You don't have to be technically correct when repeating moors law because moors law isn't technical... or even a real law. It's just a guideline the industry grabbed on to as a way to time their delayed release cycle for maximum profitability.
Oh no argument here. Actually the trial by a jury of your peers has been almost entirely subverted as well. The judges have decided that they trump the jury and they can overrule it. They've decided that the jury is no longer allowed to decide if it is just to apply the law, only to determine if it was broken. If a jury does find out about their right to nullify unjust laws or unjust applications of a the law regardless of technical guilt the judge will toss them out.
It really doesn't matter. The real issue is that some of the states wanted out. Their reasons are beside the point they should have been free to peacefully go their own way. Before the civil war things were different. States were states like France is a state and the US was more like the EU.
The constitution doesn't have any direct provisions. It does have a couple for that purpose though.
The right to trial by a jury of peers was another way that the people were supposed to have the ability to prevent the government from enforcing unjust laws.
The second amendment was to ensure that military power (by way of military grade weaponry) was distributed and in the hands of the people so that at the end of the day the government had to fear their collective anger. This was to be the recourse of the people if the government started subverting that first one.
"Except that warrantless wiretapping *is* allowed - for short periods of time... And wiretapping/review of foreign correspondence"
Allowed by whom? I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. I think you are confusing the powers which the government has illegally granted itself with the powers it has actually been granted.
I'm afraid you are mistaken sir. Perhaps you should spend more time speaking to the AVERAGE american. He delivers your pizza's, works the floor or register at a retail establishment, perhaps at your local sub shop. You'll find him working crappy jobs just about anywhere that once upon a time you only found teenagers and senior citizens.
"that doesn't seem ridiculously out-of-bounds for their authority"
And theres the rub. Warrantless wiretapping is clearly out-of-bounds for any level of government. Even if congress passed a law allowing this, the president signed it, his executive branch enforced it, and the supreme court affirmed it (and PUBLIC legal defense against the government attempts is the first place the telcos should have gone with this).
Every citizen has an obligation to defend our constitution from government tyranny when they see it. By shedding blood or having their blood shed if necessary.
The problem is that the warrant-less wiretapping violates the constitution and congress lacks the authority to pass a law that allows it therefore congress cant just allow someone to do it and then pass a law granting them immunity after the fact either.
Quite frankly they lack the authority and any judge worth their salt would toss the typical "we did it in the public interest" argument out. Clearly it is NOT in the public interest to subvert the public's right as guaranteed by the constitution.
cool with me. Our company observes weekend holidays on the closest business day (sat = fri, sun = mon) and if you have a job that requires weekend and holiday work like you get paid double for working the ACTUAL day to holiday pay for the observed days.
The first part is standard fare for anyone who uses the federal holiday schedule i believe.
"Wealth tax? The Fair Tax works the same way, that is it really sticks it to the rich when they buy their toys, but it doesn't rob them at the point of a gun (or prison time.) The rich's profligate spending will be more than enough to ensure that everyone else's taxes go down, while their's goes up."
Hardly. In proportion to their wealth increases (they do their best to have no income per say) the wealthy spend the least! The poor spend everything they get. The wealthy spend so tiny a proportion relative to what they have or what they have coming in that dividing by 100 (yielding a %) doesn't even give a meaningful number.
In fact, they generally pay less than everyone else for the things they do buy because they can afford to pay more up front. If you are in the upper ranks of the middle class and can afford to buy a home you still have to take out a mortgage and pay AT LEAST double the price of the home by the time it's paid off. Not the wealthy, they can buy that house up front and pay half what you do. No mortgage, no required insurance, that is another 30% year on year you'd pay that the wealthy don't have to.
Wealthy man wants netflix, he pays in advance and therefore pays the lowest rate per month. The same with almost every other service he needs. Want cheap lawncare? Try negotiating paying 6 months or a year in advance in a lump sum and save 30% vs the guy with less bread who has to pay the highest rate.
"Is punishing the accumulation of wealth really what we want to do?"
Lets pretend that taxation is punishment. The government needs funds and can't operate as a charity. This leaves three basic options. We can tax income, tax spending, or tax wealth.
Income is directly tied to production of wealth. This is the most important of the three to a strong economy, wealth is destroyed daily so if no new wealth is produced there soon won't be an economy. We certainly don't want to punish that!
Spending is also essential to a market economy. If people buy no goods and services then there is no motivator to produce objects and services (aka wealth) because they have no value if you can't sell them. Without spending we have no jobs, no income, and no availability of the goods and services you need.
