Nobody ever could "know" all of that law. If you add state laws and federal regulations you're talking in the hundreds of thousands of pages of law.
Yet "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Seems to me to be a double standard. Every person is assumed to know all the laws, so if they fall afoul of one they are not allowed, under the lae, to claim ignorance of the law, but a judge is allowed to skate because 'There are hundreds of thousands of pages' of laws.
The key itself may be a physical object, but the information as to where that key is hidden is only in the defendant's brain.
Yes. And he would not/could not/should not be forced to divulge that information.
On the other hand, the powers-that-be (government) does not have to stop trying to get into that safe just because they don't have a key. With the proper judicial oversight, they can try non-destructive as well as destructive ways (if authorized) to enter the safe to get the material stored inside.
Equally, they are allowed to try non-destructive methods to decrypt the files. Maybe he used a bad pass phrase, maybe the government has quantum computing that can break the encryption, maybe social engineering can get them the passphrase legally (is social engineering legal?). I specify 'non-destructive' because, while destructive methods could be used, destroying the files you are trying to read makes no sense
This ruling seems to me to be saying that just because the police/authorities can not get into the files without the passphrase, that is not then a requirement for the defendent to give them the phrase.
Not addressed to your comment, just seemed to be a good place to butt in...
I do not know how it is done in the MegaMillions lottery, but the PowerBall lottery is set up so that an analysis of the winning numbers is meaningless - as you are never given ALL the numbers or other information needed to make accurate decisions.
From memory of an article I read, there are multiple sets of numbers (actual number of sets was not disclosed), but we have no way of knowing which set of numbers are going to be used any drawing, or which sets of numbers were used in any historical information.
Also, there are multiple sets of 'test drawings' (again the number of test drawings was not disclosed) made with statistical analysis of THAT data (which is not made public) before the "official" drawing is made - and any statistical deviation means that set of balls will be destroyed and replaced - with the entire testing process that goes with it. (One reason for multiple sets of numbers...)
To make any intelligent choice in numbers you would need a BUNCH more information than what the lottery commissions give out.... if the system is truly fair and random.
And the lottery commission has a vested interest in making the system as fair and ramdom as possible - they get their cut no matter if any one wins or not - exactly why there are still casinos!
[I]f you have nothing to hide, then where's the problem.
The problem is that, if they have no reason to be in my things, why are they trying to search them? I saw an excellent rebuttal to the "if you have nothing to hide" nonsense - probably here on slashdot - but I am not going to look it up right now. What it boils down to is that, unless ANYONE has a specific reason to be in my personal business, then they have NO reason to be in my personal business - whether or not I have anything to hide. My right to privacy overrides their right to be snooping "because we can".
Not sure what they are trying to do, but it isn't what you said.
They have already been found to be guilty of conversion - taking something that Novell owns (the royalties they were owed) and keeping it for themselves (TSCOG).
Bankruptcy or no bankruptcy, they have to give Novell what ALREADY belongs to Novell.
They were obligated by contract to give the royalties to Novell BEFORE any bankruptcy, they are still required to give them AFTER any bankruptcy.
The only point to be determined by the court is HOW MUCH TSCOG kept that they should not have kept. Whatever that amount, bankruptcy has not effect on their LEGAL REQUIREMENT to GIVE IT BACK TO NOVELL.
If - which is NOT the case - Novell had gone for punatitive damages or any other kind of damages, then the bankruptcy would have had some effect. As it is, it doesn't (at least not in reguards to Novell).
If you simply add up the images you'll suffer the same distortions that prevented good images in the first place.
Expose for 60 min, giving (at 20 exposures per second) 72000 exposures.
Pick only the best 1000 exposures, keeping only the best, sharpest, clearest 1.4%, or getting rid of the worst 98.6%
Run them through your imaging algorythm.
You now have a 50 second exposure without all the blurring, distortion, and general cruft you threw away with the 98% (of the total) crap exposures you got rid of.
...the single frames must have a clearly visible signal to work with...
Nope. The stacking/summing algorhythm does not need a visible signal to work on, it used the electronic signals from the CCD at a level that would not (neccesssarily) be visible to the eye. It does need a discernable signal (not neccessaryily the object of the photograph, not neccessarily visible to the naked eye) to reference when stacking the exposures, but that is not often a problem.
...hence you... need a very sensitive camera...
That is the point of the article, the new, low noise CCD. The stacking, processing procedure is nothing new, the sharp images are nothing new - the hyperbole about 'Better than the Hubble!' not withstanding - only the new cammera is news in the Press Release. To bad they did not give more information about the camera.
Just wanted to add that amateur astronomers can image Deep Space Objects (DSOs) using modified (for long exposure) web cams as well as Lunar/Planatary Imaging (LPI) using unmodified web cams.
Either one is enhanced by 'stacking' images and processing a bunch of then. This is because the S/N ratio improves with additional images added to the stack.
