He wasn't saying you were taxed 110% of your income. He said that 110% of your tax went to paying off debt. This is possible because the federal government has income streams other than individual's tax.
I completely agree that customers who buy a lot of games and who are clearly of the higher income bracket should pay a bit more for games and entertainment
From each according to his "has", to each according to his "wants" huh?
but if we are college students or struggling to find a job we simply cannot afford $50-60 a game.
No, there's just plenty of stuff that yanks think gets under Aussie's skins. Most Aussie's would rather be descended from crim's than England's inbred tea-party set.
Ahh, yes, the "some are more equal than others" argument. Luckily, Amazon still sells Animal Farm.
On another note, I was thinking of organising a rally against Krogers for not stocking Kraft Stringers. I assume you'll be joining me to protest this criminal infringement of my right to determine what vendors must be forced to stock.
Applying for a trademark is the process of claiming ownership. Nobody has ever applied for a trademark on something they own, because until that trademark is granted, they don't own it. As for how they can apply for a trademark they don't currently use, that's pretty frequent. You generally establish those things before you pour millions of dollars into promoting something that could be ripped out of your hands.
None of which excuses Disney's behavior in this particular instance, but the general case is fairly reasonable.
Your outlet for your frustrations is the ballot box
Unless you vote libertarian, it seems...
The money you make is in very large part due to the stable, free society that a moderate government delivers.
Agreed. Of course, that then leads us to consider your definition of "moderate". Hint: "libertarian" isn't equivalent to "anarchist". It's not a question of "government" vs "non-government", it's a question of "how much government"?
But this crapola line that somehow *your* money is being stolen is nothing more than a lie built of greed and selfishness.
Can you provide a reasonable definition of "steal" that manages to exclude the fact that the government is able to legally take your money, resorting to force if you refuse to pay? The ability of a government to violate the rights of its citizens (to be secure in their property, not to be held against their will, their right to life - all able to be legally violated by a government) is the defining attribute of a government. That's why government needs to be limited as much as possible - the powers it holds are too potent to allow them to exercised for anything but necessity.
It's very likely without the government and society you live in, you would be living under a real tyranny, something you know nothing about.
Bull. There are thousands of styles and forms of government other than the one in which I live that do not result in tyranny. To say otherwise is nothing but a worship of the status quo. I agree, without any government the result is anarchy, which will generally evolve into tyranny, but nothing about a limited government necessitates than evolution.
It also cost millions, made next to none of it back, and virtually bankrupted Square. People don't like it because of the repercussions of making it, not because of the quality of the end product.
And so is every newspaper in the world that published Wikileaks material. And everybody on Slashdot who's mentioned them. Or discussed it around the water cooler. It rather debases the claim that wikileaks is a "criminal enterprise" when that label can be applied with equal accuracy to a large proportion of the western world.
Facebook doesn't actually want to stop under-13s using their site. They just don't want to be held liable if they do. If a user lies to get access to the site, that puts the liability back on them, rather than on facebook.
Not to disagree with you on Manning being a hero, but why should the criteria be how much they "risked" rather than how much they accomplished? Wikileaks has released more than just Manning's material.
Well if they're investigating, then they haven't "deemed [Wikileaks] a criminal enterprise" then have they? If the parent had said "might someday be deemed a criminal enterprise by some nation, somewhere" then that might be relevant.
And Young's been ripping on Wikileaks and puffing up his own site from the moment Wikileaks got any media attention. An ex-employee who also happens to be a "competitor" is hardly the most unbiased source. And as far as I've heard, none of his claims have been substantiated - despite certain governments searching high and low for dirt to discredit Wikileaks with.
It'd aid innovation because people could then iteratively improve on Google's algorithms, ending with a better search system.
It'd also, as you say, lead to massive exploitation and the reduction of Google's search engine to a pile of flaming spam. Which is why I have no problem's with Google keeping their algo under wraps.
Guess it's lucky Android is licensed under the Apache licence and not the GPL, huh? Apart from the kernel of course, the modifications to which they have published.
And if you kill the passion, your cost (of hiring new developers because you drove the old ones away) and risk (of losing corporate knowledge in process) increases. So you can say "my money, my rules" all you like, but actually, it's reality that dictates the rules. And reality says if you burden people under a weight of bureaucracy disproportionate to what that bureaucracy is intended to accomplish, they'll leave. And if they don't leave, they're probably afraid of not finding another job, indicating that they're not good enough at their job to be confident in their abilities.
Like pretty much everything, it's a balancing act. You need to provide direction, or the goose is going to go wandering around the yard instead of laying its damn eggs, but if you stifle it too much, the thing's going to croak.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably a tax levied on the illiterate.
He wasn't saying you were taxed 110% of your income. He said that 110% of your tax went to paying off debt. This is possible because the federal government has income streams other than individual's tax.
Think you meant to reply to the OP buddy
I completely agree that customers who buy a lot of games and who are clearly of the higher income bracket should pay a bit more for games and entertainment
From each according to his "has", to each according to his "wants" huh?
but if we are college students or struggling to find a job we simply cannot afford $50-60 a game.
Then you go without
No, there's just plenty of stuff that yanks think gets under Aussie's skins. Most Aussie's would rather be descended from crim's than England's inbred tea-party set.
