A: No. US Tax Law is established by the US Government. This statement has no impact on either federal or state tax law.
Basically, the tax you calculate and pay is based on tax laws, wich are different than FASB standards. The tax liability is brought back into the balance sheet, but it's calculated spearately, for tax purpouses.
Here is a link to the folks behind the ad. Including a PDF version, a poster you can buy...and a place to put in the correction if they mis-typed your name.
Closed source WORKS. It's more, not less, efficient. Here's why:
In a standard economic model, a person makes something (a pice of code, a shoe, a car, whatever). Now, in a macroeconomic sense, that person is required to be compensated for their effort. The easiest, most direct model of compensation is money. That money, which exists as an abstract of value, allows that person to redeem their efforts for other items they require (food, clothing shelter). Now, here's the problem with the Open source model:
The same person creates the same piece of code, only they make it open source. So, people are free to use and distribute it WITHOUT compensation to the original creator. The only way the original creator can be compensated is IF they: a) need something and b) the person who has or creates what they need is ALSO willing to utilize the same model, and the balance of effort outputed is equaled to the benifits inputted.
To use an example, imagine a programmer who writes a paricularly interesting piece of code as a dot on a graph. As the code that programmer writes spreads, links form between them and the people who use that code, creating a sort of star pattern. For example, Microsoft writes Windows XP, and sells it to the consumer. Now, in a closed source envirnment, the outer edgens of those links must immediately return assets (money, trade) to the center for the creation of that link (a la software lisencing). In an open source model, those people on the outer edges of those links don't have to create any reciprocity to the center for the assets received. They can take, and give nothing. The hope, and (in my opinion) it's a thin one at that, is that the center of that pattern will need something, and that something will out them at the outside of ANOTHER pattern, and that enough of these patterns will congregate to create a cohesive, self sustaning whole. But, in the reality we live in, the maximum efficiency is optainined when the return on the effort is immediate to the distribution of the effort. This allows for a minimum of waste in the time difference bentween the creation of goods, and the compensation received for their use and increasing efficency amoungst their users.
To put it another way, imageine the same graph. One the close source side, there is a single link bentween the developer and the consumer. On the Open source side, there is a potentially endless series of links between the producer and the producre's consumption. From an efficency standpoint, one will beat everything else, except 0, which cannot exist in a society that trades amoungst individuals.
I'm putting this in my journal as well, so anyone who thinks I'm worng, please write me in there, and I'll be happy to debate this with you.
Given the recent spate of attention given to these offshore gambling sites, I'm suprised these criminals haven't resorted to phishing for user ID's and passwords yet.
Think about it: These are sites with heavy online use, lots of cash transactions, and, unlike a bank, users (and supposedly some of the operators) are unable or unwilling to go to authourities for help tracking down the perpetrators.
So, how long will it be until my daily fake citibank account request is replaced with a fake request for my offshore gambling account number? And how many people will happily go to the phishing site, drop off their account name and password, and next thing you know, they're account is empty?
You've told me you want help with fragging...
on
Halo 2 Ready to Ship
·
· Score: 5, Funny
We have systems in place to deal with "dead" or unused Clans. Unpleasant, pointy systems that reek of rust and blood and horror. Think Silent Hill meets Autocomplete."
Great, the MS Office paperclip is runnig the clans now..
Question: Do the same rules that apply to tapping phones apply here?
IIRC, in order to get a tap, the law enforcment folks have to get some kind of warrant from a judge, and the have to show proabable cause as to why they want the tap. And even after they get it, and the records, the defendant can still challenge the original warrant, and have the wiretapping thrown out at trial. I think.
If the same requirements exist for tapping someone's IP connection, then what's the worry? So the ability to do the tap is there. What I'm really worried about is the standard thats applied to use the tap. I don't want some fed going to a judge and saying "at some point, he typed the word terrorist into a comment on a message board" and that being all they need to get the tap.
The same sort of standards should apply to IP and VoIP taps as exist for phone taps..unless the Patriot Act took that all away already. I think that's what the EFF & ACLU should be pushing for, rather than trying to block the ability to tap, is ensuring the same probable cause rules apply.
