you wouldn't, by any chance, be a RIAA astroturf artist would you?
Nope. My dislike for them and for uninformed statements are about level, so it's an interesting tightrope. Read my history, if you want. The RIAA sure as fuck ain't going to pay a Canadian to post on non-RIAA related topics on slashdot. But while we're dodging the discussion in favor of silly acusations, how do I know you aren't a front account posting on slashdot to drum up card numbers for some crooked russian outfit?
I'll I keep hearing from your side is lots of FUD (russians are scary, woooooo) and little compelling reason to avoid their service.
I'm not employing scare tactics, just common sense. If one is going to break the law, why not do it on p2p for free? Why pay someone halfway around the world to accomplish the same goal? It's just as illegal, and you're opening yourself to the possibility of credit card fraud. The mere fact that they'll sell music to you demonstates that legality of action is not their primary concern.
Instead of RIAA simply cutting off AllofMP3 (which I confidently assert is the single largest distributor of online music to US citizens) from US credit card payments they choose piddly ass cases against grandmothers and teenie boppers as a scare tactic.
You could assert that, but please provide proof if you want to discuss it as a serious fact. It seems to me that allofmp3 is nowhere near the buzzword that napster/kazaa was; it's utterly obscure to the general public. It's your assertion, back it up.
Why don't the RIAA shut it down? How can they? It operates in fucking Russia, and they probably have the Russian distribution rights payed up; only their foreign distribution is likely illegal. Unless the operators pull a Skylarov and show up on US shore, the RIAA probably can't do shit. They can't subpoena the server logs, they don't have legal standing there, the State Department probably has a million things better to do than pester the Russian authorities about it, and the Russians probably don't give a shit anyways. But that cuts both ways. They decide to fuck with your credit card, good fucking luck getting the Russian police to give a shit about it.
They went after the teeniebopper and Grandmda distributors. The RIAA never filed a case against a downloader, ever; all the kazaa suits were against people dumb enough to check the "I want to be a supernode" box. So if all you're doing is downloading and not uploading (which is, after all, all you can do at allofmp3) again, I ask, why give your credit card to a foreign corporation of dubious legality? You're just as unlikely to face prosecution downloading for free off a p2p network. You're still breaking the law, either way, but you're absolutely right in that you'll probably never get "your ass whooped" over it. Why pay, unless you're buying into the scam that allofmp3 is running, the delusion that it's a legal service.
Ignoring the easy shot against the big fish in favor of making examples of people who'd rather lose and settle out of court than win in court and see their life savings consumed in legal costs suggests to me that the big fish isn't the easy target you make them out to be...
In fact, I have never suggested they were an easy target, merely that them distributing to the US (and US customers downloading from them) is illegal, and therefore redundant given the availability of the material for free through other avenues here. None of that in the least suggests that they are an easy target.
The point, which you quite entirely missed, is that when one downloads music from a site, a copy is necessarily made. That's why these kinds of purchases are governed by copyright law, and not (as others in this thread have mistakenly thought) customs laws.
The relevance in the Apple example is that Apple has negotiated the legal right to sell their music with the US (and UK, French, and German) copyright holders and so can legally sell copies of the music in those places, just as allofmp3 has (presumably) done so in order to legally sell copies of the music. The relevance is that, despite the fact the iTMS can legally sell the music in the US, they cannot legally sell me the music in Canada, Spain, or anywhere but the US (or France, the UK, and Germany).
Thus your point is quite irrelevant. Allofmp3 may well have the legal right to sell the music within Russia, but they clearly have not negotiated the right to do so with the US rightsholders, and so cannot legally sell the music to US customers. The service is thus illegal in the US. If you want to give your credit card number to a set of people in a foreign country with very lax laws half way around the world who almost certainly know that they are acting illegally that is your perogative, but it is not a course of action I would recommend.
Indeed, under Canadian law, using AllofMP3 is probably legal insofar as one has the right to download (but not share) a copy of the music. But there's no point in doing so, because it's every bit as legal to use $P2P_APP_OF_CHOICE in Canada to download for free.
In the US, on the other hand, it's just as illegal to download from allofmp3 as it is to download from the p2p service, so there's still no point in using allofmp3, unless you really enjoy giving your credit card number to Russians running a service of highly dubious legality.
Question: Why can't I use the iTunes Music Store outside of the US, UK, France, or Germany?
