Here is the problem I have with the FairTax. It hurts lower class the most. Poor people, college students, etc who already struggle to get buy now have a 30% markup on goods and services?
The FairTax includes a "universal rebate" which is a fixed amount sent to every household; it effectively makes spending up to a certain level tax-free.
Additionally how does it take into account people who have massive amounts of wealth, assets, etc. but live frugally? Are they paying their fair share?
One way or another, those assets will eventually be spent. And encouraging savings would be a nice change from the last few decades.
your claim that this renders the license unenforceable seems to mean that if I paid for AGPL software, without agreeing before paying, the AGPL would also be unenforceable.
Having an open source license be "unenforceable" doesn't help you. It means the software reverts to standard copyright, which is by definition more restrictive than the license. In your example, if you chose not to "agree" to the AGPL, you wouldn't be able to modify the software at all (barring fair use exceptions, which modifying and running on a public server probably isn't).
Regarding 2. you seem to be saying it's inequitable (i.e. unfair) that the license only takes away rights without giving them, but I don't see how that makes it unenforceable (or why licenses have to give rights to be fair)
Lack of consideration. It's the same reason why I can't say "by replying to this post you agree to pay me $1000" and then try to collect if you do.
I agree. Sadly the courts don't, due to a ridiculous bootstrapping argument where the EULA claims that you are not the "owner" of the software but merely a "licensee", so 17 USC 117 doesn't apply. That's absurd for many reasons (lack of consideration for starters), but technologically clueless judges made some bad rulings and for now we're stuck with the precedent.
I don't see the problem, "omg, this software checks for updates!"
Via a daemon that's always running with root privileges. I don't care what it's alleged purpose is, that's completely unacceptable for a user-level app.
Maybe they won't be able to generate 2^256 encryption keys, but they could try to factorize someone's public key.
Factoring is also (believed to be) exponential, so increasing the key length to a still-manageable size would be sufficient.
They could also try encrypting every possible string of a certain length
Only up to a few hundred bits.
It's also possible that they've found a way to break encryption without generating 2^256 keys; maybe some encryption products have a flaw that drastically reduces the keyspace.
That's quite likely, although then it wouldn't really count as "brute force".
This computer would however be really good at brute-forcing crypto keys...
Not really, 2^N gets big fast. The sun won't output enough energy over its entire lifetime to allow a maximally efficient computer to even count from 0 to 2^256, let alone try to brute-force a 256-bit key. (From Applied Cryptography which I don't have in front of me).
That's exactly why as a free-market small-l libertarian I don't like H1Bs targeted at specific industries. It's government micromanagement of the labor supply, and like most central planning it ends poorly. If there actually is a shortage of IT workers, that means that companies should raise their salaries, which sends a signal to current and future workers that IT skills are in demand, which will increase the number of qualified workers and eventually resolve the shortage. But if government allows bringing in what are effectively indentured servants to fulfill the demand, then it sends the message to Americans that you should *not* go into IT because your wages will be artificially depressed, thereby perpetuating the problem.
Seriously, nuclear is great and clean and fabulous, right up until the moment it goes wrong then it all gets very scary very quickly and your bustling metropolis down the road is the next Pripyat.
And airplanes are great until they light up like the Hindenburg. We've moved on a bit since then, as we have with nuclear power. Fear-mongering based on plants that were horribly substandard even for their time isn't helping.
What's the magic of a tax? After all, it's just a price tag on the bill and the very existance of power-hungry TV sets already demonstrates that your proposed incentives on the producers to reduce power consumption do not exist
As far as I know there have been no attempts to tax electricity use to account for the negative externalities. This effectively artificially lowers the price, which of course results in overconsumption.
Banning TV sets over certain wattage certainly may not make producers go after the 498W tag (as per your example) but it makes certain they'll go under 500W
And then consumers will find more ways to "waste" cheap electricity, and you'll have to keep expanding the list of items to regulate or ban. Great for government busybodies, lousy for freedom, the economy, and the environment.
You should understand that UE intentions are not to reduce overall electrity consumption (if such were the point a linear tax may do the trick) but to reduce *undesired* electricity consumption
In other words, social engineering rather than actually protecting the environment. At least they're honest enough to admit it.
Very true. And I'd rather maintain 5000 lines of code where each line actually contributes toward solving the problem than 10,000 lines of code where half of it is boilerplate or bookkeeping to make the compiler happy.
And don't even get me started on Xboxes and PS3s. 150 watts (not even counting the TV) just to play games? Complete waste, we can ban those outright. We've already decided that people's personal preferences are irrelevant when it comes to cars and light bulbs, so who cares if you'd rather play Halo than Tetris?
Nobody except the hardest-core greens wants to make electricity unaffordable to the poor. But the environment is equally damaged by a coal plant whether the electricity is used by a rich person or a poor person, so both should have incentives to conserve. Other regressive taxes (e.g. sales and payroll) should be lowered so that on balance the tax burden doesn't increase.
