But time is getting to be a problem for me and it really begs the question is it time to put the farms up for sale.
That depends upon how you view the farms. Are the farms merely an asset which generates income or is there sentimental value? Your statement about the farms being in the family 4 generations leads me to conclude that it is the later more than the former. If the farms are merely asset income then presumably you would be willing to sell for the right price; but you seem uncertain. In the end, the only one who can answer those questions for certain is you.
it disproportionately effects those who do not save or invest but, instead, live paycheck to paycheck.
sounds like a pretty powerful incentive to start...saving and investing! People who claim that there is "nothing left" to save at the end of the month more likely than not have their priorities misplaced.
So, if you're poor and you have to spend all your income on rent and food, the fair tax hits you hardest
Except their spending is...reimbursed. It is even possible that basic foodstuffs and certain categories of clothing could be, gasp, untaxed. Have you actually read the Fair Tax books? If you had, you probably wouldn't be saying these things like that.
Add to this the fact that the marginal value of $1 is far less to a rich person than to a poor person to begin with and the system starts to look downright dystopian.
That it is a theory, but it is not and cannot be proven fact. Who knows how much that "last dollar" is really worth in lost utility except the person from whom you confiscated it? Who are you to say how much my hard earned dollars are worth to me or whether or not I deserve to keep them less than some who earns less. That question can only be answered by each individual for themselves. The national sales tax allows each individual to answer that question for themselves with each taxable purchase they chose to make...or not make.
But now you're getting back where we are now, where individuals have to keep track of their finances and report to uncle sam for their rebates. Except now individuals have to keep track of every single purchase, rather than just their annual income from their employer.
Again, did you even read the Fair Tax books? Every American taxpayer, whether billionaire or pauper, would be issued a reimbursement check up to the poverty level (or some other fixed level) of spending; no filing of paperwork, other than address to mail or account number to deposit the check, required.
And this gets at the broader point: taxation is a powerful and legitimate tool for achieving public policy goals.
That is debatable. For example, I tend to be more sympathetic to the argument that taxes exist primarily to provide revenue to fund the necessary functions of government. It is not legitimate, in my opinion, to subordinate the primary goal of revenue collection to social policy objectives when collecting taxes. Recall that government mandated loans to subprime borrowers in favored political classes was in no small part responsible for the ongoing financial meltdown and economic unpleasantness. IMHO, wastefulness is neither a virtue nor a social good which is why I favor efficiency over social policy when collecting taxes.
a highly regressive taxation system that is still a nightmare to administer.
Except it is not regressive because of the aforementioned reimbursement. In fact, the reimbursement incorporates many of the positive features of the Negative Income Tax, without retaining the undesirable parts of the present income tax system. As for being a nightmare to administer how can you sit there and with a straight face suggest that analyzing tax returns for tens of thousands of businesses is less bothersome, from an administrative and bureaucratic standpoint, than analyzing and processing income tax returns for millions of individual American citizens AND businesses every year? The income tax returns are both more numerous AND more complex than the Fair Tax returns required of businesses would be. It defies reason to suggest that the IRS can handle the present income tax mess, but administering the Fair Tax would be a nightmare. A nightmare compared to what I ask? The present US Income Tax system? Please.
I suppose that you simply...wouldn't. Of course, that is anathema to the social progressives on the left who desire, among other things, forced redistribution of income.
The federal government sets the poverty level based upon some formula for families and individuals. Call it arbitrary if you wish, but the tax brackets in the present income tax system are no less arbitrary. Some bureaucrat sets these numbers, hopefully using some sort of econometric data, but they have to be set by someone in the government whether the system is income tax or Fair Tax. I would file your question under the, "no worse than present or alternative tax systems" category. Laws require limits, arbitrary though they may be, whether that is limits for tax brackets, drinking age or poverty level for an average family of four; that's just the way it is.
As for volatile income, what do you think the average middle class tax payer has been experiencing for the last decade or more? Outsourcing, recessions, getting laid off, having 3 or 4 jobs in 10 years; welcome to the club I say. The government needs to start doing what families and responsible individuals are already doing: spending their money more wisely, saving for rainy days and generally trying to exercise prudence and restraint with their finances. Why should we hold the government bureaucrats and politicians to a lesser standard? Instead we have massive deficit spending on stupid crap that most people don't want. There is a reason why the Tea Party is winning major elections around this country; the people are tired of being pissed on and told that it is raining when it comes to debt and spending. If they ran their personal financial lives like the government, they would be living in a perpetual state of bankruptcy and poverty. Nobody, whether government, family or individual, can live indefinitely on borrowed money.
