>>>In the US, I'd be a lot more concerned if the President were not the one with final say over what the military is up to.
What you SHOULD be concerned about is the President already ordered the execution of 3 U.S. citizens, including an underage minor. I didn't realize the death penalty could be applied without a right to trial (or against juveniles... I thought they were exempt). We live in dangerous days.
The fact that you are more concerned that your President is killing US citizens without charge or trial outside of a warzone than that your President is killing human beings without charge or trial outside of a warzone is at the heart of what is wrong with your country.
You have started down the path where arbitrary murder by the state is sometimes acceptable. You can still turn back, but you need to turn back right now, in relation to all human beings.
It will be interesting to see how the US reacts when, with its power in decline, China or India or Russia start killing civilians in other countries because they are on some "kill list" or other.
Until the day I receive some value for my money, until I can go into a theater and see a movie that is more than just spectacle, explosion and skin, until the day when a movie can stand up against the best novels and plays without flinching, I will not go to the movies. It is as simple as that.
So you place no value whatsoever on the pure visual spectacle. You refer to theatre, which suggests that you are happy to have your stories conveyed to you by people standing around in an unchanging, brownish room talking to one another.
I'd say you're atypical, even amongst people into the arts. While I don't mind a decent play, the experience of watching a genuinely good movie cannot be replicated by a book or theatre production.
Do you avoid art galleries because you can stay at home and read descriptions of what's in the paintings?
Furthermore, you must be going to the wrong movies, because there are many, many movies which are "more than just spectacle, explosion and skin". Try avoiding "The Avengers" and go to something with some substance instead.
I must disagree about 3D, too. Used properly, it does add to the quality of the visual spectacle.
In Prometheus, 3D wasn't apparent for the first minute or so of the film until the crucial-but-forgotten scene of the alien dosing himself. I started wondering about whether the film was set up for someone with a shorter distance between their eyes.
Interesting that you would say that - I found the 3D instantly effective from the moment the film started, so perhaps your speculation about eye separation is right. I watch a lot of movies and would say that Prometheus is the best looking film I've seen in a cinema.
3D is a challenging thing for the./ crowd. On the one hand it's quite a nifty technology and falls into that category of "things people in the 1950s would happen in the future which are finally, belatedly happening". On the other hand, people here are such cynical, tightwad shut-ins that they scream and yell about how it's a gimmicky rip-off propagated by the Hollywood mafia designed to lure them out of their basement lairs and steal their thoughts.
IMHO Prometheus (and also recently, Hugo) shows that 3D has matured to a point where it can be used to great effect to actually enhance movies, instead of being used as a gimmick where things 'poke out' of the screen at you. The only thing I dislike is that it does not capture real 3D - you can't move your head to see behind something, for example.
Yep, would you rather be (a) uber successful but smelly, nasty, humourless and loveless, or (b) less successful but regularly bathed, kind, funny and loved?
Of course this is slashdot so I should offer option (c), unsuccessful, smelly, nasty, humourless and loveless.
'Tenenbaum is just entering the job market and can't pay the penalty.'
That's what garnishments-for-life are for. Talk to some divorced fathers.
I wish people would stop focusing on his particular situation. It is irrelevant whether he practically can or cannot pay. The penalty is outrageous even if he's a billionaire.
At least Apple didn't replace the response with an endorsement for their own product, which is what I'd expect from any vendor (including Apple). Questions like this, after all, have a definite conflict of interest.
In what universe is the "hilarious" response not an endorsement of their own product?
laptop, or phone, to help ME out with attaining knowledge not to serve the corporate master who built the computer/laptop/phone.
Then you shouldn't be buying Apple. It's well known their platform is all about lockdown and tying you into their ecosystem.
If you want an open platform, buy an open platform. Apple is not that. Hasn't been for decades.
You would have a point if every Apple ad clearly stated that Apple reserves the right to filter your access to information in a way which is favourable to Apple and unfavourable to its competitors or people it just doesn't like very much.