Buy a house with your partner. Real estate has always been out of grasp for your average single.
He's got about as much to back it up as do you and the OP. Namely, opinions and anecdotes.
Yes. I'd agree literature is a key medium via which free speech is exercised.
That still says nothing about the OP's claim that stocking controversial books is somehow essential to a bookstore's function.
Ahh, yes, the "some are more equal than others" argument. Luckily, Amazon still sells Animal Farm.
On another note, I was thinking of organising a rally against Krogers for not stocking Kraft Stringers. I assume you'll be joining me to protest this criminal infringement of my right to determine what vendors must be forced to stock.
I never realised the purpose of a bookstore was to depend freedom of speech. I thought it was to sell books.
Not that defending freedom of speech isn't a good thing, but it's not really an essential part of the definition of a bookstore.
Applying for a trademark is the process of claiming ownership. Nobody has ever applied for a trademark on something they own, because until that trademark is granted, they don't own it. As for how they can apply for a trademark they don't currently use, that's pretty frequent. You generally establish those things before you pour millions of dollars into promoting something that could be ripped out of your hands.
None of which excuses Disney's behavior in this particular instance, but the general case is fairly reasonable.
Your outlet for your frustrations is the ballot box
Unless you vote libertarian, it seems...
The money you make is in very large part due to the stable, free society that a moderate government delivers.
Agreed. Of course, that then leads us to consider your definition of "moderate". Hint: "libertarian" isn't equivalent to "anarchist". It's not a question of "government" vs "non-government", it's a question of "how much government"?
But this crapola line that somehow *your* money is being stolen is nothing more than a lie built of greed and selfishness.
Can you provide a reasonable definition of "steal" that manages to exclude the fact that the government is able to legally take your money, resorting to force if you refuse to pay? The ability of a government to violate the rights of its citizens (to be secure in their property, not to be held against their will, their right to life - all able to be legally violated by a government) is the defining attribute of a government. That's why government needs to be limited as much as possible - the powers it holds are too potent to allow them to exercised for anything but necessity.
It's very likely without the government and society you live in, you would be living under a real tyranny, something you know nothing about.
Bull. There are thousands of styles and forms of government other than the one in which I live that do not result in tyranny. To say otherwise is nothing but a worship of the status quo. I agree, without any government the result is anarchy, which will generally evolve into tyranny, but nothing about a limited government necessitates than evolution.
Where "just and decent" means "I can force other people to give me money". Might want to work on your definitions a bit there.
Yeah, but it wasn't Battlefield Earth either. It gets hate disproportionate to its suckiness, and I think my post above outlines the reason why.
It also cost millions, made next to none of it back, and virtually bankrupted Square. People don't like it because of the repercussions of making it, not because of the quality of the end product.
Excluded middle much? There's rather a wide span between "no government" and "government controlling all aspects of life" that you seem to be missing.
If they optimize their network as well as they optimize the images on their website, I can see why they ran into trouble.
(For those who are capped and can't afford the bandwidth anymore, that's a ~350kb, 250x400 image)
Yes, but you have a clue.
And so is every newspaper in the world that published Wikileaks material. And everybody on Slashdot who's mentioned them. Or discussed it around the water cooler. It rather debases the claim that wikileaks is a "criminal enterprise" when that label can be applied with equal accuracy to a large proportion of the western world.
Facebook doesn't actually want to stop under-13s using their site. They just don't want to be held liable if they do. If a user lies to get access to the site, that puts the liability back on them, rather than on facebook.
Not to disagree with you on Manning being a hero, but why should the criteria be how much they "risked" rather than how much they accomplished? Wikileaks has released more than just Manning's material.
Well if they're investigating, then they haven't "deemed [Wikileaks] a criminal enterprise" then have they? If the parent had said "might someday be deemed a criminal enterprise by some nation, somewhere" then that might be relevant.
And Young's been ripping on Wikileaks and puffing up his own site from the moment Wikileaks got any media attention. An ex-employee who also happens to be a "competitor" is hardly the most unbiased source. And as far as I've heard, none of his claims have been substantiated - despite certain governments searching high and low for dirt to discredit Wikileaks with.
It'd aid innovation because people could then iteratively improve on Google's algorithms, ending with a better search system.
It'd also, as you say, lead to massive exploitation and the reduction of Google's search engine to a pile of flaming spam. Which is why I have no problem's with Google keeping their algo under wraps.
Really? Can you list one nation which has listed Wikileaks as a criminal enterprise? (including the US).
Guess it's lucky Android is licensed under the Apache licence and not the GPL, huh? Apart from the kernel of course, the modifications to which they have published.
And if you kill the passion, your cost (of hiring new developers because you drove the old ones away) and risk (of losing corporate knowledge in process) increases. So you can say "my money, my rules" all you like, but actually, it's reality that dictates the rules. And reality says if you burden people under a weight of bureaucracy disproportionate to what that bureaucracy is intended to accomplish, they'll leave. And if they don't leave, they're probably afraid of not finding another job, indicating that they're not good enough at their job to be confident in their abilities.
Like pretty much everything, it's a balancing act. You need to provide direction, or the goose is going to go wandering around the yard instead of laying its damn eggs, but if you stifle it too much, the thing's going to croak.