Newbury Networks stands to profit from its warning. The company specializes in wireless network security products. But other technical specialists agreed the convention offers a ripe target for attackers.
I noticed on the clearchannelsucks webs site, just a bit farther down from their article, this item is siting there.
I wonder if CC is looking at the live disk as a promotional opportunity to sell to advertisers, and that's why they're barring artists use of their own live recordings? I guess they figure that if they have the patent, they can control the use of the technology, and then turn around and lisence advertising on the live CD to Pepsi, or Budweiser, or whomever is willing to pony up the cash to have their ads "inserted" onto the live tracks.
And I doubt there are many artists who would be willing to do that on their own, given the backlash from fans.
A caching proxy would do that, I beleive. If it's (fairly) static content, your proxy should pull the relevant items from cache, without having to re-pull the info from the server. Then, if person 1 gets content, a copy is stored on the server. When person 2 gets the same content, the proxy uses the local cache to fulfill the request, rather than going to the web site again.
Doesn't necessarily help another company outside your connection, but it might help inside your network to reduce bandwidth use.
It doesn't cut it when it comes to 911, but if there wasn't regulation, that's what would happen. That why we need the reguation. To make sure that critical systems maintain availability and consistency.
I don't think the phone or cable companies should bear the brunt of having these systems aviailable, which is why I pay taxes on my phone line, to have the system available. I've never called 911, and I hope I never have to, but if I do, I know the call is going to get to where it needs to, no matter who's phone I use. Why? because it's standardized. Why? Because it's regulated And who pays for the regulation? We do, through taxes.
They should bear some of the burden, and they do, since they have to have it available, and up to spec in terms of getting the call through quickly, etc. But, if the carrier had the sole responsibility of maintaining the system to any level they wanted, what's to stop SBC from chaging the way they handle the 911 call versus Verizon handling it a different way? And when you switch providers, you have to learn a new way of putting through an emergency call?
I consider things like the 911 system similar to internet standards. To maintain the standards such as TCP/IP across carriers and networks, someone has to maintain a standard, and ensure compliance. In that case, the IETF, the IEEE, even the FCC and other groups do. I pay those groups, either through membership, or via taxes, to ensure they're funded to maintain the standards. I have no problem with that, since I get someting (access via a standardized method) for what I give (fees, taxes).
Because there are also systems like 911 calls that need to be standardized and regulated, and unfortunately, that costs. I am, however, glad to pay for the service, even if I don't use it, since I know if I need it, it's there, and it will (hopefully) work the way I expect it.
Given the differences in technology between Vonage, and the traditional telco, and some of the items in the article, it seems that there's going to be different standards applied to the VoIP company, which is a good thing.
As the traditional telcos move from the traditional circut switched networks of current phone systems to a more packet switched network, there needs to be a way for the regulatory agencies to keep up with the changes, and ensure that necessary services (e.g. 911) and quality are maintainted.
In the long run, this will probably be seen as a good move, since they're actually trying to keep up with changes in technology, rather than waiting to get run over by it.
I remmeber there was a book (Malthusian something or other?) that said that the whole world was going to end in 20 years or so because of the inability of people to be fed, destroying the climate, etc, etc. The ususal doom and gloom stuff. Written in or around the 70's, IIRC.
What I also remember is a $1000 (US) bet between the author of the book and a professor who's name escapes me at the moment. The bet was that the cost of a cross section of commodities, picked by the author, adjusted for inflation, would be LOWER in 20 years than they were at the start of the bet. The book's author lost. Every time, he lost.
The problem? The books author took advantage of the then crises going on (stagflation, unavailable gasoline in the US because we wouldn't buy from countries like Iran) to prey upon people's fears to make money, or to promote their particular dicipline (physics professor pushing for fusion research? Who would have thought that?). This book seems little different.
Saying that we're going to run out of fossil fuels is fine. It'll happen. Saying it's gonna happen in the next decade, and that solar and fusion are the only long term replacements is assinine. What happens if someone figures out a way to make a gasoline replacement from genetically engineered microbes next year? The unpredicibility of the human mind and spirit in finding solutions are completely ignored, and when the author's predictions turn out to be as false as every other prediction, I have little doubt that thsese same attributes will be the culprit.