Until then, Apple presents products which people believe to be devices for accessing information in an unbiased way, which are in fact not doing that at all.
I suggest that what you think is "well known" is in fact known only by a tiny percentage of informed geeks. The average iphone user has no idea that Apple would interfere with their search results to prevent them finding out about rival products.
There are plenty of reviews from established, recognised websites which rate the new Nokia phones very highly indeed. Outstanding hardware, good mobile OS, good battery life, etc etc etc.
You truly are brainwashed if you think this is just "astroturfing" by Microsoft when the truth is obviously that Apple is abusing its market power to skew search results in its favour.
the obvious correlation between piracy and decreased music sales is intellectually dishonest
What's intellectually dishonest is asserting that there is an "obvious correlation".
A few points about music:
1. Supply is effectively infinite. There is always something new you haven't listened to yet. You could never consume it all in one lifetime of non-stop listening.
2. Copying music without a licence does not in any way imply that you would buy the relevant music. At most, it implies that you were sufficiently interested to invest about 10 seconds of your time and about 10 cents worth of bandwidth to "check it out".
3. Copying music without a licence does imply that you are interested in listening to music generally. The more you copy, the more interested you are. There are studies showing that the biggest "pirates" tend to be the biggest spenders on music.
4. In my experience, there is an extremely strong correlation between people copying music and people buying music. Specifically, many people now essentially "try before they buy". For example, someone might download an old Radiohead album. If they have any taste, they will be blown away by its quality. Next time Radiohead release a new album, they will be far, far more likely to buy it than they were before.
5. Most people have a reasonably hard limit of how much spending on entertainment they can "justify". Because the supply of new music is near infinite, people are likely to spend up to their limit on music and then copy thereafter (not as neatly as that, but psychologically).
6. IIRC there is evidence that the rise in on-line copying has actually improved music sales.
7. Music isn't like a car. You don't download one album, then not want another one for 10 years.
In 2012, I don't think there are any. 55 years ago there were, but even then, it was more starting at age 6.
Yes, the great comic book burning of 2011 was a grim day indeed. Such a shame that the comics from 55 years ago were all turned to ashes in that terrible hellfire.
+1 - I have a very similar setup to you, 720p panasonic plasma from about 3-4 metres. When I go to my friend's place, who has a 1080p panasonic plasma at the same distance, the difference is obvious. I could tell the difference 10/10 times from the same source material (we both have PS3s which are used as Blu Ray players).
Likewise the difference between 480p and 720p is not "noticeable" from 3-4 metres, it's instantly, glaringly obvious.
I've seen charts like this before - basically a bunch of HDTV nerds who prefer what some dubious analysis of biology tells them over their own eyes.
Do you like movies, sport, and high quality TV shows and value image quality?
Yes: buy a 1080p plasma and a blu ray player and enjoy insanely high quality video in your living room.
No: buy any other TV on the market and a DVD player then sit around congratulating yourself because "no-one can tell the difference between DVD and blu ray anyway" etc etc (or post the same on slashdot every time a TV related comment is made).
Everyone is assuming that desktops are the target here.
There is no reason why MS can't run a strategy of Windows 7 continuing to be supported as the primary desktop/serious OS, and Windows 8 being deployed for a disparate range of non-desktop applications. That would be quite smart, actually.
AFAIK there has been no indication that Win 7 is about to become unavailable or unsupported.
Exactly - another product I can cross off the list of possible future purchases due to a decision to lock buyers in to an association with Apple in order to get full use out of the product.
I'll put it on the list with every clock/radio alarm clock in existence and various other cars.
The current (minority) Australian government is ruled by the Labour Party, which is left-wing. As a rule, right-wing parties are more favourable to participatory democracy, while our left wing parties prefer a "nanny" state, controlled by an oligarchy. Their secrecy is a natural outcome of this, as they believe they know what is good for us.