Answer: Because Apple has not secured the copyrights for the songs they sell outside of those 4 countries.
If having the distribution rights in one country were enough to allow you to distribute worldwide, you can damn sure bet Apple would do so. They wouldn't deny themselves a revenue stream like that.
Just because the RIAA hasn't commented on it, it doesn't mean it's it legal.
Google isn't reporting or delivering news. It is indexing those sites that do.
But if it wants to remain relevant, it needs to make sure it index those sites in such a way that a balanced presentation of respectable news sites are presented for a query. If the top stories continually run along the lines of "John Kerry is a Gay Commie Space Alien" just because some 2nd tier nutso conservative blog figured out how to best exploit the indexing algorithm, Google News will quickly become useless.
I just walked past a copy of WinXP Home Edition in a "Bargain Bin" at Costco [costco.com], on sale for $299 CAD
Get real. I don't know what you mean by CAD, but it sure as fuck isn't Canadian dollars. XP Home retails for $140-160 tops here, and it sure as hell isn't running $300 at Costco.
In my experience, even MDK-10.1-Beta-1 was more stable than MDK-10.0-Community.
That good to hear, although I don't see how it could possibly have been worse. 10.0-Community, in what has to be the most spectacularly weird autoconfig bug I've ever seen in all my time with Linux, somehow managed to confuse my PC Speaker with my sound card, and proceeded to attempt to pipe all sound through it. It was the single most gawdawful noise I've ever experienced in my life.
Thus, considering that Jobs is a MASSIVE Beatles fan, they go to EMI and Apple Corps and ask if they can put the Beatles can go on the iTMS.
EMI defers to Apple Corps and Apple Corps says no. They also remind Apple about the 1991 agreement concerning the use of the Apple trademark and music.
So.. they went to EMI to license music for a store that didn't exist, and then, when they couldn't license the music, they decide to set up a music store to goad Apple Records into suing them??
This isn't even a chicken and the egg problem. You've got the egg hatching before the Big Bang occurs.
Barring some sort of change in policy by the Supreme Court, I don't see how refusing to pay your taxes is going to improve your chances of getting any of the above done.
Precisely. I'm interested to see how he rationalizes it, though (as he apparently hasn't payed income tax in a number of years), to get a feeling for his character. Basically I want to see how (ir)rational his justifications are, assuming that question through some miracle ends up before him.
Okay. And these problems, of one city, were fixed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
You're assertion was that there were no wide spread issues or problems in the US prior to the New Deal. This was a wide spread issue predating the New Deal. The issue was, over the years, tackled by the City, State, and Federal governments. Who exactly fixed it (and when, and if it ever was) are issues utterly tangental to the simple fact that it stands (along with other problems, like the civil war, slavery, the great depression, the monopolists, etc, etc) as a refutation of your blanket assertion, attempts to retcon said assertion on your part not withstanding.
Name a problem in the time period before FDR that legitimized all the federal programs he ushered in. The Great Depression gave him a blank check to do whatever he wanted. And indeed he did.
Your 'question' presupposes that the Great Depression was not a sufficiently legitimate motivation for implementing the New Deal. I disagree utterly with such an assertion; as such, your insistence on stipulating its illegitmacy as part of the question utterly precludes any rational discussion of the policies, as you are disallowing its major motivation as a basis for any argument against you. Score -1, Troll.
The incredible problem with crime and slum/tenemant housing in turn of the century New York, the turn of the century 'robber barron' monopolists, the CIVIL F$%&ing WAR...
The suggestion that there were no widespread problems or issues in the US prior to the New Deal is sheerest fantasy, utterly disconnected from reality.
"Became interested in the U.S. Constitution in 1983 and began a life-long journey in self-study of this founding document of the country he is so proud to call his home."
how do you reconcile your belief that the federal income tax has no basis in law with the fact that the 16th amendment clearly states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."?
Similarly, you have outlined a plan for confining prisoners to their beds for the first month of their incarcaration, in order to atrophy their muscles, thereby reducing their ability to make trouble. How do you reconcile this proposal with the 8th amenment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"?
Given that these two proposals of yours (among others) seem to stand at odds with the constitution itself, how do you expect the average informed voter to come to any conclusion other than that you have no more respect (and possibly less) for the constitution of this country than the current administration does? Are you in fact another "I'm for the parts of the constitution that I agree with" politician, or do you believe in the authority of the entirity of that document? And if you do agree with it's authority, will you now either renounce these ideas or provide a detailed argument for their compatibility with the constitution as it stands?