The Signal increases by the square of the number of images, while the Noise increases by the sum of the number of images - so the Signal increases faster than the Noise, and with enough images to work with, the S/N ration can be manipulated to get some good images of both LPI and DSO.
I have an 8" reflector on an equatorial mount, and have a modified QuickCam 3000 Pro (google for Steve Chambers web site for modification instructions used) for DSO and an unmodified SPC900NC web cam I use for LPI. I use RegiStax and K3CCD software - K3CCD to control the modified QC3k. Total price of equipment was under $300US
I got some adequate shots of the lunar eclipse on the 28th of August, but even using a 60mm refractor, I was not able to get enough panoramic views to make it really interesting. I got some good shots of the lunar surface, but the equipment brought the subject too close for good ECLIPSE imaging. A tele-reducer would have been nice... maybe by February 21, 2008 when the next total lunar eclipse happens!
at a certain level you do have to take into account to some degree what the majority of the IT industry thinks.
How can you 'take into account...what the majority of the IT industry thinks' when the vote that would tell you how 'the majority of the IT industry thinks' does no such thing, it only shows who is willing to drop their pants and take it when Microsoft tells them to?
What did each company violate that was so obvious? Any integrity they might have started with.
Not because they paid their money and cast their vote, but because they paid their money and cast their vote AS DIRECTED BY MICROSOFT and with the expectation of gain by the reductions in pricing they were offered in exchange for their vote.
Reminds me of that old chestnut
"Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
"Yes!!!"
"How about for two dollars?"
"What do you think I AM!?!"
"we've settled _that_, now we are haggling over price."
They can be a good whore, a bad whore, an expensive whore, a cheap whore, or even a whore with a heart of gold, but in the end, they are still just whores, willing to do things they would not otherwise do when offered enough money.
Company A can, under the rules, write a check and vote immediately. Probably not good, but allowed under the current rules.
That is NOT what happpened.
What happened is that Company A wrote a check, and companies B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T, and U voted the way Company A told them to vote.
I don't know what to call it - bribery, coercion, undue innfluence, racketeering, evil, or just Microsoft doing 'business as usual' (i.e., 'all the above')- but whatever it is called, it is wrong.
Like most Microsoft fans, you seem to have lost sight of the means, concentrating on the ends.
If the standard was intended to be for sale to the highest bidder, then why go to the trouble of having a vote?
If they went to the trouble of having a vote, why was the decision decided by the highest bidder?
If WE don't like it, WE can elect people that will enact our will.
Platitudes. Bad platitudes, and incorrect platitudes as well.
WE can elect anyone we want, but they will only enact THEIR WILL. They campaign on what they will do, or what they think we want to hear, but once in office there is NOTHING that requires them to "enact our will". This is a republic, so we are electing people who we HOPE will act when in power as we would like them to act. The reality is that people who want elected often want it for the power the position provides. What do they use that power to do? To work to KEEP THEMSELVES IN POWER.
Someone MUCH smarter than me said that anyone who WANTS to be president should never be allowed to have the job.
The only power "We, the people," have is to vote OUT a person who does not do our will, we have no power to elect only those that will do our will.
In the last presidential election, I heard many from all political persuasions, and the comment I most often heard for ANY candidate is "they are the lesser of two evils", i.e., they could not vote FOR someone "that would enact our will", they could only vote FOR someone who they thought least likely to screw things up worse.
Go live somewhere else or try to change it through our democratic process if you don't like it.
It is not possible to "change it through the democratic process" if the only choice is "the lesser of two evils."
In this "Democracy" there are more people with their hands out than there are people able to support them. But to remain in power, the best thing a politician can offer is more handouts - that gets them the vote of the "want" crowd, even if every single "support" group person votes against them. And how to provide those handouts? Taxes on anything and everything.
What results is a government selected by those - like you - who believe the platitudes and refuse to think.
We should tax a dollar every time it changes hands.
I am glad I didn't vote for you!
First because I don't agree with your statement, and second because we are already taxing money THAT DOESN'T CHANGE HANDS.
Specifically (and I mentioned this in an earlier reply to one of your postings) I can buy a portion of ownership of a company that makes widgets. That company posts a profit - AFTER paying a large tax bill - and decides to not keep the money in the company, but to give it to the people who already own it - the shareholders. The government taxes it again. Nothing changed hands - it was mine, it is still mine - but the overnment taxes it anyway.
Or are you saying the government should tax a dollar anytime it changes POCKETS? From my widget-company pocket to my bank-account pocket? How about from my suit pocket to my slacks pocket? Where do you draw the line - should it still be taxed if it goes from my left front pants pocket to my right front pants pocket?