What absolute crap.
For starters, Labor is centrist or perhaps slightly right of centre on most social issues.
Secondly, the previous (right wing) government favoured authoritarianism and money-as-power and introduced things like: indefinite detention of refugees; harsh anti-terror laws, including detention without trial; scrapping cross-media ownership to reduce diversity and allow corporations to control the media; stacking the independent public broadcaster with right wing loonies to shut down objective news reporting; vilifying minorities; supporting the torture and detention of foreigners and Australian citizens via the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; etc etc etc.
Labor isn't much better. But the Liberal Party is about as anti-participatory democracy as it gets.
The current government is suffering from deep popularity problems and will be very nervous about further antagonising an already angry and disillusioned public. They will be aware of what happened with SOPA and what is happening with ACTA right now in Europe.
So make some noise, damn you. Stop telling us these people don't represent you, and start telling your government.
Write letters, emails, tweets, Facebook updates:
- tell everyone you know about this - if they are even slightly interested (or skeptical of your claims) be prepared to explain the situation and issues to them politely and without frothing at the mouth
- write to newspapers, comments on on-line news articles, generally increase the amount of negative feedback in places where strangers will see this
- for god's sake, write to your local MP and state senators. You may think it doesn't change anything, but if they get enough letters they get nervous, and when they get nervous they apply pressure on those in control of their party's agenda. I suggest telling them: that you voted for them last time and might vote for them but won't if they keep this up; that you are prepared to protest about this and will do everything you can to spread the word about it; that you will be agitating for a change of policy in every forum you can think of.
- write/email/tweet to the Liberal Party telling them this issue is important and you feel betrayed by the Labor government, and ask them what their policy is and what they are going to do about this
- write to the minor parties and tell them you are concerned and want them to raise this issue in parliament
- see if there is an organised campaign via GetUp, EFA etc and get involved - give them money, at minimum, actively help if you can in other ways
Our system isn't properly representative, but our politicians are driven by self-interest. You will notice that the net filter went on the back burner and never came back - the same can be achieved with this issue.
What doesn't achieve anything is complaining about it to a bunch of people who agree with you!
Other people have morals based on other things, including not hurting people's feelings. How can you judge yours to be better, except to claim that your beliefs are better?
So if I propose a system of government which includes a rule that citizens randomly murdering one another is not only acceptable, but necessary and commendable, you would have no way of concluding that my system is worse than our current system other than blind belief?
Is North Korea's system equally valid with only an assertion of belief to distinguish it from ours? Etc etc.
Using the word "morals" is slightly loaded IMHO, too. "Ethics" or "principles" would be more neutral language.
2. If you try to change rule no. 1, you just make things worse.
This type of pessimism is frustrating. And you are wrong.
Rewind about 500-1000 years. Pretty much 100% of the wealth around the world was held be a sovereign of some kind and his mates, who between them shuffled some tribute money around but otherwise gained more wealth by taxing the pittance earned by everyone else. Killing a random animal in a random bit of wilderness was a crime because all animals belonged to the King, etc.
A couple of hundred years ago this had shifted such that the state, independent of the crown, was stepping in, intercepting some of the wealth and redistributing it via social spending. Serfdom and slavery were on the way out. Meanwhile property and other laws had evolved so that the poor could start becoming the middle class through hard work, with obviously much less of a boost at the start than the landed gentry.
Today, at least in principle, we agree that the rich and privileged deserve no special treatment, and that at least the opportunity to acquire and hold wealth is akin to a universal right. The fact that we haven't fully implemented a system which puts this into practice doesn't mean that "the rich always have it better", nor does the fact that we have recently experienced some short term backsliding on the move from "the king has everything" to "everyone has something".
