Just my 2 cents here: I don't think the scientists were saying they needed to ask permission from their local clergy, but that they wanted to have a full debate about the ethical implications of such an experiment. Much of what goes on in scientific discovery and experimentation is subject to ethical reviews. Including religious leaders in such a debate/review is the right thing to do. These are the people in our society who are focused on matters of ethics and morality - their input would be needed and should not be ignored. Religion shouldn't dictate strictly the bounds of scientific research, but at the same time it is foolish for science to ignore the religious/ethical/cultural world around them.
Here's the real problem with the current prohibition on internet taxes: it is setting up another large transfer of power from local to national governments.
Most local and state governments in the US are very dependent upon some form of sales tax. As has been stated in other posts to this article, the day will probably come when there will be taxes levied upon internet commerce. But you can be sure that when that happens (what, maybe 2-3 years from now?) that it will be the federal government that will have to authority to levy and collect these taxes. There may be some sort of system created to distribute these monies back to the individual states, but you can be assured that any such system will do more to place state government under the thumb of the feds.
I'm just as much in favor of lower taxes as the next guy, but I'm concerned that the current hysteria about keeping taxes off of internet commerce isn't really just becoming a temporary subsidy for internet retailers. Do they really need that tax break to become established? Come on now; we should all be aware (especially/.'ers) of the inherent advantages internet retailers have over current 'brick-and-mortar' establishments. Let them compete fairly.
It is a given that the internet is so new that any tax system put in place by any government has a chance of not being the best solution. Will this change in a few years when governments finally get around to it? Probably not.
Here's a link to a summary of the feelings of many of the states' governors about the current situation: http://www.nga.org/Releases/Letters/971010letter.h tm While you're there, browsing the rest of the nga.org site for more information, including reasonable proposals for dealing with this issue now. We just can't stick our heads in the sand about this issue because we enjoy the current tax-free shopping. Be aware, the internet *will not* remain tax-free. It's just a matter of time before the amount of money available for taxation can't be passed up by an government. The longer we wait to do something about this the more likely it is that the taxing authority will be the national government, with the corresponding transfer of power from local to national government.
OK, help me figure this out. I know that there are several criteria that must be met before a patent can be issued, such as no prior art. As I understand it, one of these restrictions is that the invention to be patented should not be obvious to another person who is reasonably skilled in the particular field the patent applies to. So don't most of these patents that involve patenting an existing business model translated to the internet fall into this category where the invention is obvious? What part of the 1-click patent or other patents such as selling downloadable music or buying custom generated music cds over the internet is so non-intuitive to other business people and internet developers?
OK, so here's a thought I had recently. Assuming that MS does not settle and drags out the proceedings as much as possible (intentional delays, appeals, etc), what happens if this case is still in the court system in 2001 when we get a new administration? Will significant changes in the staffing of the DoJ from a Republican administration have an effect on the final outcome of all of this? Could the new higher ups at DoJ just drop the whole thing or make a favorable (for MS) settlement offer?
The best comment in this Q&A is when John described his TR as "heavy and ponderous". Amazing how driving an F50 every day can change your world view...
Slashdot Mirror
Just my 2 cents here:
I don't think the scientists were saying they needed to ask permission from their local clergy, but that they wanted to have a full debate about the ethical implications of such an experiment. Much of what goes on in scientific discovery and experimentation is subject to ethical reviews. Including religious leaders in such a debate/review is the right thing to do. These are the people in our society who are focused on matters of ethics and morality - their input would be needed and should not be ignored.
Religion shouldn't dictate strictly the bounds of scientific research, but at the same time it is foolish for science to ignore the religious/ethical/cultural world around them.
Oops!
Apologies to all for the bad grammar in my preceding post.
Here's the real problem with the current prohibition on internet taxes: it is setting up another large transfer of power from local to national governments.
/.'ers) of the inherent advantages internet retailers have over current 'brick-and-mortar' establishments. Let them compete fairly.
h tm
Most local and state governments in the US are very dependent upon some form of sales tax. As has been stated in other posts to this article, the day will probably come when there will be taxes levied upon internet commerce. But you can be sure that when that happens (what, maybe 2-3 years from now?) that it will be the federal government that will have to authority to levy and collect these taxes. There may be some sort of system created to distribute these monies back to the individual states, but you can be assured that any such system will do more to place state government under the thumb of the feds.
I'm just as much in favor of lower taxes as the next guy, but I'm concerned that the current hysteria about keeping taxes off of internet commerce isn't really just becoming a temporary subsidy for internet retailers. Do they really need that tax break to become established? Come on now; we should all be aware (especially
It is a given that the internet is so new that any tax system put in place by any government has a chance of not being the best solution. Will this change in a few years when governments finally get around to it? Probably not.
Here's a link to a summary of the feelings of many of the states' governors about the current situation: http://www.nga.org/Releases/Letters/971010letter.
While you're there, browsing the rest of the nga.org site for more information, including reasonable proposals for dealing with this issue now. We just can't stick our heads in the sand about this issue because we enjoy the current tax-free shopping. Be aware, the internet *will not* remain tax-free. It's just a matter of time before the amount of money available for taxation can't be passed up by an government. The longer we wait to do something about this the more likely it is that the taxing authority will be the national government, with the corresponding transfer of power from local to national government.
OK, help me figure this out. I know that there are several criteria that must be met before a patent can be issued, such as no prior art. As I understand it, one of these restrictions is that the invention to be patented should not be obvious to another person who is reasonably skilled in the particular field the patent applies to. So don't most of these patents that involve patenting an existing business model translated to the internet fall into this category where the invention is obvious? What part of the 1-click patent or other patents such as selling downloadable music or buying custom generated music cds over the internet is so non-intuitive to other business people and internet developers?
OK, so here's a thought I had recently. Assuming that MS does not settle and drags out the proceedings as much as possible (intentional delays, appeals, etc), what happens if this case is still in the court system in 2001 when we get a new administration? Will significant changes in the staffing of the DoJ from a Republican administration have an effect on the final outcome of all of this? Could the new higher ups at DoJ just drop the whole thing or make a favorable (for MS) settlement offer?
The best comment in this Q&A is when John described his TR as "heavy and ponderous". Amazing how driving an F50 every day can change your world view...