What are the consequences of exercising your freedom of speech to post this here? I think it's disorderly so I should get you arrested?
Again, that depends on *what* was written, not *that* it was written. You can still get in trouble for written threats, liable, etc.
No, the constitution are absolute minimum rights, the freedom of speech being one of them.
Actually, it enumerates some speific rights that the government cannot infringe, some that the government has; and reserves the rest to the states and the people.
I can say whatever I want, I can wear a hoodie and yell out white power for all anybody cares, there is nothing wrong with it, I shouldn't get punished for it.
Again, it depends not on that you say it but the result of what you say.
That is an excellent analogy, and it proves that you're wrong. You can't be liable for exercising your right. Otherwise, it's obviously not a right. You will never be liable for the act of owning that gun, only for the act of murder, an act you could have done with knives, rope, blunt objects, your car, your bare hands. You don't have the right to commit murder.
Similarly, speech is a right. You can't possibly be liable for anything you say. If you actually do cause a disturbance, by the good old example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater for example, you're liable for causing the disturbance not for yelling "Fire!". You could have caused the panic in other ways. You could have a raised a fake gun in front of everyone. You'd be arrested under the same charge of "disorderly conduct".
You can't arrest someone for exercising their rights. That's what a "right" means. You can arrest someone for using their rights as tools to do things they're not allowed to do, and that's not what this kid did.
Actually, his analogy is spot on - the kid was arrested for the disturbance he caused - not for simply writing the article. In exercising his right he created conditions that the police felt created a disturbance; and he was arrested for that (just as if someone yelled "Fire" in a crowded theatre)result. I'm not saying he should have been; just taht his free speech rights were not violated.
It sounds like a pretty scary catch-all if it includes writing essays. what else is considered "disorderly conduct" under US law?
Also, doesn't the US have a constitution which makes freedom of expression an absolute right?
Yes, but that does not exempt you from the consequences of exercising that right. The government can't exercise prior restraint - i.e. they think you are going to say something they don't like and arrest you for what you might say. You can, however, be arrested for the consequences of your act.
The government appears to have overreacted in this case; but that does not violate the writer's first amendment rights. You can argue that the response has a chilling effect on other students and might be considered an unlawful restraint, but that's a different argument.
On the subject of disks, RAID etc I remember and article about Google's data storage, and how more could be added to the pool and have redundancy etc automatically dealt with.
Why can't the archive make use of a similar, media independent system? As long as there is some capability in the system to talk to a) the old media and b) the new media (Which can easily be achieved as long as the system is used, because hardware and software are easy enough to build 'bridges' into) then updating the archive is no more complex than adding whatever the latest readily available mass storage is, and letting old and defunct hardware vanish off the far end.
That certainly would be a good way to do it - the electronic equivalent of stories passed generation to generation; which brings me to:
On the codec front, again the automation should help make this easier. Presuming the studios are too stupid to archive in a straight file format (Won't surprise me) the system could still be programmed to do the conversion. As long as it can read the old filetype and write the new one, it can be set to automatically update archives to the latest format.
Here's the rub - unless each codec is lossless each conversion losses some of the original; much as retelling stories introduces subtle difference that, over time, result in a very different version than the original.
to the original Star Wars. Supposedly he has no original copies from which to return the original classic to us (Laserdisc work-arounds notwithstanding)
I doubt his word on this, but if true, he's a bigger fool that Ep 1 made him appear. In any case, its a great case for multiple digital back-ups.
Cost may play a role as well - as important as it is for film history to save as much as possible, how may film makers in the early stages of a career have the money to produce high quality, redundant backups? And then maintain their viability over the years?
Sure strage is cheap - but who can be sure the hardware will be usable in say 50 years? Can a disk last that long without being spun up regularly? Is optical disk / flash memory archival over time? Will the hardware be readable on whatever computer is in use then or will it be like trying to read an 8" CP/M disk today? Of course, then there is the codec issue as well.
Lucas was dealing in analog which make it even more difficult to properly archive copies for posterity.
Second point: Copyright assignment, not transfer.. Though, of course, you did create competition for yourself.
As I understand it there is very little difference - you are assigning ownership of the copyrighted work to another party. At that point they are free to do what they want with the work.
I can see this becoming an issue with GPLv3 - assignment of copyright allows wholesale transfer of code to v3; which means you either accept the more restrictive license or fork the code. Without such an assignment every copyright owner would need to agree to the change or their code would need to be pulled making such a switch extremely difficult.
True, that's why most projects require you to assign copyright for your contributions to them.
Which could be problematic - since the copyright holder could decide to release the code under a non-GPL license as well; make revisions to that and be under no license obligation to make them available under the GPL. Granted, most projects wouldn't do that but it's still a possibility.
Also, assigning the copyright limits the creator's ability to resell their code seperately should someone want to use it in a non-GPl'd project.
In either case, licensing code under the GPL is a better approach than assigning copyright, IMHO.
This will depend very much on the local laws. In Australia a DVD that fails to play in a significant number of DVD players meets the statutory definition of unmerchantability, which requires goods to be suitable for every purpose for which they are normally bought (unlike other places where they have to be suitable for just one of the purposes for which they are normally bought). This will give the consumer the right to a refund, but won't lead to any penalty.
The US is similar, there is an implied warranty that items will work for the purpose there sold.
Of course, I think a more effective solution is to return enough to major vendors such as Wal Mart to get them to slap Sony upside the wallet.
For example, some proposals suggest only taxing the final sale price to the end use; not the sale of goods required to produce an item. So a house, for example, would be taxed when it was first sold, but the lumber, etc would not be taxed when the builder bought it. While this makes sense on the surface - you only tax the items once; the goal then becomes to either:
You've never run a business, have you? This is the way taxes work now.
As for your examples, in case (1), you said it's already been outlawed in the tax code, and there is no reason to think that loophole wouldn't still be closed in any new tax code.