In other words, you need to use a larger data set than just the last few years or decades. On a longer timeline there has been a very successful reduction in the extent to which the rich get their own way. The current thrashing around by companies and wealthy individuals post-financial crisis indicates to me that they appreciate that their only chance to maintain their privilege is to manipulate things outside of the rules of the game (political influence and tax evasion, for example).
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Should have inheritance tax then - the inheritance is income.
As for the borrowing stuff - how is that supposed to work? So Ellison borrows against his shares (fair enough) and buys something with it. So now he has to pay back the loan. That payment needs to come from income, and for that he pays tax. Seems fair.
Excellent post. The problem here (at least from a taxation perspective) isn't the holding of wealth in shares so much as the fact that they can be locked up and then sidestep tax upon death.
The solution is that the person inheriting the shares has to pay a tax on their capital gain.
So long as you have that, plus a tax on dividends and on actual income, all increases in wealth are covered and taxed.
I assume critics of these guys holding wealth in shares wouldn't be too thrilled if the government re-assessed the value of their house and charged them a percentage of any gains every year.
I know it may sound crazy, but it really pisses me off when I see a $20+ Bluray title, with super high resolution compared to the LD, and yet still have bullshit encoding artifacts in high speed motion scenes. LD did not have that.
With the greatest of respect, you're insane. I've watched hundreds of blu rays and noticed distracting artifacts on maybe 3 or 4 of them. You are preventing yourself from enjoying by far the best home theatre experience yet devised on the basis of OCD-type concerns about a very minor issue.
I'd group the vinyl and tape people in with the vhs heads..
Tape, maybe. Vinyl, no, you are wrong.
Tell me, have you ever listened to a newly pressed vinyl played through a half-decent hi fi? No? Then you don't really know what the hell you're talking about, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
>>>In the US, I'd be a lot more concerned if the President were not the one with final say over what the military is up to.
What you SHOULD be concerned about is the President already ordered the execution of 3 U.S. citizens, including an underage minor. I didn't realize the death penalty could be applied without a right to trial (or against juveniles... I thought they were exempt). We live in dangerous days.
The fact that you are more concerned that your President is killing US citizens without charge or trial outside of a warzone than that your President is killing human beings without charge or trial outside of a warzone is at the heart of what is wrong with your country.
You have started down the path where arbitrary murder by the state is sometimes acceptable. You can still turn back, but you need to turn back right now, in relation to all human beings.
It will be interesting to see how the US reacts when, with its power in decline, China or India or Russia start killing civilians in other countries because they are on some "kill list" or other.
Until the day I receive some value for my money, until I can go into a theater and see a movie that is more than just spectacle, explosion and skin, until the day when a movie can stand up against the best novels and plays without flinching, I will not go to the movies. It is as simple as that.
So you place no value whatsoever on the pure visual spectacle. You refer to theatre, which suggests that you are happy to have your stories conveyed to you by people standing around in an unchanging, brownish room talking to one another.
I'd say you're atypical, even amongst people into the arts. While I don't mind a decent play, the experience of watching a genuinely good movie cannot be replicated by a book or theatre production.
Do you avoid art galleries because you can stay at home and read descriptions of what's in the paintings?
Furthermore, you must be going to the wrong movies, because there are many, many movies which are "more than just spectacle, explosion and skin". Try avoiding "The Avengers" and go to something with some substance instead.
I must disagree about 3D, too. Used properly, it does add to the quality of the visual spectacle.
In Prometheus, 3D wasn't apparent for the first minute or so of the film until the crucial-but-forgotten scene of the alien dosing himself. I started wondering about whether the film was set up for someone with a shorter distance between their eyes.
Interesting that you would say that - I found the 3D instantly effective from the moment the film started, so perhaps your speculation about eye separation is right. I watch a lot of movies and would say that Prometheus is the best looking film I've seen in a cinema.
3D is a challenging thing for the ./ crowd. On the one hand it's quite a nifty technology and falls into that category of "things people in the 1950s would happen in the future which are finally, belatedly happening". On the other hand, people here are such cynical, tightwad shut-ins that they scream and yell about how it's a gimmicky rip-off propagated by the Hollywood mafia designed to lure them out of their basement lairs and steal their thoughts.
