Corporate income taxes are on earnings, not revenue. Money spent for reinvestment purposes is an expense, therefore would never be subject to corporate income taxes.
The patent does not make any claim about sending power over WiFI, therefore every comment complaining that you can't send enough power over WiFi is off-topic.
What it *does* claim is sending power using the same antenna array as communications in the 60GHz band. It does not mention a frequency for the power transmision.
What is particularly interesting is Claim 7: "The electronic device defined in claim 6 further comprising a display, wherein the wireless power transfer circuitry is configured to transfer power wirelessly at microwave frequencies using the array of antennas." This implies building the array in a monitor.
That is begging the question: the proposition was that it was correct to call the entire category illegal immigrants because their immigration status was inherently criminal. You cannot then prove that their status was was inherently criminal by your use of the phrase "illegal immigrants".
Illegal entry is a crime and a civil offense 8USC1325 (http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1325.html), but entering legally and then being unlawfully present is only a civil offense,e.g. but not limited to 8USC1324d (http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1324d.html). (Commission of certain crimes by and immigrant may make them unlawfully present, but that does make the unlawful presence itself. However, that distinction may not be important to the question at hand.)
An interesting side effect is that the criminal offense of illegal entry requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while unlawful presence has a much lower burden of proof.
Baking is all about chemistry. However, most jobs in baking do not require a degree in chemistry... in fact, a degree in chemistry in most cases wouldn't help get the job done.
"The situation that arises absolutely incentivizes the company to charge as much as they can get away with, since after all the US gov't has essentially infinitely deep pockets.
That's one theory. Another theory is that the US government can pay you as little as they like, because what other purchaser can make up that volume? (This is in fact how WalMart treats its suppliers and how they can drive supplies to sell to WalMart huge volumes below their manufacturing cost.)
The reality of the situation is that Medicare is that it has controlled its spending better than private treatment.
While it is certainly possible for a civl engineer with a sanitation engineering specialty to work as a janitor or a garbage collector, it is not a requirement or an expectation.
If had merely sent his petition to the government a a citizen like you and me, that would be exercising First Amendment rights. However, he claimed authority in stating he was making his petition as an engineer, i.e. that his pleading should carry more weight than a regular citizen, as opposed to being considered on the merits of the argument he made.
For certain kinds of work that fall under "electrical engineer", there is no certification because it cannot be marketed to the public. For example, I do integrated circuit design in processes which require a $10 billion fab to manufacture. No individual is going to have a $10 billion fab laying around looking for electrical engineers to feed it designs. There's is no point to advertising these skill to the public as engineering, so no one bothered to come up with a certification for it.
A poor person may at least enter negotiation with the sellers of those products, to see if they can come to a mutually acceptable offer.. AT&T refusing to even consider offers. Refusing business out of hand is a pretty anti-capitalist move.
It's not that the directors are other CEOs, it's that they are people who derive most of their income from very diverse portfolios. They are interested in much more risk from each investment than the individual wage earner can tolerate. They have to pay CEOs that much to get the CEOs to take risks that may in turn put the CEOs out of work.
Pollution of a given type is locally fungible. If two factories next to each other are emitting the same pollutant, you can't really tell the difference in origin. However, if the factories create that pollutant as an output of different processes, the costs of reducing the pollutants can be wildly different. As reduction of the total pollutants is the actual public policy goal, that public policy should focus on maximizing that total without overspecifying what the components are.
This method also includes several other good economic ideas, such as: prices are a means to compare dissimilar things; and absent a natural market, e.g. when dealing with external costs, you can create an artificial market via tradeable credits or taxes to take advantage of the optimization powers of markets.
Also, it allows you to say "market" a lot when selling a government policy, and say "public policy" a lot when selling a market.;-)
You have assumed that the amount of pollutants emitted is immutable.
If a corporation merely raises prices to exactly cover the taxation, they sell fewer units and have lower earnings without reducing pollution.
If they reduce the pollution at a lower cost than the tax rate for the pollution, this creates a smaller shift in the supply curve, creates a market incentive for advancement in pollution reduction for their specific processes, and reduces their specific pollution.
If pollution credits can be traded, this creates a smaller shift in the supply curve, creates a market incentive for advancement in pollution reduction for every process, and reduces pollution broadly.
Meanwhile you present no method for dealing with external costs at all.
I had a mechanical parking brake break on me when my father was trying to teach me how to drive a car. So the next lesson was how to replace the mechanical parking brake.
Also, "a small gear that might fracture, which would prevent the parking brake from releasing" so it's a mechanical failure anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
But since they face no consequences, they have no incentive to improve.
Corporate income taxes are on earnings, not revenue. Money spent for reinvestment purposes is an expense, therefore would never be subject to corporate income taxes.
Clearly, they should have withheld all markup until they were finished with the translation to Tocharian.
"The one place and way this MIGHT work, then, is if one places the phone ON the 802.11 transmitter, just outside of the antenna, "
Look at claim 7.
The patent does not make any claim about sending power over WiFI, therefore every comment complaining that you can't send enough power over WiFi is off-topic.