Also, the government does not only tax when a dollar changes hands - If you win the lottery, always take the lump sum option. Why? Because if you take the annual option, and you die any time before the payout is complete, your estate immediately owes taxes on the full amount still due - even though you (or your estate, or your heirs) have not received the full amount yet. The money has not changed hands. The government says you WILL EVENTUALLY receive the amount, so you (your estate) owes taxes on it RIGHT NOW.
A business can not take my money just because the business says teh business can.
A robber can not take my money just because the robber says the robber can.
Why is it that the government can take my money just because the government says the government can?
Your 'poor people' argument is specious, as I don't feel "they could be where [I am] if they only wanted it badly enough and weren't lazy. They obviously deserve any suffering that comes their way."
However, I do NOT feel that the government is better able to judge who needs my money. It is my money, and the only reason the government has a right to interfer with my control over my money is in very narrow, limited circumstances. National Defense (not offence, or "Homeland Security", or "War on Drugs" or "War on Terror" or any other "War on...") is one such circumstance.
Crying 'Think of the Children!" does not give a right for the government to take control of my money.
Your reply has an assumption that taxes on income or investments is OK, so taxes on inheritance should be OK as well.
Some people feel that taxes on COMPENSATION (what you get IN EXCHANGE for your labor) is not OK - in fact is illegal.
Some people feel that taxes on return on investments is not OK. Specifically, a corporation pays high taxes, then distributes their profits (AFTER PAYING TAXES) to the company owners (who owned the money that taxes were already paid on) - the shareholders - who are then taxed again on the same money.
My view on taxes is that the government should not be allowed to take part of a transaction just because they say they can.
Not part of my paycheck, not part of my inheritance, not part of my stock dividends.
Remember the tax on long distance bills to help pay for the Spanish-American War? The one we stopped being required to pay in 2006?
In answer to your question - why should income from a dead relative be different than income from a job, or from investments - it shouldn't. But, in return, why should ANY of those be taxed? What purpose does the government play in any of those transactions that it can claim a portion of the transaction for itself?
Again, the government does it because the government says the government can do it. I see a problem with that.
Let me clue you in how this works in many corporations.
No clue needed. I have invested in several different companies over the years, and the annual reports are quite interesting.
On several BoDs there are directors who are on 10 or more boards. Most were being paid around $30,000 per year to sit on the Board of Directors. If they are paid the same for each director position they hold, they are being paid over $300,000 for attending meetings each year. Most also were being given stock, stock options, or additional payments for committee meetings, raising the total they are paid.
The CEO and other officers pay, perqs, and benefits were laid out in detail in the annual report, but the finances of the Board of Director members was not. As far as I know, there is no financial reporting requirements for the members of the Board of Directors of any company.
So (bringing this back on topic) there is no legal liability, no financial reporting requirements, and potential of income around a million dollars per year. I can get an MBA, I can get a legal education, I can become a doctor, I can plan and direct my carreer in many different directions; there is no carreer track to be a Board of Directors member.
Just as with experience (most jobs require experience, if you have no experience you can not get a job to get experience so you can get a job!) the way to BECOME a director is to ALREADY BE a director.
Remember that children and wives were thought to be equivalent to property of the man of the household, and this makes more sense.
If the builder causes the building owner to lose his progenity, his chance at a continuation of his genes, his unpaid help in his livelyhood, his provider in his old age, the code required the builder to lose his as well.
The code was not intended (as I read it) to punish the son, but to punish the father to the same extent he caused harm to the building owner.
The resr of the wikipedia rticle seems to support this, as it states that if a slave is killed, the builder is responsible for the price of the slave, and if goods are destroyed, the builder is responsible for the cost fo the goods.
CEOs and their cohorts make very good money to direct and lead their companies, but they are not personally responsible for the results of their leadership and direction.
Boards of Directors are supposed to be outside overseers who make sure those INSIDE the company are not blinded by internal goals and policies or politics; they are PAID to provide an outside view and unbiased viewpoint.
My point is that there is already several layers of 'leadership' that are supposed to be providing adhearance to standards, rules, and laws, and that those layers are WELL paid for that function. I don't see a hugh additional burden in making them legally responsible for performing (or not performing) their function.
Hold them responsible for Joe Coder's mistake? No, but the company should be responsible for ensuring that Joe Coder can not - through stupidity, incompetence, or accident - do something like the article and destroy the company/corporation. If safeguards are not in place, then SOMEONE should be responsible for the screwup, and the BoD and CEO, COO, CIO, etc SHOULD BE held responsible for not having safeguards in place.
"We hired the best coder minimum wage could buy and turned them loose without any oversight" is not sufficient to absolve them of responsibility, at least in my mind.
Perhaps an Engineer could enlighten me on the history of how those things evolved for them.
Check out the Code of Hammaurabi, a Babylonian king, which said that, if a person builds a building for another and the building falls in and kills the owner, the builder shall be put to death. There are other parts as well, but the total is that the builder/engineer is held responsible/liable for the construction done by that builder/engineer.