IMHO Prometheus (and also recently, Hugo) shows that 3D has matured to a point where it can be used to great effect to actually enhance movies, instead of being used as a gimmick where things 'poke out' of the screen at you. The only thing I dislike is that it does not capture real 3D - you can't move your head to see behind something, for example.
Yep, would you rather be (a) uber successful but smelly, nasty, humourless and loveless, or (b) less successful but regularly bathed, kind, funny and loved?
Of course this is slashdot so I should offer option (c), unsuccessful, smelly, nasty, humourless and loveless.
As a psychopath, he was excellent at identifying and exploiting them for personal gain.
'Tenenbaum is just entering the job market and can't pay the penalty.'
That's what garnishments-for-life are for. Talk to some divorced fathers.
I wish people would stop focusing on his particular situation. It is irrelevant whether he practically can or cannot pay. The penalty is outrageous even if he's a billionaire.
At least Apple didn't replace the response with an endorsement for their own product, which is what I'd expect from any vendor (including Apple). Questions like this, after all, have a definite conflict of interest.
In what universe is the "hilarious" response not an endorsement of their own product?
laptop, or phone, to help ME out with attaining knowledge not to serve the corporate master who built the computer/laptop/phone.
Then you shouldn't be buying Apple. It's well known their platform is all about lockdown and tying you into their ecosystem.
If you want an open platform, buy an open platform. Apple is not that. Hasn't been for decades.
You would have a point if every Apple ad clearly stated that Apple reserves the right to filter your access to information in a way which is favourable to Apple and unfavourable to its competitors or people it just doesn't like very much.
Until then, Apple presents products which people believe to be devices for accessing information in an unbiased way, which are in fact not doing that at all.
I suggest that what you think is "well known" is in fact known only by a tiny percentage of informed geeks. The average iphone user has no idea that Apple would interfere with their search results to prevent them finding out about rival products.
There are plenty of reviews from established, recognised websites which rate the new Nokia phones very highly indeed. Outstanding hardware, good mobile OS, good battery life, etc etc etc.
You truly are brainwashed if you think this is just "astroturfing" by Microsoft when the truth is obviously that Apple is abusing its market power to skew search results in its favour.
the obvious correlation between piracy and decreased music sales is intellectually dishonest
What's intellectually dishonest is asserting that there is an "obvious correlation".
A few points about music:
1. Supply is effectively infinite. There is always something new you haven't listened to yet. You could never consume it all in one lifetime of non-stop listening.
2. Copying music without a licence does not in any way imply that you would buy the relevant music. At most, it implies that you were sufficiently interested to invest about 10 seconds of your time and about 10 cents worth of bandwidth to "check it out".
3. Copying music without a licence does imply that you are interested in listening to music generally. The more you copy, the more interested you are. There are studies showing that the biggest "pirates" tend to be the biggest spenders on music.
4. In my experience, there is an extremely strong correlation between people copying music and people buying music. Specifically, many people now essentially "try before they buy". For example, someone might download an old Radiohead album. If they have any taste, they will be blown away by its quality. Next time Radiohead release a new album, they will be far, far more likely to buy it than they were before.
5. Most people have a reasonably hard limit of how much spending on entertainment they can "justify". Because the supply of new music is near infinite, people are likely to spend up to their limit on music and then copy thereafter (not as neatly as that, but psychologically).
6. IIRC there is evidence that the rise in on-line copying has actually improved music sales.
7. Music isn't like a car. You don't download one album, then not want another one for 10 years.
In 2012, I don't think there are any. 55 years ago there were, but even then, it was more starting at age 6.
Yes, the great comic book burning of 2011 was a grim day indeed. Such a shame that the comics from 55 years ago were all turned to ashes in that terrible hellfire.
