"Apple doesn't want the rights to the ebooks made with iBook Author - all they say is any book made with their software, which they provide for free, can only be distributed,in Apple's iBook format created by the software, by them."
Sorry, but all you do is to prove the OP's point: the copyright grants the author the right to distribute his work as he sees fits - and Apple wants this right for themselves for ebooks made with iBook Author. Q.E.D.
You still have the right to distribute your copyrighted work as you see fit - Apple gains no control over your copyrighted material - all you are agreeing to is a license that says if you want to create an ebook with our tools you agree to use our distribution mechanism. You have the right to decline the license and not use their tool - you are not assigning your copyright to them, nor losing any other rights granted to you by copyright. It's not even an exclusive right to distribute you are granting Apple since you can still use other tools to produce the exact same work and distribute it independent of Apple.
In the ned, it is the copyright holder's right to decide what licenses and distribution methods they want to use; and how they want to assign those rights.
Just like Apple wants rights to the e-books made with their ebook software
Apple doesn't want the rights to the ebooks made with iBook Author - all they say is any book made with their software, which they provide for free, can only be distributed ,in Apple's iBook format created by the software, by them. The author owns the content and can do whatever else they want with it, just not with Apple's software.
While I would like Apple to release a version of iBook Author that created a standard ePub formatted file that could be used on other devices, and I would pay for such software, I don't think their current terms are unreasonable and the notion that "Apple wants the rights" is simply FUD.
Here's our country on a silver platter." Seriously, in twenty years, we're going to regret moving our of production and debt to China. We're going be left with no leg to stand on, and only ourselves to blame.
While production is problematic; debt isn't as much so. While there is a promise to repay, there is no guarantee beyond the belief that one will repay or that a currency move wouldn't wipe out large chunk of it. The US could, for example, print enough dollars to pay off its debt. That would result in hugh economic problems, but it is not out of the relm of possibility. Hell, the could print and then reissue new Dollars at a 1 to 1 rate up to say a billion for any one person, and at a 1000000 to 1 rate above that. Crazy idea? Sure. But countries have done similar things.
They raised tariffs on just about everything, except where they were the lowest (sugar). One area is aviation. You will find that Brazil has a thriving aviation industry.
As to computers, you will find that PRIOR to their tariffs, they had not real hardware or software industry. However, with the tariffs, it has created loads ot new industries there. Now, are tablets more expensive? Yup. But those tariffs are coming down. And then prices will drop.
Brazil's situation improved because they put up tariffs. They have no intention to keep them up there, but they are using it to protect markets while building. the same is done in China, India, South Africa, etc. The difference is that what is suggested with the SCALED tariffs is that whereever we have massive trade deficits, we do a scale on it. As the deficits drop, then so do the tariffs. And yes, it DOES work.
The problem is as tariffs drop the low cost producers move back it. In the long run, they fail to work and add a significant burden to the economy. Of course, producers always try to find a reason to keep tariffs in place; because long term survival depends on it since they really aren't competitive with other countries. While tariffs produce short term gains for companies they don't produce sustainable advantages and cost the rest of the country in the form of higher prices.
Even with tariffs, something like 1/3 of all Brazilians live under the poverty level; and Embrear suffered loss last quarter.
And yet, that is not the case in nations that implement them. In particular, China, Brazil, South Africa, and India have had them in place for quit some time. However, the nation with the MOST tariffs is China. I would say that a scaled tariff in which we only raise them against nations with large surpluses against the US would be the way to go, rather than go with product lines (which is about protecting industries).
Let's take Brazil for example, - they raised tariffs on computers - so Foxconn built a factory there. Some workers get jobs and Brazil gets a factory; but many more people can't buy tablets because they are more expensive than they would be if Brazil let the cheaper ones in. In the end, it's a deadweight loss because every tablet sold costs more than it should in a free market. Companies that do buy them need to charger more for their products because the computers they use cost them more. So, for a few jobs you add to the cost of production for everyone else.
If tariffs worked, a country could simply tax its way out of unemployment by eliminating any imports. Unfortunately, that doesn't work. All it does is add cost with no added value.
Right - add a deadweight loss to our economy and make people pay more for goods so their net purchasing power goes down. A tarrif isn't going to bring manufacturing back; all it will do is reduce overall demand and leave consumers worse off.
but just because he was illegally tracked doesn't mean he wasn't still guilty. The police should be disciplined, the criminal shouldn't be let off the hook.
Yea. Let cops do whatever and if they violate the Constitution slap them on the wrist. Hell, who needs extradition; just do snatch and grab.