The accumulation of wealth actually has a negative or neutral effect on the economy. At best certain ways of keeping and maintaining wealth will result in spending and income production but if either of those are taxed everyone will minimize those uses. Taxing wealth on the other hand encourages minimizing entrenched wealth and therefore maximizing spending and income.
"Why should I pay the government more for being responsible in my spending?"
You shouldn't. Responsible spending in a world with a wealth tax means investing your wealth in ways that produce wealth in excess of the wealth tax rather than having wealth sit idle. Aside from that the question is why you should pay taxes. To that I say, good luck producing wealth or spending it without public infrastructure, transportation systems and roadways, education, and records, power infrastructure, and police and military protection. The more wealth you've accumulated the more public infrastructure it took to produce it, develop it, transport it, and protect it so the greater the debt you owe for these services which were loaned to you.
Of course all of that ignores the simple fact that what WE tax should be based on what benefits the WE doing the taxing. Having less than 1% of our population hold the vast majority of the wealth produced by 100% of our population only benefits that less than 1% and negatively impacts the rest. A greater portion of our population is engaged in crime than wealthy so it would make more sense to uphold the interests of criminals than the wealthy.
"I know several families that actually take home LESS money by having both parents work than if one of them would just stay home."
I've encountered those families. Generally one parent is professional earning a fat salary (at least 50k/yr) and the other is a house wife/husband or soccer mom who works some part time job out of boredom. These type of families while not uncommon are not typical either.
Again you must live in a privileged bubble like the AC where people can afford cars less than 10yrs old and take home salaries that give a total of more than 20-30k/yr per parent where each parent works three jobs to get up to that number. This represents the typical family and while the tax rolls don't see a difference (total family income of 40-70k in both cases) there is obviously a rather significant difference between family A and family B. Family A represents a higher socioeconomic status than Family B and represents a tiny minority of those in this tax bracket while family B represents your average american.
If you are in family A you probably don't even know Family B because they are too busy to socialize. It's interesting because Family B will have more children than Family A as well, meaning they have more overhead and expenses that don't yield returns than family A. It is often the case that Family B's children will grow up to be Family A's.
"So.. why DO so many families need two full-time incomes just to make ends meet, or even to live in a modest amount of comfort?"
Its really very simple. When women entered the workplace it resulted in higher incomes in many or most families overnight. The short term result is everyone has lots of income. But when everyone has lots of income it means they can afford to pay more for the same goods. The result is that industry equalizes the buying power of the double worker home to what was previously the equivalent standard of living for a single worker home of the same socioeconomic status.
That creates the same initial boom for industry that it initially created for the families. However the same effect happens to them and so on. Eventually the only ones left with a benefit are the top less than 1%. The great thing about having more money than you need is that you can just leave it in corporate investments. As long as the company continues reinvesting its gains before the end of the year it grows year on year tax free. It's like the IRA the poor and middle class use but with no early withdraw fees and no investment limits.
I don't know what world you live in. But here in the real world most families don't make a decision about two parents working. They have no choice, they can't afford to feed those children you speak of if they don't both work.
And yes, child care if free if it has to be. If you are poor you leave those children with an older retired or disabled family member.
The answer is a wealth tax such as the one in the Netherlands before they neutered it recently. If you are a US citizen you pay an annual tax on all entrenched wealth, say 3%, no matter where in the world that wealth is held.
Do that an you can abolish income tax and double standards. The poor have no entrenched wealth. The middle class don't have much. Maybe some equity on a car and/or house and 3% of their equity is going to be far less than they pay now. The wealthy have more entrenched wealth than scrooge McDuck, the wealthiest character the rest of us have been able to imagine.
Me: "The first line says the same as you..." You: "the FAQ page that you linked disagrees with you" followed by a quote of the aforementioned first line.
"if they would have tried to fire that thing the backblast have blown them up real good"
It's called natural selection. Best to just let it happen.
"I mean can you imagine some methhead all paranoid with a pack of hydra missiles and a launcher?"
No I can't. If a methhead had a pack of hydra missiles and launcher he'd sell it for meth along with his momma and girlfriend.;)
"But don't worry friend because if the government ever rolls the tanks i'm sure the national guard armories will be nicely emptied faster than you can say Arab Spring."
I have it on good authority that you are on to something there.
He is reading the first line and ignoring the following two paragraphs that clarify that 'anyone' is actually 'anyone who got both a binary and copy of written offer' BUT the GPL allows the non-commercial copying and redistribution of both your written offer and your executable. So if I get a binary from you and provide my friend with a copy for free you have to provide source to him as well.