In (2), you need a sales tax license to buy anything tax free, and you need to affirm that you are purchasing that item for resale. If you put that item to personal use (for yourself), then you must "buy" it from the business - which means paying taxes. If you put that item to use in your business it is no longer being resold, so you either have to have your business "buy" the item from itself, or pay a use tax on it (identical cost to sales tax, just not collected by the seller but paid directly by the buyer).
Having had a tax exempt certificate for a business I realize how sales tax is *currently* collected; my point was much of the "Fair Tax" argument centers around collecting the tax only on the first, non-business use transaction. That makes the goal of such a system to avoid that first sale or reduce the price as much as possible while still getting the desired cash. Proponents argue that will simplify the code; but to outlaw such things as I've described would require just as complicated a code after the rewrite.
A "Fair Tax" as some propose on consumption will not simplify the tax code; all it will do is cause smart people to find new loopholes that Congress will then try to close.
Yeah, except that it will be large, blatantly obvious cases of tax evasion like the ones you mentioned above (and therefore easy to spot and fix), instead of the current system with so many holes that you could (and most do) use it like a sieve. Besides, over the last hundred years or so, almost every method of "legal" tax evasion that doesn't require the exploitation of some minutiae of the tax code has been found and abolished - these minutiae will disappear in a simplified tax code.
Except that everyone would look for the holes in the new code and drive right through them. One of the reasons that a tax code is complex is it requires laws to close loopholes as they are found; and very smart people make a lot of money finding loopholes.
A secondary effect is the impact on such things as home sales - new homes would have to sell for less than existing ones since they would be taxed and buyers tend to look at the final price, not the one "before tax" price.
Once again, you show that you have never run a business, and have no idea how people actually make purchasing decisions. You're acting as if buyers are logical - they most certainly are not. Trying to figure out the final price on something involves "math" - which makes most of the population's eyes glaze over and they just ignore it, take a guess at about how much it will end up being, and move on.
Also, new homes do not need to be cheaper than older homes - that's like saying new cars have to be cheaper than used cars or they'll never sell. Being "new" is considered a reason to pay more for an item, tax or no tax. I bought a house a few years ago, and I can tell you for 100% certain that old houses in better locations were selling for less than new houses, but new houses were still selling almost as fast as the local construction companies could build them.
You example is not applicable since there is no "new house only" tax in effect - so there is no tax penalty for buying a new home - any tax applies equally to new or resale properties typically today.
You missed my point - any significant tax on the sale of a new home will result make comparable use
Since Vista has proven to be absolutely no competition to even the current OS X, what's the rush for Leopard?
Well, if the delay results in people putting off Mac purchases to avoid paying an additional $100 to get the latest OS; that can result in a drop in sales until Leopard is out.
Get the iPhone right and they'll have a HUGE winner on their hands. A million people have already queried AT&T about the iPhone through the notification list at Cingular, so who's your daddy?
Signing up for notification is not necessarily a good indication of buying interest; anyone can sign up without incurring any cost.
Now, I agree they need to get it out because other manufacturers are also coming out with similar devices; since a phone purchase generally locks one out of the market for 2 years then a delay could result in a permanent loss of sales; rather then someone merely delaying a purchase a few months to wait for an updated OS.
However, I do agree that our whole tax code is messed up. A flat or consumption based tax would reduce the size of the IRS by an order of magnitude, save taxpayers billions spent on accountants and tax software, and probably bring in more overall revenue than the current system.
Actually it would replace one set of convoluted rules and tax avoidance methods with another.
For example, some proposals suggest only taxing the final sale price to the end use; not the sale of goods required to produce an item. So a house, for example, would be taxed when it was first sold, but the lumber, etc would not be taxed when the builder bought it. While this makes sense on the surface - you only tax the items once; the goal then becomes to either:
1) lower the sales price as much as possible while still getting the desired cash. So, for example I build a home and then take out a $500,000 mortgage on it - which I get in cash. I sell you the house for a dollar and you assume the $500k debt. The government collects tax on a dollar, I have the desired cash and you avoid a large tax bill. This was actually a way to do a tax free sale of assets in the US until the Feds outlawed it via the tax code.
2. find a way for the ultimate end user to be the builder and never sell the house. So I form a corporation for the express purpose of building a home and hire a contractor to do so. Once the house is built I occupy rather then sell it. Since the first sale has not occurred I have not incurred any tax liability. When I go to sell the house I sell the corporation which owns an asset - so unless you tax sales of corporations as well I make a second tax free transfer; or I do 1 above as part of the sale.
A "Fair Tax" as some propose on consumption will not simplify the tax code; all it will do is cause smart people to find new loopholes that Congress will then try to close.
A secondary effect is the impact on such things as home sales - new homes would have to sell for less than existing ones since they would be taxed and buyers tend to look at the final price, not the one "before tax" price.
Of course, Fair Tax advocates simply ignore these points when making their argument. I set next to one on a plane flight, when he brought up the "Fair Tax" and try to sell m e on it I started asking about these things - his response was to get upset and say the details weren't important. At least I shut him up so I could enjoy my book.
the classroom teacher is the arbiter of whether a citation from Weekly World News counts for as much as one from the New York Times.
Interestingly, WWN fact checks its stories and requires two independent confirmations; such as when Senator Nunn's office allowed that yes, he was in fact a space alien. Of course, some folks can't tell humor from real news; unlike Nunn's staff.
I've been around this scene since the 5.25" floppy days, and there were always leechers who would sell you something, and true warez people who would give or trade you something.
Tony won't have been cracking anything, creating anything, "value added" anything, Tony is a leech.
Unlike those who crack something, thereby creating "value"; who aren't leeching off of the original producers whose work they cracked.
I applaud the fact that another leech has bitten the dust, and can no longer make an easy living selling the fruits of other people's works to noobs and lusers.
