Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Wealthy/rich people have far more to lose, therefore they need things like police and fire protection more than the rest of us. Therefore, yes, they should be paying more in taxes.
But many of these rich people have insurance, private security, etc. I will concede that they use the legal system more but the legal system benefits all.
I remember my economics class when we discussed something like national defense. Everyone benefits from it, regardless of how much you pay. You can't "opt out" of national defense (at least not legally). We all pay for it, regardless of how you feel about it (Quakers and Mennonites not withstanding).
Another thing that confuses me is when people complain that the rich control the politicians. I would submit that this is true because they have the most to gain and lose. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the rich should pay more and then say that they shouldn't be protected. Keep in mind that I'm not saying it's right; it's just human nature. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.
I used to work for a non-profit and it easy to want to be nice to the folks with the big pockets. But I never forgot that the folks with the little pockets often gave more (in terms of percentage) and often really believed in my mission than those with deeper pockets.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Someone earning higher amounts should be on larger tax rates than people earning less. By earning more, you can afford to pay more tax...
I don't understand the logic behind this. This is what I hate about an income-based taxed system (or any tax system based on wealth). Just because I can pay more doesn't mean that I want to or I should.
Yes, I can pay $100 for a McDouble, but I want to pay $1.
Taxes are basically a payment for services. A wealthy/rich person does not get more services (in general; let's not get overly technical about this) just because he is rich. He pays for the police, pays for education, national defense, etc. Why should he pay more simply because he can? Assume for a moment that each person's share of all services is $100. Why should a rich guy be obligated to pay $10,000 when, more often than not, he uses less of those services than someone who is poor?
I understand that poor people may not be able to afford their taxes. This sucks. It truly does. But the solution is not to increase taxes on the rich. The solution is to decrease taxes on the poor.
Unfortunately, there really is no perfect tax system. I have my preference for a flat-national sales tax, but that's just me. Yes, it's got pros and cons and it's not perfect. But it's better than what we have now: a confusing set of laws where you only win if you can afford a creative tax lawyer.
Don't read this the wrong way: making laws should be transparent. I know at the local level, when bills are debated, there is always some crackpot who likes to take their 2-6 minutes to talk about something completely unrelated to the bill. This takes up valuable time but they really can't be stopped. The local reps don't want to do anything about it because the crackpot is usually homeless or elderly or otherwise infirmed. The point is that the local council will often do closed door meetings to get work done. (Let's move pass the fact that these reps don't have the backbone to actually ban the crackpot from speaking unless relevant to the bill at hand.)
I know that Congress doesn't work the same way (e.g. there are no public hearings where I can testify) but they do tend to have more closed door meetings than should be allowed. Furthermore, the notes/transcripts from these meetings are usually not made public (or if they are, it's impossible to find).
There are times when closed door meetings are necessary for progress. It sucks but it happens. But unless directly related to national security, transcripts should always be available to the People.
Saying it should happen and it actually happening are, at the moment, two totally different things separated by a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon. But one can dream...
Many of the companies named has defendants have used patent laws to their advantage. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, especially since Tim Berners-Lee, who is completely against software patents, is set to testify.
The large majority of first-sale doctrine cases were about actual objects (e.g. CDs, books, Lego Playset, etc). This case is strictly about a digital object, which both exists and doesn't exist.
It exists in the fact that a storage medium (a physical object) contains it. It doesn't exist in the sense that the file cannot be handled traditionally.
I've felt that the law is severely lacking in the digital area but, in all honestly, found that it's difficult to write laws for something that can be created out of nothing. I believe in principle that I should be able to sell my MP3s if I don't want them anymore. There is obviously a market for them. But I don't see how this will work in a world where I can sell the object but still keep it at the same time.
This is not possible with tangible objects, at least not until the Star Trek replicator is invented.
Joe Sixpack stays happy so long as his overall taxes don't increase, his local traffic stays managable, and overall expenses don't increase.
The "average American" usually votes the party line and doesn't remember that his representative voted for Bill 1 and didn't vote for Bill 2.
Once you understand this, it's easy to understand why politicians stay in business (yes, I said it!) for so long.
Rarely does a politician, once entrenched in office, stick his or her neck out. But when it does happen, it should not only be noted, but applauded.
The most recent example is Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. She could have stayed in Congress. In fact, if she ran again, she would probably run unopposed. But the fact that she saw herself and said, "The people of my district deserve the best and that is not me" showed that she needed to step down. (Full disclosure, I'm a registered Republican and don't agree with many of her positions. But I can say that what she did took courage and a bit sadden that her district is losing someone who actually thought of them first.)
The problem is Joe Sixpack who continually vote these jokers back into office. Until we can get them to care more about their vote, we won't see radical change anytime soon.
Territory can be anything. You have to be able to defend your territory from other nation states, terrorists, etc.