Only temporarily most likely. The U.S. had company towns and indentured-servitude working conditions as well, at the beginning of its large-scale industrialization in the 1880s. It also had dozens of riots, mass unionization drives, etc., in the same decade, for not coincidental reasons.
China may delay the backlash longer because its authoritarian state suppresses workers' dissent, but I doubt they can maintain those kinds of conditions for that long.
Given that China is rapidly evolving into shaves and have nots it's only a matter of tine before they start having serious social problems.
I was once talking to someone about how to stop illegal immigrants - seems they were fed up with people sneaking across borders to find work. In China.
You think the US workers have freedom? Wow. They are afraid to take holidays so they can't get fired. At the same time my company gives me 30+ days payed holidays at 38 hour working weeks.
Uh, your company doesn't "give" you anything. Your wage is based on productivity - which factors in vacation, work hours, etc. You essentially fade money for time off - not a bad trade (until they figure out how to tax it) but simple economics dictates your wage
I fully agree with you on healthcare, and wish all elected representatives had to pay for their own care - maybe they'd appreciate that it isn't a luxury.
So essentially, they buy the stuff they sell from China because it's super-cheap, and now they're trying to get people to give them product ideas because designers and engineers are too expensive, to save on the cost of product development.
No way I'm giving the cheap bastards any of my brainpower so they can make even more profit.
(Mind you, that's exactly what Google does too...)
You left out one step... Profit
You've got Wal-Mart's business model in a nutshell - push as much of the cost onto the supple as possible - and run a logistic system that is ruthlessly efficient. Wal-Mart is a logistics company that happens to have stores at one end of the chain.
This extends copyright protection, in the US, to works still under copyright protection abroad and brings the US in line with Berne Treaty; essentially providing the same protection to foreign authors as it does to US. Once those copyrights expire the works will revert to the public domain. SCOTUS appears to leave open the argument that continual extension of copyright would be unconstitutional; in this ruling they said Congress has the right to bring US law inline with treaties and the Constitution's copyright provision does not prevent that. Congress should have done that when they ratified the teary but didn't; and that doesn't prevent them from later doing so.
Basically it being copyrighted has generated wealth. People have decided that they are willing to do work for 2 minutes or 10 minutes or even an hour to earn the money to pay to see that video. It has generated real work, and people wanting to work to buy something is what spins the wheels of the economy.
Broken window fallacy.
Not really - there is no loss in this case that requires money to be spent to correct.
The copyright on that video has not generated any wealth. It has shifted wealth from some people to some other people.
That's what all production does - shift wealth (money) to one person in exchange for something the first person values
To boot, Dr Rev MLK Jr would have made the speech without pecuniary incentive... thus even the spirit of the intention of copyright has no bearing.
Which is irrelevant to your argument. That he nay or may not have wanted renmeration is of no bearing on who owns the copyright.
If there is less overtime, that in fact creates more jobs, as employers will have to hire additional people to do the same work.
Only if the overtime costs are greater than the costs of hiring and the expected revenue form the hire exceeds the costs- otherwise they will simply forgo hiring. Employers don't simply say they need to do x work - the say they need to do x work at y cost; so reducing x without reducing the input to y doesn't work.
And if some companies move out, you just increase the customs on their product so they will have to get back inside if they want to sell.
Or the price of the goods simply increase by the cost of the tariff - and consumers buy less so the company makes less and must decide if they could be more profitable moving back. In addition, local competitors see the price rise and either grab market share - or raise prices to increase profits at a lower volume. This ignores, of course, the impact of the new location adding tariffs as a retaliatory measure; and that in many areas you don't have inter-entity tariffs (such as the US and the EU).
Brazil is a leftist country, which means they take workers' rights seriously. You see, as there is a competition in a labour market, without regulations like minimal wage or overtime pay the companies could just require workers to work more for less pay, because there would always be someone else to take the job. By regulating overtime, the state ends the competition between the workers, thus solving the prisoners dilemma scenario and resulting in an environment that's better for everyone.
You got the economics of that wrong. The people who benefit are the ones who have jobs - but employers only have so much money to pay for wages, and as a result hire fewer people. Great if you have a job, bad if you don't. In addition, employers look to ways to minimize hiring while still increasing staff - so you often get temporary contracts that are of a very limited duration. That way, they don't have to fire you they simply don't renew the contract.