That's fine, but those who's efforts you applaud are no different - instead of creating something of value they leech off of those who do, and then delude themselves into thinking they are superior because they do it for free; in the end they are no different than Tony except maybe that Tony was smart enough to make money.
The IRS rulings were made after such tax software already existed. Computer tax software has existed for a relatively long period of time, and definitely before the internet as we know it existed. I worked for a Wilmington, DE accounting firm as a temp for a short period while I was going through grad school, and we used some kind of archaic package that ran from DOS. Can the IRS change its mind on these rulings at any point? Sure. But I'm not going to worry about it until it happens.
My only point was that free tax software probably didn't exist when the ruling was made so the IRS could decide that merely providing it could open one up to legal liability - and if I were a vendor of retail tax software I'd be arguing that it is unfair for us to have a legal obligation that others don't simply because they give away their work - think of the taxpayers (or if you are an elected official - Think of the JOBS and the CHILDREN!).
Regarding partnerships with other organizations, you can't even get your foot in the door without a working code base. So while your suggestion is sound, you're putting the cart before the horse. TaxGeek will be loved by some, reviled by others, and along the way it will slowly progress into a mature product which either will or will not be adopted by organizations like AARP. But there has to be a product first before such a review can begin. AARP decides what product they will use after a thorough review.
Have you thought of approaching them and asking if they would like a seat on your board - I'd make the pitch that you want to make it easier for people to file electronically; and making such software available to seniors would be good for them. You'd like someone who can help you achieve that goal who has experience dealing with the politics involved. A local chapter may be more receptive than the national org; and all you are looking for is someone who could champion it for you as the codebase matures.
Finally, if all TaxGeek does is to get TurboTax, TaxAct or some other company to provide a native Linux-based tax-product for users such as myself, it has accomplished its goal: to enable Linux users to do their taxes without switching operating systems and without being connected to the internet if they so desire.
Agreed. As one off my other posts (Moded -1 since I forgot that saying anything bad about OSS is obviously a troll on/.) pointed out I think you face an uphill battle.
OTHO, anything that increases choice and competition is good, which is why I wish you well.
Regarding this last point, I suspect that when TaxGeek actually becomes competitive with "real" tax programs, we will start having issues with the big companies who will feel that it is unfair that someone is providing software to the public for free (nevermind that it isn't the government). Imagine that our near term idea-list is completed. Specifically that we completely finish the 1040, can write to pdf using XUL-Javascript, and create an interview frontend. Should this happen, TaxGeek becomes platform independent and usable by a wider audience. Presuming that we have thousands of./ers sending bug reports, TaxGeek may even be more reliable than some commercial products. (I know, in my dreams...)
First of all, the tax software providers sell security - if something goes wrong we will help - and would no doubt ask "Who'll help you if TaxGeek screws up - some 30 year old who still lives in his mom's basement?" It's a perception issue, regardless of whether or not it is true; all they have to do is create FUD in the user's mind. Face it, who wants a knock on the door from the taxman?
Secondly, you have to deal with two types of bug reports - software bugs and tax code issues. Who decides if something should be treated in a specific manner or that the software has incorporated accurately the latest changes? And that all the changes are in?
My thoughts is that the way to do this is to partner with an org such as AARP - they can bring real clout and expertise to the table; and in return get a free package their members can use. Of course, they could also use the threat of doing that to make a good deal with one of the big packages if they wanted to.
Finally, regarding liability please see the following IRS publications:
* "Revenue Ruling 85-189: Return preparers; sale of computer program. A person who prepares a computer program and sells it to a taxpayer to use in preparing the tax-payer's income tax return may be an income tax return preparer." Internal Revenue Cumulative Bulletin, volume 1985-2, p. 341.
* "IRS announces that companies who sell return preparation computer software and programs may be considered return preparers subject to penalties." I.R.S. News Release, IR-86-92 (May 6, 1986).
Essentially, the fact that there is a dire warning regarding the software's abilities, and that the software is being given away offer protection to the developers (who are normally more protected than their CPA masters in the IRS standards of practice anyhow). The articles mentioned above don't even guarantee the company's liability in the case of mistake. They only say that the company may be liable under certain conditions. In short our line on it is that you didn't pay any money for this, you were warned about the software's status, and any mistakes are your responsibility, not ours. Also, we try to fix bugs that are reported to us in a timely manner which is also a developer's responsibility according to the IRS.
Those are IRS rulings, which can change. My guess is they were done before the advent of free filing software (1985?); the IRS could very well decide that "selling" was confusing and "providing" is a better interpretation. Not to say they would; but in case IRS rulings don't automatically protect you if someone sues you for negligence.
Your software is a neat idea - what does your lawyer say about your liability?
You can get the existing programs for next to nothing already, and they have experts who ensure the software is accurate and stand behind their product.
Here you have something that may or may not comply with the tax codes - and I should trust it because it is OSS?
If there are experts who are working on this I'd wonder about the legal advice they get - despite the disclaimer they could wind up being sued because of an error. As experts they can be held to a higher standard of care and you can't disclaim negligence, at least not in the US, as I understand the law (ANAL).
Nice idea but unless all you want is to be able to print forms it's not worth teh risk - besides aren't there free web based packages already?
Depending on the call volume, and the availability of high speed access, it may be even more economical to install a second Vonage line at your family's location(s). That effectively gives you unlimited calling as well as the ability to call them when you are away from your Vonage line. In addition, they can now call each other for free as well.
All Vonage cares about is a US billing address; I've used mine overseas and it works great.
BTW - isn't the UK free now?
I realize that you can do this with SKYPE as well; and now that there are more Skype compatible adapters for real phones it is becoming appealing as well.
The interesting issue is how will the foreign Telco's; many of whom believe they own the rights to any land line calls to and from as well within their countries will fight back - probably regulation and heavy handed government intervention.
