Kids, when you submit news stories remember to link only within.kids.us and to not say anything unpatriotic or the trained mammals will bite your fingers until you behave.
Sorry, your post has been rated non-kid safe due to textual description of animal on human violence.
Now they need to pass legislation to start a.nospam.us domain and mandate that people sending mail from that domain not send spam. At the very least, it makes filtering easy.
Every company is going to be forced to get a kids domain now, or be left out of this "new internet".
Huh? Just because someone comes out with a new domain name means everyone is forced to get one? I'm going to start.kids.inbox.org. Now you all have to buy one. Hahahahaha!
It's probably to ease the checkers, so they don't have to check the link content, just the URL.
But why would they have to check the link anyway? If a kid is running a browser that only will show.kids.us sites, and she clicks a link to a non.kids.us site, it's not going to work anyway.
The reason I stated that I don't want to use Hushmail is precisely because of the need for Java. The reason I want webmail is so that I can access it from anywhere, and I don't want to have to rely on the presence of Java on the machine I happen to be using.
If you don't use java then you have to provide your webmail provider with your private key. That's not a smart idea.
Not if the passphrase is only given to the java applet. Of course that's only useful if the java signing key is on a separate computer, and you've code reviewed the source code of the applet yourself before signing it.
Sure. But the question of whether a work is "artistic" or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it's protected by copyright or not. But I'm beating a dead horse here.
Yep, you are. You're ignoring the Constitution, to the point where you won't even comment on it.
Further, my statement that "computer programs shouldn't be copyrightable at all" was largely an extension of my opinion that "copyright shouldn't exist."
You and I will never agree on that point. I respect your opinion and your right to hold it, but I think you're wrong.
I understand. I'll try to label my opinions more clearly in the future so we can safely ignore them.
Well, to be fair, you did refer to what you call the "Copyright Clause" (which I now understand you mean to be Article I section 8 of the Constitution, which incidentally doesn't mention the word "copyright" at all) in the context of justifying your position that "only artistic works can be copyrighted in the first place."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitu tion.articlei.html doesn't have the word "copyright" or "clause" in it, yet it is the second result on google when you search for "copyright clause". I guess you'll have to just believe me for now, but it is a term which is used extremely often in this context.
Article I section 8 says, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries," which in fact appears to refer specifically not to works that are "artistic," but rather only to those which are practically useful or scientific in nature.
True, but when creating copyright law congress relied on the "Useful Arts" part of the copyright clause, and when they created patent law they relied on the "science" part. But in any case, do you consider spam to be science?
In future, you might want to use the correct citation-- Article I section 8-- instead of the phrase "Copyright Clause."
That would be Article I section 8 clause 8, and no, anyone with a basic knowledge of Constitutional law knows what the "Copyright Clause" is. There's absolutely nothing ambiguous about that term.
But you're obviously wrong, friend. The statute clearly says that all original works are protected by copyright.
Yep, and "original works of authorship" is interpreted by the Supreme Court to only include Science and Useful Arts.
This law is not even remotely unconstitutional, because Congress is explicitly given the power to grant exclusive rights to authors under Article I section 8.
Well, first of all, my opinion is that is is unconstitutional, because of the reasons argued in Eldred v. Ashcroft, but that aside, it was not ruled unconstitutional on the basis of protecting non-artistic works because of the principle of "narrow construction." If a congressional law can be interpreted to be constitutional, then that is how the law is interpreted. Only if the law must be interpreted as unconstitutional must the law be struck down in its entirety. The simple interpretation is that "original works of authorship" only is meant to include artistic works.
I'm afraid that you're just mistaken. All original works-- regardless of their nature or merit-- are protected by copyright.
Yep, and some are protected more strongly than others.
Title 17 includes a set of categories of works, but it is not meant to be either exhaustive nor exclusive.
Webmail is for roaming. If you're roaming, then you don't trust the client. PGP is useless if you don't trust the client.
And don't say signed java applets 'cause (1) if you trust the provider's signature then just use https (I'll give you an account at inbox.org) and (2) if you don't trust the computer then you can't store your private key.
If you then put that email on a web page-- i.e., republish it-- I can ask you to remove it on copyright grounds, because only I have the right to publish, broadcast, or distribute that email.
So hotmail is breaking copyright law by putting emails on web pages? Or am I breaking copyright law by releasing my hotmail password to the public?
Whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is fair or not depends on the purpose and way that it is used, and has nothing at all to do with the way that the work was distributed.
Isn't that a factor in the "nature of the copyrighted work?"