Not an engineer, but I do watch the discovery channel...
Your comment makes sence if you assume the student pays a set fee for his/her education and everything is included in that fee.
I have never seen that to be the case.
You pay a set fee (tution) which is taxpayer assisted.
You want to live in the dorms? Tha is extra - and not taxpayer funded. You have no say in how much is charged, or what is included.
You want to eat in the cafeteria? That is extra - and not taxpayer funded. You have no say in meal selections, how late the cafeteria is open, or the ability to order off the set menu.
You want to wash your cloths? That is extra - and not taxpayer funded. You have no say in the fee charged, or the availability of machines, or maintenance schedules.
You want the in-dorm intranet access? That is extra - and not taxpayer funded. You have no say in services offered, prices set for service levels, restrictions, etc.
Students have choices. Buy the meal plans, buy meals one at a time, or don't eat in the cafeteria. Wash your clothes in the laundry facilities available on campus, or take them to a laundry off-campus, or take them home and have mom do them, or wear them until they stink then throw them out and buy new ones. Subscribe to the resident internet connection or use the computers at the library, or go off campus. Living around KU, I know there are quite a few wireless 'hot spots' off campus. Not as convenient as having access in your room, but convenience is not a right, and it is not included in your tution, and it is not funded by taxpayers.
I drive past this place daily (well, almost daily) and you are correct. However, there is a sound business reason for it.
An investment in repair is an investment in the future, a gesture saying you expect to be around long enough to gain from the repairs.
Investing in new buildings is an investment in your income tax deductions.
Repairs are not tax deductable, improvements and new constructions are - through depreciation, etc.
To understand the reasoning for NOT repairing existing structures, you just have to take the short term view and ignore the long-term. Just what I want from an educational facility. NOT!
one tenth of one percent of $3.15 is $0.003 per gallon. Less than half a penny.
I would prefer NOT to pay more than I have to for gasoline, but I think paying less than a nickle per fillup (assuming there really is a 'shrinkage' which I don't think is the case - gasoline is pumped/metered and THEN expands to ambient temperature, not the other way around) - I currently have a 15 gallon tank - is not worth arguing about, especially when the tax rate on gasoling (US average) is $0.42, or 133 times more than this claimed thermal shrinkage. Those are state and federal taxes, local taxes are not included in the $0.42 average.
That nickle would have bought (at $3.15/gallon) roughly an additional 0.015 gallons.
There are bigger things to be upset about. If this is even an actual issue - which I dispute! - this is not even on the radar.
their were never going to get back to the heights they once occupied.
SCO sold most of their business and changed their name to tarantella.
Some unknown wannabe named Caldera bought most of SCO. They later changed their name to "The SCO Group".
Point is, the current "sco" (quotes and lowercase 'cause that is not their name, they are just wanting to ride the coattails of the known name) never occupied any heights. They may have been high - and reading some of their early press releases seems to reinforce this impression - but they only 'occupied' 'heights' in their wannabe dreams.
You must not know that here in the USA you are wrong. Persons under age 18 CAN enter into contracts. The legal restriction is on ENFORCING those contracts AGAINST them if they are under 18.
I can enter into a contract with a 16 y.o. to sell my car for $1000.
If I am paid the money, and sign the title over to them, the contract is fulfilled, and nothing further happens.
If I am paid the money, then refuse to actually SELL them the car, they CAN take me to court to force compliance with the contract. I am over 18 and the contract can be enforced against me.
What I can not do is take them to court to force them to honor the contract and buy my car. They are under 18 and the contract can not be enforced against them.
It is the one-sidedness that keeps most from entering into contracts with people under 18, not any illegality.
People under 18 get credit cards frequently. But, because of the lack of a way to enforce the contract that requires them to pay their debts, people under 18 are almost always required to have a co-signer who IS over 18 - and can be sued to recover the debts.
When I see "they are still underage and as such cannot enter into a legal agreement..." I stop reading as you are arguing from incorrect assumptions.
Being 'underage' does not prevent a person from entering into a contract or legal agreement, it only prevents ENFORCEMENT of that contract or legal agreement AGAINST THE MINOR.
The fact that most will not enter into an agreement or contract with a minor is due to the UNENFORCEABILITY issue, not any legal reason against the contract itself.
You may have had a good point you were trying to make. To bad the lack of confidence in your stance engendered by this false statement caused me to not continue reading your posting...
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody ever could "know" all of that law. If you add state laws and federal regulations you're talking in the hundreds of thousands of pages of law.
Yet "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Seems to me to be a double standard. Every person is assumed to know all the laws, so if they fall afoul of one they are not allowed, under the lae, to claim ignorance of the law, but a judge is allowed to skate because 'There are hundreds of thousands of pages' of laws.
No, sir, nothing wrong with THAT law system!
The key itself may be a physical object, but the information as to where that key is hidden is only in the defendant's brain.