First of all, Apple is in the entertainment business as well, so the profits need to be spread over more than just computers; although they do make more per machine than most PC manufacturers.
But even if Vista stumbles - as the author points out - users stay with an existing MS OS rather than dump MS altogether as Apple owners did when the ][ line dies (I was one to the bitter end) or when Apple failed to keep pace. What Apple has to overcome (as does Linux) is the huge installed base and apps that run on it. The switch to x86 architecture made it even tougher to move to the Mac given the lack of native binary apps for it; such as Photoshop whose CS2 is a bit slow on the newer Macs (CS3 is nice but not yet out). iPhone - that looks to be a questionable product; given Apple has apparently hobbled it from the get go.
And this is my perspective as a Mac (and Windows) user.
States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes.
I hope that enough states refuse to participate that it makes the federal legislature repeal the law. Of course, congress will likely do as they've always done and threaten to pull federal highway funding or education funding until the states in question comply.
Except, in this case, it'll be the same Congress' constituents raising an uproar - when Grandpa and Grandma miss their grandchild's birth; or the kids miss getting to a dying relative; vacations get ruined, etc they'll run as fast from DHS and work to limit the damage.
I think that you are missing a couple things in regards to utilities:
1. A utility is a government managed entity. While it is privately owned, prices, etc. are set by the government. This makes it hard to offer innovative pricing, like a guaranteed rate.
Utilities certainly can offer fixed rates, most won't over a 25 year period because it is simply to hard to predict. A fixed cost asset such as a solar panel would be more attractive to a fixed price contract since the cost of production can be accurately estimnated (i.e. there is no large variable fuel cost to consider).
2. A utility is a steady dividend, low growth company. Its stock will reflect this. While the utility has the manpower to do this, they do not have the ability to raise capital by selling high P/E stock. Even if this program would make economic sense to them, they won't be able to launch it *now*. They need it to turn from a speculative investment to a sure thing.
OYOH, utilities have access to low cost capital because they are low risk investments. A top bond rating allows you to take on extra debt at a low cost.
3. With a separate stock, the worst that the investor faces is loss of the money paid for the stock. If this were integrated as part of a utility stock, it's like investors have to buy two stocks in parallel: a low return, low risk stock (the utility) and a high risk, high return stock. Worse, if the high risk stock goes under, the investor loses the investment in the otherwise low risk stock. Net result is a high risk (risk is a max function; mixing high and low makes high), medium return (return is an average function; mixing high and low makes medium) stock.
First of all, risk is not a max function and return is a weighted average - and some extra risk doesn't all of a sudden make a utility a high risk stock - whether it is a few hundred million in solar or a multi billion power plant.
My original point still stands - if this were a profitable investment utilities would be trying it.
4. To get the full benefits of being a green company, it's better to be only a green company. Adding green to coal doesn't make as much sense. The green investors will prefer full green companies to those that are mixed.
The point is not to become a green company - it's to maintain profitability and collect subsidies.
Green right now, is a poor investment.
5. While in the future, solar incentives may fall, they may also go up. Politically, incentives for renewable energy are becoming more viable. You seem to be assuming that the supply of renewable energy will increase faster than the demand. I suspect that it is more likely that both the desired renewable mix and total demand for electricity will climb.
Demand will rise only if:
a) the cost of production drops so the price of green drops; or, b) there still are large subsidies for green power.
Most consumers could give a crap about green power - they want cheap power.
I would take the one that went to Harvard. The so-called 'student leader' of the bottom of the barrel school could be a leader of nothing more than sheeple. Hell this so-called 'student leade' could be sheeple as well. The more prestigious the school, the better the education material. As a result West Podunk State honours would pail in comparison to the B or C average student from Harvard.
To an extant Harvard provides a signal - it selects only top applicants so you know they were achievers; however:
1) If they barely made any effort (which I view as anything less than a B+ average given grade inflation)they may just do the same in the work force - they have shown they have potential but lack ambition
If you can't afford the way into a school then tough shit, get a bloody loan. I would not hire you if you went to a sub-par school, excellent grades or not. I only hire from prestigious schools.
Conversely, not everyone good enough to do well at a top school gets in, as a result a lot of fine schools have outstanding students who are every bit as good those at prestigious schools; in fact the top 10$ at such schools are probably every bit as good as the top 10% at your prestige schools. Some very prestigious companies have already caught on to this and realized not only can they get good employees but they don't have to pay as much for them.
The worst schools are the so-called 'Community Colleges' or as I call 'Communist Colleges'. They are funded by tax payers. They are for dropouts or average students.
Having attended one I agree - many students there simply couldn't cut it at a better school - but many were there because they couldn't afford 4 years of debt or needed to improve their study skills before they could succeed and used it as a stepping stone towards a degree at a better school. If I see that on a resume I view it as a plus - here's someone who understands how to extract value out of a system.
In the end, my key test for hiring is - "Would I want to sit next to this person for 10 hours on a plane ride?" If they can't pass that, their Harvard degree and $5 will only get them a coffee at Starbucks.
When I was interviewing I avoided companies who made a big deal out of their exclusive hiring policies; mainly because I have a low tolerance for schmucks whose preoccupation with where they went to school compensates for a lack of talent elsewhere.
The ownership of the systems stays with the company, so recievers would be collecting them, or the bill in the worst case.
Or a court voids the rate agreement and allows it to be reset to a higher profitable level and you either agree or opt-put and the new owner needs to come get the units; or the court awards the units to the owner and your stuck with repairs / maintenance and disposal.
Plus, the cash flow for these units is expected to decline over time as the units degrade with age. Once the market is saturated their revenues can be expected to fall or stay constant if they get enough new home construction buyers to opt in.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the consequences of exercising your freedom of speech to post this here? I think it's disorderly so I should get you arrested?
Again, that depends on *what* was written, not *that* it was written. You can still get in trouble for written threats, liable, etc.