In my experience, a lot of what the libertarian platform stands for makes a lot of sense and I whole-heartedly agree with. The problem is, the parts that I don't agree with seem absolutely batshit insane (i.e. privatizing sidewalks? WTF?). So my question is basically, do I find myself agreeing with you because I'm a little crazy or disagreeing with you because you're a little crazy.
This is the most succinct expression of my feelings towards the libertarian party I have ever read. Oh, to have mod points right now...
secondly, i think a car alarm should do something, why didn't it work?
The thing about car alarms is that:
- Everyone and their dog has one.
- 90% of the time, when they go off, it's a false alarm.
Car alarms are the modern day Boy Who Cried Wolf. They go off for no legitimate reason so often that everyone is inured to their cry. It worked great when you were the only one on the block with one, but these days they're part of the background noise of the city. Utterly unremarkable.
Homeschooling works. If the public schools were eliminated, along with the associated massive government expenditures, maybe taxpayers could actually survive on one income.
Homeschooling works right now because the only parents who choose to homeschool are those with enough energy, dedication, and intelligence to make it work. You wouldn't choose to homeschool at the present unless you were interested enough in homeschooling to make it work.
Mandating it for everyone, on the other hand, would be a spectacular failure, as many of the lazy, incompetent people out there would just plop their kids in front of the idiot box and not even try. We'd end up with a vast population of illiterate, intellectually stunted morons.
Actually, Senjutsu, it is worse than you think. Most Millionaires (in Japan... I am assuming you are from Japan from your name)
Heh. Canada, actually. Never chalk up to foreigness what randomly flipping through a dictionary for a username will adequately explain. I speak (for various values of 'speak') the language somewhat, though.
And what it all boils down to, really, is that the guy making $4 Mil is incredibly unlikely to spend, to the degree of and in the multitude diverse places that, 100 people making $40,000 would.
Which brings to mind another question: As companies increasingly find all their production being done overseas, and find that their products are increasingly finding larger and larger markets in other overseas countries that are recieving these outsourced positions, exactly how long do the supporters of these trickle down theories expect these executives and their companies to find it compelling to keep their companies half a world away from the action?
Now, the Grocer, gas station attendant, Walmart (for picnic supplies), SUV maker, Street builder, park plant builder, park maintainer, etc etc etc all have something to do to support that exec and they will erode that $10-100 away back into the us economy.
I don't know what country you're from, but around here, multimillionaire corporate executives are not in the habit of buying groceries at the corner store, shopping with the plebeians at Wal-Mart, or hunkering down in a common park. They buy foreign cars, shop at expensive boutiques, and summer in Europe. In short, they very much tend to horde the majority of their money, and spend the rest of it in highly rarefied set of shops that mostly allow their wealth to circulate amongst their fellow millionaires. Nevermind that the steet planner, park builder, and maintainers are all payed for by tax dollars that are shouldered largely not by this highly strange executive of yours, but by the common folk whose jobs are being shipped off to Indonesia.
I'd suggest, then, that you spend less time idealizing things in terms of this poor approximation of macroeconomics that is the 'trickle-down' theory, and more time thinking about how things tend to play out in the real world.
There's an argument there, but it's irrelevant here. The claim here is that IT outsourcing is beneficial to the US as a whole, because the IT engineers in Bangalore wear Nike tenis shoes.
If this is at all true, then clearly there must be some way in which Indians purchasing shoes made in Indonesia is beneficial to the average US citizen. The question is, outside of the vanishlingly small minority of the population who are either Nike execs or large Nike shareholders, how does the US (taken here to mean the majority of citizens thereof) benefit?
I had absolutely no idea who #9 is, but clicking it and seeing that she wrote somtehing called "In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror" suggests that I should be grateful of that.
Slashdot Mirror
you wouldn't, by any chance, be a RIAA astroturf artist would you?
...
Nope. My dislike for them and for uninformed statements are about level, so it's an interesting tightrope. Read my history, if you want. The RIAA sure as fuck ain't going to pay a Canadian to post on non-RIAA related topics on slashdot. But while we're dodging the discussion in favor of silly acusations, how do I know you aren't a front account posting on slashdot to drum up card numbers for some crooked russian outfit?
I'll I keep hearing from your side is lots of FUD (russians are scary, woooooo) and little compelling reason to avoid their service.