The first line says the same as you but the two paragraphs following that line modify it and clarify that it is only to those who have gotten a copy of the binary (and accompanying written offer) that you must provide the source.
There is no reason you couldn't put a code on the written offer and require the request be accompanied by a copy of the written offer. You'd have to honor it for third parties but it would allow compliance without honoring requests from random anonymous people with no chain of distribution from you. You might do this to just to reduce the volume of source requests you have to process.
They can't block your access to the source (for the binaries they gave you) no matter what 'subscription' they terminate. That would be a GPL violation.
Also, SOMEONE obviously isn't concerned with this because they are packing up a clone named CentOS.
"Claiming it's their own might be a copyright violation"
Depends on where they claim it. They have to leave the copyright notice intact on the source file but they can spout whatever they want on the website.
"I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "copyright". Copyright isn't something you "put" on a file, and what would a distributor even do that could "alter" someone else's copyright? If you don't understand the difference between a copyright notice and copyright itself, why are you lecturing others about saying stupid things on Slashdot?"
I think you are deliberately misconstruing what he said to serve your agenda. Obviously by "copyright" he meant the copyright notice and he is correct. He is incorrect in saying the module seller can't claim its their own, nothing in the GPL or copyright prevents plagiarism as long as the copyright notice and license text is included in the source.
"If he's selling it for $49 and telling people it's his original work, he's presumably not telling people it's GPL'ed, which is also a violation. (You have to provide both the source code AND the license information, so recipients know they're receiving code they can do things with)."
Almost nobody reads the source files or license.txt so I fail to see any reason the seller wouldn't comply. It's not like the buyer gets his money back when he finds out he could have gotten the module for free.
"You ever price a hellfire or a maverick? Them damned things ain't cheap friend"
Which is exactly why the argument that certain classes of weapon shouldn't fall under the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. The purpose is to arm the people to fight the government and weapons that allow it should be freely available. Of course serious weapons take serious bank and with serious bank comes a serious interest in not rocking the boat OR takes a significant group of people all contributing funds like a citizens militia.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to be technically correct when repeating moors law because moors law isn't technical... or even a real law. It's just a guideline the industry grabbed on to as a way to time their delayed release cycle for maximum profitability.
It's exponential if your counting in binary.
Oh no argument here. Actually the trial by a jury of your peers has been almost entirely subverted as well. The judges have decided that they trump the jury and they can overrule it. They've decided that the jury is no longer allowed to decide if it is just to apply the law, only to determine if it was broken. If a jury does find out about their right to nullify unjust laws or unjust applications of a the law regardless of technical guilt the judge will toss them out.
It really doesn't matter. The real issue is that some of the states wanted out. Their reasons are beside the point they should have been free to peacefully go their own way. Before the civil war things were different. States were states like France is a state and the US was more like the EU.
The constitution doesn't have any direct provisions. It does have a couple for that purpose though.
The right to trial by a jury of peers was another way that the people were supposed to have the ability to prevent the government from enforcing unjust laws.
The second amendment was to ensure that military power (by way of military grade weaponry) was distributed and in the hands of the people so that at the end of the day the government had to fear their collective anger. This was to be the recourse of the people if the government started subverting that first one.
"Except that warrantless wiretapping *is* allowed - for short periods of time... And wiretapping/review of foreign correspondence"
Allowed by whom? I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. I think you are confusing the powers which the government has illegally granted itself with the powers it has actually been granted.
That would involve being near the shooting. Like I said, natural selection.
It's cheaper to live in the sticks than in a bad part of the city so nobody has an excuse.
I'm afraid you are mistaken sir. Perhaps you should spend more time speaking to the AVERAGE american. He delivers your pizza's, works the floor or register at a retail establishment, perhaps at your local sub shop. You'll find him working crappy jobs just about anywhere that once upon a time you only found teenagers and senior citizens.
"that doesn't seem ridiculously out-of-bounds for their authority"
And theres the rub. Warrantless wiretapping is clearly out-of-bounds for any level of government. Even if congress passed a law allowing this, the president signed it, his executive branch enforced it, and the supreme court affirmed it (and PUBLIC legal defense against the government attempts is the first place the telcos should have gone with this).
Every citizen has an obligation to defend our constitution from government tyranny when they see it. By shedding blood or having their blood shed if necessary.
The problem is that the warrant-less wiretapping violates the constitution and congress lacks the authority to pass a law that allows it therefore congress cant just allow someone to do it and then pass a law granting them immunity after the fact either.