The current hike in the price of gasoline is not solely based on the availabllity of crude. It's as much, and possibly more, affected by the inability of refineries to process the crude oil into gasoline that is driving prices up. If prices, or demand, were going to stay this high, you'd think oil companies would be falling over themselves to build more refineries...but they're not. Why not? Because they know that, in the longer term, those refineries won't pay for themselves when the price of gasoline drops again.
---Postscript Finally, I noticed that one of the authours wrote about a lower population in the future? Wouldn't that lead to lowered demand for petroleum? And a longer lasting supply? Or did doomsayer #2 forget to talk to doomsayer #1 before publishing (again)?;)
Years ago, Coca-Cola lost the second half of its name to the public domain, when a judge ruled that "Cola" had become a generic term for referring to soft drinks. Similarly, "Aspirin" started as a brand name and wound up as the generic name for the drug. This is why the makers of "Kleenex" brand facial tissues bother with the "brand facial tissues" part, because there MUST be a viable generic term for a defendable brand name to exist.
-Motley fool web site
There's several rulings about names that ARE trademarked "falling" into public domain, and it's basically, you're a victim of your own success. Since the word Googol was used as a mathematical term, and has no doubt been used in numerous papers, discussions, etc., I have little belief that this suit would succeed, since the term has definitely been in the public domain for a long time.
That being said, it would be nice if the Google folks maybe put up some of that IPO money to help kids learn math, or something....
'There is no right in the copyright law to make backup copies of motion pictures, so the whole argument that people should have the right to make backup copies of DVDs has no legal support whatsoever
This is a half accurrate statement (the best kind). In the copyright law iself, if read word for word, and taken literally, there's no right explicity granted for backups...which is why we have a judicial system, to interpret the meaning of the law from the text. IIRC, there have been numerous judicial rulings on the right of people to make backup copies of the movies they buy.
It's suprising that the MPAA, which relys so heavily on the judicial system to enforce these laws, would then so conveniently forget it exists when neccessary to make a point.
Acutally, there's been a lot of talk about pervasive Wi-Fi in the hospital environment. The two problems with it are power draw and inteference..Anything large enough to collect, store & provide a patients data is going to need batteries, and transmitters. Unfortunately, transmitters do tend to intefere with other medical devices, such as pacemakers, and batteries add weight and bulkiness, as well as the need to do replacements.
The point of the article is that the govenor wants to add taxes to LEASED or LISENCED software, as opposed to SOLD software.
Currently, there are three types of software transfers:
1. Sale (buy MS Office at CompUSA) - Has a sales tax. 2. Custom Software (have someone write a program for you) - Has a "service occupation tax" 3. Lisenced or leased (pay for a licence)- no tax.
What the govenor is saying is he wants the state to consider, for tax purpouses, the 3rd type of transfer the same as the 1st type, so they get a sales tax for the lisence.
The Governor's proposal would either repeal the Department of Revenue regulation that distinguishes between a sale and a license of software or create an entirely new tax on revenues from software licensing.
Empahsis mine.
Interestingly, if you've ever read a EULA, you never actually BUY software. You usually are buying a licence to install and use the software. Which could, theoretically, have a massive impact on buisnesses in that state, if they had to pay for every license they bought, especially in multi-user buisness environments.
This PDF file offers a clearer explanation of what the Govenor is proposing (check page 2, 2nd paragraph).
I noticed the schedule, and it's only through the 16th? I know the FAQ says they're keeping shows around, but with a limited shedule like that, does it mean they're only keeping those shows until people are used to the new station? Or are they moving the shows around more, or what?
How about, instead of the FCC having total control of the airwaves for the enitre country, they give control to the states, or the metropolitan areas to control locally? Or some split deal (broadcast power below a certian level is run by the state/city, higher has both state and federal, or only federal).
It seems that if I have a low power station, and I registered with a city or state authority for the frequency in that city, I should be covered, since if the power shouldn't be enough to get to antoher city, and they won't have to worry about me there. The FM spectrum is small, but you can have broadcasters on the smae frequency, as long as the boradcasters aren't near enough to each other to intefere with one another. and that sort of management would be easier by a more local authourity.
