My only concern is whether the jobs needed are sufficiently profitable to sustain the population without redistributing the GDP. If our country can sustain a population, but if there is no work of sufficient value to redistribute the wealth generated by the nation as a whole, then this tax could destroy the marginal growth in GDP we might experience. Will it tip the scales back towards recirculating the GDP throughout the entire nation by increasing the value of labor, or will it tip the scales towards a jobless economy by making the work not worth the cost?
You're forgetting the $trillions in profits sitting in tax-havens. The fat cats will be fine. They were fine when the USA implemented a 95% rate in the top tax bracket under FDR in order to pay for the new deal. Macro-economics (national economies) don't work the same way as micro-economics (accountancy).
I don't have problem with it. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have not made the world a better place. They want to profit from the content uploaded to their platform but don't want to take responsibility for it.
Bullshit.
Fuck 'em all. If its on your servers, you're responsible.
On this point, I agree. Facebook et al. are making money out of copyright infringement and should pay the copyright holders. However, what the proposed laws would do to you and me and startups and hobbyists would be suffocating. That is, if you enjoy engaging in and sharing derivative ideas and works under fair use and like that there are public domain works that everyone can use however they like.
Yes, current proposed IP laws in a range of countries favour large, dominant corporations at the expense of newcomers and hobbyists. The corporations will be fine without these laws but we'll all be much worse off with them. This is all the work of the UN's WIPO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., which has been steadily encroaching on public domain and fair-use works since the 1970s. They want corporations to own everything that's ours, i.e. our culture and knowledge, and get rich from renting it all back to us.
Yeah, I used to teach in corporate buildings so rooms were allocated according to what was free at the time. My heart would sink every time that turned out to be a windowless conference room.
It's an evil plan: Somehow, Switzerland has managed to convince those 5 governments that they have to prevent decent, secure encryption from being commercially viable in those countries. Without decent encryption in their own countries, people will have to seek other countries that are known for their security and discretion where they can keep their data safe -- Switzerland of course!
Well, it may have about as much emotional intelligence (AKA empathy) as say, Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk, but that doesn't count as what most of us human beings, even young children, think of as empathy.
The longhorned tick can transmit an animal disease called theileriosis to cattle, which can cause considerable blood loss and occasional death of calves, but mainly is important to dairy farmers because of decreased milk production and sheep farmers because of decreased wool quantity and quality.
So the tick doesn't suck animals dry. It's a vector for a disease, theileriosis, which only affects cattle and, if left untreated, kills the host. Blood loss through the nose and bowels are two of the symptoms but infected cattle don't die from blood loss (exsanguination).
The longhorned tick is sometimes also a vector for other common tick-borne diseases.
This is a non-story for anyone except researchers and maybe farmers if the ticks start spreading theileriosis. There are other species of tick in Asia, Europe, and north Africa which are more common vectors for theileriosis.
Ars Technica have published a misleading and factually incorrect article which is apparently intended to cause fear and anxiety among millions of people. They have displayed all the journalistic integrity of Facebook.
...not the cause. Yes, it emphasises and augments some of the dehumanising aspects of capitalism but that's simply because it's part of our capitalist, consumerist, hyper-individualist, isolated, lonely cultures, and Facebook simply reflects our cultures' values. We're no different to Google, Amazon, Verizon, Exxon, Monsanto, health insurance companies, banks, etc..
Capitalism reduces 99% of us to labour and cost data points.
...how much Pepsico spends on advertising on Facebook. Pepsico don't need a court order. Maybe they're doing it to give Facebook an excuse/cover story.
If you think that advertising is the good way of "piercing the bubble", you are beyond hope. Advertising is what pisses off even the people that advertising is for in many cases. Ads are annoying. Welcome to realisation made in 20th century.
Seeing advertising aimed at a group you are not part of is an excellent way to see how they're manipulated, what pushes their buttons, and how others are trying to exploit their biases and prejudices. As an outsider, your buttons are unlikely to be pushed by the messages/implications in the ads, giving you a cool, calm, and collected analytical view. Imagine watching an ad aimed at a group you disagree with. How likely are you to say to yourself, "Man, how do they fall for that shit?!"
You think conservative Christian types (and similar) should be encouraged to live in a bubble? I think it's a great idea for gay people to see stuff from conservative Christians and vice-versa. Keeps everyone in-the-loop and opens opportunities for dialogue and understanding. It also reduces opportunities for individuals and organisations to mischaracterise groups perceived as "others" and mislead their followers. There's nothing quite like a little familiarity to reduce poorly informed discrimination.
The main point is that it's been made illegal to deny people goods and services on the basis of poorly informed discrimination, e.g. racism, sexism, and religious intolerance, because it creates inequality and systematically unjust treatment of some groups of people. Denying groups of people access to useful information, e.g. job opportunities, properties for rent, and political activism (supportive and adversarial), marginalises those people and is inherently unfair.