Quite frankly they lack the authority and any judge worth their salt would toss the typical "we did it in the public interest" argument out. Clearly it is NOT in the public interest to subvert the public's right as guaranteed by the constitution.
cool with me. Our company observes weekend holidays on the closest business day (sat = fri, sun = mon) and if you have a job that requires weekend and holiday work like you get paid double for working the ACTUAL day to holiday pay for the observed days.
The first part is standard fare for anyone who uses the federal holiday schedule i believe.
"Wealth tax? The Fair Tax works the same way, that is it really sticks it to the rich when they buy their toys, but it doesn't rob them at the point of a gun (or prison time.) The rich's profligate spending will be more than enough to ensure that everyone else's taxes go down, while their's goes up."
Hardly. In proportion to their wealth increases (they do their best to have no income per say) the wealthy spend the least! The poor spend everything they get. The wealthy spend so tiny a proportion relative to what they have or what they have coming in that dividing by 100 (yielding a %) doesn't even give a meaningful number.
In fact, they generally pay less than everyone else for the things they do buy because they can afford to pay more up front. If you are in the upper ranks of the middle class and can afford to buy a home you still have to take out a mortgage and pay AT LEAST double the price of the home by the time it's paid off. Not the wealthy, they can buy that house up front and pay half what you do. No mortgage, no required insurance, that is another 30% year on year you'd pay that the wealthy don't have to.
Wealthy man wants netflix, he pays in advance and therefore pays the lowest rate per month. The same with almost every other service he needs. Want cheap lawncare? Try negotiating paying 6 months or a year in advance in a lump sum and save 30% vs the guy with less bread who has to pay the highest rate.
"Is punishing the accumulation of wealth really what we want to do?"
Lets pretend that taxation is punishment. The government needs funds and can't operate as a charity. This leaves three basic options. We can tax income, tax spending, or tax wealth.
Income is directly tied to production of wealth. This is the most important of the three to a strong economy, wealth is destroyed daily so if no new wealth is produced there soon won't be an economy. We certainly don't want to punish that!
Spending is also essential to a market economy. If people buy no goods and services then there is no motivator to produce objects and services (aka wealth) because they have no value if you can't sell them. Without spending we have no jobs, no income, and no availability of the goods and services you need.
The accumulation of wealth actually has a negative or neutral effect on the economy. At best certain ways of keeping and maintaining wealth will result in spending and income production but if either of those are taxed everyone will minimize those uses. Taxing wealth on the other hand encourages minimizing entrenched wealth and therefore maximizing spending and income.
"Why should I pay the government more for being responsible in my spending?"
You shouldn't. Responsible spending in a world with a wealth tax means investing your wealth in ways that produce wealth in excess of the wealth tax rather than having wealth sit idle. Aside from that the question is why you should pay taxes. To that I say, good luck producing wealth or spending it without public infrastructure, transportation systems and roadways, education, and records, power infrastructure, and police and military protection. The more wealth you've accumulated the more public infrastructure it took to produce it, develop it, transport it, and protect it so the greater the debt you owe for these services which were loaned to you.
Of course all of that ignores the simple fact that what WE tax should be based on what benefits the WE doing the taxing. Having less than 1% of our population hold the vast majority of the wealth produced by 100% of our population only benefits that less than 1% and negatively impacts the rest. A greater portion of our population is engaged in crime than wealthy so it would make more sense to uphold the interests of criminals than the wealthy.
"I know several families that actually take home LESS money by having both parents work than if one of them would just stay home."
I've encountered those families. Generally one parent is professional earning a fat salary (at least 50k/yr) and the other is a house wife/husband or soccer mom who works some part time job out of boredom. These type of families while not uncommon are not typical either.
Again you must live in a privileged bubble like the AC where people can afford cars less than 10yrs old and take home salaries that give a total of more than 20-30k/yr per parent where each parent works three jobs to get up to that number. This represents the typical family and while the tax rolls don't see a difference (total family income of 40-70k in both cases) there is obviously a rather significant difference between family A and family B. Family A represents a higher socioeconomic status than Family B and represents a tiny minority of those in this tax bracket while family B represents your average american.
If you are in family A you probably don't even know Family B because they are too busy to socialize. It's interesting because Family B will have more children than Family A as well, meaning they have more overhead and expenses that don't yield returns than family A. It is often the case that Family B's children will grow up to be Family A's.
"So.. why DO so many families need two full-time incomes just to make ends meet, or even to live in a modest amount of comfort?"