It's clear that you're arguing from a flawed position-- computer programs shouldn't be copyrightable??-- so I respectfully ask that we just agree to disagree on this point.
On that particular point, certainly. But I should make it clear that I am completely aware that this is only my opinion. Just like many people disagree with the Supreme Court over Roe v. Wade, I have a right to disagree over whether or not computer programs are artistic. Further, my statement that "computer programs shouldn't be copyrightable at all" was largely an extension of my opinion that "copyright shouldn't exist."
I'm not, however, out of my depth. If you haven't heard of the Copyright Clause, then you are the one discussing something that's over your head.
I stand by my assertion that only artistic works (literally "useful arts") are copyrightable, and that this is a fact with which every single Supreme Court justice would agree.
By that argument the people aren't distributing the spams, the computers are. The spammer is publishing his own comments. I don't buy it, though. Just because the process is automated doesn't mean no one can be held responsible.
Teachers are probably the single most underpaid group of workers in this country.
My friend's parents are both teachers, and their AGI was six digits last year. Not bad for working only half the days of the year.
Quite a fine example of how unions "help" employees.
It is actually, since teachers are fairly paid and yet everyone thinks they're underpaid, the union must be spreading that propaganda well. But since my point was that unions tend to trade job security for high potential pay, the teacher example actually fits perfectly.
And, come to think of it, it's also a nice example of how unions "help" the customers, too
I wasn't arguing about whether or not unions "help" the customers.
In the rare instances where a union feels like working for its members (instead of just for itself), this may be true
Since unions are made up of their members, I don't see the distinction. Also, to use your argument, since getting a union job is voluntary it obviously must be beneficial, right?
but this is where the union becomes a burden on the employer, and in some instances, the customer, because it suckers the employer into retaining sub-par employees.
So? The shareholders vote for who will represent their interests as a corporation, the workers vote for who will represent their interests as a union. Both are voluntary, though if you don't agree to join you can't work for or own the company. The corporation suckers workers into working for less than they're worth, and the union suckers the corporation into hiring others for more than they're worth. Ultimately this insurance policy against unfair treatment is considered beneficial to some.
As for getting paid less and benefits being worse, I don't see that to be the case.
Is your father really a teacher? Because with that line, I'm beginning to doubt that he is.
My father is a teacher. My mother is a teacher. My sister is going to school to become a teacher. I'd like to work for myself. If that fails I'll probably become a teacher as well, or maybe work for some other non-profit organization.
Just because the union leaders think it's a good reason doesn't mean YOU will, especially when it means the difference between your family eating or starving.
At least you get to vote on it. As opposed to being an at-will employee, where you only get a vote if you happen to also be a shareholder.
You're showing your ignorance of copyright law. The Copyright Clause is in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Those are examples of works of authorship. It's not an exclusive list.
Are you trolling me? It most certainly is an exclusive list.
For example, the list does not include computer source code-- unless you twist the definition of "literary" to mean "anything written," which makes it pretty useless-- and yet computer source code is most definitely covered by copyright.
The third circuit court of appeals certainly disagrees with you. In Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc. they state that "computer programs are classified as literary works for the purposes of copyright" Yes, it's a stupid definition, computer programs shouldn't be copyrightable at all, but it's the law.
You should just drop this "only artistic works can be copyrighted" thing now.
You should learn a little bit about the Constitution before arguing that I should ignore it.
Just as if I were, instead, reading these words over the radio or on TV, the fact that I'm broadcasting my work doesn't in any way dilute my copyright on it, nor does it grant anybody any exceptional rights.
Mostly true, but it does dilute your copyright to some extent in that it makes a finding of fair use more likely. But you've already covered that.
But what gives slashdot the right to publish your post? I'd argue it's an implied license. But if you want to argue that slashdot is not publishing your post, because it's an automated method, then the same could be argued with the collected spam.
Now the fact of the matter is I take the position that if I demand that slashdot remove a post that I made on the grounds of copyright, they have to do so. Because an explicit demand supercedes any implied license. This is where the spam publisher probably gets in trouble.
Only artistic works can be copyrighted in the first place.
There is absolutely no precedent for that sort of interpretation.
Read any Supreme Court ruling on the Copyright Clause. Or just read the Copyright Clause. I'm not going to bother quoting it because if you don't at least have it memorized you have no right making such a bold statement as you just made.
The problems start with "How do you decide what's 'artistic' and what's not?"
Congress has decided it already: literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works.