I'm not employing scare tactics, just common sense. If one is going to break the law, why not do it on p2p for free? Why pay someone halfway around the world to accomplish the same goal? It's just as illegal, and you're opening yourself to the possibility of credit card fraud. The mere fact that they'll sell music to you demonstates that legality of action is not their primary concern.
Instead of RIAA simply cutting off AllofMP3 (which I confidently assert is the single largest distributor of online music to US citizens) from US credit card payments they choose piddly ass cases against grandmothers and teenie boppers as a scare tactic.
You could assert that, but please provide proof if you want to discuss it as a serious fact. It seems to me that allofmp3 is nowhere near the buzzword that napster/kazaa was; it's utterly obscure to the general public. It's your assertion, back it up.
Why don't the RIAA shut it down? How can they? It operates in fucking Russia, and they probably have the Russian distribution rights payed up; only their foreign distribution is likely illegal. Unless the operators pull a Skylarov and show up on US shore, the RIAA probably can't do shit. They can't subpoena the server logs, they don't have legal standing there, the State Department probably has a million things better to do than pester the Russian authorities about it, and the Russians probably don't give a shit anyways. But that cuts both ways. They decide to fuck with your credit card, good fucking luck getting the Russian police to give a shit about it.
They went after the teeniebopper and Grandmda distributors. The RIAA never filed a case against a downloader, ever; all the kazaa suits were against people dumb enough to check the "I want to be a supernode" box. So if all you're doing is downloading and not uploading (which is, after all, all you can do at allofmp3) again, I ask, why give your credit card to a foreign corporation of dubious legality? You're just as unlikely to face prosecution downloading for free off a p2p network. You're still breaking the law, either way, but you're absolutely right in that you'll probably never get "your ass whooped" over it. Why pay, unless you're buying into the scam that allofmp3 is running, the delusion that it's a legal service.
Ignoring the easy shot against the big fish in favor of making examples of people who'd rather lose and settle out of court than win in court and see their life savings consumed in legal costs suggests to me that the big fish isn't the easy target you make them out to be
In fact, I have never suggested they were an easy target, merely that them distributing to the US (and US customers downloading from them) is illegal, and therefore redundant given the availability of the material for free through other avenues here. None of that in the least suggests that they are an easy target.
Not irrelevant at all.
The point, which you quite entirely missed, is that when one downloads music from a site, a copy is necessarily made. That's why these kinds of purchases are governed by copyright law, and not (as others in this thread have mistakenly thought) customs laws.
The relevance in the Apple example is that Apple has negotiated the legal right to sell their music with the US (and UK, French, and German) copyright holders and so can legally sell copies of the music in those places, just as allofmp3 has (presumably) done so in order to legally sell copies of the music. The relevance is that, despite the fact the iTMS can legally sell the music in the US, they cannot legally sell me the music in Canada, Spain, or anywhere but the US (or France, the UK, and Germany).
Thus your point is quite irrelevant. Allofmp3 may well have the legal right to sell the music within Russia, but they clearly have not negotiated the right to do so with the US rightsholders, and so cannot legally sell the music to US customers. The service is thus illegal in the US. If you want to give your credit card number to a set of people in a foreign country with very lax laws half way around the world who almost certainly know that they are acting illegally that is your perogative, but it is not a course of action I would recommend.
Indeed, under Canadian law, using AllofMP3 is probably legal insofar as one has the right to download (but not share) a copy of the music. But there's no point in doing so, because it's every bit as legal to use $P2P_APP_OF_CHOICE in Canada to download for free.
In the US, on the other hand, it's just as illegal to download from allofmp3 as it is to download from the p2p service, so there's still no point in using allofmp3, unless you really enjoy giving your credit card number to Russians running a service of highly dubious legality.
Question: Why can't I use the iTunes Music Store outside of the US, UK, France, or Germany?
Answer: Because Apple has not secured the copyrights for the songs they sell outside of those 4 countries.
If having the distribution rights in one country were enough to allow you to distribute worldwide, you can damn sure bet Apple would do so. They wouldn't deny themselves a revenue stream like that.
Just because the RIAA hasn't commented on it, it doesn't mean it's it legal.
Google isn't reporting or delivering news. It is indexing those sites that do.