What it *does* claim is sending power using the same antenna array as communications in the 60GHz band. It does not mention a frequency for the power transmision.
What is particularly interesting is Claim 7: "The electronic device defined in claim 6 further comprising a display, wherein the wireless power transfer circuitry is configured to transfer power wirelessly at microwave frequencies using the array of antennas." This implies building the array in a monitor.
Venmo is like PayPal but not crooked.
That is begging the question: the proposition was that it was correct to call the entire category illegal immigrants because their immigration status was inherently criminal. You cannot then prove that their status was was inherently criminal by your use of the phrase "illegal immigrants".
Illegal entry is a crime and a civil offense 8USC1325 (http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1325.html), but entering legally and then being unlawfully present is only a civil offense,e.g. but not limited to 8USC1324d (http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1324d.html). (Commission of certain crimes by and immigrant may make them unlawfully present, but that does make the unlawful presence itself. However, that distinction may not be important to the question at hand.)
An interesting side effect is that the criminal offense of illegal entry requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while unlawful presence has a much lower burden of proof.
Baking is all about chemistry. However, most jobs in baking do not require a degree in chemistry... in fact, a degree in chemistry in most cases wouldn't help get the job done.
Most immigration status infractions are civil offenses, not crimes.
"The situation that arises absolutely incentivizes the company to charge as much as they can get away with, since after all the US gov't has essentially infinitely deep pockets.
That's one theory. Another theory is that the US government can pay you as little as they like, because what other purchaser can make up that volume? (This is in fact how WalMart treats its suppliers and how they can drive supplies to sell to WalMart huge volumes below their manufacturing cost.)
The reality of the situation is that Medicare is that it has controlled its spending better than private treatment.
And yet he has never paid for a polo shirt, wearing only those given away as trade show swag.
While it is certainly possible for a civl engineer with a sanitation engineering specialty to work as a janitor or a garbage collector, it is not a requirement or an expectation.
The problem is having only one copy, no matter whether that one copy is in the cloud or not.
"Sanitation engineer" actually is used euphemistically as the job title for a janitor or garbage collector.
If had merely sent his petition to the government a a citizen like you and me, that would be exercising First Amendment rights. However, he claimed authority in stating he was making his petition as an engineer, i.e. that his pleading should carry more weight than a regular citizen, as opposed to being considered on the merits of the argument he made.
"Why didn't he ever register as an engineer"
For certain kinds of work that fall under "electrical engineer", there is no certification because it cannot be marketed to the public. For example, I do integrated circuit design in processes which require a $10 billion fab to manufacture. No individual is going to have a $10 billion fab laying around looking for electrical engineers to feed it designs. There's is no point to advertising these skill to the public as engineering, so no one bothered to come up with a certification for it.
A poor person may at least enter negotiation with the sellers of those products, to see if they can come to a mutually acceptable offer.. AT&T refusing to even consider offers. Refusing business out of hand is a pretty anti-capitalist move.
Corporation wants to make money by refusing to provide service to those willing to pay.
It's not that the directors are other CEOs, it's that they are people who derive most of their income from very diverse portfolios. They are interested in much more risk from each investment than the individual wage earner can tolerate. They have to pay CEOs that much to get the CEOs to take risks that may in turn put the CEOs out of work.
Pollution of a given type is locally fungible. If two factories next to each other are emitting the same pollutant, you can't really tell the difference in origin. However, if the factories create that pollutant as an output of different processes, the costs of reducing the pollutants can be wildly different. As reduction of the total pollutants is the actual public policy goal, that public policy should focus on maximizing that total without overspecifying what the components are.
This method also includes several other good economic ideas, such as: prices are a means to compare dissimilar things; and absent a natural market, e.g. when dealing with external costs, you can create an artificial market via tradeable credits or taxes to take advantage of the optimization powers of markets.
Also, it allows you to say "market" a lot when selling a government policy, and say "public policy" a lot when selling a market. ;-)
"If someone can sneak a USB stick into a television, he can sneak a microphone and a transmitter into the room."
The difference is that you have to leave the discrete microphone and transmitter behind.
"those corporations will raise their prices"
You have assumed that the amount of pollutants emitted is immutable.
If a corporation merely raises prices to exactly cover the taxation, they sell fewer units and have lower earnings without reducing pollution.
If they reduce the pollution at a lower cost than the tax rate for the pollution, this creates a smaller shift in the supply curve, creates a market incentive for advancement in pollution reduction for their specific processes, and reduces their specific pollution.
If pollution credits can be traded, this creates a smaller shift in the supply curve, creates a market incentive for advancement in pollution reduction for every process, and reduces pollution broadly.
Meanwhile you present no method for dealing with external costs at all.
I agree that someone who is drinking pizza has gone too far.
I had a mechanical parking brake break on me when my father was trying to teach me how to drive a car. So the next lesson was how to replace the mechanical parking brake.
Also, "a small gear that might fracture, which would prevent the parking brake from releasing" so it's a mechanical failure anyway.
If the devices can be repaired or reused, people wouldn't be sending them to recyclers.
"Grandstanding effort" indeed, just not grandstanding by Apple.