Is spam a literary work? Somewhat, but its protection under copyright only extends to the parts which are literary, and literary must be interpreted in light of the Copyright Clause, which means it must be artistic.
I never spoke of it as free money. I'm fully aware of how capitalism works. The rich get richer off interest, rents, and capital gains (and pay lower taxes on that unearned income to boot), while the poor tread water working for the rich. Occassionally one or two of the smart move from the poor to the rich, and one or two of the dumb move from the rich to the poor.
How long does it take at $566 an pop to break even?
Certainly depreciation was already counted in on the expenses, so breakeven is already reached and exceeded.
Additionally, very few people just "provide capital"; they usually run the business as well. Should they get paid?
The vast majority of capital being provided to corporations is by people who do nothing. I'm one of them in fact, as an owner of (about) 0.000001% of Netbank. Should those who run the business as well get paid? They usually do! In fact, if they don't it's really a form of tax evasion.
IF the "capital provider" is making so much more money than he should, why is it the mechanic who's getting cheated? Isn't it the customer that's getting the shaft?
Clearly it's both. You really can't separate the two.
In short, if the customer is willing to pay X, and the mechanic is willing to work for Y, then where's the problem?
The problem is that many of the owners were provided with X, Y, and Z from birth. The customer is only willing to pay X because of the laws against taking the product without paying, or using the land without permission, or picking the apples from trees without permission from the great-great-great-great-great-great grandson of the person who stole it from some Indian. The choice is voluntary in a sense, but there are many restrictions within that freedom.
If the mechanic feels he should make more, he needs to market his skills to another buyer, or (heaven forbid) to the customer directly by opening his own garage. You can't have the extra money without taking on the responsibility.
And as is generally the case, you can't have the extra money without having the extra money. Even those who made it seemingly on their own almost certainly had to rely on connections with some rich person or company who gave them a loan or a mortgage or rented them some equipment or property.
Eventually, if you're smart, you can whore yourself out to the rich temporarily in strategic locations in order to build up enough capital to break out of the working class. That's what I'm trying to do, but even if I do make it a lot of it has to do with connections and luck - like the millions of dollars of VC money I was permitted to have partial control of to start a dot bomb a few years ago. Hopefully my whoring days are limited, but it's pretty much impossible to make money without property, so for at least a few years I still have to work for the bank who gave me the mortgage so I could acquire a fief.
I once stood in an elevator overlooking the city with a banker who pointed out to the vast buildings and said "look at it, I own it all." OK, fair enough, I'm merely relaying a story which was told to me in the first person but really probably was just relayed from another. But that's the reality of our country. The banks own everything, and the people work for each other and the banks to pay them rent (sometimes called interest).
Well, my extremely brief (2 minute) google search didn't find any precedent, but there has to be some implied licenses along with internet distribution. Otherwise Usenet wouldn't be legal, this slashdot post couldn't be distributed, the forward button would be a contributory copyright device, etc.
I'd wager that business taxes are higher than personl incomde taxes.
Businesses also get more deductions. But ultimately it depends on too many factors to say in general.
And if not, there is no way that 300 dollars is being taxed at 33%.
Neither for businesses or for Personal. But the assumption was that that $300 wasn't the entire yearly income:). Between FICA, state, and federal income tax, not to mention local in some areas, 1/3 is probably too low.
And I'm sure that all of the unionized US steel workers would agree... oh wait, there aren't any any more.
What kind of severance package did they get when they left though? Probably better than they would have without a union.
Unions = very short term job security.
Depends on the industry, but in any industry, unions generally = more job security than no unions. That's my point, not that unions offer perfect job security, but that they offer more. A strong union is like an insurance policy. Sure, you could get fired, but if they fire you without giving you a great package they have to fire everyone.
conditions are good, even in this so-called tech-recession which, outside of NYC and parts of California, doesn't really exist.
Is that because tech jobs really don't exist outside of NYC and California?
I was 100 miles North of NYC when my company went bankrupt, and Hewlett Packard was 50 miles west of the city (in New Jersey) went they closed their facilities and moved the 1/4 of the workers who didn't get laid off to Texas.
Anyway, maybe you're right, I really don't know any tech areas outside of 100 mile radius of NYC.
Slashdot Mirror
Kids, when you submit news stories remember to link only within .kids.us and to not say anything unpatriotic or the trained mammals will bite your fingers until you behave.
Sorry, your post has been rated non-kid safe due to textual description of animal on human violence.
Why would they make it illegal to send certain types of email to that domain? Sounds like a violation of the first amendment to me.