A national minimum wage also reduce competition between company its by requiring areas that would have lower labor costs to pay more, reducing the incentive for companies to locate their business there. If they could locate in lower wage areas they would reduce prices and those companies in high wage areas would lose business. A minimum wage is not a bad idea, but it is not just a way to protect workers.
If you're gonna get the loyalty and job security from an employer that a contractor gets, you might as well get the freedom, tax breaks and bill rate that a contractor gets....no?
One thing to remember - an employee's wages go to the head of the line in a bankruptcy; a contractor gets in line with the rest of the creditors and is subject to all the various bankruptcy rulings.
Contract work is great, but you aren't simply exchanging one check for another that has the same protections as a paycheck.
I've seen chemical plants built with millions of dollars worth of unnecessary piping and valves, because the project timeframe meant that it was cheaper to install extra connections that might never be used and save engineering time than waste time re-engineering it.
If removing unnecessary items can save thirty thousand dollars (say) at the cost of three days, removing the cruft is only worth it if the delay costs less than ten thousand a day.
You're example is more along the lines of planning ahead to save money than leaving in stuff that is not used and is affecting performance. One company i worked fro, when they had a new office built, put in miles of cabling to met yet undefined connectivity needs because it is cheaper to buy the cable and install it before the walls go up than after.
Now, if they ran new wire and the old wire impacted its ability to send signals at high speed due to some inductive interaction, then it's like the dead code - something in place that has no use but is affecting current performance.
As you pointed out, in the end the decision is is the cost of removing the item worth the improvement we'll see?" With physical items, removal is also often driven by aesthetics; for example, once my deck supports were replaced I no longer wanted the temporary bracing left up simply because it look ugly, in this case the "cost" of looking tat an ugly deck was more than the real cost of removal of the temporary supports.
With coding, we often don't "see" the dead code - new features are added and code adapted to make it work; but there is no apparent "extra" code left behind or now rendered unnecessary by the changes. Plus, searching for it is boring compared to adding something else so coders move on to the next thing. Once performance starts lagging, then someone may look to "optimize" the code; because the cost of the performance hit exceeds the cost of optimization.
Sorry, but fair application of sales tax is the basis for the request. It's written all over the place in a whole lot of ways to make sure people know that is the reason.
I've found the more "fairness" is mentioned the less it is about that than preserving a company's competitive position.
A small company that tried to go online would probably spend far greater a percentage, than amazon, of its revenue just collecting and remitting all the various taxes
Really? Sales tax is that complex? Sorry, but it really is not. Some items may have increased sales tax rates in some states, but I'd be willing to bet a donut that very few stores would carry more than 2 brackets worth. Even if you did, it's not that complex of a system and if you carry more (Wall Mart) I am sure you can afford the minor amount of programming it takes for each bracket.
Wholly crap! Wallmart may have to use a case instead of an if statement!
Well, it's more than just class of good it's also location. For example, for my zip code, the tax rate depends on the county you're in - and the zip code crosses county boundaries; plus what ever local option sales tax a county or city adds to the base rate. Multiply that by the number of tax authorities and it's a bit more complex than your example.
As a result, the bigger players will prosper and as the smaller ones die out they'll be able to raise prices to increase their profitability. They will be the real winners as this plays out; and the politicians will be left scratching their heads wondering what happened.
That is pretty much the point I started with. If a large player has an unfair advantage, it harms consumers. The playing field should be level. Long ago I would agree that the Internet was a level field, but not since Bush I, "Idea Patents", and so many other laws that distort the field in favor of big players.
And this law will help strengthen the large player advantages, as I have pointed out. It's a classic example of regulatory capture and how incumbents use it to minimize competitive threats.
If I can buy something on line and not pay sales tax so get the good cheaper, how is that fair to a local store that must charge the sales tax? Simply put, it's not fair at all. Taxes should be based on the consumer's location, not the outlet's location. We do the same with insurance premiums, some interest rates, etc..
The loophole for internet stores hurts smaller businesses. It favors large companies that can pack up and move to places with the lowest tax rates to attract consumers. Much the same way that interest rate premiums favor the state with the highest legal rates *caugh* Delaware *caugh*.
As long as taxes are legal, I am all for making them as fair as possible.