Finally, on the question of revenue it probably makes more sense to talk in terms of "net revenue" to the US Treasury. The government wastes approximately one 1/4 to 1/3 (depending upon who you believe) of each year's tax revenue simply collecting it under the present income tax system. The US income tax codes are so complicated and illogical that even scientists and engineers have trouble completely understanding the full details and implications. As the grand parent pointed out, the insanely complicated income tax code makes no logical sense whatsoever as a revenue collection device; it is grossly inefficient. However, it does make sense as a political patronage and special interest reward mechanism (tax lawyers and accountants not the least among those special interests, but also companies who use the complex income tax codes to avoid paying most taxes). The average taxpayer is ignorant or naive if he believes that the present system of income tax is better for him than a national sales tax, as outlined in the Fair Tax books, would be.
If your primary objection to Fair Tax is, "it isn't progressive enough", simply adjust the rate and raise the reimbursement level to achieve whatever level of progressivity that you desire. The real question is how much corruption and waste are you willing to continue tolerating under the current US income tax system simply because you like its "progressive" feature? How much waste is too much? When does a perceived social good come at a price which is simply too high? I tend to agree with the grand parent, those who oppose Fair Tax are either special interest members (i.e. tax attorneys, accountants or other recipients of political patronage), misguided people (generally on the left) or people who don't have any skin in the game (i.e. no significant taxable income or assets).
While I am sure that these corporations, individuals and churches mean well, the problem comes when one tries to actually write laws that only limit the "wrong" sorts of speech. As Justice Potter Stewart once famously said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it". If a law is worded strongly enough to limit "pornography" then it can probably be used to limit other types of speech as well; speech which the original authors perhaps didn't intend to limit, but have silenced all the same. I hope that these South Africans would consider carefully how this sort of law might be used by future authorities. What if their intentions in using the "anti-speech" law are not as noble as the current authors? IMHO, the bar for restricting speech should be very high and narrow indeed and if that means that we have to put up with "Internet porn" to have truly free speech then I would call that a bargain.
This is bang on. The introductory computer science courses of many US universities are full of new faces each fall who like to play games and think that programming games is the career for them. It soon dawns on many of them that not only is programming hard, but it isn't nearly as fun, at least not for them, as playing games. The more persistent ones fail and retake the course a few times before resigning themselves to the fact they are not going to be game programming gods (mostly a myth anyway, just ask those EA spouses) and changing majors. The few of us who actually make it through to graduation day and take a degree in computer science are the ones who were able to grok it (computer programming isn't for everyone, it seems to require a certain sort of brain and mindset), chose the field on our own out of personal interest and were willing to spend most of our time studying instead of playing games (no, playing FPS games does not improve your score on programming assignments in lab). Not everyone is cut out to work as a professional computer scientist or software engineer and that's alright; there are plenty of other professions available to a college educated person. I agree with the parent. If computer science or computer engineering is selected, make sure that it's what the teen wants for himself.
Stop thinking you are special just because you know how to use computers.
On the other hand, given what passes for skillful computer use among the general public, our skills do make us special; in a manner of speaking. Whether or not that is appreciated and adequately compensated is another matter entirely, but truly skillful computer professionals are not as common as most people think.
They want ISPs to track down 50,000 IP addresses? I tend to agree with the ISPs who claim that they do not have the resources to track down that many and even if they did the ISPs should be able to charge Voltage Pictures fees for this service. It is totally bullcrap that copyright holders can impose these sorts of costs on ISPs whenever they feel like going fishing for infringers. As I recall, the courts ruled against the RIAA and forced them to use the standard subpoenas; a process which proved too expensive, even for the RIAA, to pursue tens of thousands of individuals for what amounted to small claims settlements (i.e. without the abusing the DMCA takedown process, the financial calculus reversed and the RIAA had to give up on new cases). How many file sharers will actually be unmasked if Time Warner, AT&T or Verizon can charge a few thousand dollars plus several hundred dollars per hour of admin time in fees for each subpoena request? Is Voltage Pictures really prepared to spend 150 million dollars just to get 50,000 names (each one requiring an individual subpoena request)? This sounds like an empty threat by Voltage Pictures, but IANAL so perhaps someone who is can answer these questions. For the record, I have not even seen the movie in question and now I am pretty sure that I don't want to.
It might be related to the practice of Tying; which is prohibited by United States antitrust laws under certain circumstances. The relevant issue here may be the developer "license agreement", which Apple has put forth as a legally binding agreement (i.e. a contract), which prohibits the use of non-Apple tools when developing apps for the iPhone or iPad; combined with the complete lack of an "official" alternative consumer channel for independent software developers to sell into. It is the app store or nothing and Apple has put into place technical barriers and "access protection devices" for the express purpose of preventing app sales outside of the app store on "official" (i.e. non-hacked) hardware. The combination of these elements may rise to the level of an antitrust action and apparently that is what is being investigated.