Webcams in Space! Live webcam pics (or streams) of the Earth from orbit, maybe one on the Moon (pointed at the earth?). Someday, even one from Mars? I know they have pics from the mars rovers, but what about a continuous raw feed?
Slashdot Mirror
From the FAQ from the FASB:
Q: Does the statement change US TAX Law?
A: No. US Tax Law is established by the US Government. This statement has no impact on either federal or state tax law.
Basically, the tax you calculate and pay is based on tax laws, wich are different than FASB standards. The tax liability is brought back into the balance sheet, but it's calculated spearately, for tax purpouses.
All Symantec needs to complete this picutre is a good monitoring software...
Norton Antivirus vs eTrust
Backup Exec vs ARCServ (Brightstor)
___________ vs Unicenter
Can anyone fill in the blank?
Here is a link to the folks behind the ad. Including a PDF version, a poster you can buy...and a place to put in the correction if they mis-typed your name.
In a standard economic model, a person makes something (a pice of code, a shoe, a car, whatever). Now, in a macroeconomic sense, that person is required to be compensated for their effort. The easiest, most direct model of compensation is money. That money, which exists as an abstract of value, allows that person to redeem their efforts for other items they require (food, clothing shelter). Now, here's the problem with the Open source model:
The same person creates the same piece of code, only they make it open source. So, people are free to use and distribute it WITHOUT compensation to the original creator. The only way the original creator can be compensated is IF they: a) need something and b) the person who has or creates what they need is ALSO willing to utilize the same model, and the balance of effort outputed is equaled to the benifits inputted.
To use an example, imagine a programmer who writes a paricularly interesting piece of code as a dot on a graph. As the code that programmer writes spreads, links form between them and the people who use that code, creating a sort of star pattern. For example, Microsoft writes Windows XP, and sells it to the consumer. Now, in a closed source envirnment, the outer edgens of those links must immediately return assets (money, trade) to the center for the creation of that link (a la software lisencing). In an open source model, those people on the outer edges of those links don't have to create any reciprocity to the center for the assets received. They can take, and give nothing. The hope, and (in my opinion) it's a thin one at that, is that the center of that pattern will need something, and that something will out them at the outside of ANOTHER pattern, and that enough of these patterns will congregate to create a cohesive, self sustaning whole. But, in the reality we live in, the maximum efficiency is optainined when the return on the effort is immediate to the distribution of the effort. This allows for a minimum of waste in the time difference bentween the creation of goods, and the compensation received for their use and increasing efficency amoungst their users.
To put it another way, imageine the same graph. One the close source side, there is a single link bentween the developer and the consumer. On the Open source side, there is a potentially endless series of links between the producer and the producre's consumption. From an efficency standpoint, one will beat everything else, except 0, which cannot exist in a society that trades amoungst individuals.
I'm putting this in my journal as well, so anyone who thinks I'm worng, please write me in there, and I'll be happy to debate this with you.
Given the recent spate of attention given to these offshore gambling sites, I'm suprised these criminals haven't resorted to phishing for user ID's and passwords yet.
Think about it: These are sites with heavy online use, lots of cash transactions, and, unlike a bank, users (and supposedly some of the operators) are unable or unwilling to go to authourities for help tracking down the perpetrators.
So, how long will it be until my daily fake citibank account request is replaced with a fake request for my offshore gambling account number? And how many people will happily go to the phishing site, drop off their account name and password, and next thing you know, they're account is empty?
Great, the MS Office paperclip is runnig the clans now..
Question: Do the same rules that apply to tapping phones apply here?
IIRC, in order to get a tap, the law enforcment folks have to get some kind of warrant from a judge, and the have to show proabable cause as to why they want the tap. And even after they get it, and the records, the defendant can still challenge the original warrant, and have the wiretapping thrown out at trial. I think.
If the same requirements exist for tapping someone's IP connection, then what's the worry? So the ability to do the tap is there. What I'm really worried about is the standard thats applied to use the tap. I don't want some fed going to a judge and saying "at some point, he typed the word terrorist into a comment on a message board" and that being all they need to get the tap.