That market driven incentive exists for cars in the US, but it is completely ineffective. People still buy big trucks and SUVs.
SUVs are a direct result of bad regulations. We passed fuel economy laws that said "all cars sold must get X miles per gallon". Except Detroit wanted to build big cars and people wanted to buy them. Solution: the Canyonero isn't a car, it's a "light truck".
Consumption taxes are a far better solution, but politicians much prefer hiding costs in mandates rather than acknowledging them.
Which is nothing but applying an infinite tax on TV sets over such wattage
And the nonlinearity of such a "tax" defeats the purpose. If the limit is 500 watts, the manufacturer gets to 498W and is done. With a constant energy tax, manufacturers and consumers always have incentives to reduce power consumption.
So you consider a Watt used on a hospital diagnostic scanner should be taxed just the same as a Watt used on a 50" TV for the superbowl?
Yes, the same way that the tax on a gallon of gas should be the same whether you're driving to a homeless shelter to volunteer or to a bar to get wasted. The environmental damage is the same regardless of your intentions.
In addition to the monetary costs, it should be noted that happiness studies consistently find that happiness is strongly and negatively correlated with length of commute. It really is nice to not have to spend 10% of your waking life navigating back and forth between points A and B.
How can you build anything large-scale in a language too dynamic for proper static verification?
Sometimes large-scale projects in static languages can be small-scale in dynamic. For example look at the ridiculous amount of resources devoted to dependency injection frameworks in Java, where in Python or Ruby those capabilities are essentially built in.
Yes, you're not confused, it is crazy that companies with raving profits are dumping employees, and it is heartless.
Why? The purpose of a company is not to provide charity for upper middle class workers. Regardless of the economic situation, why should any company be under any obligation to pay more to employ somebody than they can produce?
Loyalty has its downsides too, by encouraging people to stay in the same jobs when they could be doing better (both for themselves and society) somewhere else. For example, it's a good thing that Silicon Valley could quickly grow by attracting workers from other areas.
Slashdot Mirror
People have been saying this for years, and yet it doesn't seem to have hurt Apple's sales in all that time.
It very likely has. Apple's laptops are much more traditional than their desktops, and sell much better.
There's also such a thing as a corporate culture, and it can influence individual actions/decisions.
Right. See the monkey water hose experiment, which explains many corporate policies from dress codes to TPS reports.
If you take it apart their responsibility ends.
Not in dispute. But taking it apart (for just about any value of "it") should not be illegal.
So I hope that they can win and prosecute as many people with this as they need to to reassure investors that they still have a viable platform.
And then we can ban debuggers, since they're commonly used to break copy protection.
Here is the problem I have with the FairTax. It hurts lower class the most. Poor people, college students, etc who already struggle to get buy now have a 30% markup on goods and services?
The FairTax includes a "universal rebate" which is a fixed amount sent to every household; it effectively makes spending up to a certain level tax-free.
Additionally how does it take into account people who have massive amounts of wealth, assets, etc. but live frugally? Are they paying their fair share?
One way or another, those assets will eventually be spent. And encouraging savings would be a nice change from the last few decades.
your claim that this renders the license unenforceable seems to mean that if I paid for AGPL software, without agreeing before paying, the AGPL would also be unenforceable.
Having an open source license be "unenforceable" doesn't help you. It means the software reverts to standard copyright, which is by definition more restrictive than the license. In your example, if you chose not to "agree" to the AGPL, you wouldn't be able to modify the software at all (barring fair use exceptions, which modifying and running on a public server probably isn't).
Regarding 2. you seem to be saying it's inequitable (i.e. unfair) that the license only takes away rights without giving them, but I don't see how that makes it unenforceable (or why licenses have to give rights to be fair)
Lack of consideration. It's the same reason why I can't say "by replying to this post you agree to pay me $1000" and then try to collect if you do.
So, in short, software licenses are bullshit.
I agree. Sadly the courts don't, due to a ridiculous bootstrapping argument where the EULA claims that you are not the "owner" of the software but merely a "licensee", so 17 USC 117 doesn't apply. That's absurd for many reasons (lack of consideration for starters), but technologically clueless judges made some bad rulings and for now we're stuck with the precedent.
I don't see the problem, "omg, this software checks for updates!"
Via a daemon that's always running with root privileges. I don't care what it's alleged purpose is, that's completely unacceptable for a user-level app.
Maybe they won't be able to generate 2^256 encryption keys, but they could try to factorize someone's public key.
Factoring is also (believed to be) exponential, so increasing the key length to a still-manageable size would be sufficient.
They could also try encrypting every possible string of a certain length
Only up to a few hundred bits.
It's also possible that they've found a way to break encryption without generating 2^256 keys; maybe some encryption products have a flaw that drastically reduces the keyspace.
That's quite likely, although then it wouldn't really count as "brute force".
For it to happen means mankind no longer has imagination, creativity, and individuality.
I don't understand this. None of those are necessarily eliminated by a singularity; if anything they're more likely to become stronger.
The difference between a cult and a religion is 100 years.
