I'll be getting a Gamecube, partially so my son and I can play Pimkin.
This world trade is baloney. It just gives multi-national corporations the rights of actual human beings (the purpose of the WTO is to change law in favor of the rich).
Quite true. The myth of capitalism is that:
1. corporations have rights. corporations are merely collective instruments, with no innate rights other than not losing more than the capital you put in.
2. corporations are exempt from criminal prosecution and jail terms. a true system would jail the executives for the collective crimes of the corporations, and assign proportional terms for all shareholders who had more than 1 percent ownership.
3. mutual funds do not permit voting rights. true mutual funds would pass thru stock voting rights to the shareholders for those companies held by the mutual fund.
4. free trade is pure capitalism. there is no such system in existence. pure capitalism requires perfect information perfectly available to all participants all of whom are able to move capital, labor, and resources to where the markets go, where pollution has a dollar cost, and regulations are uniformly applied to all participants. try this in real life and you'll be shot.
-
Globalization is like describing an elephant
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's different things to different people.
One problem is that media hacks (like Jon et al) want to describe it as one thing. But it isn't.
The Bush admin and FOBs would describe it as a method for reducing their ability to move capital without boundaries, but keep labor and environment separate, so that capital owners can maximize returns by playing countries and regions against each other.
Bill G and other large corporate owners would describe it as lowering the regulatory constraints and allowing them to sell one product to the whole world, with differential pricing to maximize the return based on the consumer base in each country. And the removal of pesky laws that reduce their capture of IP rights at the expense of other nations.
Pharmaceutical companies would describe it as the extension of the optimal patenting and trademarking systems to their advantage, and the removal of "fair use clone" drugs that compete against them.
al-Queda would describe it as the use of the media and marketing to impose one set of values (Western ones) upon the entire world and using it to trample their values (which are a myth, but they think they are real).
I would describe true globalization as being the ability for capital, labor, environmental constraints, and IP/fair use rights to be increased to the highest level worldwide, instead of lowered.
Slashdot Mirror
By no stretch of logic could you support the claim that Washington in any way subsidizes Oregon. How we tax ourselves is our business; if you were brain-dead enough to vote in a sales tax, then *you* deal with it. Your tax woes aren't our problem.
/. to have more people whose jobs depend on Net firms, and thus more posters who are opposed to a uniform Net sales compact, of course.
Wrong. I claim it because it's true. Just as we have a problem here with RV buyers who drive to Portland to buy their RV to avoid the sales tax.
My point is that the Senator (who I like, by the way) has his state's interests at heart, and one must view his opinions about a Net sales tax compact with that knowledge.
This is also why many software firms choose to have businesses in Washington - then their high-paid employees can avoid income tax. Washington has a very large number of very high income earners, more than our fair share, partially for that reason. It makes more sense if you are someone who doesn't spend a lot but has a high salary, to live in our state.
One would expect
There's nothing wrong with having a bias, it's just when you deny that you may be acting in your own self-interest.
[caveat - I own shares in firms which make money in the Net sphere, so I may be biased]
In answer to your question, we're not talking about the cartoon series, we're talking about the new live action TV series of The Tick.
...
Which is quite cool. And definitely more adult.
As The Immortal now knows
-
"Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who favored the simple extension, said Americans don't want to be taxed when they log on the Internet for their news, weather and sports."
Or, perhaps it's because Sen. Wyden represents a state with no sales tax. In other words, his state gains nothing from a Net sales tax, and thus it is in his state's favor to act in this manner.
Whereas I live in a state (Washington) with no Income tax, but a high Sales tax. So it is to my advantage to have a Net sales tax be imposed, so that my state captures the revenues it is entitled to, and does not subsidize his state.
For every stock transaction or purchase there is a buyer and a seller.
-
One of the problems with non-economists trying to decipher analyses of economic impacts of tax policy is that frequently you are looking at a very narrow viewpoint of the economic impacts.
Furthering the Internet tax ban merely delays the imposition of state sales tax on Net transactions.
The delay actually increases local instabilities, lowers the tax base, and thus drives up the local sales tax rates to recapture the income.
When you cheat taxes by not paying them (which is what this is), you force the local governments which have to meet those service needs to increase the rates on the bricks-and-mortar employers in the area, increase unemployment, and only the Net industries get a tax break.