Yes. And he would not/could not/should not be forced to divulge that information.
On the other hand, the powers-that-be (government) does not have to stop trying to get into that safe just because they don't have a key. With the proper judicial oversight, they can try non-destructive as well as destructive ways (if authorized) to enter the safe to get the material stored inside.
Equally, they are allowed to try non-destructive methods to decrypt the files. Maybe he used a bad pass phrase, maybe the government has quantum computing that can break the encryption, maybe social engineering can get them the passphrase legally (is social engineering legal?). I specify 'non-destructive' because, while destructive methods could be used, destroying the files you are trying to read makes no sense
This ruling seems to me to be saying that just because the police/authorities can not get into the files without the passphrase, that is not then a requirement for the defendent to give them the phrase.
Not addressed to your comment, just seemed to be a good place to butt in...
... if the system is truly fair and random.
I do not know how it is done in the MegaMillions lottery, but the PowerBall lottery is set up so that an analysis of the winning numbers is meaningless - as you are never given ALL the numbers or other information needed to make accurate decisions.
From memory of an article I read, there are multiple sets of numbers (actual number of sets was not disclosed), but we have no way of knowing which set of numbers are going to be used any drawing, or which sets of numbers were used in any historical information.
Also, there are multiple sets of 'test drawings' (again the number of test drawings was not disclosed) made with statistical analysis of THAT data (which is not made public) before the "official" drawing is made - and any statistical deviation means that set of balls will be destroyed and replaced - with the entire testing process that goes with it. (One reason for multiple sets of numbers...)
To make any intelligent choice in numbers you would need a BUNCH more information than what the lottery commissions give out.
And the lottery commission has a vested interest in making the system as fair and ramdom as possible - they get their cut no matter if any one wins or not - exactly why there are still casinos!
Agreed!
[I]f you have nothing to hide, then where's the problem.
The problem is that, if they have no reason to be in my things, why are they trying to search them? I saw an excellent rebuttal to the "if you have nothing to hide" nonsense - probably here on slashdot - but I am not going to look it up right now. What it boils down to is that, unless ANYONE has a specific reason to be in my personal business, then they have NO reason to be in my personal business - whether or not I have anything to hide.
My right to privacy overrides their right to be snooping "because we can".
Not sure what they are trying to do, but it isn't what you said.
They have already been found to be guilty of conversion - taking something that Novell owns (the royalties they were owed) and keeping it for themselves (TSCOG).
Bankruptcy or no bankruptcy, they have to give Novell what ALREADY belongs to Novell.
They were obligated by contract to give the royalties to Novell BEFORE any bankruptcy, they are still required to give them AFTER any bankruptcy.
The only point to be determined by the court is HOW MUCH TSCOG kept that they should not have kept. Whatever that amount, bankruptcy has not effect on their LEGAL REQUIREMENT to GIVE IT BACK TO NOVELL.
If - which is NOT the case - Novell had gone for punatitive damages or any other kind of damages, then the bankruptcy would have had some effect. As it is, it doesn't (at least not in reguards to Novell).
If you simply add up the images you'll suffer the same distortions that prevented good images in the first place.
...the single frames must have a clearly visible signal to work with...
...hence you ... need a very sensitive camera ...
Expose for 60 min, giving (at 20 exposures per second) 72000 exposures.
Pick only the best 1000 exposures, keeping only the best, sharpest, clearest 1.4%, or getting rid of the worst 98.6%
Run them through your imaging algorythm.
You now have a 50 second exposure without all the blurring, distortion, and general cruft you threw away with the 98% (of the total) crap exposures you got rid of.
Nope. The stacking/summing algorhythm does not need a visible signal to work on, it used the electronic signals from the CCD at a level that would not (neccesssarily) be visible to the eye. It does need a discernable signal (not neccessaryily the object of the photograph, not neccessarily visible to the naked eye) to reference when stacking the exposures, but that is not often a problem.
That is the point of the article, the new, low noise CCD. The stacking, processing procedure is nothing new, the sharp images are nothing new - the hyperbole about 'Better than the Hubble!' not withstanding - only the new cammera is news in the Press Release. To bad they did not give more information about the camera.
Just wanted to add that amateur astronomers can image Deep Space Objects (DSOs) using modified (for long exposure) web cams as well as Lunar/Planatary Imaging (LPI) using unmodified web cams.
Either one is enhanced by 'stacking' images and processing a bunch of then. This is because the S/N ratio improves with additional images added to the stack.
The Signal increases by the square of the number of images, while the Noise increases by the sum of the number of images - so the Signal increases faster than the Noise, and with enough images to work with, the S/N ration can be manipulated to get some good images of both LPI and DSO.