That sounds about right. Exhibits A and B: Mormonism and Scientology.
This computer would however be really good at brute-forcing crypto keys...
Not really, 2^N gets big fast. The sun won't output enough energy over its entire lifetime to allow a maximally efficient computer to even count from 0 to 2^256, let alone try to brute-force a 256-bit key. (From Applied Cryptography which I don't have in front of me).
That's exactly why as a free-market small-l libertarian I don't like H1Bs targeted at specific industries. It's government micromanagement of the labor supply, and like most central planning it ends poorly. If there actually is a shortage of IT workers, that means that companies should raise their salaries, which sends a signal to current and future workers that IT skills are in demand, which will increase the number of qualified workers and eventually resolve the shortage. But if government allows bringing in what are effectively indentured servants to fulfill the demand, then it sends the message to Americans that you should *not* go into IT because your wages will be artificially depressed, thereby perpetuating the problem.
3. Print Z$100 trillion bills.
Seriously, nuclear is great and clean and fabulous, right up until the moment it goes wrong then it all gets very scary very quickly and your bustling metropolis down the road is the next Pripyat.
And airplanes are great until they light up like the Hindenburg. We've moved on a bit since then, as we have with nuclear power. Fear-mongering based on plants that were horribly substandard even for their time isn't helping.
What's the magic of a tax? After all, it's just a price tag on the bill and the very existance of power-hungry TV sets already demonstrates that your proposed incentives on the producers to reduce power consumption do not exist
As far as I know there have been no attempts to tax electricity use to account for the negative externalities. This effectively artificially lowers the price, which of course results in overconsumption.
Banning TV sets over certain wattage certainly may not make producers go after the 498W tag (as per your example) but it makes certain they'll go under 500W
And then consumers will find more ways to "waste" cheap electricity, and you'll have to keep expanding the list of items to regulate or ban. Great for government busybodies, lousy for freedom, the economy, and the environment.
You should understand that UE intentions are not to reduce overall electrity consumption (if such were the point a linear tax may do the trick) but to reduce *undesired* electricity consumption
In other words, social engineering rather than actually protecting the environment. At least they're honest enough to admit it.
"the job" is more than just initial development
Very true. And I'd rather maintain 5000 lines of code where each line actually contributes toward solving the problem than 10,000 lines of code where half of it is boilerplate or bookkeeping to make the compiler happy.
And don't even get me started on Xboxes and PS3s. 150 watts (not even counting the TV) just to play games? Complete waste, we can ban those outright. We've already decided that people's personal preferences are irrelevant when it comes to cars and light bulbs, so who cares if you'd rather play Halo than Tetris?
Nobody except the hardest-core greens wants to make electricity unaffordable to the poor. But the environment is equally damaged by a coal plant whether the electricity is used by a rich person or a poor person, so both should have incentives to conserve. Other regressive taxes (e.g. sales and payroll) should be lowered so that on balance the tax burden doesn't increase.
That market driven incentive exists for cars in the US, but it is completely ineffective. People still buy big trucks and SUVs.
SUVs are a direct result of bad regulations. We passed fuel economy laws that said "all cars sold must get X miles per gallon". Except Detroit wanted to build big cars and people wanted to buy them. Solution: the Canyonero isn't a car, it's a "light truck".
Consumption taxes are a far better solution, but politicians much prefer hiding costs in mandates rather than acknowledging them.
Which is nothing but applying an infinite tax on TV sets over such wattage
And the nonlinearity of such a "tax" defeats the purpose. If the limit is 500 watts, the manufacturer gets to 498W and is done. With a constant energy tax, manufacturers and consumers always have incentives to reduce power consumption.
So you consider a Watt used on a hospital diagnostic scanner should be taxed just the same as a Watt used on a 50" TV for the superbowl?
Yes, the same way that the tax on a gallon of gas should be the same whether you're driving to a homeless shelter to volunteer or to a bar to get wasted. The environmental damage is the same regardless of your intentions.
In addition to the monetary costs, it should be noted that happiness studies consistently find that happiness is strongly and negatively correlated with length of commute. It really is nice to not have to spend 10% of your waking life navigating back and forth between points A and B.
How can you build anything large-scale in a language too dynamic for proper static verification?
Sometimes large-scale projects in static languages can be small-scale in dynamic. For example look at the ridiculous amount of resources devoted to dependency injection frameworks in Java, where in Python or Ruby those capabilities are essentially built in.
In other words, most of them die before they are even borne.
Quite true, as it is with commercial projects. It's just that you never see those.
Yes, you're not confused, it is crazy that companies with raving profits are dumping employees, and it is heartless.
Why? The purpose of a company is not to provide charity for upper middle class workers. Regardless of the economic situation, why should any company be under any obligation to pay more to employ somebody than they can produce?
Loyalty has its downsides too, by encouraging people to stay in the same jobs when they could be doing better (both for themselves and society) somewhere else. For example, it's a good thing that Silicon Valley could quickly grow by attracting workers from other areas.