Your points about the need for development of the local economy are well taken. However, one must be cautious not to take the other extreme, as for example the North Koreans, that every good or service must be produced locally first and be completely self sufficient to the exclusion of all imports. There is a balance to be struck with local production and economic development and free trade in goods and services. The major problem in Africa, as others have mentioned, has always been poor, underfunded, or completely lacking government agencies combined with inadequate legal protections and corrupt elites who consistently short circuit opportunities for average people to engage in legitimate business; favoring instead their family and cronies. If the Europeans or the Americans or any other western nation attempts to call public attention to these conditions, the African countries band together to accuse us of colonial imperialism and interference in their sovereign affairs. The best that we can do is to make the clear economic, legal and moral case for everyone, including the people of Africa, to see and then let them make changes on their own. These changes must be done by the Africans themselves and not imposed by outside forces, however well intentioned, otherwise nothing will change.
This is not a matter of ethically advanced or not, but rather one of survival. Look at the history of our own planet; it has been the stronger civilizations which have ultimately prevailed and survived through conquest and subjugation of neighbors and rivals. The earth is the "best" planet in this solar system in terms of metals, minerals, and many other valuable raw materials. It is natural to expect that nomadic aliens, seeking to ensure their own continued survival and eliminate a potential rival (our own violent and warlike culture does little to recommend us as worthy of second chances in the eyes of these aliens), would strip this planet of its usable resources. Naturally, we humans would object and the inevitable result would be a fight to the death (one which we are likely to loose). The aliens would attack not out of hatred or because they are ethically unsophisticated, but rather as a matter of survival. Do you consider yourself ethically unsophisticated because we humans have subjugated lesser species on this planet? Perhaps the aliens, like us, have developed religions which position themselves as superior beings with special rights shared only amongst themselves by virtue of their "divine" nature? IMHO, Hawking is right. It is extremely naive to expect that aliens, given the opportunity, wouldn't prefer to wipe us out rather than coexisting.
Another plus is that the patch could be switched and worn on different eyes on different days and it doesn't hinder the wearing of additional disguise pieces such as a hat, glasses, wig or false mustache or beard. For example, the CIA probably has some pretty neat field disguise kits and they probably include the items mentioned above (among other pieces).
Are you sure? If you believe that other people spend your money more wisely than you do, then why not donate even more of your income to the government by paying extra taxes. Surely, the wise Dems will spend your money in a way that pleases you more than spending (or saving it) yourself? Please. The average middle class tax payer is tired of working hard to move ahead while the government is continually pushing them back and standing on their shoes. It is not just the taxes we pay directly, but all the government interference and bungling, good intentioned or not, acting like a giant brake on the economy.
The housing crises, which most people agree was at the heart of the Great Recession, was largely precipitated by the cajoling and encouragement of the Federal Government in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They gave the snowball its initial push down hill by forcing the banks to lend to sub-prime bowers. Does anyone believe for one second that banks or Wall Street firms like Goldman Sacks would have loaned money on such a massive scale to sub-prime minority borrowers if the Federal Government was not backstopping those loans? Hell no. Does the government have total blame for everything that happened? No. There was greed enough to go around in the private sector too; but the crises would not have been nearly as bad or as large if not for the bungling interference of the government in a misguided attempt to use the financial markets as a tool of social policy for increasing the number of poor and minority homeowners. These people should never have been loaned so much money and if not for the interference of the Federal Government in the marketplace; they never would have been.
Bush was absolutely and without a doubt the worst president this country has ever had.
Yet...but President Obama is rapidly becoming the next Bush. For example, he has added more to the national debt in his first year in office than Bush did in eight AND he still has three more years to go! Surely I cannot be the only young person here with doubts about the "full faith and credit" of the US Government? Regardless of what Obama's intentions are, he is rapidly dismantling the productive parts of our economy (what is left of them anyway) and massively debasing the currency by piling on the debt. For those of you who say, "he is paying for the mistakes of Bush" I ask you this: At what point does Obama, the current President, become responsible? One cannot continue to blame one's predecessor forever. He wanted the job, now its time to make shit happen and so far I am not impressed with what I see. No doubt this entire response will be modded troll by the Obama faithful, but seriously what do you think your social security will be worth by the time you are 67 (or even older)? Personally, I expect to be wiping my ass with $100 bills when I retire; it will probably be cheaper than buying real toilet paper the way things are going.
How else do you explain why we are always lumped in with the Republicans or the right? The personal freedom which Libertarians seek to maximize is neither right nor left, but rather the universal desire of every person who has a head on their shoulders and thinks for themselves.
it's just that most people have little faith in capitalist/individualist systems to address every issue.