No, the constitution are absolute minimum rights, the freedom of speech being one of them.
Actually, it enumerates some speific rights that the government cannot infringe, some that the government has; and reserves the rest to the states and the people.
I can say whatever I want, I can wear a hoodie and yell out white power for all anybody cares, there is nothing wrong with it, I shouldn't get punished for it.
Again, it depends not on that you say it but the result of what you say.
That is an excellent analogy, and it proves that you're wrong. You can't be liable for exercising your right. Otherwise, it's obviously not a right. You will never be liable for the act of owning that gun, only for the act of murder, an act you could have done with knives, rope, blunt objects, your car, your bare hands. You don't have the right to commit murder.
Similarly, speech is a right. You can't possibly be liable for anything you say. If you actually do cause a disturbance, by the good old example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater for example, you're liable for causing the disturbance not for yelling "Fire!". You could have caused the panic in other ways. You could have a raised a fake gun in front of everyone. You'd be arrested under the same charge of "disorderly conduct".
You can't arrest someone for exercising their rights. That's what a "right" means. You can arrest someone for using their rights as tools to do things they're not allowed to do, and that's not what this kid did.
Actually, his analogy is spot on - the kid was arrested for the disturbance he caused - not for simply writing the article. In exercising his right he created conditions that the police felt created a disturbance; and he was arrested for that (just as if someone yelled "Fire" in a crowded theatre)result. I'm not saying he should have been; just taht his free speech rights were not violated.
It sounds like a pretty scary catch-all if it includes writing essays. what else is considered "disorderly conduct" under US law?
Also, doesn't the US have a constitution which makes freedom of expression an absolute right?
Yes, but that does not exempt you from the consequences of exercising that right. The government can't exercise prior restraint - i.e. they think you are going to say something they don't like and arrest you for what you might say. You can, however, be arrested for the consequences of your act.
The government appears to have overreacted in this case; but that does not violate the writer's first amendment rights. You can argue that the response has a chilling effect on other students and might be considered an unlawful restraint, but that's a different argument.
On the subject of disks, RAID etc I remember and article about Google's data storage, and how more could be added to the pool and have redundancy etc automatically dealt with.
Why can't the archive make use of a similar, media independent system? As long as there is some capability in the system to talk to a) the old media and b) the new media (Which can easily be achieved as long as the system is used, because hardware and software are easy enough to build 'bridges' into) then updating the archive is no more complex than adding whatever the latest readily available mass storage is, and letting old and defunct hardware vanish off the far end.
That certainly would be a good way to do it - the electronic equivalent of stories passed generation to generation; which brings me to:
On the codec front, again the automation should help make this easier. Presuming the studios are too stupid to archive in a straight file format (Won't surprise me) the system could still be programmed to do the conversion. As long as it can read the old filetype and write the new one, it can be set to automatically update archives to the latest format.
Here's the rub - unless each codec is lossless each conversion losses some of the original; much as retelling stories introduces subtle difference that, over time, result in a very different version than the original.
to the original Star Wars. Supposedly he has no original copies from which to return the original classic to us (Laserdisc work-arounds notwithstanding)
I doubt his word on this, but if true, he's a bigger fool that Ep 1 made him appear. In any case, its a great case for multiple digital back-ups.
Cost may play a role as well - as important as it is for film history to save as much as possible, how may film makers in the early stages of a career have the money to produce high quality, redundant backups? And then maintain their viability over the years?
Sure strage is cheap - but who can be sure the hardware will be usable in say 50 years? Can a disk last that long without being spun up regularly? Is optical disk / flash memory archival over time? Will the hardware be readable on whatever computer is in use then or will it be like trying to read an 8" CP/M disk today? Of course, then there is the codec issue as well.
Lucas was dealing in analog which make it even more difficult to properly archive copies for posterity.
People always leave out the rest of the quote - Whats good for America is good for GM.
Of course, it's a lot less sinister when taken in toto. (Or out of toto for that matter.)
Second point: Copyright assignment, not transfer.. Though, of course, you did create competition for yourself.
As I understand it there is very little difference - you are assigning ownership of the copyrighted work to another party. At that point they are free to do what they want with the work.
I can see this becoming an issue with GPLv3 - assignment of copyright allows wholesale transfer of code to v3; which means you either accept the more restrictive license or fork the code. Without such an assignment every copyright owner would need to agree to the change or their code would need to be pulled making such a switch extremely difficult.
True, that's why most projects require you to assign copyright for your contributions to them.
Which could be problematic - since the copyright holder could decide to release the code under a non-GPL license as well; make revisions to that and be under no license obligation to make them available under the GPL. Granted, most projects wouldn't do that but it's still a possibility.
Also, assigning the copyright limits the creator's ability to resell their code seperately should someone want to use it in a non-GPl'd project.
In either case, licensing code under the GPL is a better approach than assigning copyright, IMHO.
This will depend very much on the local laws. In Australia a DVD that fails to play in a significant number of DVD players meets the statutory definition of unmerchantability, which requires goods to be suitable for every purpose for which they are normally bought (unlike other places where they have to be suitable for just one of the purposes for which they are normally bought). This will give the consumer the right to a refund, but won't lead to any penalty.
The US is similar, there is an implied warranty that items will work for the purpose there sold.
Of course, I think a more effective solution is to return enough to major vendors such as Wal Mart to get them to slap Sony upside the wallet.
For example, some proposals suggest only taxing the final sale price to the end use; not the sale of goods required to produce an item. So a house, for example, would be taxed when it was first sold, but the lumber, etc would not be taxed when the builder bought it. While this makes sense on the surface - you only tax the items once; the goal then becomes to either:
You've never run a business, have you? This is the way taxes work now.
As for your examples, in case (1), you said it's already been outlawed in the tax code, and there is no reason to think that loophole wouldn't still be closed in any new tax code.