This isn't about fairness - it's about using the tax system to maintain a competitive - in this case, Amazon's. Amazon has reached a point where it's economies of scale pretty much let it ensure it will be competitive with brick and mortar - even with tax and shipping. With it's size, small retailers can't compete even with tax; and the big guys such as Walmart already have pricing that is competitive. For example, I just ordered something from Walmart online and had it shipped to the store (for free) for less than it cost at Amazon, even with WM charging me sales tax. This does create a barrier to entry because a small company would not have the scope or clout to get the kind of deals Amazon does, and so would find it hard to compete online or in the B&M world. A small company that tried to go online would probably spend far greater a percentage, than amazon, of its revenue just collecting and remitting all the various taxes; making it less likely to create an online presence. As a result, the bigger players will prosper and as the smaller ones die out they'll be able to raise prices to increase their profitability. They will be the real winners as this plays out; and the politicians will be left scratching their heads wondering what happened.
Of course, many stores that sell online, which often appear to be online operations of a local store, tout the lack of sales tax - it seems that have no trouble benefiting from the same loophole they decry. Phase two will probably be them trying to carve out a minimum sales volume exception so they can continue to sell online tax free while being protected from big bad Amazon; so they can continue to take business form someone else's B&M location.
No - your ownership entitles you to 50 cents of the dollar - not 50%.
This is rubbish. Do you think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and all the rest got rich by selling their stakes for the same amount they paid for them initially? Bullshit, they owned a certain percentage of the startups that became more valuable as the company valuations rose.
That's nice, except your comment has nothing to do with the discussion.
Your point is wrong, because my original 50% ownership entitles me to 50% of the company, regardless of worth - so if you invest $1 to make the companies worth $2, then my share becomes $1.
No - your ownership entitles you to 50 cents of the dollar - not 50%. It just happens to be 50% because of the total is $1; but if you decide to change tehat value by a cash influx your % changes but your value doesn't. Only if you grow without cash influxes does your value grow proportionally.
So yes, dilution is happening.
No it hasn't; but yours is a common misconception.
And you just hit the nail on the head on why there aren't any Linux desktops that can compete with the polish and intuitiveness of OSX and Windows.
And that's the fundamental flaw of your whole argument. Gnome 2 and KDE 3 are DIFFERENT, but they are DEFINITELY "polished" and very usable, even if you don't PERSONALLY like them. To claim otherwise is such biased claptrap it's sickening.
I think you missed his point - successful desktop OS are successful because they just work - Linux is not there yet; and there is very little interest in fixing things that keep that from happening. Linux is very much a hobbyist OS for people who ilk ego tinker - but most computer users don't ant to tinker, or as the OP put it:
Home users don't care about freedom or CLI or DIY they care about "its just works and keeps working and is easy to use"
Ad to that there is no money in making it just work - why should a Dell, for example, turn it into a viable alternative when any competitor can take their work for free? And so Linux languishes on the desktop; and finds its niche in areas where companies can make money.
I'd add to his argument that there is no "killer app" for Linux that makes switching from WIN/OSX necessary. Much of the effort goes to building free "me too" apps to replicate apps on those platforms., and in many cases those same me too apps are available for them, so why bother switching?
There is no law, but thats not the point - if the original investor paid $X for Y% ownership of the company through share issuances, and now the company is diluting that Y% ownership to Y/2% ownership, then the company is effectively stealing from the original investor and he has a right to challenge that.
There is no right to profit, but there is a right to not be stolen from - if it takes a threat to the existence to the company to stop it, then that sounds fair.
An influx of cash does not dilute an investment. For example, if you own 50% of a company that is worth a dollar, you have an investment worth 50 cents. If I invest a dollar in the company, it is now worth $2 and you still have a 50 cent investment. No dilution has ooccurred, your original investment value is the same even if it's a smaller fraction of the total. No one is stealing anything from anybody, since their original investment is still there. Now, they certainly have the right to decide if they want to give up some control in exchange for cash and a more valuable company; but that is a different argument than the dilution one.
The advice I got repeatedly from lawyers was, "Never consent to a search."
Lawyers? I get that advice form cops I know. They all say they would never consent to a search and suggest I do the same. Just say "May I see your warrant?"
There would be little advantage in "pre-launching" a space station full of ordnance over the more traditional method of using ICBMs for delivery. Unlike an airplane, you can't just "drop" a bomb from a space station.
Actually you can, for sufficiently large definitions of "space station." A SLICBM does sessionally that - launches a bus into orbit containing some bombs - that it then aligns with its target and drops one. if you had some in relatively stable long term orbits you could launch a strike with very little warning - is it a meteor or is it a bomb. The down side is it could lead to an accidental counter-strike if someone thought a meteor was a bomb re-entering. IFIRC, the idea of orbiting bombs was bandied about until the world decided not to go dow that route.