But if it wants to remain relevant, it needs to make sure it index those sites in such a way that a balanced presentation of respectable news sites are presented for a query. If the top stories continually run along the lines of "John Kerry is a Gay Commie Space Alien" just because some 2nd tier nutso conservative blog figured out how to best exploit the indexing algorithm, Google News will quickly become useless.
I just walked past a copy of WinXP Home Edition in a "Bargain Bin" at Costco [costco.com], on sale for $299 CAD
Get real. I don't know what you mean by CAD, but it sure as fuck isn't Canadian dollars. XP Home retails for $140-160 tops here, and it sure as hell isn't running $300 at Costco.
In my experience, even MDK-10.1-Beta-1 was more stable than MDK-10.0-Community .
That good to hear, although I don't see how it could possibly have been worse. 10.0-Community, in what has to be the most spectacularly weird autoconfig bug I've ever seen in all my time with Linux, somehow managed to confuse my PC Speaker with my sound card, and proceeded to attempt to pipe all sound through it. It was the single most gawdawful noise I've ever experienced in my life.
No, nobody can really visualize a billion (seriously, try!)
Picture the population of China.
>5,634,064
Method and apparatus for viewing electronic documents
>5,737,599
Method and apparatus for downloading multi-page electronic documents with hint information
>5,781,785
Method and apparatus for providing an optimized document file of multiple pages
Etc,etc. They're patents relating to the use and distribution of pdfs, rather than the format of the file itself.
File formats are not patentable, trademarkable or copyrightable. However, certain algorithms used to generate their contents may be patented.
Thus, considering that Jobs is a MASSIVE Beatles fan, they go to EMI and Apple Corps and ask if they can put the Beatles can go on the iTMS. EMI defers to Apple Corps and Apple Corps says no. They also remind Apple about the 1991 agreement concerning the use of the Apple trademark and music.
So.. they went to EMI to license music for a store that didn't exist, and then, when they couldn't license the music, they decide to set up a music store to goad Apple Records into suing them??
This isn't even a chicken and the egg problem. You've got the egg hatching before the Big Bang occurs.
Barring some sort of change in policy by the Supreme Court, I don't see how refusing to pay your taxes is going to improve your chances of getting any of the above done.
Precisely. I'm interested to see how he rationalizes it, though (as he apparently hasn't payed income tax in a number of years), to get a feeling for his character. Basically I want to see how (ir)rational his justifications are, assuming that question through some miracle ends up before him.
Okay. And these problems, of one city, were fixed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
You're assertion was that there were no wide spread issues or problems in the US prior to the New Deal. This was a wide spread issue predating the New Deal. The issue was, over the years, tackled by the City, State, and Federal governments. Who exactly fixed it (and when, and if it ever was) are issues utterly tangental to the simple fact that it stands (along with other problems, like the civil war, slavery, the great depression, the monopolists, etc, etc) as a refutation of your blanket assertion, attempts to retcon said assertion on your part not withstanding.
Name a problem in the time period before FDR that legitimized all the federal programs he ushered in. The Great Depression gave him a blank check to do whatever he wanted. And indeed he did.
Your 'question' presupposes that the Great Depression was not a sufficiently legitimate motivation for implementing the New Deal. I disagree utterly with such an assertion; as such, your insistence on stipulating its illegitmacy as part of the question utterly precludes any rational discussion of the policies, as you are disallowing its major motivation as a basis for any argument against you. Score -1, Troll.
The incredible problem with crime and slum/tenemant housing in turn of the century New York, the turn of the century 'robber barron' monopolists, the CIVIL F$%&ing WAR...
The suggestion that there were no widespread problems or issues in the US prior to the New Deal is sheerest fantasy, utterly disconnected from reality.
Given that you claim in your biography that you:
"Became interested in the U.S. Constitution in 1983 and began a life-long journey in self-study of this founding document of the country he is so proud to call his home."
how do you reconcile your belief that the federal income tax has no basis in law with the fact that the 16th amendment clearly states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."?
Similarly, you have outlined a plan for confining prisoners to their beds for the first month of their incarcaration, in order to atrophy their muscles, thereby reducing their ability to make trouble. How do you reconcile this proposal with the 8th amenment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"?
Given that these two proposals of yours (among others) seem to stand at odds with the constitution itself, how do you expect the average informed voter to come to any conclusion other than that you have no more respect (and possibly less) for the constitution of this country than the current administration does? Are you in fact another "I'm for the parts of the constitution that I agree with" politician, or do you believe in the authority of the entirity of that document? And if you do agree with it's authority, will you now either renounce these ideas or provide a detailed argument for their compatibility with the constitution as it stands?