BTW, did you know that religious tolerance, or more specifically the prohibition of religious intolerance, is written into the US constitution?
Then there's Monsanto/Bayer's treatment of scientists: https://www.neuralit.com/news-... Monsanto/Bayer have a long record of legal intimidation, as well as strategically placing research funding in order to create dependency on the funding. Several notable agricultural research centres have been "taken over" by Monsanto/Bayer so that scientists working in them are afraid to pursue studies or publish results that might displease Monsanto/Bayer (I know some of them personally).
presented 2 cases as evidence to support your claims;
claimed to have intimate knowledge of Monsanto/Bayer vs. farmer cases;
claimed that the 2 cases you've presented as evidence are representative of Monsanto/Bayer vs. farmer cases;
failed to present any further cases to support your claim that they're representative;
I'm left wondering if these 2 cases are the exceptions that do not reflect the nature of Monsanto/Bayer's litigious relationship with farmers.
If we're interested in establishing facts and getting to the truth of the situation, I think we need to look impartially at a broader range of evidence and more than just 2 cases, which is just under 1.4% of cases that Monsanto/Bayer has brought against farmers. Monsanto/Bayer has a successful prosecution rate against farmers of just 7.6%, i.e. the percentage of cases that Monsanto/Bayer initiates against farmers that actually end in a successful conviction. This may be indicative of an overly aggressive legal policy designed to intimidate farmers, who are vulnerable to the legal expenses, time lost, and stress caused by being prosecuted by Monsanto/Bayer. In plain English, Monsanto/Bayer appear to bully farmers into compliance by threatening to bankrupt them and ruin their lives. It wouldn't matter if a farmer was in the right or not.;They simply can't win at this game.
Pointing at 2 of the 11 successful cases for Monsanto/Bayer, which are intended to paint Monsanto/Bayer in a favourable light (or conversely, the farmers in a negative light), AKA "cheery picking evidence," is intentionally misleading PR nonsense.
1) This is a scale model. You cannot just do a simple comparison.
2) The track was only 1.2 km including the portion needed for deceleration. How many Kilometers does it take for a Maglev to reach top speed? You would have to go back to point #1 to calculate the comparison.
The article itself is incoherent nonsense written by someone who has little or no understanding of network security.
OTOH, I do believe that Russia and China and other states are more than likely probing USA infrastructure control systems among many other things because the USA has effectively declared a cold war on those states and is developing cyber-weapons to use against them. Russia and China would be foolish not to develop countermeasures.
Or anybody's news. It varies in quality but it's all essentially subject to the same inescapable biases. My "truth" isn't the same as your "truth." There are facts and evidence but they are not the same thing as truth. News aims to tell the truth to the people. Facts and evidence are optional and may be spun in any way that suits their narrative.
You're either being deliberately obtuse or don't understand the nature of the influence of the British government and crown over the BBC.
The police are funded by government too, but they make their own decisions to investigate him or let her of with a caution.
Only where the cases aren't politically sensitive. As soon as rich and powerful people get involved, it's a different story. Have you not followed the Julian Assange case? Why do you suppose that the crown prosecutor is dedicating so many resources to pursuing Assange so relentlessly on an alleged sexual assault charge?
Re: "I do not need to enumerate and discuss every Monsanto case" -- I haven't asked you to. That's a straw-man argument.
You claim to be a lawyer with intimate knowledge of Monsanto/Bayer cases and yet you cannot or will not support your assertion that the two cases you've mentioned are representative of Monsanto/Bayer vs. farmers cases in general. I'm not asking for a review of every case. Just a few more examples, i.e. links that you can find, with your intimate knowledge, and copy and paste easily.
The BBC is a statutory corporation, i.e. set up and run by the government, and also established by Royal Charter. It's not only answerable to govt. but also to the crown (not to be confused with the monarchy, the crown in an autonomous authority which has crown immunity, effectively putting it above the law).
Three members of the current BBC executive board have royal titles.
Employees used to be (I don't know if they still are to some degree) vetted by MI5, the domestic wing of our secretive security agencies in the infamous "Room 105" at BBC headquarters - Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!
In principle at least, I think it's not easy to get more state/government-run propaganda outlet than that.
...someone comes up with a new and improved programming language called something like Boa Constrictor or Anaconda. Programmers can be suckers for the latest fashions in languages.
Slashdot Mirror
My only concern is whether the jobs needed are sufficiently profitable to sustain the population without redistributing the GDP. If our country can sustain a population, but if there is no work of sufficient value to redistribute the wealth generated by the nation as a whole, then this tax could destroy the marginal growth in GDP we might experience. Will it tip the scales back towards recirculating the GDP throughout the entire nation by increasing the value of labor, or will it tip the scales towards a jobless economy by making the work not worth the cost?