The world has lots of problems. It is an imperfect place. It has always been so and it always will be. The great hubris and mistake of the left is to believe that all of the world's problems can be solved, that we should always try to solve them AND that the government should use force, through laws, taxes or police power, to do it. The right often makes the mistake that morality or "the right way of living" ought to be enforced by the government. Libertarians reject these attempts to "fix" the world through coercion, which is most often delivered by a government but could also come from other sources, and are willing to accept that the world is imperfect and live with that in exchange for remaining free to decide our own lives. The Libertarians view the inability of capitalism, or indeed any other system, to solve the world's problems as irrelevant. If you want to try then by all means try (you are likely to be disappointed), but why should I be forced to contribute your misguided pursuit of utopia if I don't want to?
the reality is that others do understand the philosophy but reject it as cold and heartless.
The world is a cold an heartless place. Why go through life with an illusion that it is otherwise? Such wishful thinking can only result in frustration and disappointment. IMHO, it is better to know the truth and make your peace with it than continue to live in a fantasy world.
*some* public spending has a *positive* impact on the economy greater than the amount spent (public mental health services, for example)
Excuse me, but how does spending money on non-productive people help the economy? You might make a moral argument for helping them, but you didn't do that; you said that helping them is good for the economy. There are many useless people out there who take money from the government and rarely contribute much, if anything, to our collective economic well being. To put it bluntly, they are dead weight at best and dead beats at worst. The only economic argument that you might be able to make in favor of helping these people is that some of them might possibly be converted back into productive citizens with enough investment. However, even that is a BIG IF considering the history of many people who use our public mental health services. It's not my fault that some people grew up in a broken home, or drank themselves stupid or did drugs. I had no say in any of that so why should I be forced to help them?
We used to have places where these people could be supervised and contained, but then ignorant people complained that we were "taking away their freedom" and violating their right not to take their medication or live in a locked facility. Meanwhile the liberals wring their hands and talk about "collective responsibility" and the "right" to receive health care or affordable housing or whatever else it is that people want to have on someone else's dime. It's a bunch of crap and bullshit like that is killing what made the United States a great nation; hard work, personal responsibility and self-reliance.
See it in whatever way you want, the US are (ab)using its dominant position in global politics to cram their laws down the throats of other nations.
Cramming laws down your neighbors throat is pretty objectionable isn't it? Of course, when it comes to health care in the United States, for example, some of the very same people have no problem with cramming. You see, it takes a sophisticated sort of person to reject coercion as a means to an end, even when they otherwise agree with what is being coerced. I think that is part of the reason why Libertarians are so misunderstood; both here on Slashdot and elsewhere.
This smacks of RIAA/MPAA and leverage against countries such as Sweden for their lack of ability to close down The Pirate Bay.
I doubt that the Scandinavian countries, which are self sufficient and reasonably wealthy by themselves, receive much foreign direct investment funds or trade assistance grants. I suppose that sanctions against their exports are possible (i.e. more expensive Ikea furniture or some such), but that would be counter-productive given the realities of the European Union and cross border European commerce and trade.
After the grilling here on Slashdot and all of the bad press, this guy might as well write "I'm an Idiot" in red crayon on the top of his resume. The lack of judgment demonstrated by Michael Seringhaus really is appalling; I don't see how any law firm would want to hire him after this.
It doesn't matter how small the odds are. The gp's point was, "why should I take a non-zero risk of harsh punishment for ZERO potential gain"? IMHO, that is a reasonable question. The general public is stupid and believes the hollywood bullshit "forensics" on shows like CSI. Why should I take even an infinitesimal risk of "wrong place, wrong time, coincidental junk DNA match" with those dolts sitting on the jury? Thanks, but no thanks.
the trade deficit picture would be significantly different.
Perhaps not as much as you might think. When you are living on less than $5 per day AND you have to pay $3 just to rent a movie, you are going to do without if you can't get it illicitly.
Hopefully the MPAA & RIAA can get a damn clue and start focusing on the real threat to their business - rampant, organized, professional international piracy.
The MPAA didn't go after Americans because they were the biggest threat to their bottom line, but rather because they were the most convenient and highest value targets. I'm sure that the MPAA/RIAA would love to see the millions of black market street vendors in the developing world disappear tomorrow, but that isn't going to happen. The losses from China, India and South America are HUGE but they are also spread out among a huge number of infringers who individually have too few assets to be worth going after; and they are hard to track down too. Try finding any individual street vendor in the slums of Buenos Aires if you don't believe that.
The dollar? It is rather strange that foreigners continue to give us real things in exchange for pieces of paper, but that seems to be the way of things.
Slashdot Mirror
But time is getting to be a problem for me and it really begs the question is it time to put the farms up for sale.