The same sort of standards should apply to IP and VoIP taps as exist for phone taps..unless the Patriot Act took that all away already. I think that's what the EFF & ACLU should be pushing for, rather than trying to block the ability to tap, is ensuring the same probable cause rules apply.
I noticed on the clearchannelsucks webs site, just a bit farther down from their article, this item is siting there.
I wonder if CC is looking at the live disk as a promotional opportunity to sell to advertisers, and that's why they're barring artists use of their own live recordings? I guess they figure that if they have the patent, they can control the use of the technology, and then turn around and lisence advertising on the live CD to Pepsi, or Budweiser, or whomever is willing to pony up the cash to have their ads "inserted" onto the live tracks.
And I doubt there are many artists who would be willing to do that on their own, given the backlash from fans.
A caching proxy would do that, I beleive. If it's (fairly) static content, your proxy should pull the relevant items from cache, without having to re-pull the info from the server. Then, if person 1 gets content, a copy is stored on the server. When person 2 gets the same content, the proxy uses the local cache to fulfill the request, rather than going to the web site again.
Doesn't necessarily help another company outside your connection, but it might help inside your network to reduce bandwidth use.
It doesn't cut it when it comes to 911, but if there wasn't regulation, that's what would happen. That why we need the reguation. To make sure that critical systems maintain availability and consistency.
I don't think the phone or cable companies should bear the brunt of having these systems aviailable, which is why I pay taxes on my phone line, to have the system available. I've never called 911, and I hope I never have to, but if I do, I know the call is going to get to where it needs to, no matter who's phone I use. Why? because it's standardized. Why? Because it's regulated And who pays for the regulation? We do, through taxes.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~mmcbeath/mcbeath.resear ch/CatchFly/CatchFly.html
t ml
or
http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_10_14_02.h
They should bear some of the burden, and they do, since they have to have it available, and up to spec in terms of getting the call through quickly, etc. But, if the carrier had the sole responsibility of maintaining the system to any level they wanted, what's to stop SBC from chaging the way they handle the 911 call versus Verizon handling it a different way? And when you switch providers, you have to learn a new way of putting through an emergency call?
I consider things like the 911 system similar to internet standards. To maintain the standards such as TCP/IP across carriers and networks, someone has to maintain a standard, and ensure compliance. In that case, the IETF, the IEEE, even the FCC and other groups do. I pay those groups, either through membership, or via taxes, to ensure they're funded to maintain the standards. I have no problem with that, since I get someting (access via a standardized method) for what I give (fees, taxes).
Because there are also systems like 911 calls that need to be standardized and regulated, and unfortunately, that costs. I am, however, glad to pay for the service, even if I don't use it, since I know if I need it, it's there, and it will (hopefully) work the way I expect it.
Given the differences in technology between Vonage, and the traditional telco, and some of the items in the article, it seems that there's going to be different standards applied to the VoIP company, which is a good thing.
As the traditional telcos move from the traditional circut switched networks of current phone systems to a more packet switched network, there needs to be a way for the regulatory agencies to keep up with the changes, and ensure that necessary services (e.g. 911) and quality are maintainted.
In the long run, this will probably be seen as a good move, since they're actually trying to keep up with changes in technology, rather than waiting to get run over by it.
I remmeber there was a book (Malthusian something or other?) that said that the whole world was going to end in 20 years or so because of the inability of people to be fed, destroying the climate, etc, etc. The ususal doom and gloom stuff. Written in or around the 70's, IIRC.
;)
What I also remember is a $1000 (US) bet between the author of the book and a professor who's name escapes me at the moment. The bet was that the cost of a cross section of commodities, picked by the author, adjusted for inflation, would be LOWER in 20 years than they were at the start of the bet. The book's author lost. Every time, he lost.
The problem? The books author took advantage of the then crises going on (stagflation, unavailable gasoline in the US because we wouldn't buy from countries like Iran) to prey upon people's fears to make money, or to promote their particular dicipline (physics professor pushing for fusion research? Who would have thought that?). This book seems little different.