I have an 8" reflector on an equatorial mount, and have a modified QuickCam 3000 Pro (google for Steve Chambers web site for modification instructions used) for DSO and an unmodified SPC900NC web cam I use for LPI. I use RegiStax and K3CCD software - K3CCD to control the modified QC3k. Total price of equipment was under $300US
I got some adequate shots of the lunar eclipse on the 28th of August, but even using a 60mm refractor, I was not able to get enough panoramic views to make it really interesting. I got some good shots of the lunar surface, but the equipment brought the subject too close for good ECLIPSE imaging. A tele-reducer would have been nice... maybe by February 21, 2008 when the next total lunar eclipse happens!
at a certain level you do have to take into account to some degree what the majority of the IT industry thinks.
How can you 'take into account...what the majority of the IT industry thinks' when the vote that would tell you how 'the majority of the IT industry thinks' does no such thing, it only shows who is willing to drop their pants and take it when Microsoft tells them to?
What did each company violate that was so obvious? Any integrity they might have started with.
Not because they paid their money and cast their vote, but because they paid their money and cast their vote AS DIRECTED BY MICROSOFT and with the expectation of gain by the reductions in pricing they were offered in exchange for their vote.
Reminds me of that old chestnut
"Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
"Yes!!!"
"How about for two dollars?"
"What do you think I AM!?!"
"we've settled _that_, now we are haggling over price."
They can be a good whore, a bad whore, an expensive whore, a cheap whore, or even a whore with a heart of gold, but in the end, they are still just whores, willing to do things they would not otherwise do when offered enough money.
Company A can, under the rules, write a check and vote immediately. Probably not good, but allowed under the current rules.
That is NOT what happpened.
What happened is that Company A wrote a check, and companies B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T, and U voted the way Company A told them to vote.
I don't know what to call it - bribery, coercion, undue innfluence, racketeering, evil, or just Microsoft doing 'business as usual' (i.e., 'all the above')- but whatever it is called, it is wrong.
Like most Microsoft fans, you seem to have lost sight of the means, concentrating on the ends.
If the standard was intended to be for sale to the highest bidder, then why go to the trouble of having a vote?
If they went to the trouble of having a vote, why was the decision decided by the highest bidder?
We are the government.
If WE don't like it, WE can elect people that will enact our will.
Platitudes. Bad platitudes, and incorrect platitudes as well.
WE can elect anyone we want, but they will only enact THEIR WILL. They campaign on what they will do, or what they think we want to hear, but once in office there is NOTHING that requires them to "enact our will". This is a republic, so we are electing people who we HOPE will act when in power as we would like them to act. The reality is that people who want elected often want it for the power the position provides. What do they use that power to do? To work to KEEP THEMSELVES IN POWER.
Someone MUCH smarter than me said that anyone who WANTS to be president should never be allowed to have the job.
The only power "We, the people," have is to vote OUT a person who does not do our will, we have no power to elect only those that will do our will.
In the last presidential election, I heard many from all political persuasions, and the comment I most often heard for ANY candidate is "they are the lesser of two evils", i.e., they could not vote FOR someone "that would enact our will", they could only vote FOR someone who they thought least likely to screw things up worse.
Go live somewhere else or try to change it through our democratic process if you don't like it.
It is not possible to "change it through the democratic process" if the only choice is "the lesser of two evils."
In this "Democracy" there are more people with their hands out than there are people able to support them. But to remain in power, the best thing a politician can offer is more handouts - that gets them the vote of the "want" crowd, even if every single "support" group person votes against them. And how to provide those handouts? Taxes on anything and everything.
What results is a government selected by those - like you - who believe the platitudes and refuse to think.
We should tax a dollar every time it changes hands.
I am glad I didn't vote for you!
First because I don't agree with your statement, and second because we are already taxing money THAT DOESN'T CHANGE HANDS.
Specifically (and I mentioned this in an earlier reply to one of your postings) I can buy a portion of ownership of a company that makes widgets. That company posts a profit - AFTER paying a large tax bill - and decides to not keep the money in the company, but to give it to the people who already own it - the shareholders. The government taxes it again. Nothing changed hands - it was mine, it is still mine - but the overnment taxes it anyway.
Or are you saying the government should tax a dollar anytime it changes POCKETS? From my widget-company pocket to my bank-account pocket? How about from my suit pocket to my slacks pocket? Where do you draw the line - should it still be taxed if it goes from my left front pants pocket to my right front pants pocket?
Also, the government does not only tax when a dollar changes hands - If you win the lottery, always take the lump sum option. Why? Because if you take the annual option, and you die any time before the payout is complete, your estate immediately owes taxes on the full amount still due - even though you (or your estate, or your heirs) have not received the full amount yet. The money has not changed hands. The government says you WILL EVENTUALLY receive the amount, so you (your estate) owes taxes on it RIGHT NOW.
A business can not take my money just because the business says teh business can.
A robber can not take my money just because the robber says the robber can.
Why is it that the government can take my money just because the government says the government can?