That depends upon how you view the farms. Are the farms merely an asset which generates income or is there sentimental value? Your statement about the farms being in the family 4 generations leads me to conclude that it is the later more than the former. If the farms are merely asset income then presumably you would be willing to sell for the right price; but you seem uncertain. In the end, the only one who can answer those questions for certain is you.
it disproportionately effects those who do not save or invest but, instead, live paycheck to paycheck.
sounds like a pretty powerful incentive to start...saving and investing! People who claim that there is "nothing left" to save at the end of the month more likely than not have their priorities misplaced.
So, if you're poor and you have to spend all your income on rent and food, the fair tax hits you hardest
Except their spending is...reimbursed. It is even possible that basic foodstuffs and certain categories of clothing could be, gasp, untaxed. Have you actually read the Fair Tax books? If you had, you probably wouldn't be saying these things like that.
Add to this the fact that the marginal value of $1 is far less to a rich person than to a poor person to begin with and the system starts to look downright dystopian.
That it is a theory, but it is not and cannot be proven fact. Who knows how much that "last dollar" is really worth in lost utility except the person from whom you confiscated it? Who are you to say how much my hard earned dollars are worth to me or whether or not I deserve to keep them less than some who earns less. That question can only be answered by each individual for themselves. The national sales tax allows each individual to answer that question for themselves with each taxable purchase they chose to make...or not make.
But now you're getting back where we are now, where individuals have to keep track of their finances and report to uncle sam for their rebates. Except now individuals have to keep track of every single purchase, rather than just their annual income from their employer.
Again, did you even read the Fair Tax books? Every American taxpayer, whether billionaire or pauper, would be issued a reimbursement check up to the poverty level (or some other fixed level) of spending; no filing of paperwork, other than address to mail or account number to deposit the check, required.
And this gets at the broader point: taxation is a powerful and legitimate tool for achieving public policy goals.
That is debatable. For example, I tend to be more sympathetic to the argument that taxes exist primarily to provide revenue to fund the necessary functions of government. It is not legitimate, in my opinion, to subordinate the primary goal of revenue collection to social policy objectives when collecting taxes. Recall that government mandated loans to subprime borrowers in favored political classes was in no small part responsible for the ongoing financial meltdown and economic unpleasantness. IMHO, wastefulness is neither a virtue nor a social good which is why I favor efficiency over social policy when collecting taxes.
a highly regressive taxation system that is still a nightmare to administer.
Except it is not regressive because of the aforementioned reimbursement. In fact, the reimbursement incorporates many of the positive features of the Negative Income Tax, without retaining the undesirable parts of the present income tax system. As for being a nightmare to administer how can you sit there and with a straight face suggest that analyzing tax returns for tens of thousands of businesses is less bothersome, from an administrative and bureaucratic standpoint, than analyzing and processing income tax returns for millions of individual American citizens AND businesses every year? The income tax returns are both more numerous AND more complex than the Fair Tax returns required of businesses would be. It defies reason to suggest that the IRS can handle the present income tax mess, but administering the Fair Tax would be a nightmare. A nightmare compared to what I ask? The present US Income Tax system? Please.
I suppose that you simply...wouldn't. Of course, that is anathema to the social progressives on the left who desire, among other things, forced redistribution of income.
The federal government sets the poverty level based upon some formula for families and individuals. Call it arbitrary if you wish, but the tax brackets in the present income tax system are no less arbitrary. Some bureaucrat sets these numbers, hopefully using some sort of econometric data, but they have to be set by someone in the government whether the system is income tax or Fair Tax. I would file your question under the, "no worse than present or alternative tax systems" category. Laws require limits, arbitrary though they may be, whether that is limits for tax brackets, drinking age or poverty level for an average family of four; that's just the way it is.
As for volatile income, what do you think the average middle class tax payer has been experiencing for the last decade or more? Outsourcing, recessions, getting laid off, having 3 or 4 jobs in 10 years; welcome to the club I say. The government needs to start doing what families and responsible individuals are already doing: spending their money more wisely, saving for rainy days and generally trying to exercise prudence and restraint with their finances. Why should we hold the government bureaucrats and politicians to a lesser standard? Instead we have massive deficit spending on stupid crap that most people don't want. There is a reason why the Tea Party is winning major elections around this country; the people are tired of being pissed on and told that it is raining when it comes to debt and spending. If they ran their personal financial lives like the government, they would be living in a perpetual state of bankruptcy and poverty. Nobody, whether government, family or individual, can live indefinitely on borrowed money.
Finally, on the question of revenue it probably makes more sense to talk in terms of "net revenue" to the US Treasury. The government wastes approximately one 1/4 to 1/3 (depending upon who you believe) of each year's tax revenue simply collecting it under the present income tax system. The US income tax codes are so complicated and illogical that even scientists and engineers have trouble completely understanding the full details and implications. As the grand parent pointed out, the insanely complicated income tax code makes no logical sense whatsoever as a revenue collection device; it is grossly inefficient. However, it does make sense as a political patronage and special interest reward mechanism (tax lawyers and accountants not the least among those special interests, but also companies who use the complex income tax codes to avoid paying most taxes). The average taxpayer is ignorant or naive if he believes that the present system of income tax is better for him than a national sales tax, as outlined in the Fair Tax books, would be.