Now they need to pass legislation to start a .nospam.us domain and mandate that people sending mail from that domain not send spam. At the very least, it makes filtering easy.
Every company is going to be forced to get a kids domain now, or be left out of this "new internet".
Huh? Just because someone comes out with a new domain name means everyone is forced to get one? I'm going to start .kids.inbox.org. Now you all have to buy one. Hahahahaha!
It's probably to ease the checkers, so they don't have to check the link content, just the URL.
But why would they have to check the link anyway? If a kid is running a browser that only will show .kids.us sites, and she clicks a link to a non .kids.us site, it's not going to work anyway.
What are the odds of a random collision of atoms of a certain solar system producing life?
What are the odds of a random string of radio signals mimicking life?
If B>A, we have some problems.
The reason I stated that I don't want to use Hushmail is precisely because of the need for Java. The reason I want webmail is so that I can access it from anywhere, and I don't want to have to rely on the presence of Java on the machine I happen to be using.
If you don't use java then you have to provide your webmail provider with your private key. That's not a smart idea.
Citations?
"Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts." - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ar ticle01/39.html#1
As for whether useful arts means the same as artistic, maybe that's where we are disagreeing.
Not if the passphrase is only given to the java applet. Of course that's only useful if the java signing key is on a separate computer, and you've code reviewed the source code of the applet yourself before signing it.
It's a bug in the Slashdot code. CmdrTaco has said so in a Journal entry, but I can't find it.
Sure. But the question of whether a work is "artistic" or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it's protected by copyright or not. But I'm beating a dead horse here.
Yep, you are. You're ignoring the Constitution, to the point where you won't even comment on it.
Further, my statement that "computer programs shouldn't be copyrightable at all" was largely an extension of my opinion that "copyright shouldn't exist."
You and I will never agree on that point. I respect your opinion and your right to hold it, but I think you're wrong.
I understand. I'll try to label my opinions more clearly in the future so we can safely ignore them.
Well, to be fair, you did refer to what you call the "Copyright Clause" (which I now understand you mean to be Article I section 8 of the Constitution, which incidentally doesn't mention the word "copyright" at all) in the context of justifying your position that "only artistic works can be copyrighted in the first place."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitu tion.articlei.html doesn't have the word "copyright" or "clause" in it, yet it is the second result on google when you search for "copyright clause". I guess you'll have to just believe me for now, but it is a term which is used extremely often in this context.
Article I section 8 says, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries," which in fact appears to refer specifically not to works that are "artistic," but rather only to those which are practically useful or scientific in nature.
True, but when creating copyright law congress relied on the "Useful Arts" part of the copyright clause, and when they created patent law they relied on the "science" part. But in any case, do you consider spam to be science?
In future, you might want to use the correct citation-- Article I section 8-- instead of the phrase "Copyright Clause."
That would be Article I section 8 clause 8, and no, anyone with a basic knowledge of Constitutional law knows what the "Copyright Clause" is. There's absolutely nothing ambiguous about that term.
But you're obviously wrong, friend. The statute clearly says that all original works are protected by copyright.
Yep, and "original works of authorship" is interpreted by the Supreme Court to only include Science and Useful Arts.
This law is not even remotely unconstitutional, because Congress is explicitly given the power to grant exclusive rights to authors under Article I section 8.
Well, first of all, my opinion is that is is unconstitutional, because of the reasons argued in Eldred v. Ashcroft, but that aside, it was not ruled unconstitutional on the basis of protecting non-artistic works because of the principle of "narrow construction." If a congressional law can be interpreted to be constitutional, then that is how the law is interpreted. Only if the law must be interpreted as unconstitutional must the law be struck down in its entirety. The simple interpretation is that "original works of authorship" only is meant to include artistic works.
I'm afraid that you're just mistaken. All original works-- regardless of their nature or merit-- are protected by copyright.
Yep, and some are protected more strongly than others.
Title 17 includes a set of categories of works, but it is not meant to be either exhaustive nor exclusive.
I disagree.
Webmail is for roaming. If you're roaming, then you don't trust the client. PGP is useless if you don't trust the client.
And don't say signed java applets 'cause (1) if you trust the provider's signature then just use https (I'll give you an account at inbox.org) and (2) if you don't trust the computer then you can't store your private key.
If you then put that email on a web page-- i.e., republish it-- I can ask you to remove it on copyright grounds, because only I have the right to publish, broadcast, or distribute that email.
So hotmail is breaking copyright law by putting emails on web pages? Or am I breaking copyright law by releasing my hotmail password to the public?
Whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is fair or not depends on the purpose and way that it is used, and has nothing at all to do with the way that the work was distributed.
Isn't that a factor in the "nature of the copyrighted work?"
It's clear that you're arguing from a flawed position-- computer programs shouldn't be copyrightable??-- so I respectfully ask that we just agree to disagree on this point.
On that particular point, certainly. But I should make it clear that I am completely aware that this is only my opinion. Just like many people disagree with the Supreme Court over Roe v. Wade, I have a right to disagree over whether or not computer programs are artistic. Further, my statement that "computer programs shouldn't be copyrightable at all" was largely an extension of my opinion that "copyright shouldn't exist."
I'm not, however, out of my depth. If you haven't heard of the Copyright Clause, then you are the one discussing something that's over your head.
I stand by my assertion that only artistic works (literally "useful arts") are copyrightable, and that this is a fact with which every single Supreme Court justice would agree.
By that argument the people aren't distributing the spams, the computers are. The spammer is publishing his own comments. I don't buy it, though. Just because the process is automated doesn't mean no one can be held responsible.
Teachers are probably the single most underpaid group of workers in this country.
My friend's parents are both teachers, and their AGI was six digits last year. Not bad for working only half the days of the year.
Quite a fine example of how unions "help" employees.
It is actually, since teachers are fairly paid and yet everyone thinks they're underpaid, the union must be spreading that propaganda well. But since my point was that unions tend to trade job security for high potential pay, the teacher example actually fits perfectly.
And, come to think of it, it's also a nice example of how unions "help" the customers, too
I wasn't arguing about whether or not unions "help" the customers.
In the rare instances where a union feels like working for its members (instead of just for itself), this may be true
Since unions are made up of their members, I don't see the distinction. Also, to use your argument, since getting a union job is voluntary it obviously must be beneficial, right?
but this is where the union becomes a burden on the employer, and in some instances, the customer, because it suckers the employer into retaining sub-par employees.
So? The shareholders vote for who will represent their interests as a corporation, the workers vote for who will represent their interests as a union. Both are voluntary, though if you don't agree to join you can't work for or own the company. The corporation suckers workers into working for less than they're worth, and the union suckers the corporation into hiring others for more than they're worth. Ultimately this insurance policy against unfair treatment is considered beneficial to some.
As for getting paid less and benefits being worse, I don't see that to be the case.
Is your father really a teacher? Because with that line, I'm beginning to doubt that he is.
My father is a teacher. My mother is a teacher. My sister is going to school to become a teacher. I'd like to work for myself. If that fails I'll probably become a teacher as well, or maybe work for some other non-profit organization.
Just because the union leaders think it's a good reason doesn't mean YOU will, especially when it means the difference between your family eating or starving.
At least you get to vote on it. As opposed to being an at-will employee, where you only get a vote if you happen to also be a shareholder.
What "Copyright Clause?"
You're showing your ignorance of copyright law. The Copyright Clause is in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Those are examples of works of authorship. It's not an exclusive list.
Are you trolling me? It most certainly is an exclusive list.
For example, the list does not include computer source code-- unless you twist the definition of "literary" to mean "anything written," which makes it pretty useless-- and yet computer source code is most definitely covered by copyright.
The third circuit court of appeals certainly disagrees with you. In Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc. they state that "computer programs are classified as literary works for the purposes of copyright" Yes, it's a stupid definition, computer programs shouldn't be copyrightable at all, but it's the law.
You should just drop this "only artistic works can be copyrighted" thing now.
You should learn a little bit about the Constitution before arguing that I should ignore it.
No, I'm not forgetting capital investment. I just don't think that owning capital justifies exploiting others.
As they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
And as they also say, equally untrue, it takes money to make money.
Just as if I were, instead, reading these words over the radio or on TV, the fact that I'm broadcasting my work doesn't in any way dilute my copyright on it, nor does it grant anybody any exceptional rights.
Mostly true, but it does dilute your copyright to some extent in that it makes a finding of fair use more likely. But you've already covered that.
But what gives slashdot the right to publish your post? I'd argue it's an implied license. But if you want to argue that slashdot is not publishing your post, because it's an automated method, then the same could be argued with the collected spam.
Now the fact of the matter is I take the position that if I demand that slashdot remove a post that I made on the grounds of copyright, they have to do so. Because an explicit demand supercedes any implied license. This is where the spam publisher probably gets in trouble.
Only artistic works can be copyrighted in the first place.
There is absolutely no precedent for that sort of interpretation.