Slashdot Mirror
"Apple doesn't want the rights to the ebooks made with iBook Author - all they say is any book made with their software, which they provide for free, can only be distributed ,in Apple's iBook format created by the software, by them."
Sorry, but all you do is to prove the OP's point: the copyright grants the author the right to distribute his work as he sees fits - and Apple wants this right for themselves for ebooks made with iBook Author. Q.E.D.
You still have the right to distribute your copyrighted work as you see fit - Apple gains no control over your copyrighted material - all you are agreeing to is a license that says if you want to create an ebook with our tools you agree to use our distribution mechanism. You have the right to decline the license and not use their tool - you are not assigning your copyright to them, nor losing any other rights granted to you by copyright. It's not even an exclusive right to distribute you are granting Apple since you can still use other tools to produce the exact same work and distribute it independent of Apple.
In the ned, it is the copyright holder's right to decide what licenses and distribution methods they want to use; and how they want to assign those rights.
Just like Apple wants rights to the e-books made with their ebook software
Apple doesn't want the rights to the ebooks made with iBook Author - all they say is any book made with their software, which they provide for free, can only be distributed ,in Apple's iBook format created by the software, by them. The author owns the content and can do whatever else they want with it, just not with Apple's software.
While I would like Apple to release a version of iBook Author that created a standard ePub formatted file that could be used on other devices, and I would pay for such software, I don't think their current terms are unreasonable and the notion that "Apple wants the rights" is simply FUD.
Here's our country on a silver platter." Seriously, in twenty years, we're going to regret moving our of production and debt to China. We're going be left with no leg to stand on, and only ourselves to blame.
While production is problematic; debt isn't as much so. While there is a promise to repay, there is no guarantee beyond the belief that one will repay or that a currency move wouldn't wipe out large chunk of it. The US could, for example, print enough dollars to pay off its debt. That would result in hugh economic problems, but it is not out of the relm of possibility. Hell, the could print and then reissue new Dollars at a 1 to 1 rate up to say a billion for any one person, and at a 1000000 to 1 rate above that. Crazy idea? Sure. But countries have done similar things.
They raised tariffs on just about everything, except where they were the lowest (sugar). One area is aviation. You will find that Brazil has a thriving aviation industry. As to computers, you will find that PRIOR to their tariffs, they had not real hardware or software industry. However, with the tariffs, it has created loads ot new industries there. Now, are tablets more expensive? Yup. But those tariffs are coming down. And then prices will drop. Brazil's situation improved because they put up tariffs. They have no intention to keep them up there, but they are using it to protect markets while building. the same is done in China, India, South Africa, etc. The difference is that what is suggested with the SCALED tariffs is that whereever we have massive trade deficits, we do a scale on it. As the deficits drop, then so do the tariffs. And yes, it DOES work.
The problem is as tariffs drop the low cost producers move back it. In the long run, they fail to work and add a significant burden to the economy. Of course, producers always try to find a reason to keep tariffs in place; because long term survival depends on it since they really aren't competitive with other countries. While tariffs produce short term gains for companies they don't produce sustainable advantages and cost the rest of the country in the form of higher prices.
Even with tariffs, something like 1/3 of all Brazilians live under the poverty level; and Embrear suffered loss last quarter.
And yet, that is not the case in nations that implement them. In particular, China, Brazil, South Africa, and India have had them in place for quit some time. However, the nation with the MOST tariffs is China. I would say that a scaled tariff in which we only raise them against nations with large surpluses against the US would be the way to go, rather than go with product lines (which is about protecting industries).
Let's take Brazil for example, - they raised tariffs on computers - so Foxconn built a factory there. Some workers get jobs and Brazil gets a factory; but many more people can't buy tablets because they are more expensive than they would be if Brazil let the cheaper ones in. In the end, it's a deadweight loss because every tablet sold costs more than it should in a free market. Companies that do buy them need to charger more for their products because the computers they use cost them more. So, for a few jobs you add to the cost of production for everyone else.
If tariffs worked, a country could simply tax its way out of unemployment by eliminating any imports. Unfortunately, that doesn't work. All it does is add cost with no added value.
We are LONG overdue for America to implement a scaled tariff. Basically, These are tariffs that target nations that we have large deficits with, but in particular, those that manipulate their money and markets against us: This would not only restore manufacturing, but it would also improve our tax base, rather quickly. Finally, it would force nations that we have supposed open markets with that manipulate against us to change their behaviors.
Right - add a deadweight loss to our economy and make people pay more for goods so their net purchasing power goes down. A tarrif isn't going to bring manufacturing back; all it will do is reduce overall demand and leave consumers worse off.
but just because he was illegally tracked doesn't mean he wasn't still guilty. The police should be disciplined, the criminal shouldn't be let off the hook.