Your 'poor people' argument is specious, as I don't feel "they could be where [I am] if they only wanted it badly enough and weren't lazy. They obviously deserve any suffering that comes their way."
However, I do NOT feel that the government is better able to judge who needs my money. It is my money, and the only reason the government has a right to interfer with my control over my money is in very narrow, limited circumstances. National Defense (not offence, or "Homeland Security", or "War on Drugs" or "War on Terror" or any other "War on...") is one such circumstance.
Crying 'Think of the Children!" does not give a right for the government to take control of my money.
Crying "Alms for the Poor" doesn't either.
Your reply has an assumption that taxes on income or investments is OK, so taxes on inheritance should be OK as well.
Some people feel that taxes on COMPENSATION (what you get IN EXCHANGE for your labor) is not OK - in fact is illegal.
Some people feel that taxes on return on investments is not OK. Specifically, a corporation pays high taxes, then distributes their profits (AFTER PAYING TAXES) to the company owners (who owned the money that taxes were already paid on) - the shareholders - who are then taxed again on the same money.
My view on taxes is that the government should not be allowed to take part of a transaction just because they say they can.
Not part of my paycheck, not part of my inheritance, not part of my stock dividends.
Remember the tax on long distance bills to help pay for the Spanish-American War? The one we stopped being required to pay in 2006?
In answer to your question - why should income from a dead relative be different than income from a job, or from investments - it shouldn't. But, in return, why should ANY of those be taxed? What purpose does the government play in any of those transactions that it can claim a portion of the transaction for itself?
Again, the government does it because the government says the government can do it. I see a problem with that.
Let me clue you in how this works in many corporations.
No clue needed. I have invested in several different companies over the years, and the annual reports are quite interesting.
On several BoDs there are directors who are on 10 or more boards. Most were being paid around $30,000 per year to sit on the Board of Directors. If they are paid the same for each director position they hold, they are being paid over $300,000 for attending meetings each year. Most also were being given stock, stock options, or additional payments for committee meetings, raising the total they are paid.
The CEO and other officers pay, perqs, and benefits were laid out in detail in the annual report, but the finances of the Board of Director members was not. As far as I know, there is no financial reporting requirements for the members of the Board of Directors of any company.
So (bringing this back on topic) there is no legal liability, no financial reporting requirements, and potential of income around a million dollars per year. I can get an MBA, I can get a legal education, I can become a doctor, I can plan and direct my carreer in many different directions; there is no carreer track to be a Board of Directors member.
Just as with experience (most jobs require experience, if you have no experience you can not get a job to get experience so you can get a job!) the way to BECOME a director is to ALREADY BE a director.
Remember that children and wives were thought to be equivalent to property of the man of the household, and this makes more sense.
If the builder causes the building owner to lose his progenity, his chance at a continuation of his genes, his unpaid help in his livelyhood, his provider in his old age, the code required the builder to lose his as well.
The code was not intended (as I read it) to punish the son, but to punish the father to the same extent he caused harm to the building owner.
The resr of the wikipedia rticle seems to support this, as it states that if a slave is killed, the builder is responsible for the price of the slave, and if goods are destroyed, the builder is responsible for the cost fo the goods.
CEOs and their cohorts make very good money to direct and lead their companies, but they are not personally responsible for the results of their leadership and direction.
Boards of Directors are supposed to be outside overseers who make sure those INSIDE the company are not blinded by internal goals and policies or politics; they are PAID to provide an outside view and unbiased viewpoint.
My point is that there is already several layers of 'leadership' that are supposed to be providing adhearance to standards, rules, and laws, and that those layers are WELL paid for that function. I don't see a hugh additional burden in making them legally responsible for performing (or not performing) their function.
Hold them responsible for Joe Coder's mistake? No, but the company should be responsible for ensuring that Joe Coder can not - through stupidity, incompetence, or accident - do something like the article and destroy the company/corporation. If safeguards are not in place, then SOMEONE should be responsible for the screwup, and the BoD and CEO, COO, CIO, etc SHOULD BE held responsible for not having safeguards in place.
"We hired the best coder minimum wage could buy and turned them loose without any oversight" is not sufficient to absolve them of responsibility, at least in my mind.
Perhaps an Engineer could enlighten me on the history of how those things evolved for them.
Check out the Code of Hammaurabi, a Babylonian king, which said that, if a person builds a building for another and the building falls in and kills the owner, the builder shall be put to death. There are other parts as well, but the total is that the builder/engineer is held responsible/liable for the construction done by that builder/engineer.
Not an engineer, but I do watch the discovery channel...
Your comment makes sence if you assume the student pays a set fee for his/her education and everything is included in that fee.
I have never seen that to be the case.
You pay a set fee (tution) which is taxpayer assisted.
You want to live in the dorms? Tha is extra - and not taxpayer funded. You have no say in how much is charged, or what is included.