Put it this way: The only reason the POTUS can be president is not because the Constitution says so. It's because the force and might of the US Armed Forces that protects the Constitution gives the POTUS power. I can say I'm the President but without the military, I'm just some lunatic.
Whether Sealand is "officially recognized" is not the point. They must be able to defend themselves from usurpers, much like the US did during the revolution. And they must be able to continually do so, less they become like some African nation that is constantly in civil unrest.
I seem to remember there was some slashdot story with just this premise. I can't seem to find it though...
I think this would a be a great "internet alternative" but nowhere near robust as the current internet. We would need to find a way where the average user (e.g. some dumb fool) to connect to it and get the information they want.
However, I don't see legit businesses (e.g. banks, stores, etc) using this.
I highly doubt it. A large majority, if not all, games that Zynga has are copies/clones/remixes of existing games. Zynga just has a better marketing department and a bigger advertising budget.
As horrible as the movie was, I believe Jeff Goldblum said it best in "Man of the Year": Perception of legitimacy is more important than legitimacy itself.
The WH petition system isn't even based on any law. For all intents and purposes, WH could say, "Yeah...get 5 signatures and we'll 'respond'."
BHO said it best when "petitioners" wanted a response to legalizing marijuana and he pretty much said STFU and GTFO.
I would actually vote for him if he had set up the website such that once there was enough votes, he would call a lackey in congress to actually draft a bill. That would have shown he had balls. But doing so would give power back to the people and that's just bad politics.
I don't mind T or other telecos putting a cap...just let your user base know.
What I hate is "UNLIMITED INTERNET*" with mouse print that says, "Actually, it's limited, but we're going to making it confusing by making you guess what it is. And we won't tell you you're about to go over because we're in this business to make money, not friends. Also, we're going to lock you in a contract that makes it impossible for you to take us to court but allows us to milk you dry should you decide to leave."
I didn't read the abstract but it seems like the biggest hurdle with any portable technology is power, more specifically battery life.
I predicted some 5-10 years ago that battery technology is due for a major advance, but I haven't seen it materialize. Sure, there have been a bunch of studies and experiments, but nothing impressive at the consumer level.
When they chose the president, a famous person, non-entity, etc, it's just lame. Last year was Mark Zuckerburg. That was a possible pick since Facebook has changes much of what we do online.
But when they chose "you" and "the protestor", I feel like they just had a dart board and just saw what stuck.
Story of the Year is probably a much accurate title, but won't sell as many mags or get as many people talking about it.
But your forgetting that ads have to, at a minimum, not disturb the user experience. Most online ads are very disturbing to the user. Blocking flash gets rid of a large majority of those ads.
One bad thing about HTML5 is that these ads will make it through the flashblock. Hopefully, AB+ will evolve to include those as well.
I will say this: at least they are giving the end user an option. I would prefer that the whitelist was opt-in, but having the option to block them is a good start.
The average consumer, who knows nothing about Android other than the fact that it runs on his phone, couldn't care less. They just know some new version came out and it will be rolled out on the phone soon.
People like you and me (e.g. the power users), who want the latest and greatest, will either attempt to compile the kernel ourselves or buy a new phone.
My guess is that phone companies -- or carriers -- have little incentive to actually push the update. Most people will want a newer model anyway so why waste the energy, time, money, and manpower on something few people will actually want.
Why is this necessary? Both already have native apps on mobile devices. Users can browse with IE, Firefox, Chrome, etc. What does the browser do that a normal browser doesn't?
This is a bit of a side question, but it begs to be asked: I've often wondered if there is a rep or senator that actually knows what the difference between "computer" and "CPU" without help from his staff.
I've actually considered running for office for these types of laws to be passed (REAL net-neutrality, get rid of software patents, etc). The more I get older, the more I'm convinced that most politicians are just mouthpieces of a PR firm that has voting privileges.
This is kind of like the Linus Torvald's view of things.
I think you should allow users to be able to do whatever they want to their devices. But I think that those companies should have the right to void the warranty if they do.
That way, if some dumb user jailbreaks his phone because he thought he could be cool, but royally messed it up, he can't go crying to the manufacturer for coverage.
I vaguely recall a judge pretty much saying that jailbreaking is not illegal, but may void the warranty. I only remember due to the large number of jokes of how Steve Jobs was just loving it since he now didn't have to support millions of jailbroken phones.
Legislative action would be nice, but if it's already done, then let's not waste the time.
Slashdot Mirror
But many of these rich people have insurance, private security, etc. I will concede that they use the legal system more but the legal system benefits all.
I remember my economics class when we discussed something like national defense. Everyone benefits from it, regardless of how much you pay. You can't "opt out" of national defense (at least not legally). We all pay for it, regardless of how you feel about it (Quakers and Mennonites not withstanding).