If your primary objection to Fair Tax is, "it isn't progressive enough", simply adjust the rate and raise the reimbursement level to achieve whatever level of progressivity that you desire. The real question is how much corruption and waste are you willing to continue tolerating under the current US income tax system simply because you like its "progressive" feature? How much waste is too much? When does a perceived social good come at a price which is simply too high? I tend to agree with the grand parent, those who oppose Fair Tax are either special interest members (i.e. tax attorneys, accountants or other recipients of political patronage), misguided people (generally on the left) or people who don't have any skin in the game (i.e. no significant taxable income or assets).
While I am sure that these corporations, individuals and churches mean well, the problem comes when one tries to actually write laws that only limit the "wrong" sorts of speech. As Justice Potter Stewart once famously said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it". If a law is worded strongly enough to limit "pornography" then it can probably be used to limit other types of speech as well; speech which the original authors perhaps didn't intend to limit, but have silenced all the same. I hope that these South Africans would consider carefully how this sort of law might be used by future authorities. What if their intentions in using the "anti-speech" law are not as noble as the current authors? IMHO, the bar for restricting speech should be very high and narrow indeed and if that means that we have to put up with "Internet porn" to have truly free speech then I would call that a bargain.
This is bang on. The introductory computer science courses of many US universities are full of new faces each fall who like to play games and think that programming games is the career for them. It soon dawns on many of them that not only is programming hard, but it isn't nearly as fun, at least not for them, as playing games. The more persistent ones fail and retake the course a few times before resigning themselves to the fact they are not going to be game programming gods (mostly a myth anyway, just ask those EA spouses) and changing majors. The few of us who actually make it through to graduation day and take a degree in computer science are the ones who were able to grok it (computer programming isn't for everyone, it seems to require a certain sort of brain and mindset), chose the field on our own out of personal interest and were willing to spend most of our time studying instead of playing games (no, playing FPS games does not improve your score on programming assignments in lab). Not everyone is cut out to work as a professional computer scientist or software engineer and that's alright; there are plenty of other professions available to a college educated person. I agree with the parent. If computer science or computer engineering is selected, make sure that it's what the teen wants for himself.
Never Again Volunteer Yourself (NAVY) or, if you prefer, My Ass Rides in Navy Equipment (MARINE)
Stop thinking you are special just because you know how to use computers.
On the other hand, given what passes for skillful computer use among the general public, our skills do make us special; in a manner of speaking. Whether or not that is appreciated and adequately compensated is another matter entirely, but truly skillful computer professionals are not as common as most people think.
basically, you can say just about anything within that huge scattershot area... and signify absolutely no thought of any value whatsoever
Yes, but just think of how creative one could appear to be while promulgating such bombastic bullshit; perhaps that is what TFA had in mind all along?
They want ISPs to track down 50,000 IP addresses? I tend to agree with the ISPs who claim that they do not have the resources to track down that many and even if they did the ISPs should be able to charge Voltage Pictures fees for this service. It is totally bullcrap that copyright holders can impose these sorts of costs on ISPs whenever they feel like going fishing for infringers. As I recall, the courts ruled against the RIAA and forced them to use the standard subpoenas; a process which proved too expensive, even for the RIAA, to pursue tens of thousands of individuals for what amounted to small claims settlements (i.e. without the abusing the DMCA takedown process, the financial calculus reversed and the RIAA had to give up on new cases). How many file sharers will actually be unmasked if Time Warner, AT&T or Verizon can charge a few thousand dollars plus several hundred dollars per hour of admin time in fees for each subpoena request? Is Voltage Pictures really prepared to spend 150 million dollars just to get 50,000 names (each one requiring an individual subpoena request)? This sounds like an empty threat by Voltage Pictures, but IANAL so perhaps someone who is can answer these questions. For the record, I have not even seen the movie in question and now I am pretty sure that I don't want to.
It might be related to the practice of Tying; which is prohibited by United States antitrust laws under certain circumstances. The relevant issue here may be the developer "license agreement", which Apple has put forth as a legally binding agreement (i.e. a contract), which prohibits the use of non-Apple tools when developing apps for the iPhone or iPad; combined with the complete lack of an "official" alternative consumer channel for independent software developers to sell into. It is the app store or nothing and Apple has put into place technical barriers and "access protection devices" for the express purpose of preventing app sales outside of the app store on "official" (i.e. non-hacked) hardware. The combination of these elements may rise to the level of an antitrust action and apparently that is what is being investigated.