In my experience, a lot of what the libertarian platform stands for makes a lot of sense and I whole-heartedly agree with. The problem is, the parts that I don't agree with seem absolutely batshit insane (i.e. privatizing sidewalks? WTF?). So my question is basically, do I find myself agreeing with you because I'm a little crazy or disagreeing with you because you're a little crazy.
This is the most succinct expression of my feelings towards the libertarian party I have ever read. Oh, to have mod points right now...
secondly, i think a car alarm should do something, why didn't it work?
The thing about car alarms is that:
- Everyone and their dog has one.
- 90% of the time, when they go off, it's a false alarm.
Car alarms are the modern day Boy Who Cried Wolf. They go off for no legitimate reason so often that everyone is inured to their cry. It worked great when you were the only one on the block with one, but these days they're part of the background noise of the city. Utterly unremarkable.
No joke, I just tried that with firefox, and it took me to a download page for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1.
Homeschooling works. If the public schools were eliminated, along with the associated massive government expenditures, maybe taxpayers could actually survive on one income.
Homeschooling works right now because the only parents who choose to homeschool are those with enough energy, dedication, and intelligence to make it work. You wouldn't choose to homeschool at the present unless you were interested enough in homeschooling to make it work.
Mandating it for everyone, on the other hand, would be a spectacular failure, as many of the lazy, incompetent people out there would just plop their kids in front of the idiot box and not even try. We'd end up with a vast population of illiterate, intellectually stunted morons.
Actually, Senjutsu, it is worse than you think. Most Millionaires (in Japan ... I am assuming you are from Japan from your name)
Heh. Canada, actually. Never chalk up to foreigness what randomly flipping through a dictionary for a username will adequately explain. I speak (for various values of 'speak') the language somewhat, though.
And what it all boils down to, really, is that the guy making $4 Mil is incredibly unlikely to spend, to the degree of and in the multitude diverse places that, 100 people making $40,000 would.
Which brings to mind another question: As companies increasingly find all their production being done overseas, and find that their products are increasingly finding larger and larger markets in other overseas countries that are recieving these outsourced positions, exactly how long do the supporters of these trickle down theories expect these executives and their companies to find it compelling to keep their companies half a world away from the action?
Now, the Grocer, gas station attendant, Walmart (for picnic supplies), SUV maker, Street builder, park plant builder, park maintainer, etc etc etc all have something to do to support that exec and they will erode that $10-100 away back into the us economy.
I don't know what country you're from, but around here, multimillionaire corporate executives are not in the habit of buying groceries at the corner store, shopping with the plebeians at Wal-Mart, or hunkering down in a common park. They buy foreign cars, shop at expensive boutiques, and summer in Europe. In short, they very much tend to horde the majority of their money, and spend the rest of it in highly rarefied set of shops that mostly allow their wealth to circulate amongst their fellow millionaires. Nevermind that the steet planner, park builder, and maintainers are all payed for by tax dollars that are shouldered largely not by this highly strange executive of yours, but by the common folk whose jobs are being shipped off to Indonesia.
I'd suggest, then, that you spend less time idealizing things in terms of this poor approximation of macroeconomics that is the 'trickle-down' theory, and more time thinking about how things tend to play out in the real world.
If the question is "how does the average US citizen benefit", then the answer is "by cheaper goods and services". Not all US citizens work in IT.
And have you noticed that either software or Nike tennis shoes have become particularly cheaper since their production was moved offshore?
There's an argument there, but it's irrelevant here. The claim here is that IT outsourcing is beneficial to the US as a whole, because the IT engineers in Bangalore wear Nike tenis shoes.
If this is at all true, then clearly there must be some way in which Indians purchasing shoes made in Indonesia is beneficial to the average US citizen. The question is, outside of the vanishlingly small minority of the population who are either Nike execs or large Nike shareholders, how does the US (taken here to mean the majority of citizens thereof) benefit?
And this is good for anyone who isn't an exec at Nike, or significant shareholder therein, how exactly?
The first 6 are all Olympic atheletes.
#7 is an actress.
#8 you must know.
I had absolutely no idea who #9 is, but clicking it and seeing that she wrote somtehing called "In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror" suggests that I should be grateful of that.
#10 is also an actress.