Another thing that confuses me is when people complain that the rich control the politicians. I would submit that this is true because they have the most to gain and lose. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the rich should pay more and then say that they shouldn't be protected. Keep in mind that I'm not saying it's right; it's just human nature. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.
I used to work for a non-profit and it easy to want to be nice to the folks with the big pockets. But I never forgot that the folks with the little pockets often gave more (in terms of percentage) and often really believed in my mission than those with deeper pockets.
I don't understand the logic behind this. This is what I hate about an income-based taxed system (or any tax system based on wealth). Just because I can pay more doesn't mean that I want to or I should.
Yes, I can pay $100 for a McDouble, but I want to pay $1.
Taxes are basically a payment for services. A wealthy/rich person does not get more services (in general; let's not get overly technical about this) just because he is rich. He pays for the police, pays for education, national defense, etc. Why should he pay more simply because he can? Assume for a moment that each person's share of all services is $100. Why should a rich guy be obligated to pay $10,000 when, more often than not, he uses less of those services than someone who is poor?
I understand that poor people may not be able to afford their taxes. This sucks. It truly does. But the solution is not to increase taxes on the rich. The solution is to decrease taxes on the poor.
Unfortunately, there really is no perfect tax system. I have my preference for a flat-national sales tax, but that's just me. Yes, it's got pros and cons and it's not perfect. But it's better than what we have now: a confusing set of laws where you only win if you can afford a creative tax lawyer.
Don't read this the wrong way: making laws should be transparent. I know at the local level, when bills are debated, there is always some crackpot who likes to take their 2-6 minutes to talk about something completely unrelated to the bill. This takes up valuable time but they really can't be stopped. The local reps don't want to do anything about it because the crackpot is usually homeless or elderly or otherwise infirmed. The point is that the local council will often do closed door meetings to get work done. (Let's move pass the fact that these reps don't have the backbone to actually ban the crackpot from speaking unless relevant to the bill at hand.)
I know that Congress doesn't work the same way (e.g. there are no public hearings where I can testify) but they do tend to have more closed door meetings than should be allowed. Furthermore, the notes/transcripts from these meetings are usually not made public (or if they are, it's impossible to find).
There are times when closed door meetings are necessary for progress. It sucks but it happens. But unless directly related to national security, transcripts should always be available to the People.
Saying it should happen and it actually happening are, at the moment, two totally different things separated by a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon. But one can dream...
Many of the companies named has defendants have used patent laws to their advantage. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, especially since Tim Berners-Lee, who is completely against software patents, is set to testify.
The large majority of first-sale doctrine cases were about actual objects (e.g. CDs, books, Lego Playset, etc). This case is strictly about a digital object, which both exists and doesn't exist.
It exists in the fact that a storage medium (a physical object) contains it. It doesn't exist in the sense that the file cannot be handled traditionally.
I've felt that the law is severely lacking in the digital area but, in all honestly, found that it's difficult to write laws for something that can be created out of nothing. I believe in principle that I should be able to sell my MP3s if I don't want them anymore. There is obviously a market for them. But I don't see how this will work in a world where I can sell the object but still keep it at the same time.
This is not possible with tangible objects, at least not until the Star Trek replicator is invented.
It's important only so far as that the public should know that she's the first woman to do (fill in the blank).
Just like Barack Obama was the first black man to (fill in the blank).
It's PR. They have to make things interesting.
Joe Sixpack stays happy so long as his overall taxes don't increase, his local traffic stays managable, and overall expenses don't increase.
The "average American" usually votes the party line and doesn't remember that his representative voted for Bill 1 and didn't vote for Bill 2.
Once you understand this, it's easy to understand why politicians stay in business (yes, I said it!) for so long.
Rarely does a politician, once entrenched in office, stick his or her neck out. But when it does happen, it should not only be noted, but applauded.
The most recent example is Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. She could have stayed in Congress. In fact, if she ran again, she would probably run unopposed. But the fact that she saw herself and said, "The people of my district deserve the best and that is not me" showed that she needed to step down. (Full disclosure, I'm a registered Republican and don't agree with many of her positions. But I can say that what she did took courage and a bit sadden that her district is losing someone who actually thought of them first.)
The problem is Joe Sixpack who continually vote these jokers back into office. Until we can get them to care more about their vote, we won't see radical change anytime soon.
Territory can be anything. You have to be able to defend your territory from other nation states, terrorists, etc.
Put it this way: The only reason the POTUS can be president is not because the Constitution says so. It's because the force and might of the US Armed Forces that protects the Constitution gives the POTUS power. I can say I'm the President but without the military, I'm just some lunatic.
Whether Sealand is "officially recognized" is not the point. They must be able to defend themselves from usurpers, much like the US did during the revolution. And they must be able to continually do so, less they become like some African nation that is constantly in civil unrest.
If you are against PIPA/SOPA, then you are not unbiased. Do you mean as "truthfully as possible"?