+1 - I have a very similar setup to you, 720p panasonic plasma from about 3-4 metres. When I go to my friend's place, who has a 1080p panasonic plasma at the same distance, the difference is obvious. I could tell the difference 10/10 times from the same source material (we both have PS3s which are used as Blu Ray players).
Likewise the difference between 480p and 720p is not "noticeable" from 3-4 metres, it's instantly, glaringly obvious.
I've seen charts like this before - basically a bunch of HDTV nerds who prefer what some dubious analysis of biology tells them over their own eyes.
Do you like movies, sport, and high quality TV shows and value image quality?
Yes: buy a 1080p plasma and a blu ray player and enjoy insanely high quality video in your living room.
No: buy any other TV on the market and a DVD player then sit around congratulating yourself because "no-one can tell the difference between DVD and blu ray anyway" etc etc (or post the same on slashdot every time a TV related comment is made).
Maybe for a tablet, it's OK.
Everyone is assuming that desktops are the target here.
There is no reason why MS can't run a strategy of Windows 7 continuing to be supported as the primary desktop/serious OS, and Windows 8 being deployed for a disparate range of non-desktop applications. That would be quite smart, actually.
AFAIK there has been no indication that Win 7 is about to become unavailable or unsupported.
Exactly - another product I can cross off the list of possible future purchases due to a decision to lock buyers in to an association with Apple in order to get full use out of the product.
I'll put it on the list with every clock/radio alarm clock in existence and various other cars.
The current (minority) Australian government is ruled by the Labour Party, which is left-wing. As a rule, right-wing parties are more favourable to participatory democracy, while our left wing parties prefer a "nanny" state, controlled by an oligarchy. Their secrecy is a natural outcome of this, as they believe they know what is good for us.
What absolute crap.
For starters, Labor is centrist or perhaps slightly right of centre on most social issues.
Secondly, the previous (right wing) government favoured authoritarianism and money-as-power and introduced things like: indefinite detention of refugees; harsh anti-terror laws, including detention without trial; scrapping cross-media ownership to reduce diversity and allow corporations to control the media; stacking the independent public broadcaster with right wing loonies to shut down objective news reporting; vilifying minorities; supporting the torture and detention of foreigners and Australian citizens via the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; etc etc etc.
Labor isn't much better. But the Liberal Party is about as anti-participatory democracy as it gets.
The current government is suffering from deep popularity problems and will be very nervous about further antagonising an already angry and disillusioned public. They will be aware of what happened with SOPA and what is happening with ACTA right now in Europe.
So make some noise, damn you. Stop telling us these people don't represent you, and start telling your government.
Write letters, emails, tweets, Facebook updates:
- tell everyone you know about this - if they are even slightly interested (or skeptical of your claims) be prepared to explain the situation and issues to them politely and without frothing at the mouth
- write to newspapers, comments on on-line news articles, generally increase the amount of negative feedback in places where strangers will see this
- for god's sake, write to your local MP and state senators. You may think it doesn't change anything, but if they get enough letters they get nervous, and when they get nervous they apply pressure on those in control of their party's agenda. I suggest telling them: that you voted for them last time and might vote for them but won't if they keep this up; that you are prepared to protest about this and will do everything you can to spread the word about it; that you will be agitating for a change of policy in every forum you can think of.
- write/email/tweet to the Liberal Party telling them this issue is important and you feel betrayed by the Labor government, and ask them what their policy is and what they are going to do about this
- write to the minor parties and tell them you are concerned and want them to raise this issue in parliament
- see if there is an organised campaign via GetUp, EFA etc and get involved - give them money, at minimum, actively help if you can in other ways
Our system isn't properly representative, but our politicians are driven by self-interest. You will notice that the net filter went on the back burner and never came back - the same can be achieved with this issue.
What doesn't achieve anything is complaining about it to a bunch of people who agree with you!
you never heard of iTunes?
i'm a dyed in the wool apple hater and i've heard of iTunes.