You want to eat in the cafeteria? That is extra - and not taxpayer funded. You have no say in meal selections, how late the cafeteria is open, or the ability to order off the set menu.
You want to wash your cloths? That is extra - and not taxpayer funded. You have no say in the fee charged, or the availability of machines, or maintenance schedules.
You want the in-dorm intranet access? That is extra - and not taxpayer funded. You have no say in services offered, prices set for service levels, restrictions, etc.
Students have choices. Buy the meal plans, buy meals one at a time, or don't eat in the cafeteria. Wash your clothes in the laundry facilities available on campus, or take them to a laundry off-campus, or take them home and have mom do them, or wear them until they stink then throw them out and buy new ones. Subscribe to the resident internet connection or use the computers at the library, or go off campus. Living around KU, I know there are quite a few wireless 'hot spots' off campus. Not as convenient as having access in your room, but convenience is not a right, and it is not included in your tution, and it is not funded by taxpayers.
I drive past this place daily (well, almost daily) and you are correct. However, there is a sound business reason for it.
An investment in repair is an investment in the future, a gesture saying you expect to be around long enough to gain from the repairs.
Investing in new buildings is an investment in your income tax deductions.
Repairs are not tax deductable, improvements and new constructions are - through depreciation, etc.
To understand the reasoning for NOT repairing existing structures, you just have to take the short term view and ignore the long-term. Just what I want from an educational facility. NOT!
one tenth of one percent of $3.15 is $0.003 per gallon. Less than half a penny.
I would prefer NOT to pay more than I have to for gasoline, but I think paying less than a nickle per fillup (assuming there really is a 'shrinkage' which I don't think is the case - gasoline is pumped/metered and THEN expands to ambient temperature, not the other way around) - I currently have a 15 gallon tank - is not worth arguing about, especially when the tax rate on gasoling (US average) is $0.42, or 133 times more than this claimed thermal shrinkage. Those are state and federal taxes, local taxes are not included in the $0.42 average.
That nickle would have bought (at $3.15/gallon) roughly an additional 0.015 gallons.
There are bigger things to be upset about. If this is even an actual issue - which I dispute! - this is not even on the radar.
Just my opinion.
Not quite off-the-shelf like cell phones
Not sure what specific hardware you are refering to, but I can get IR TV remote controls at Walmart, Sears, Radio Shack,...
Garage door remote controls don't work on the same radio frequencies as cell phones. Just saying...
Radio Shack sells 'walkie-talkies' with a range of half a mile - and not on cell phone frequencies.
Not to mention all the on-line sources for long/longer distance "signal/no signal" communication devices.
their were never going to get back to the heights they once occupied.
SCO sold most of their business and changed their name to tarantella.
Some unknown wannabe named Caldera bought most of SCO. They later changed their name to "The SCO Group".
Point is, the current "sco" (quotes and lowercase 'cause that is not their name, they are just wanting to ride the coattails of the known name) never occupied any heights. They may have been high - and reading some of their early press releases seems to reinforce this impression - but they only 'occupied' 'heights' in their wannabe dreams.
You must not know that here in the USA you are wrong. Persons under age 18 CAN enter into contracts. The legal restriction is on ENFORCING those contracts AGAINST them if they are under 18.
I can enter into a contract with a 16 y.o. to sell my car for $1000.
If I am paid the money, and sign the title over to them, the contract is fulfilled, and nothing further happens.
If I am paid the money, then refuse to actually SELL them the car, they CAN take me to court to force compliance with the contract. I am over 18 and the contract can be enforced against me.
What I can not do is take them to court to force them to honor the contract and buy my car. They are under 18 and the contract can not be enforced against them.
It is the one-sidedness that keeps most from entering into contracts with people under 18, not any illegality.
People under 18 get credit cards frequently. But, because of the lack of a way to enforce the contract that requires them to pay their debts, people under 18 are almost always required to have a co-signer who IS over 18 - and can be sued to recover the debts.
...and offer 95% illegal material...
The site was not offering anything illegal, nor were they providing anything illegal.
Where they are(were?) located what they were doing WAS NOT ILLEGAL.
They had ALL THE MORAL GROUND there is, what ground did the *iaa have to persecute them ILLEGALLY?
The RIAA demonstrated they know little about how bitTorrent works.
When I see "they are still underage and as such cannot enter into a legal agreement ..." I stop reading as you are arguing from incorrect assumptions.
Being 'underage' does not prevent a person from entering into a contract or legal agreement, it only prevents ENFORCEMENT of that contract or legal agreement AGAINST THE MINOR.
The fact that most will not enter into an agreement or contract with a minor is due to the UNENFORCEABILITY issue, not any legal reason against the contract itself.
You may have had a good point you were trying to make. To bad the lack of confidence in your stance engendered by this false statement caused me to not continue reading your posting...