Both side of this argument have used puffery to describe the law. But the clearest argument against it I've seen is the one that Wordpress linked to.
I seem to remember there was some slashdot story with just this premise. I can't seem to find it though...
I think this would a be a great "internet alternative" but nowhere near robust as the current internet. We would need to find a way where the average user (e.g. some dumb fool) to connect to it and get the information they want.
However, I don't see legit businesses (e.g. banks, stores, etc) using this.
I highly doubt it. A large majority, if not all, games that Zynga has are copies/clones/remixes of existing games. Zynga just has a better marketing department and a bigger advertising budget.
As horrible as the movie was, I believe Jeff Goldblum said it best in "Man of the Year": Perception of legitimacy is more important than legitimacy itself.
The WH petition system isn't even based on any law. For all intents and purposes, WH could say, "Yeah...get 5 signatures and we'll 'respond'."
BHO said it best when "petitioners" wanted a response to legalizing marijuana and he pretty much said STFU and GTFO.
I would actually vote for him if he had set up the website such that once there was enough votes, he would call a lackey in congress to actually draft a bill. That would have shown he had balls. But doing so would give power back to the people and that's just bad politics.
I'd mod you up if I still had mod points left.
I don't mind T or other telecos putting a cap...just let your user base know.
What I hate is "UNLIMITED INTERNET*" with mouse print that says, "Actually, it's limited, but we're going to making it confusing by making you guess what it is. And we won't tell you you're about to go over because we're in this business to make money, not friends. Also, we're going to lock you in a contract that makes it impossible for you to take us to court but allows us to milk you dry should you decide to leave."
...just show how dangerous this bill is to the morons in Congress by deleting their google entries and removing *.gov sites from their respective DNS?
Doing this would very likely get their attention because their public profile would go down significantly.
IANAL but I suspect that doing this would be legal since Google's search engine is private property and if it wants to eliminate results it can.
I have found that when it comes politicians, showing is more powerful than telling.
I didn't read the abstract but it seems like the biggest hurdle with any portable technology is power, more specifically battery life.
I predicted some 5-10 years ago that battery technology is due for a major advance, but I haven't seen it materialize. Sure, there have been a bunch of studies and experiments, but nothing impressive at the consumer level.
When they chose the president, a famous person, non-entity, etc, it's just lame. Last year was Mark Zuckerburg. That was a possible pick since Facebook has changes much of what we do online.
But when they chose "you" and "the protestor", I feel like they just had a dart board and just saw what stuck.
Story of the Year is probably a much accurate title, but won't sell as many mags or get as many people talking about it.
If I write a book and I reserve all rights, I can copy my own book if I wanted to, right?
I'm not sure why this would have the headline as "Busted!" outside of the fact that they were seen downloading a movie that was already theirs.
But your forgetting that ads have to, at a minimum, not disturb the user experience. Most online ads are very disturbing to the user. Blocking flash gets rid of a large majority of those ads.
One bad thing about HTML5 is that these ads will make it through the flashblock. Hopefully, AB+ will evolve to include those as well.
I will say this: at least they are giving the end user an option. I would prefer that the whitelist was opt-in, but having the option to block them is a good start.
Not necessarily so.
The average consumer, who knows nothing about Android other than the fact that it runs on his phone, couldn't care less. They just know some new version came out and it will be rolled out on the phone soon.
People like you and me (e.g. the power users), who want the latest and greatest, will either attempt to compile the kernel ourselves or buy a new phone.
My guess is that phone companies -- or carriers -- have little incentive to actually push the update. Most people will want a newer model anyway so why waste the energy, time, money, and manpower on something few people will actually want.
Why is this necessary? Both already have native apps on mobile devices. Users can browse with IE, Firefox, Chrome, etc. What does the browser do that a normal browser doesn't?
This is a bit of a side question, but it begs to be asked: I've often wondered if there is a rep or senator that actually knows what the difference between "computer" and "CPU" without help from his staff.
I've actually considered running for office for these types of laws to be passed (REAL net-neutrality, get rid of software patents, etc). The more I get older, the more I'm convinced that most politicians are just mouthpieces of a PR firm that has voting privileges.
This is kind of like the Linus Torvald's view of things.
I think you should allow users to be able to do whatever they want to their devices. But I think that those companies should have the right to void the warranty if they do.
That way, if some dumb user jailbreaks his phone because he thought he could be cool, but royally messed it up, he can't go crying to the manufacturer for coverage.
I vaguely recall a judge pretty much saying that jailbreaking is not illegal, but may void the warranty. I only remember due to the large number of jokes of how Steve Jobs was just loving it since he now didn't have to support millions of jailbroken phones.
Legislative action would be nice, but if it's already done, then let's not waste the time.
Article says won't but summary says can't.
There is a world of difference between those two words.