In (2), you need a sales tax license to buy anything tax free, and you need to affirm that you are purchasing that item for resale. If you put that item to personal use (for yourself), then you must "buy" it from the business - which means paying taxes. If you put that item to use in your business it is no longer being resold, so you either have to have your business "buy" the item from itself, or pay a use tax on it (identical cost to sales tax, just not collected by the seller but paid directly by the buyer).
Having had a tax exempt certificate for a business I realize how sales tax is *currently* collected; my point was much of the "Fair Tax" argument centers around collecting the tax only on the first, non-business use transaction. That makes the goal of such a system to avoid that first sale or reduce the price as much as possible while still getting the desired cash. Proponents argue that will simplify the code; but to outlaw such things as I've described would require just as complicated a code after the rewrite.
A "Fair Tax" as some propose on consumption will not simplify the tax code; all it will do is cause smart people to find new loopholes that Congress will then try to close.
Yeah, except that it will be large, blatantly obvious cases of tax evasion like the ones you mentioned above (and therefore easy to spot and fix), instead of the current system with so many holes that you could (and most do) use it like a sieve. Besides, over the last hundred years or so, almost every method of "legal" tax evasion that doesn't require the exploitation of some minutiae of the tax code has been found and abolished - these minutiae will disappear in a simplified tax code.
Except that everyone would look for the holes in the new code and drive right through them. One of the reasons that a tax code is complex is it requires laws to close loopholes as they are found; and very smart people make a lot of money finding loopholes.
A secondary effect is the impact on such things as home sales - new homes would have to sell for less than existing ones since they would be taxed and buyers tend to look at the final price, not the one "before tax" price.
Once again, you show that you have never run a business, and have no idea how people actually make purchasing decisions. You're acting as if buyers are logical - they most certainly are not. Trying to figure out the final price on something involves "math" - which makes most of the population's eyes glaze over and they just ignore it, take a guess at about how much it will end up being, and move on.
Also, new homes do not need to be cheaper than older homes - that's like saying new cars have to be cheaper than used cars or they'll never sell. Being "new" is considered a reason to pay more for an item, tax or no tax. I bought a house a few years ago, and I can tell you for 100% certain that old houses in better locations were selling for less than new houses, but new houses were still selling almost as fast as the local construction companies could build them.
You example is not applicable since there is no "new house only" tax in effect - so there is no tax penalty for buying a new home - any tax applies equally to new or resale properties typically today.
You missed my point - any significant tax on the sale of a new home will result make comparable use
Since Vista has proven to be absolutely no competition to even the current OS X, what's the rush for Leopard?
Well, if the delay results in people putting off Mac purchases to avoid paying an additional $100 to get the latest OS; that can result in a drop in sales until Leopard is out.
Get the iPhone right and they'll have a HUGE winner on their hands. A million people have already queried AT&T about the iPhone through the notification list at Cingular, so who's your daddy?
Signing up for notification is not necessarily a good indication of buying interest; anyone can sign up without incurring any cost.
Now, I agree they need to get it out because other manufacturers are also coming out with similar devices; since a phone purchase generally locks one out of the market for 2 years then a delay could result in a permanent loss of sales; rather then someone merely delaying a purchase a few months to wait for an updated OS.
However, I do agree that our whole tax code is messed up. A flat or consumption based tax would reduce the size of the IRS by an order of magnitude, save taxpayers billions spent on accountants and tax software, and probably bring in more overall revenue than the current system.
Actually it would replace one set of convoluted rules and tax avoidance methods with another.
For example, some proposals suggest only taxing the final sale price to the end use; not the sale of goods required to produce an item. So a house, for example, would be taxed when it was first sold, but the lumber, etc would not be taxed when the builder bought it. While this makes sense on the surface - you only tax the items once; the goal then becomes to either:
1) lower the sales price as much as possible while still getting the desired cash. So, for example I build a home and then take out a $500,000 mortgage on it - which I get in cash. I sell you the house for a dollar and you assume the $500k debt. The government collects tax on a dollar, I have the desired cash and you avoid a large tax bill. This was actually a way to do a tax free sale of assets in the US until the Feds outlawed it via the tax code.
2. find a way for the ultimate end user to be the builder and never sell the house. So I form a corporation for the express purpose of building a home and hire a contractor to do so. Once the house is built I occupy rather then sell it. Since the first sale has not occurred I have not incurred any tax liability. When I go to sell the house I sell the corporation which owns an asset - so unless you tax sales of corporations as well I make a second tax free transfer; or I do 1 above as part of the sale.
A "Fair Tax" as some propose on consumption will not simplify the tax code; all it will do is cause smart people to find new loopholes that Congress will then try to close.
A secondary effect is the impact on such things as home sales - new homes would have to sell for less than existing ones since they would be taxed and buyers tend to look at the final price, not the one "before tax" price.
Of course, Fair Tax advocates simply ignore these points when making their argument. I set next to one on a plane flight, when he brought up the "Fair Tax" and try to sell m e on it I started asking about these things - his response was to get upset and say the details weren't important. At least I shut him up so I could enjoy my book.
the classroom teacher is the arbiter of whether a citation from Weekly World News counts for as much as one from the New York Times.
Interestingly, WWN fact checks its stories and requires two independent confirmations; such as when Senator Nunn's office allowed that yes, he was in fact a space alien. Of course, some folks can't tell humor from real news; unlike Nunn's staff.
Now, when the candidate appears at froums, people should ask if he still supports his earlier announced position in favor of hot women marrying.
That would be funny...
How did they figure these files were worth $38 billion when it only cost $200000 to create them from scratch?
RIAA / MPAA mathematicians
I've been around this scene since the 5.25" floppy days, and there were always leechers who would sell you something, and true warez people who would give or trade you something.
Tony won't have been cracking anything, creating anything, "value added" anything, Tony is a leech.