Its really very simple. When women entered the workplace it resulted in higher incomes in many or most families overnight. The short term result is everyone has lots of income. But when everyone has lots of income it means they can afford to pay more for the same goods. The result is that industry equalizes the buying power of the double worker home to what was previously the equivalent standard of living for a single worker home of the same socioeconomic status.
That creates the same initial boom for industry that it initially created for the families. However the same effect happens to them and so on. Eventually the only ones left with a benefit are the top less than 1%. The great thing about having more money than you need is that you can just leave it in corporate investments. As long as the company continues reinvesting its gains before the end of the year it grows year on year tax free. It's like the IRA the poor and middle class use but with no early withdraw fees and no investment limits.
I don't know what world you live in. But here in the real world most families don't make a decision about two parents working. They have no choice, they can't afford to feed those children you speak of if they don't both work.
And yes, child care if free if it has to be. If you are poor you leave those children with an older retired or disabled family member.
The answer is a wealth tax such as the one in the Netherlands before they neutered it recently. If you are a US citizen you pay an annual tax on all entrenched wealth, say 3%, no matter where in the world that wealth is held.
Do that an you can abolish income tax and double standards. The poor have no entrenched wealth. The middle class don't have much. Maybe some equity on a car and/or house and 3% of their equity is going to be far less than they pay now. The wealthy have more entrenched wealth than scrooge McDuck, the wealthiest character the rest of us have been able to imagine.
Me: "The first line says the same as you..."
You: "the FAQ page that you linked disagrees with you" followed by a quote of the aforementioned first line.
-1 Redundant
"if they would have tried to fire that thing the backblast have blown them up real good"
It's called natural selection. Best to just let it happen.
"I mean can you imagine some methhead all paranoid with a pack of hydra missiles and a launcher?"
No I can't. If a methhead had a pack of hydra missiles and launcher he'd sell it for meth along with his momma and girlfriend. ;)
"But don't worry friend because if the government ever rolls the tanks i'm sure the national guard armories will be nicely emptied faster than you can say Arab Spring."
I have it on good authority that you are on to something there.
you are right, other guy is wrong http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
He is reading the first line and ignoring the following two paragraphs that clarify that 'anyone' is actually 'anyone who got both a binary and copy of written offer' BUT the GPL allows the non-commercial copying and redistribution of both your written offer and your executable. So if I get a binary from you and provide my friend with a copy for free you have to provide source to him as well.
You keep repeating that you must ship source to 'anyone' that requests it later. That technically isn't true even if it may practically be true.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
The first line says the same as you but the two paragraphs following that line modify it and clarify that it is only to those who have gotten a copy of the binary (and accompanying written offer) that you must provide the source.
There is no reason you couldn't put a code on the written offer and require the request be accompanied by a copy of the written offer. You'd have to honor it for third parties but it would allow compliance without honoring requests from random anonymous people with no chain of distribution from you. You might do this to just to reduce the volume of source requests you have to process.
They can't block your access to the source (for the binaries they gave you) no matter what 'subscription' they terminate. That would be a GPL violation.
Also, SOMEONE obviously isn't concerned with this because they are packing up a clone named CentOS.
"Claiming it's their own might be a copyright violation"
Depends on where they claim it. They have to leave the copyright notice intact on the source file but they can spout whatever they want on the website.
"I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "copyright". Copyright isn't something you "put" on a file, and what would a distributor even do that could "alter" someone else's copyright? If you don't understand the difference between a copyright notice and copyright itself, why are you lecturing others about saying stupid things on Slashdot?"
I think you are deliberately misconstruing what he said to serve your agenda. Obviously by "copyright" he meant the copyright notice and he is correct. He is incorrect in saying the module seller can't claim its their own, nothing in the GPL or copyright prevents plagiarism as long as the copyright notice and license text is included in the source.
"If he's selling it for $49 and telling people it's his original work, he's presumably not telling people it's GPL'ed, which is also a violation. (You have to provide both the source code AND the license information, so recipients know they're receiving code they can do things with)."
Almost nobody reads the source files or license.txt so I fail to see any reason the seller wouldn't comply. It's not like the buyer gets his money back when he finds out he could have gotten the module for free.
"You ever price a hellfire or a maverick? Them damned things ain't cheap friend"
Which is exactly why the argument that certain classes of weapon shouldn't fall under the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. The purpose is to arm the people to fight the government and weapons that allow it should be freely available. Of course serious weapons take serious bank and with serious bank comes a serious interest in not rocking the boat OR takes a significant group of people all contributing funds like a citizens militia.