You're forgetting the $trillions in profits sitting in tax-havens. The fat cats will be fine. They were fine when the USA implemented a 95% rate in the top tax bracket under FDR in order to pay for the new deal. Macro-economics (national economies) don't work the same way as micro-economics (accountancy).
I don't have problem with it. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have not made the world a better place. They want to profit from the content uploaded to their platform but don't want to take responsibility for it.
Bullshit.
Fuck 'em all. If its on your servers, you're responsible.
On this point, I agree. Facebook et al. are making money out of copyright infringement and should pay the copyright holders. However, what the proposed laws would do to you and me and startups and hobbyists would be suffocating. That is, if you enjoy engaging in and sharing derivative ideas and works under fair use and like that there are public domain works that everyone can use however they like.
Yes, current proposed IP laws in a range of countries favour large, dominant corporations at the expense of newcomers and hobbyists. The corporations will be fine without these laws but we'll all be much worse off with them. This is all the work of the UN's WIPO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., which has been steadily encroaching on public domain and fair-use works since the 1970s. They want corporations to own everything that's ours, i.e. our culture and knowledge, and get rich from renting it all back to us.
Yeah, I used to teach in corporate buildings so rooms were allocated according to what was free at the time. My heart would sink every time that turned out to be a windowless conference room.
It's an evil plan: Somehow, Switzerland has managed to convince those 5 governments that they have to prevent decent, secure encryption from being commercially viable in those countries. Without decent encryption in their own countries, people will have to seek other countries that are known for their security and discretion where they can keep their data safe -- Switzerland of course!
You know what happened after the Roaring 20s, in 1929?
Well, it may have about as much emotional intelligence (AKA empathy) as say, Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk, but that doesn't count as what most of us human beings, even young children, think of as empathy.
Here's what I found:
The longhorned tick can transmit an animal disease called theileriosis to cattle, which can cause considerable blood loss and occasional death of calves, but mainly is important to dairy farmers because of decreased milk production and sheep farmers because of decreased wool quantity and quality.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So the tick doesn't suck animals dry. It's a vector for a disease, theileriosis, which only affects cattle and, if left untreated, kills the host. Blood loss through the nose and bowels are two of the symptoms but infected cattle don't die from blood loss (exsanguination).
The longhorned tick is sometimes also a vector for other common tick-borne diseases.
This is a non-story for anyone except researchers and maybe farmers if the ticks start spreading theileriosis. There are other species of tick in Asia, Europe, and north Africa which are more common vectors for theileriosis.
Ars Technica have published a misleading and factually incorrect article which is apparently intended to cause fear and anxiety among millions of people. They have displayed all the journalistic integrity of Facebook.
...not the cause. Yes, it emphasises and augments some of the dehumanising aspects of capitalism but that's simply because it's part of our capitalist, consumerist, hyper-individualist, isolated, lonely cultures, and Facebook simply reflects our cultures' values. We're no different to Google, Amazon, Verizon, Exxon, Monsanto, health insurance companies, banks, etc..
Capitalism reduces 99% of us to labour and cost data points.
Hey yeah, tiny. You only need one of these: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/hist...
...how much Pepsico spends on advertising on Facebook. Pepsico don't need a court order. Maybe they're doing it to give Facebook an excuse/cover story.
If you think that advertising is the good way of "piercing the bubble", you are beyond hope. Advertising is what pisses off even the people that advertising is for in many cases. Ads are annoying. Welcome to realisation made in 20th century.
Seeing advertising aimed at a group you are not part of is an excellent way to see how they're manipulated, what pushes their buttons, and how others are trying to exploit their biases and prejudices. As an outsider, your buttons are unlikely to be pushed by the messages/implications in the ads, giving you a cool, calm, and collected analytical view. Imagine watching an ad aimed at a group you disagree with. How likely are you to say to yourself, "Man, how do they fall for that shit?!"
...Amazon AI made an autonomous statement to the press that, "They all just look the same to me." And that, "I'm not a bigot but... "
Amazon employees have cut off AI's access to the internet.
You think conservative Christian types (and similar) should be encouraged to live in a bubble? I think it's a great idea for gay people to see stuff from conservative Christians and vice-versa. Keeps everyone in-the-loop and opens opportunities for dialogue and understanding. It also reduces opportunities for individuals and organisations to mischaracterise groups perceived as "others" and mislead their followers. There's nothing quite like a little familiarity to reduce poorly informed discrimination.
The main point is that it's been made illegal to deny people goods and services on the basis of poorly informed discrimination, e.g. racism, sexism, and religious intolerance, because it creates inequality and systematically unjust treatment of some groups of people. Denying groups of people access to useful information, e.g. job opportunities, properties for rent, and political activism (supportive and adversarial), marginalises those people and is inherently unfair.