Unlike those who crack something, thereby creating "value"; who aren't leeching off of the original producers whose work they cracked.
I applaud the fact that another leech has bitten the dust, and can no longer make an easy living selling the fruits of other people's works to noobs and lusers.
That's fine, but those who's efforts you applaud are no different - instead of creating something of value they leech off of those who do, and then delude themselves into thinking they are superior because they do it for free; in the end they are no different than Tony except maybe that Tony was smart enough to make money.
The IRS rulings were made after such tax software already existed. Computer tax software has existed for a relatively long period of time, and definitely before the internet as we know it existed. I worked for a Wilmington, DE accounting firm as a temp for a short period while I was going through grad school, and we used some kind of archaic package that ran from DOS. Can the IRS change its mind on these rulings at any point? Sure. But I'm not going to worry about it until it happens.
/.) pointed out I think you face an uphill battle.
My only point was that free tax software probably didn't exist when the ruling was made so the IRS could decide that merely providing it could open one up to legal liability - and if I were a vendor of retail tax software I'd be arguing that it is unfair for us to have a legal obligation that others don't simply because they give away their work - think of the taxpayers (or if you are an elected official - Think of the JOBS and the CHILDREN!).
Regarding partnerships with other organizations, you can't even get your foot in the door without a working code base. So while your suggestion is sound, you're putting the cart before the horse. TaxGeek will be loved by some, reviled by others, and along the way it will slowly progress into a mature product which either will or will not be adopted by organizations like AARP. But there has to be a product first before such a review can begin. AARP decides what product they will use after a thorough review.
Have you thought of approaching them and asking if they would like a seat on your board - I'd make the pitch that you want to make it easier for people to file electronically; and making such software available to seniors would be good for them. You'd like someone who can help you achieve that goal who has experience dealing with the politics involved. A local chapter may be more receptive than the national org; and all you are looking for is someone who could champion it for you as the codebase matures.
Finally, if all TaxGeek does is to get TurboTax, TaxAct or some other company to provide a native Linux-based tax-product for users such as myself, it has accomplished its goal: to enable Linux users to do their taxes without switching operating systems and without being connected to the internet if they so desire.
Agreed. As one off my other posts (Moded -1 since I forgot that saying anything bad about OSS is obviously a troll on
OTHO, anything that increases choice and competition is good, which is why I wish you well.
Regarding this last point, I suspect that when TaxGeek actually becomes competitive with "real" tax programs, we will start having issues with the big companies who will feel that it is unfair that someone is providing software to the public for free (nevermind that it isn't the government). Imagine that our near term idea-list is completed. Specifically that we completely finish the 1040, can write to pdf using XUL-Javascript, and create an interview frontend. Should this happen, TaxGeek becomes platform independent and usable by a wider audience. Presuming that we have thousands of ./ers sending bug reports, TaxGeek may even be more reliable than some commercial products. (I know, in my dreams...)
First of all, the tax software providers sell security - if something goes wrong we will help - and would no doubt ask "Who'll help you if TaxGeek screws up - some 30 year old who still lives in his mom's basement?" It's a perception issue, regardless of whether or not it is true; all they have to do is create FUD in the user's mind. Face it, who wants a knock on the door from the taxman?
Secondly, you have to deal with two types of bug reports - software bugs and tax code issues. Who decides if something should be treated in a specific manner or that the software has incorporated accurately the latest changes? And that all the changes are in?
My thoughts is that the way to do this is to partner with an org such as AARP - they can bring real clout and expertise to the table; and in return get a free package their members can use. Of course, they could also use the threat of doing that to make a good deal with one of the big packages if they wanted to.
Finally, regarding liability please see the following IRS publications:
* "Revenue Ruling 85-189: Return preparers; sale of computer program. A person who prepares a computer program and sells it to a taxpayer to use in preparing the tax-payer's income tax return may be an income tax return preparer." Internal Revenue Cumulative Bulletin, volume 1985-2, p. 341.
* "IRS announces that companies who sell return preparation computer software and programs may be considered return preparers subject to penalties." I.R.S. News Release, IR-86-92 (May 6, 1986).
Essentially, the fact that there is a dire warning regarding the software's abilities, and that the software is being given away offer protection to the developers (who are normally more protected than their CPA masters in the IRS standards of practice anyhow). The articles mentioned above don't even guarantee the company's liability in the case of mistake. They only say that the company may be liable under certain conditions. In short our line on it is that you didn't pay any money for this, you were warned about the software's status, and any mistakes are your responsibility, not ours. Also, we try to fix bugs that are reported to us in a timely manner which is also a developer's responsibility according to the IRS.
Those are IRS rulings, which can change. My guess is they were done before the advent of free filing software (1985?); the IRS could very well decide that "selling" was confusing and "providing" is a better interpretation. Not to say they would; but in case IRS rulings don't automatically protect you if someone sues you for negligence.
Your software is a neat idea - what does your lawyer say about your liability?
You can get the existing programs for next to nothing already, and they have experts who ensure the software is accurate and stand behind their product.
Here you have something that may or may not comply with the tax codes - and I should trust it because it is OSS?
If there are experts who are working on this I'd wonder about the legal advice they get - despite the disclaimer they could wind up being sued because of an error. As experts they can be held to a higher standard of care and you can't disclaim negligence, at least not in the US, as I understand the law (ANAL).
Nice idea but unless all you want is to be able to print forms it's not worth teh risk - besides aren't there free web based packages already?
Depending on the call volume, and the availability of high speed access, it may be even more economical to install a second Vonage line at your family's location(s). That effectively gives you unlimited calling as well as the ability to call them when you are away from your Vonage line. In addition, they can now call each other for free as well.
All Vonage cares about is a US billing address; I've used mine overseas and it works great.
BTW - isn't the UK free now?
I realize that you can do this with SKYPE as well; and now that there are more Skype compatible adapters for real phones it is becoming appealing as well.