What made sense in the 90s no longer makes sense in the 21st century.
There is no free lunch. When you drop taxes but expect the same net outflow, you either borrow the money or you raise taxes on all other participants. This is merely a shift of tax costs from the owners of Net-based shops onto the backs of people who actually create more jobs and have to pay higher property taxes to start with.
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
-
Wil Wheaton is a gracious net celebrity ...
Well, yeah, but we just had to rib him with our sweater jokes.
It's the confusion between the role and the actor. Most people were more upset with the directors and writers who created the role, not Wil himself.
A reverse example of this effect would be Diane Keaton. In real life, she's not exceptionally smart and witty - that is the role she plays.
Hollywood frequently demands certain stereotypes. Wesley Crusher was one of those, and Wil Wheaton suffers our jibes because of the stereotype he played, not who he is as a person.
-
I think he would do better as the Lost Prince of Atlantis, water wings and all... :) --
...
Yeah, that would actually be the best Wesley Crusher role.
Although I'm sure some of us would love to see Wil do Sewer Urchin
-
Seriously, it would be cool if he was on The Tick, but even better if he was Sweater Boy or something.
I mean, think about the banter between Wesley Crusher and the Blue Icon of Justice!
-
Nah, then you have to worry about the fact that you can't find any games that are rated for your kid's age.
Look at the titles.
The only parents who will buy xBox will have late teens (17+), the rest would be better off with GameCube.
-
If the store runs out of XBox, christmas shoppers will buy GameCube or PS2 instead.
...
If XBox sales are large but XBox game sales are small, developers will notice.
Hmmm. So basically, the point here is buy the xBox as a hack device to run Linux or BSD on and DON'T buy any games for it.
Sounds good to me. They halved their ship quotas anyway, and the devs will be watching to see what the game cart sales are anyway, not the box sales.
To give an example, it does a dev no good to gen for a platform that sells 2 games per box, when they could gen for a platform that sells 6 games per box.
It's all about the games
Cool, so pub the specs tomorrow, ok?
...
Should be just in time for those buying
Well, they better be aiming for the 14-30 yo age range, cause my 10yo son tells me everyone is down on the xBox, even the ones who demo'd it at Pacific Place and other spots.
But the Gamecube definitely has the mind share there.
Remember that like most game systems, the console is sold at a loss, which the manufacturer recoups via game licensing fees. Microsoft loses at least $100 for every XBox they sell, with the red ink expected to approach $1 billion over the next 3 years.
...
And remember than Nintendo makes a profit on their consoles.
Plus the xBox is apparently Linux-friendly.
Time to use that 9gig drive and run an Apache web server in your dorm room!
Just say Bill G sent you, and thank him for the $100.
If it ain't broke, hack it
-
I vote for Online Star Wars.
GameCube, here I come!
Plus, those Pimkin look really cool gamewise.
[caveat - I own both MSFT and NTDOY stock]
-
refried said he would only buy xBox if:
1. I can install Linux on it
the article points out that this is not too hard, and that Linux game ports are expected.
2. Microsoft loses more money on the sale than I would be spending on the purchase.
Yes, they lose money on each box. Unlike Nintendo, who makes money on each box.
As to the last point about starting fires - were you planning to overclock it?
[caveat - I own MSFT and NTDOY stock]
-
Yes, the DCMA is very threatening to rights, but let's remember that the world "owns" the Net. In Canada they have the Internet Privacy Act, which gives one real rights to privacy, and in the EU (Europe) they have much stronger privacy rights, in fact they are outlawing cookies there.
So in some ways it doesn't matter. The Net will, as it has since it was created, reroute and heal the damage.
-
In asteroid space, I would say we really should have two goals.
The first is economic use of the asteroids in a way that gets us off this rock.
The second is to establish better observation and mapping of possible collision objects that might impact the earth and their diversion before impact.
-
I was just wondering, when do you plan the IPO and how many options do you get for maintaining the kernel?
... wait ... wrong room ... isn't this the Closed Source software questions room?
... oh
;-)
It's not that it allows free movement of goods and capital, it's that it does not allow free movement of labor and laws.
If low wage workers could shop around for where they want to work - say everyone in Africa wanted to work in Sweden, then it might be different.