Your points about the need for development of the local economy are well taken. However, one must be cautious not to take the other extreme, as for example the North Koreans, that every good or service must be produced locally first and be completely self sufficient to the exclusion of all imports. There is a balance to be struck with local production and economic development and free trade in goods and services. The major problem in Africa, as others have mentioned, has always been poor, underfunded, or completely lacking government agencies combined with inadequate legal protections and corrupt elites who consistently short circuit opportunities for average people to engage in legitimate business; favoring instead their family and cronies. If the Europeans or the Americans or any other western nation attempts to call public attention to these conditions, the African countries band together to accuse us of colonial imperialism and interference in their sovereign affairs. The best that we can do is to make the clear economic, legal and moral case for everyone, including the people of Africa, to see and then let them make changes on their own. These changes must be done by the Africans themselves and not imposed by outside forces, however well intentioned, otherwise nothing will change.
This is not a matter of ethically advanced or not, but rather one of survival. Look at the history of our own planet; it has been the stronger civilizations which have ultimately prevailed and survived through conquest and subjugation of neighbors and rivals. The earth is the "best" planet in this solar system in terms of metals, minerals, and many other valuable raw materials. It is natural to expect that nomadic aliens, seeking to ensure their own continued survival and eliminate a potential rival (our own violent and warlike culture does little to recommend us as worthy of second chances in the eyes of these aliens), would strip this planet of its usable resources. Naturally, we humans would object and the inevitable result would be a fight to the death (one which we are likely to loose). The aliens would attack not out of hatred or because they are ethically unsophisticated, but rather as a matter of survival. Do you consider yourself ethically unsophisticated because we humans have subjugated lesser species on this planet? Perhaps the aliens, like us, have developed religions which position themselves as superior beings with special rights shared only amongst themselves by virtue of their "divine" nature? IMHO, Hawking is right. It is extremely naive to expect that aliens, given the opportunity, wouldn't prefer to wipe us out rather than coexisting.
Another plus is that the patch could be switched and worn on different eyes on different days and it doesn't hinder the wearing of additional disguise pieces such as a hat, glasses, wig or false mustache or beard. For example, the CIA probably has some pretty neat field disguise kits and they probably include the items mentioned above (among other pieces).
At least Dems spend the money on useful things.
Are you sure? If you believe that other people spend your money more wisely than you do, then why not donate even more of your income to the government by paying extra taxes. Surely, the wise Dems will spend your money in a way that pleases you more than spending (or saving it) yourself? Please. The average middle class tax payer is tired of working hard to move ahead while the government is continually pushing them back and standing on their shoes. It is not just the taxes we pay directly, but all the government interference and bungling, good intentioned or not, acting like a giant brake on the economy.
The housing crises, which most people agree was at the heart of the Great Recession, was largely precipitated by the cajoling and encouragement of the Federal Government in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They gave the snowball its initial push down hill by forcing the banks to lend to sub-prime bowers. Does anyone believe for one second that banks or Wall Street firms like Goldman Sacks would have loaned money on such a massive scale to sub-prime minority borrowers if the Federal Government was not backstopping those loans? Hell no. Does the government have total blame for everything that happened? No. There was greed enough to go around in the private sector too; but the crises would not have been nearly as bad or as large if not for the bungling interference of the government in a misguided attempt to use the financial markets as a tool of social policy for increasing the number of poor and minority homeowners. These people should never have been loaned so much money and if not for the interference of the Federal Government in the marketplace; they never would have been.
Bush was absolutely and without a doubt the worst president this country has ever had.
Yet...but President Obama is rapidly becoming the next Bush. For example, he has added more to the national debt in his first year in office than Bush did in eight AND he still has three more years to go! Surely I cannot be the only young person here with doubts about the "full faith and credit" of the US Government? Regardless of what Obama's intentions are, he is rapidly dismantling the productive parts of our economy (what is left of them anyway) and massively debasing the currency by piling on the debt. For those of you who say, "he is paying for the mistakes of Bush" I ask you this: At what point does Obama, the current President, become responsible? One cannot continue to blame one's predecessor forever. He wanted the job, now its time to make shit happen and so far I am not impressed with what I see. No doubt this entire response will be modded troll by the Obama faithful, but seriously what do you think your social security will be worth by the time you are 67 (or even older)? Personally, I expect to be wiping my ass with $100 bills when I retire; it will probably be cheaper than buying real toilet paper the way things are going.
A female state that most /.'ers will never experience first hand ;)
Well, you know what they say: "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush".
I don't think Libertarians are misunderstood;
How else do you explain why we are always lumped in with the Republicans or the right? The personal freedom which Libertarians seek to maximize is neither right nor left, but rather the universal desire of every person who has a head on their shoulders and thinks for themselves.
it's just that most people have little faith in capitalist/individualist systems to address every issue.