The interesting issue is how will the foreign Telco's; many of whom believe they own the rights to any land line calls to and from as well within their countries will fight back - probably regulation and heavy handed government intervention.
First of all, Apple is in the entertainment business as well, so the profits need to be spread over more than just computers; although they do make more per machine than most PC manufacturers.
But even if Vista stumbles - as the author points out - users stay with an existing MS OS rather than dump MS altogether as Apple owners did when the ][ line dies (I was one to the bitter end) or when Apple failed to keep pace. What Apple has to overcome (as does Linux) is the huge installed base and apps that run on it. The switch to x86 architecture made it even tougher to move to the Mac given the lack of native binary apps for it; such as Photoshop whose CS2 is a bit slow on the newer Macs (CS3 is nice but not yet out).
iPhone - that looks to be a questionable product; given Apple has apparently hobbled it from the get go.
And this is my perspective as a Mac (and Windows) user.
States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes.
I hope that enough states refuse to participate that it makes the federal legislature repeal the law. Of course, congress will likely do as they've always done and threaten to pull federal highway funding or education funding until the states in question comply.
Except, in this case, it'll be the same Congress' constituents raising an uproar - when Grandpa and Grandma miss their grandchild's birth; or the kids miss getting to a dying relative; vacations get ruined, etc they'll run as fast from DHS and work to limit the damage.
I think that you are missing a couple things in regards to utilities:
1. A utility is a government managed entity. While it is privately owned, prices, etc. are set by the government. This makes it hard to offer innovative pricing, like a guaranteed rate.
Utilities certainly can offer fixed rates, most won't over a 25 year period because it is simply to hard to predict. A fixed cost asset such as a solar panel would be more attractive to a fixed price contract since the cost of production can be accurately estimnated (i.e. there is no large variable fuel cost to consider).
2. A utility is a steady dividend, low growth company. Its stock will reflect this. While the utility has the manpower to do this, they do not have the ability to raise capital by selling high P/E stock. Even if this program would make economic sense to them, they won't be able to launch it *now*. They need it to turn from a speculative investment to a sure thing.
OYOH, utilities have access to low cost capital because they are low risk investments. A top bond rating allows you to take on extra debt at a low cost.
3. With a separate stock, the worst that the investor faces is loss of the money paid for the stock. If this were integrated as part of a utility stock, it's like investors have to buy two stocks in parallel: a low return, low risk stock (the utility) and a high risk, high return stock. Worse, if the high risk stock goes under, the investor loses the investment in the otherwise low risk stock. Net result is a high risk (risk is a max function; mixing high and low makes high), medium return (return is an average function; mixing high and low makes medium) stock.
First of all, risk is not a max function and return is a weighted average - and some extra risk doesn't all of a sudden make a utility a high risk stock - whether it is a few hundred million in solar or a multi billion power plant.
My original point still stands - if this were a profitable investment utilities would be trying it.
4. To get the full benefits of being a green company, it's better to be only a green company. Adding green to coal doesn't make as much sense. The green investors will prefer full green companies to those that are mixed.
The point is not to become a green company - it's to maintain profitability and collect subsidies.
Green right now, is a poor investment.
5. While in the future, solar incentives may fall, they may also go up. Politically, incentives for renewable energy are becoming more viable. You seem to be assuming that the supply of renewable energy will increase faster than the demand. I suspect that it is more likely that both the desired renewable mix and total demand for electricity will climb.
Demand will rise only if:
a) the cost of production drops so the price of green drops; or,
b) there still are large subsidies for green power.
Most consumers could give a crap about green power - they want cheap power.
I would take the one that went to Harvard. The so-called 'student leader' of the bottom of the barrel school could be a leader of nothing more than sheeple. Hell this so-called 'student leade' could be sheeple as well. The more prestigious the school, the better the education material. As a result West Podunk State honours would pail in comparison to the B or C average student from Harvard.
To an extant Harvard provides a signal - it selects only top applicants so you know they were achievers; however:
1) If they barely made any effort (which I view as anything less than a B+ average given grade inflation)they may just do the same in the work force - they have shown they have potential but lack ambition
If you can't afford the way into a school then tough shit, get a bloody loan. I would not hire you if you went to a sub-par school, excellent grades or not. I only hire from prestigious schools.
Conversely, not everyone good enough to do well at a top school gets in, as a result a lot of fine schools have outstanding students who are every bit as good those at prestigious schools; in fact the top 10$ at such schools are probably every bit as good as the top 10% at your prestige schools. Some very prestigious companies have already caught on to this and realized not only can they get good employees but they don't have to pay as much for them.
The worst schools are the so-called 'Community Colleges' or as I call 'Communist Colleges'. They are funded by tax payers. They are for dropouts or average students.
Having attended one I agree - many students there simply couldn't cut it at a better school - but many were there because they couldn't afford 4 years of debt or needed to improve their study skills before they could succeed and used it as a stepping stone towards a degree at a better school. If I see that on a resume I view it as a plus - here's someone who understands how to extract value out of a system.
In the end, my key test for hiring is - "Would I want to sit next to this person for 10 hours on a plane ride?" If they can't pass that, their Harvard degree and $5 will only get them a coffee at Starbucks.
When I was interviewing I avoided companies who made a big deal out of their exclusive hiring policies; mainly because I have a low tolerance for schmucks whose preoccupation with where they went to school compensates for a lack of talent elsewhere.
The ownership of the systems stays with the company, so recievers would be collecting them, or the bill in the worst case.
Or a court voids the rate agreement and allows it to be reset to a higher profitable level and you either agree or opt-put and the new owner needs to come get the units; or the court awards the units to the owner and your stuck with repairs / maintenance and disposal.
Plus, the cash flow for these units is expected to decline over time as the units degrade with age. Once the market is saturated their revenues can be expected to fall or stay constant if they get enough new home construction buyers to opt in.