But we have artificial barriers from the nation-states, and this is not true free trade, but one optimized for profit over labor, instead of balance.
Good points.
For most of history, corporations had no rights, and in fact had charters which required good behaviour.
Nowhere in the EU or US constitution, or the UN, does it say that corporations should have a vote, or be able to lobby.
Originally, the motive for a corporation was not to maximize profits, but to do well and be a good corporate citizen assisting in the public welfare. Failing to meet that standard meant you could be dechartered, dissolved, fined, or executives or board members forcibly removed.
Also, for most of history, the historic split between profit and labor was 50/50 (sometimes it would vary, but that's the average). Only recently has it become socially acceptable to have a 75/25 split or an 80/20 split for profit/labor. Before, this would mean bad things would happen to such corporations.
And CEO/exec pay used to be in the 10 to 20 times low wage scale ratio, not the current 563:1 ratio. This is not including contracts, as many multinationals pay the real employees in sweat shops even less.
All of this is subject to change.
-
nope, everything I've been reading in the business sections seems to indicate it's more of a Sony vs Nintendo battle, with xBox a straggling third-place competitor.
And don't forget that Nintendo actually makes money on their boxes, not just their games; whereas this is not true of either Sony or Microsoft.
[caveat - I own MSFT and NTDOY]
The first is a student paying his/her own way - no question.
The second is a student on a scholarship - still no question.
The third is a student on a work/study programme - then there might be a question.
Remember that most of the work that wins awards later in life was frequently done when people were in their teens and twenties. Especially patentable works.
If we continue the ageist ripping off of doctoral candidates for the profit of either the university or the supervising PhD, then we perpetuate a labor imbalance.
A brilliant patent is worth no less just because you're still a student.
And just as RIAA are vampires living off the fruits of the labors and inspirations of musicians, so are the universities and supervising PhDs in regards to doctoral candidates and their patents.
But it would still be better if it defaulted to public domain patent status, as was common in the first half of this nation's history, instead of private domain.
-
Gamecube will take the sales lead this season, with *gasp* X-Box right behind them. Sales of games for PS2 will be astronomical though as many buyers are now asking for titles instead of units.
Totally agree. As an example, I'll be getting a Gamecube, partially so my son and I can play Pimkin.
[caveat - I own shares in MSFT and NTDOY]
-
This world trade is baloney. It just gives multi-national corporations the rights of actual human beings (the purpose of the WTO is to change law in favor of the rich).
Quite true. The myth of capitalism is that:
1. corporations have rights. corporations are merely collective instruments, with no innate rights other than not losing more than the capital you put in.
2. corporations are exempt from criminal prosecution and jail terms. a true system would jail the executives for the collective crimes of the corporations, and assign proportional terms for all shareholders who had more than 1 percent ownership.
3. mutual funds do not permit voting rights. true mutual funds would pass thru stock voting rights to the shareholders for those companies held by the mutual fund.
4. free trade is pure capitalism. there is no such system in existence. pure capitalism requires perfect information perfectly available to all participants all of whom are able to move capital, labor, and resources to where the markets go, where pollution has a dollar cost, and regulations are uniformly applied to all participants. try this in real life and you'll be shot.
-
It's different things to different people.
One problem is that media hacks (like Jon et al) want to describe it as one thing. But it isn't.
The Bush admin and FOBs would describe it as a method for reducing their ability to move capital without boundaries, but keep labor and environment separate, so that capital owners can maximize returns by playing countries and regions against each other.
Bill G and other large corporate owners would describe it as lowering the regulatory constraints and allowing them to sell one product to the whole world, with differential pricing to maximize the return based on the consumer base in each country. And the removal of pesky laws that reduce their capture of IP rights at the expense of other nations.
Pharmaceutical companies would describe it as the extension of the optimal patenting and trademarking systems to their advantage, and the removal of "fair use clone" drugs that compete against them.
al-Queda would describe it as the use of the media and marketing to impose one set of values (Western ones) upon the entire world and using it to trample their values (which are a myth, but they think they are real).
I would describe true globalization as being the ability for capital, labor, environmental constraints, and IP/fair use rights to be increased to the highest level worldwide, instead of lowered.
And we are all right.
-
isn't it likely that MSFT will try to endrun you by working on your policitians, though? this is a favored tactic of theirs.
-