The world has lots of problems. It is an imperfect place. It has always been so and it always will be. The great hubris and mistake of the left is to believe that all of the world's problems can be solved, that we should always try to solve them AND that the government should use force, through laws, taxes or police power, to do it. The right often makes the mistake that morality or "the right way of living" ought to be enforced by the government. Libertarians reject these attempts to "fix" the world through coercion, which is most often delivered by a government but could also come from other sources, and are willing to accept that the world is imperfect and live with that in exchange for remaining free to decide our own lives. The Libertarians view the inability of capitalism, or indeed any other system, to solve the world's problems as irrelevant. If you want to try then by all means try (you are likely to be disappointed), but why should I be forced to contribute your misguided pursuit of utopia if I don't want to?
the reality is that others do understand the philosophy but reject it as cold and heartless.
The world is a cold an heartless place. Why go through life with an illusion that it is otherwise? Such wishful thinking can only result in frustration and disappointment. IMHO, it is better to know the truth and make your peace with it than continue to live in a fantasy world.
*some* public spending has a *positive* impact on the economy greater than the amount spent (public mental health services, for example)
Excuse me, but how does spending money on non-productive people help the economy? You might make a moral argument for helping them, but you didn't do that; you said that helping them is good for the economy. There are many useless people out there who take money from the government and rarely contribute much, if anything, to our collective economic well being. To put it bluntly, they are dead weight at best and dead beats at worst. The only economic argument that you might be able to make in favor of helping these people is that some of them might possibly be converted back into productive citizens with enough investment. However, even that is a BIG IF considering the history of many people who use our public mental health services. It's not my fault that some people grew up in a broken home, or drank themselves stupid or did drugs. I had no say in any of that so why should I be forced to help them?
We used to have places where these people could be supervised and contained, but then ignorant people complained that we were "taking away their freedom" and violating their right not to take their medication or live in a locked facility. Meanwhile the liberals wring their hands and talk about "collective responsibility" and the "right" to receive health care or affordable housing or whatever else it is that people want to have on someone else's dime. It's a bunch of crap and bullshit like that is killing what made the United States a great nation; hard work, personal responsibility and self-reliance.
See it in whatever way you want, the US are (ab)using its dominant position in global politics to cram their laws down the throats of other nations.
Cramming laws down your neighbors throat is pretty objectionable isn't it? Of course, when it comes to health care in the United States, for example, some of the very same people have no problem with cramming. You see, it takes a sophisticated sort of person to reject coercion as a means to an end, even when they otherwise agree with what is being coerced. I think that is part of the reason why Libertarians are so misunderstood; both here on Slashdot and elsewhere.
This smacks of RIAA/MPAA and leverage against countries such as Sweden for their lack of ability to close down The Pirate Bay.
I doubt that the Scandinavian countries, which are self sufficient and reasonably wealthy by themselves, receive much foreign direct investment funds or trade assistance grants. I suppose that sanctions against their exports are possible (i.e. more expensive Ikea furniture or some such), but that would be counter-productive given the realities of the European Union and cross border European commerce and trade.
After the grilling here on Slashdot and all of the bad press, this guy might as well write "I'm an Idiot" in red crayon on the top of his resume. The lack of judgment demonstrated by Michael Seringhaus really is appalling; I don't see how any law firm would want to hire him after this.
It doesn't matter how small the odds are. The gp's point was, "why should I take a non-zero risk of harsh punishment for ZERO potential gain"? IMHO, that is a reasonable question. The general public is stupid and believes the hollywood bullshit "forensics" on shows like CSI. Why should I take even an infinitesimal risk of "wrong place, wrong time, coincidental junk DNA match" with those dolts sitting on the jury? Thanks, but no thanks.
the trade deficit picture would be significantly different.
Perhaps not as much as you might think. When you are living on less than $5 per day AND you have to pay $3 just to rent a movie, you are going to do without if you can't get it illicitly.
Hopefully the MPAA & RIAA can get a damn clue and start focusing on the real threat to their business - rampant, organized, professional international piracy.
The MPAA didn't go after Americans because they were the biggest threat to their bottom line, but rather because they were the most convenient and highest value targets. I'm sure that the MPAA/RIAA would love to see the millions of black market street vendors in the developing world disappear tomorrow, but that isn't going to happen. The losses from China, India and South America are HUGE but they are also spread out among a huge number of infringers who individually have too few assets to be worth going after; and they are hard to track down too. Try finding any individual street vendor in the slums of Buenos Aires if you don't believe that.
what else is America selling abroad?
The dollar? It is rather strange that foreigners continue to give us real things in exchange for pieces of paper, but that seems to be the way of things.