Yea. Let cops do whatever and if they violate the Constitution slap them on the wrist. Hell, who needs extradition; just do snatch and grab.
Only temporarily most likely. The U.S. had company towns and indentured-servitude working conditions as well, at the beginning of its large-scale industrialization in the 1880s. It also had dozens of riots, mass unionization drives, etc., in the same decade, for not coincidental reasons.
China may delay the backlash longer because its authoritarian state suppresses workers' dissent, but I doubt they can maintain those kinds of conditions for that long.
Given that China is rapidly evolving into shaves and have nots it's only a matter of tine before they start having serious social problems.
I was once talking to someone about how to stop illegal immigrants - seems they were fed up with people sneaking across borders to find work. In China.
You think the US workers have freedom? Wow. They are afraid to take holidays so they can't get fired. At the same time my company gives me 30+ days payed holidays at 38 hour working weeks.
Uh, your company doesn't "give" you anything. Your wage is based on productivity - which factors in vacation, work hours, etc. You essentially fade money for time off - not a bad trade (until they figure out how to tax it) but simple economics dictates your wage
I fully agree with you on healthcare, and wish all elected representatives had to pay for their own care - maybe they'd appreciate that it isn't a luxury.
So essentially, they buy the stuff they sell from China because it's super-cheap, and now they're trying to get people to give them product ideas because designers and engineers are too expensive, to save on the cost of product development.
No way I'm giving the cheap bastards any of my brainpower so they can make even more profit.
(Mind you, that's exactly what Google does too...)
You left out one step ... Profit
You've got Wal-Mart's business model in a nutshell - push as much of the cost onto the supple as possible - and run a logistic system that is ruthlessly efficient. Wal-Mart is a logistics company that happens to have stores at one end of the chain.
This extends copyright protection, in the US, to works still under copyright protection abroad and brings the US in line with Berne Treaty; essentially providing the same protection to foreign authors as it does to US. Once those copyrights expire the works will revert to the public domain. SCOTUS appears to leave open the argument that continual extension of copyright would be unconstitutional; in this ruling they said Congress has the right to bring US law inline with treaties and the Constitution's copyright provision does not prevent that. Congress should have done that when they ratified the teary but didn't; and that doesn't prevent them from later doing so.
Broken window fallacy.
Not really - there is no loss in this case that requires money to be spent to correct.
The copyright on that video has not generated any wealth. It has shifted wealth from some people to some other people.
That's what all production does - shift wealth (money) to one person in exchange for something the first person values
To boot, Dr Rev MLK Jr would have made the speech without pecuniary incentive... thus even the spirit of the intention of copyright has no bearing.
Which is irrelevant to your argument. That he nay or may not have wanted renmeration is of no bearing on who owns the copyright.
If there is less overtime, that in fact creates more jobs, as employers will have to hire additional people to do the same work.
Only if the overtime costs are greater than the costs of hiring and the expected revenue form the hire exceeds the costs- otherwise they will simply forgo hiring. Employers don't simply say they need to do x work - the say they need to do x work at y cost; so reducing x without reducing the input to y doesn't work.
And if some companies move out, you just increase the customs on their product so they will have to get back inside if they want to sell.
Or the price of the goods simply increase by the cost of the tariff - and consumers buy less so the company makes less and must decide if they could be more profitable moving back. In addition, local competitors see the price rise and either grab market share - or raise prices to increase profits at a lower volume. This ignores, of course, the impact of the new location adding tariffs as a retaliatory measure; and that in many areas you don't have inter-entity tariffs (such as the US and the EU).
Brazil is a leftist country, which means they take workers' rights seriously. You see, as there is a competition in a labour market, without regulations like minimal wage or overtime pay the companies could just require workers to work more for less pay, because there would always be someone else to take the job. By regulating overtime, the state ends the competition between the workers, thus solving the prisoners dilemma scenario and resulting in an environment that's better for everyone.
You got the economics of that wrong. The people who benefit are the ones who have jobs - but employers only have so much money to pay for wages, and as a result hire fewer people. Great if you have a job, bad if you don't. In addition, employers look to ways to minimize hiring while still increasing staff - so you often get temporary contracts that are of a very limited duration. That way, they don't have to fire you they simply don't renew the contract.