Read any Supreme Court ruling on the Copyright Clause. Or just read the Copyright Clause. I'm not going to bother quoting it because if you don't at least have it memorized you have no right making such a bold statement as you just made.
The problems start with "How do you decide what's 'artistic' and what's not?"
Congress has decided it already: literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works.
Is spam a literary work? Somewhat, but its protection under copyright only extends to the parts which are literary, and literary must be interpreted in light of the Copyright Clause, which means it must be artistic.
Exactly. You speak as if this is free money.
I never spoke of it as free money. I'm fully aware of how capitalism works. The rich get richer off interest, rents, and capital gains (and pay lower taxes on that unearned income to boot), while the poor tread water working for the rich. Occassionally one or two of the smart move from the poor to the rich, and one or two of the dumb move from the rich to the poor.
How long does it take at $566 an pop to break even?
Certainly depreciation was already counted in on the expenses, so breakeven is already reached and exceeded.
Additionally, very few people just "provide capital"; they usually run the business as well. Should they get paid?
The vast majority of capital being provided to corporations is by people who do nothing. I'm one of them in fact, as an owner of (about) 0.000001% of Netbank. Should those who run the business as well get paid? They usually do! In fact, if they don't it's really a form of tax evasion.
IF the "capital provider" is making so much more money than he should, why is it the mechanic who's getting cheated? Isn't it the customer that's getting the shaft?
Clearly it's both. You really can't separate the two.
In short, if the customer is willing to pay X, and the mechanic is willing to work for Y, then where's the problem?
The problem is that many of the owners were provided with X, Y, and Z from birth. The customer is only willing to pay X because of the laws against taking the product without paying, or using the land without permission, or picking the apples from trees without permission from the great-great-great-great-great-great grandson of the person who stole it from some Indian. The choice is voluntary in a sense, but there are many restrictions within that freedom.
If the mechanic feels he should make more, he needs to market his skills to another buyer, or (heaven forbid) to the customer directly by opening his own garage. You can't have the extra money without taking on the responsibility.
And as is generally the case, you can't have the extra money without having the extra money. Even those who made it seemingly on their own almost certainly had to rely on connections with some rich person or company who gave them a loan or a mortgage or rented them some equipment or property.
Eventually, if you're smart, you can whore yourself out to the rich temporarily in strategic locations in order to build up enough capital to break out of the working class. That's what I'm trying to do, but even if I do make it a lot of it has to do with connections and luck - like the millions of dollars of VC money I was permitted to have partial control of to start a dot bomb a few years ago. Hopefully my whoring days are limited, but it's pretty much impossible to make money without property, so for at least a few years I still have to work for the bank who gave me the mortgage so I could acquire a fief.
I once stood in an elevator overlooking the city with a banker who pointed out to the vast buildings and said "look at it, I own it all." OK, fair enough, I'm merely relaying a story which was told to me in the first person but really probably was just relayed from another. But that's the reality of our country. The banks own everything, and the people work for each other and the banks to pay them rent (sometimes called interest).
Well, my extremely brief (2 minute) google search didn't find any precedent, but there has to be some implied licenses along with internet distribution. Otherwise Usenet wouldn't be legal, this slashdot post couldn't be distributed, the forward button would be a contributory copyright device, etc.
I'd wager that business taxes are higher than personl incomde taxes.
Businesses also get more deductions. But ultimately it depends on too many factors to say in general.
And if not, there is no way that 300 dollars is being taxed at 33%.
Neither for businesses or for Personal. But the assumption was that that $300 wasn't the entire yearly income :). Between FICA, state, and federal income tax, not to mention local in some areas, 1/3 is probably too low.
And I'm sure that all of the unionized US steel workers would agree... oh wait, there aren't any any more.
What kind of severance package did they get when they left though? Probably better than they would have without a union.
Unions = very short term job security.
Depends on the industry, but in any industry, unions generally = more job security than no unions. That's my point, not that unions offer perfect job security, but that they offer more. A strong union is like an insurance policy. Sure, you could get fired, but if they fire you without giving you a great package they have to fire everyone.
conditions are good, even in this so-called tech-recession which, outside of NYC and parts of California, doesn't really exist.
Is that because tech jobs really don't exist outside of NYC and California?
I was 100 miles North of NYC when my company went bankrupt, and Hewlett Packard was 50 miles west of the city (in New Jersey) went they closed their facilities and moved the 1/4 of the workers who didn't get laid off to Texas.
Anyway, maybe you're right, I really don't know any tech areas outside of 100 mile radius of NYC.