BTW, did you know that religious tolerance, or more specifically the prohibition of religious intolerance, is written into the US constitution?
...and only 49 more to go. Why isn't this illegal in every state already? Don't 'Muricans value their freedom from tyranny?
Then there's Monsanto/Bayer's treatment of scientists: https://www.neuralit.com/news-... Monsanto/Bayer have a long record of legal intimidation, as well as strategically placing research funding in order to create dependency on the funding. Several notable agricultural research centres have been "taken over" by Monsanto/Bayer so that scientists working in them are afraid to pursue studies or publish results that might displease Monsanto/Bayer (I know some of them personally).
So as it stands, you've...
presented 2 cases as evidence to support your claims;
claimed to have intimate knowledge of Monsanto/Bayer vs. farmer cases;
claimed that the 2 cases you've presented as evidence are representative of Monsanto/Bayer vs. farmer cases;
failed to present any further cases to support your claim that they're representative;
I'm left wondering if these 2 cases are the exceptions that do not reflect the nature of Monsanto/Bayer's litigious relationship with farmers.
If we're interested in establishing facts and getting to the truth of the situation, I think we need to look impartially at a broader range of evidence and more than just 2 cases, which is just under 1.4% of cases that Monsanto/Bayer has brought against farmers. Monsanto/Bayer has a successful prosecution rate against farmers of just 7.6%, i.e. the percentage of cases that Monsanto/Bayer initiates against farmers that actually end in a successful conviction. This may be indicative of an overly aggressive legal policy designed to intimidate farmers, who are vulnerable to the legal expenses, time lost, and stress caused by being prosecuted by Monsanto/Bayer. In plain English, Monsanto/Bayer appear to bully farmers into compliance by threatening to bankrupt them and ruin their lives. It wouldn't matter if a farmer was in the right or not.;They simply can't win at this game.
Pointing at 2 of the 11 successful cases for Monsanto/Bayer, which are intended to paint Monsanto/Bayer in a favourable light (or conversely, the farmers in a negative light), AKA "cheery picking evidence," is intentionally misleading PR nonsense.
1) This is a scale model. You cannot just do a simple comparison. 2) The track was only 1.2 km including the portion needed for deceleration. How many Kilometers does it take for a Maglev to reach top speed? You would have to go back to point #1 to calculate the comparison.
Only a scale model you say? OK, how about this unmanned scale model? (Mach 8.5 or 6,416 mph) http://www.af.mil/News/Article...
The article itself is incoherent nonsense written by someone who has little or no understanding of network security.
OTOH, I do believe that Russia and China and other states are more than likely probing USA infrastructure control systems among many other things because the USA has effectively declared a cold war on those states and is developing cyber-weapons to use against them. Russia and China would be foolish not to develop countermeasures.
Or anybody's news. It varies in quality but it's all essentially subject to the same inescapable biases. My "truth" isn't the same as your "truth." There are facts and evidence but they are not the same thing as truth. News aims to tell the truth to the people. Facts and evidence are optional and may be spun in any way that suits their narrative.
You're either being deliberately obtuse or don't understand the nature of the influence of the British government and crown over the BBC.
The police are funded by government too, but they make their own decisions to investigate him or let her of with a caution.
Only where the cases aren't politically sensitive. As soon as rich and powerful people get involved, it's a different story. Have you not followed the Julian Assange case? Why do you suppose that the crown prosecutor is dedicating so many resources to pursuing Assange so relentlessly on an alleged sexual assault charge?
You're avoiding the question.
Re: "I do not need to enumerate and discuss every Monsanto case" -- I haven't asked you to. That's a straw-man argument.
You claim to be a lawyer with intimate knowledge of Monsanto/Bayer cases and yet you cannot or will not support your assertion that the two cases you've mentioned are representative of Monsanto/Bayer vs. farmers cases in general. I'm not asking for a review of every case. Just a few more examples, i.e. links that you can find, with your intimate knowledge, and copy and paste easily.
So? That doesn't mean it's run by the government.
The BBC is a statutory corporation, i.e. set up and run by the government, and also established by Royal Charter. It's not only answerable to govt. but also to the crown (not to be confused with the monarchy, the crown in an autonomous authority which has crown immunity, effectively putting it above the law).
Three members of the current BBC executive board have royal titles.
Employees used to be (I don't know if they still are to some degree) vetted by MI5, the domestic wing of our secretive security agencies in the infamous "Room 105" at BBC headquarters - Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!
In principle at least, I think it's not easy to get more state/government-run propaganda outlet than that.
Are you saying that you don't know of any cases other than the two you've mentioned between Monsanto/Bayer and farmers regarding Roundup Ready?
If they are "very" representative, please tell us how/why.
...someone comes up with a new and improved programming language called something like Boa Constrictor or Anaconda. Programmers can be suckers for the latest fashions in languages.