A national minimum wage also reduce competition between company its by requiring areas that would have lower labor costs to pay more, reducing the incentive for companies to locate their business there. If they could locate in lower wage areas they would reduce prices and those companies in high wage areas would lose business. A minimum wage is not a bad idea, but it is not just a way to protect workers.
If you're gonna get the loyalty and job security from an employer that a contractor gets, you might as well get the freedom, tax breaks and bill rate that a contractor gets....no?
One thing to remember - an employee's wages go to the head of the line in a bankruptcy; a contractor gets in line with the rest of the creditors and is subject to all the various bankruptcy rulings.
Contract work is great, but you aren't simply exchanging one check for another that has the same protections as a paycheck.
I've seen chemical plants built with millions of dollars worth of unnecessary piping and valves, because the project timeframe meant that it was cheaper to install extra connections that might never be used and save engineering time than waste time re-engineering it.
If removing unnecessary items can save thirty thousand dollars (say) at the cost of three days, removing the cruft is only worth it if the delay costs less than ten thousand a day.
You're example is more along the lines of planning ahead to save money than leaving in stuff that is not used and is affecting performance. One company i worked fro, when they had a new office built, put in miles of cabling to met yet undefined connectivity needs because it is cheaper to buy the cable and install it before the walls go up than after.
Now, if they ran new wire and the old wire impacted its ability to send signals at high speed due to some inductive interaction, then it's like the dead code - something in place that has no use but is affecting current performance.
As you pointed out, in the end the decision is is the cost of removing the item worth the improvement we'll see?" With physical items, removal is also often driven by aesthetics; for example, once my deck supports were replaced I no longer wanted the temporary bracing left up simply because it look ugly, in this case the "cost" of looking tat an ugly deck was more than the real cost of removal of the temporary supports.
With coding, we often don't "see" the dead code - new features are added and code adapted to make it work; but there is no apparent "extra" code left behind or now rendered unnecessary by the changes. Plus, searching for it is boring compared to adding something else so coders move on to the next thing. Once performance starts lagging, then someone may look to "optimize" the code; because the cost of the performance hit exceeds the cost of optimization.
This isn't about fairness -
Sorry, but fair application of sales tax is the basis for the request. It's written all over the place in a whole lot of ways to make sure people know that is the reason.
I've found the more "fairness" is mentioned the less it is about that than preserving a company's competitive position.
A small company that tried to go online would probably spend far greater a percentage, than amazon, of its revenue just collecting and remitting all the various taxes
Really? Sales tax is that complex? Sorry, but it really is not. Some items may have increased sales tax rates in some states, but I'd be willing to bet a donut that very few stores would carry more than 2 brackets worth. Even if you did, it's not that complex of a system and if you carry more (Wall Mart) I am sure you can afford the minor amount of programming it takes for each bracket.
if(classofShippedGood == hazmat){Saletax == 12.5}else{Salestax == 8};
Wholly crap! Wallmart may have to use a case instead of an if statement!
Well, it's more than just class of good it's also location. For example, for my zip code, the tax rate depends on the county you're in - and the zip code crosses county boundaries; plus what ever local option sales tax a county or city adds to the base rate. Multiply that by the number of tax authorities and it's a bit more complex than your example.
As a result, the bigger players will prosper and as the smaller ones die out they'll be able to raise prices to increase their profitability. They will be the real winners as this plays out; and the politicians will be left scratching their heads wondering what happened.
That is pretty much the point I started with. If a large player has an unfair advantage, it harms consumers. The playing field should be level. Long ago I would agree that the Internet was a level field, but not since Bush I, "Idea Patents", and so many other laws that distort the field in favor of big players.
And this law will help strengthen the large player advantages, as I have pointed out. It's a classic example of regulatory capture and how incumbents use it to minimize competitive threats.
If I can buy something on line and not pay sales tax so get the good cheaper, how is that fair to a local store that must charge the sales tax? Simply put, it's not fair at all. Taxes should be based on the consumer's location, not the outlet's location. We do the same with insurance premiums, some interest rates, etc..
The loophole for internet stores hurts smaller businesses. It favors large companies that can pack up and move to places with the lowest tax rates to attract consumers. Much the same way that interest rate premiums favor the state with the highest legal rates *caugh* Delaware *caugh*.
As long as taxes are legal, I am all for making them as fair as possible.