Interesting - so iTunes will let me buy, download and play video in Australia on my PS3, which I already own? Good to know.
Other people have morals based on other things, including not hurting people's feelings. How can you judge yours to be better, except to claim that your beliefs are better?
So if I propose a system of government which includes a rule that citizens randomly murdering one another is not only acceptable, but necessary and commendable, you would have no way of concluding that my system is worse than our current system other than blind belief?
Is North Korea's system equally valid with only an assertion of belief to distinguish it from ours? Etc etc.
Using the word "morals" is slightly loaded IMHO, too. "Ethics" or "principles" would be more neutral language.
No, you can't hear a difference between this $5000 speaker and this $150 speaker.
I think it's terrific that someone who is profoundly deaf can still participate in a discussion about hi fi equipment.
1. The rich always have it better.
2. If you try to change rule no. 1, you just make things worse.
This type of pessimism is frustrating. And you are wrong.
Rewind about 500-1000 years. Pretty much 100% of the wealth around the world was held be a sovereign of some kind and his mates, who between them shuffled some tribute money around but otherwise gained more wealth by taxing the pittance earned by everyone else. Killing a random animal in a random bit of wilderness was a crime because all animals belonged to the King, etc.
A couple of hundred years ago this had shifted such that the state, independent of the crown, was stepping in, intercepting some of the wealth and redistributing it via social spending. Serfdom and slavery were on the way out. Meanwhile property and other laws had evolved so that the poor could start becoming the middle class through hard work, with obviously much less of a boost at the start than the landed gentry.
Today, at least in principle, we agree that the rich and privileged deserve no special treatment, and that at least the opportunity to acquire and hold wealth is akin to a universal right. The fact that we haven't fully implemented a system which puts this into practice doesn't mean that "the rich always have it better", nor does the fact that we have recently experienced some short term backsliding on the move from "the king has everything" to "everyone has something".
In other words, you need to use a larger data set than just the last few years or decades. On a longer timeline there has been a very successful reduction in the extent to which the rich get their own way. The current thrashing around by companies and wealthy individuals post-financial crisis indicates to me that they appreciate that their only chance to maintain their privilege is to manipulate things outside of the rules of the game (political influence and tax evasion, for example).
Should have inheritance tax then - the inheritance is income.
As for the borrowing stuff - how is that supposed to work? So Ellison borrows against his shares (fair enough) and buys something with it. So now he has to pay back the loan. That payment needs to come from income, and for that he pays tax. Seems fair.
Excellent post. The problem here (at least from a taxation perspective) isn't the holding of wealth in shares so much as the fact that they can be locked up and then sidestep tax upon death.
The solution is that the person inheriting the shares has to pay a tax on their capital gain.
So long as you have that, plus a tax on dividends and on actual income, all increases in wealth are covered and taxed.
I assume critics of these guys holding wealth in shares wouldn't be too thrilled if the government re-assessed the value of their house and charged them a percentage of any gains every year.
It becomes an Heisenbergian problem.
If Heisenberg has taught us anything, it's that all money problems can be solved by manufacturing huge quantities of crystal meth.
I know it may sound crazy, but it really pisses me off when I see a $20+ Bluray title, with super high resolution compared to the LD, and yet still have bullshit encoding artifacts in high speed motion scenes. LD did not have that.
With the greatest of respect, you're insane. I've watched hundreds of blu rays and noticed distracting artifacts on maybe 3 or 4 of them. You are preventing yourself from enjoying by far the best home theatre experience yet devised on the basis of OCD-type concerns about a very minor issue.
I'd group the vinyl and tape people in with the vhs heads..
Tape, maybe. Vinyl, no, you are wrong.
Tell me, have you ever listened to a newly pressed vinyl played through a half-decent hi fi? No? Then you don't really know what the hell you're talking about, do you?