Saying that we're going to run out of fossil fuels is fine. It'll happen. Saying it's gonna happen in the next decade, and that solar and fusion are the only long term replacements is assinine. What happens if someone figures out a way to make a gasoline replacement from genetically engineered microbes next year? The unpredicibility of the human mind and spirit in finding solutions are completely ignored, and when the author's predictions turn out to be as false as every other prediction, I have little doubt that thsese same attributes will be the culprit.
The current hike in the price of gasoline is not solely based on the availabllity of crude. It's as much, and possibly more, affected by the inability of refineries to process the crude oil into gasoline that is driving prices up. If prices, or demand, were going to stay this high, you'd think oil companies would be falling over themselves to build more refineries...but they're not. Why not? Because they know that, in the longer term, those refineries won't pay for themselves when the price of gasoline drops again.
---Postscript
Finally, I noticed that one of the authours wrote about a lower population in the future? Wouldn't that lead to lowered demand for petroleum? And a longer lasting supply? Or did doomsayer #2 forget to talk to doomsayer #1 before publishing (again)?
Second:
-Motley fool web site
There's several rulings about names that ARE trademarked "falling" into public domain, and it's basically, you're a victim of your own success. Since the word Googol was used as a mathematical term, and has no doubt been used in numerous papers, discussions, etc., I have little belief that this suit would succeed, since the term has definitely been in the public domain for a long time.
That being said, it would be nice if the Google folks maybe put up some of that IPO money to help kids learn math, or something....
This is a half accurrate statement (the best kind). In the copyright law iself, if read word for word, and taken literally, there's no right explicity granted for backups...which is why we have a judicial system, to interpret the meaning of the law from the text. IIRC, there have been numerous judicial rulings on the right of people to make backup copies of the movies they buy.
It's suprising that the MPAA, which relys so heavily on the judicial system to enforce these laws, would then so conveniently forget it exists when neccessary to make a point.
Is your friend
Acutally, there's been a lot of talk about pervasive Wi-Fi in the hospital environment. The two problems with it are power draw and inteference..Anything large enough to collect, store & provide a patients data is going to need batteries, and transmitters. Unfortunately, transmitters do tend to intefere with other medical devices, such as pacemakers, and batteries add weight and bulkiness, as well as the need to do replacements.
Due to a mixup at the patent office, Apple was instead issued the patent to an unbreakable windows production method....
/two jokes in one!
Currently, there are three types of software transfers:
1. Sale (buy MS Office at CompUSA) - Has a sales tax.
2. Custom Software (have someone write a program for you) - Has a "service occupation tax"
3. Lisenced or leased (pay for a licence)- no tax.
What the govenor is saying is he wants the state to consider, for tax purpouses, the 3rd type of transfer the same as the 1st type, so they get a sales tax for the lisence.
Empahsis mine.
Interestingly, if you've ever read a EULA, you never actually BUY software. You usually are buying a licence to install and use the software. Which could, theoretically, have a massive impact on buisnesses in that state, if they had to pay for every license they bought, especially in multi-user buisness environments.
This PDF file offers a clearer explanation of what the Govenor is proposing (check page 2, 2nd paragraph).
I noticed the schedule, and it's only through the 16th? I know the FAQ says they're keeping shows around, but with a limited shedule like that, does it mean they're only keeping those shows until people are used to the new station? Or are they moving the shows around more, or what?
Not that I don't trust Comcast, but...
How about, instead of the FCC having total control of the airwaves for the enitre country, they give control to the states, or the metropolitan areas to control locally? Or some split deal (broadcast power below a certian level is run by the state/city, higher has both state and federal, or only federal).
It seems that if I have a low power station, and I registered with a city or state authority for the frequency in that city, I should be covered, since if the power shouldn't be enough to get to antoher city, and they won't have to worry about me there. The FM spectrum is small, but you can have broadcasters on the smae frequency, as long as the boradcasters aren't near enough to each other to intefere with one another. and that sort of management would be easier by a more local authourity.
Webcams in Space! Live webcam pics (or streams) of the Earth from orbit, maybe one on the Moon (pointed at the earth?). Someday, even one from Mars? I know they have pics from the mars rovers, but what about a continuous raw feed?