This isn't about fairness - it's about using the tax system to maintain a competitive - in this case, Amazon's. Amazon has reached a point where it's economies of scale pretty much let it ensure it will be competitive with brick and mortar - even with tax and shipping. With it's size, small retailers can't compete even with tax; and the big guys such as Walmart already have pricing that is competitive. For example, I just ordered something from Walmart online and had it shipped to the store (for free) for less than it cost at Amazon, even with WM charging me sales tax. This does create a barrier to entry because a small company would not have the scope or clout to get the kind of deals Amazon does, and so would find it hard to compete online or in the B&M world. A small company that tried to go online would probably spend far greater a percentage, than amazon, of its revenue just collecting and remitting all the various taxes; making it less likely to create an online presence. As a result, the bigger players will prosper and as the smaller ones die out they'll be able to raise prices to increase their profitability. They will be the real winners as this plays out; and the politicians will be left scratching their heads wondering what happened.
Of course, many stores that sell online, which often appear to be online operations of a local store, tout the lack of sales tax - it seems that have no trouble benefiting from the same loophole they decry. Phase two will probably be them trying to carve out a minimum sales volume exception so they can continue to sell online tax free while being protected from big bad Amazon; so they can continue to take business form someone else's B&M location.
I assume he seriously mis-typed "like to tinker" and maybe let an ignorant automatic spelling correction turn his typos into random words.
Hell yeah. I get paid for random words so why not?
This is rubbish. Do you think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and all the rest got rich by selling their stakes for the same amount they paid for them initially? Bullshit, they owned a certain percentage of the startups that became more valuable as the company valuations rose.
That's nice, except your comment has nothing to do with the discussion.
Your point is wrong, because my original 50% ownership entitles me to 50% of the company, regardless of worth - so if you invest $1 to make the companies worth $2, then my share becomes $1.
No - your ownership entitles you to 50 cents of the dollar - not 50%. It just happens to be 50% because of the total is $1; but if you decide to change tehat value by a cash influx your % changes but your value doesn't. Only if you grow without cash influxes does your value grow proportionally.
So yes, dilution is happening.
No it hasn't; but yours is a common misconception.
And that's the fundamental flaw of your whole argument. Gnome 2 and KDE 3 are DIFFERENT, but they are DEFINITELY "polished" and very usable, even if you don't PERSONALLY like them. To claim otherwise is such biased claptrap it's sickening.
I think you missed his point - successful desktop OS are successful because they just work - Linux is not there yet; and there is very little interest in fixing things that keep that from happening. Linux is very much a hobbyist OS for people who ilk ego tinker - but most computer users don't ant to tinker, or as the OP put it:
Home users don't care about freedom or CLI or DIY they care about "its just works and keeps working and is easy to use"
Ad to that there is no money in making it just work - why should a Dell, for example, turn it into a viable alternative when any competitor can take their work for free? And so Linux languishes on the desktop; and finds its niche in areas where companies can make money.
I'd add to his argument that there is no "killer app" for Linux that makes switching from WIN/OSX necessary. Much of the effort goes to building free "me too" apps to replicate apps on those platforms., and in many cases those same me too apps are available for them, so why bother switching?
There is no law, but thats not the point - if the original investor paid $X for Y% ownership of the company through share issuances, and now the company is diluting that Y% ownership to Y/2% ownership, then the company is effectively stealing from the original investor and he has a right to challenge that.
There is no right to profit, but there is a right to not be stolen from - if it takes a threat to the existence to the company to stop it, then that sounds fair.
An influx of cash does not dilute an investment. For example, if you own 50% of a company that is worth a dollar, you have an investment worth 50 cents. If I invest a dollar in the company, it is now worth $2 and you still have a 50 cent investment. No dilution has ooccurred, your original investment value is the same even if it's a smaller fraction of the total. No one is stealing anything from anybody, since their original investment is still there. Now, they certainly have the right to decide if they want to give up some control in exchange for cash and a more valuable company; but that is a different argument than the dilution one.
The advice I got repeatedly from lawyers was, "Never consent to a search."
Lawyers? I get that advice form cops I know. They all say they would never consent to a search and suggest I do the same. Just say "May I see your warrant?"
There would be little advantage in "pre-launching" a space station full of ordnance over the more traditional method of using ICBMs for delivery. Unlike an airplane, you can't just "drop" a bomb from a space station.
Actually you can, for sufficiently large definitions of "space station." A SLICBM does sessionally that - launches a bus into orbit containing some bombs - that it then aligns with its target and drops one. if you had some in relatively stable long term orbits you could launch a strike with very little warning - is it a meteor or is it a bomb. The down side is it could lead to an accidental counter-strike if someone thought a meteor was a bomb re-entering. IFIRC, the idea of orbiting bombs was bandied about until the world decided not to go dow that route.