No but the next time he has to bid against other toilet cleaners he might bid lower to make sure he gets the contract especially since he knows the other toilet cleaners may have done likewise.
Collusion between toilet cleaners ruins this but that is another issue. You don't handle government "ip" incorrectly just because business is corrupt.
Significant relative to what? Certainly not the point being made. A group paying only 58% of the taxes while holding 85% of the wealth still isn't paying anywhere near their share. This is a serious imbalance whether we are talking about 85% or 95%.
or the invdividuals who use the patents, or the individuals who are able to buy cheaper goods because there is no patent tax attached, or the individuals who are able to buy superior foods using yet more advanced technologies that were developed from research done on the original nasa tech
This saves taxpayers whatever NASA gets from the sale, in proportion. Which means the poor benefit the least if at all. That isn't how the system is SUPPOSED to work. We pay our taxes in fair proportion and then everyone, regardless of the how large their portion was, has the opportunity to benefit equally from the results.
"Ok, so I see this a lot but what never seem to be mentioned is what percentage of total income is make by the people in those upper brackets. "
That is because it is difficult to generate those numbers. The best you can do is find what they reported. What is called tax evasion for you and I is called tax planning for them. There isn't anyone in the top 1% who is paying taxes on even 1% of the money they make.
Instead you look at total wealth and they hold well over 95% of the wealth in this nation.
The fact is the top 1% used to pay 60% so their share of the taxes has been cut in half. The fact is that the top 10% have over 95% of the wealth so they SHOULD be paying 95% of all taxes.
If you make $100 million you pay a higher number of dollars but a smaller portion relative to your income.
No don't quote tax rates at me. There are a million and one tax tricks and shelters the wealthy utilize to shrink their income on paper to almost nothing. If there is anyone reporting $100 million who didn't make at least a couple billion then I'm the pope.
Sealand has been successfully defended from the British Navy. Additionally the United Kingdom has upheld the sovereignty of Sealand in multiple court verdicts. Germany later recognized the sovereignty of Sealand by sending a diplomat to negotiate the release of some of its citizens who attempted to take the base by force.
There is also no reason that multiple links couldn't be run through international waters the same as any other nation.
By late 1968, the British navy had become aware of the new situation off the coast of England. They were interested in terminating the state of affairs brought about by an error committed by the most senior military authorities without causing too much uproar.
Units of the navy entered the territorial waters claimed by Roy of Sealand. As he was aware of his sovereignty, Roy of Sealand threatened the navy by undertaking defensive activity. Shots were fired from Sealand in warning.
Since Roy of Sealand was still an English citizen, he was thus accused of extensive crimes in Britain and was summoned to an English court. The result of this lawsuit in Chelmsford, Essex was a spectacular success for Sealand's claim to sovereignty. In its judgment of 25 November 1968, the court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any jurisdiction outside of British national territory. This is the first de facto recognition of the Principality of Sealand. English law had ruled that Sealand was not part of the United Kingdom, nor did any other nation claim it, hence Prince Roy's declaration of a new Sovereign State was de facto upheld. "
If I am not mistaken you don't magically own copyright on photos of objects you own anyway. Not unless the object is a work of art and you hold the copyright on that work.
Somehow I doubt these guys are the original artists or that the copyright on Stonehenge is still valid.
The people are especially diminished here in the US. The government progressively disarms them so they have no teeth (I doubt anyone argues that improvised explosives and small arms are useless for fighting a modern military anymore) and the courts have already removed the only direct check the people have vs government (jury nullification).
I know its a joke but seriously don't spread this garbage for the US propoganda machine. He was accused of having consensual sex without a condom. They call that molestation in Sweden.
"any organization that threatens to undermine the authority of enough governments"
I find the impact of the Pirate Party in this regard to be truly frightening. It is very sad that there are so many governments in the pockets of the copyright cartels that an organization which is pro-pirate and not anti-government is labeled as a 'terrorist threat'.
"You cannot claim that the reach of a book is increased by local stores that do not carry that book. So you are wrong, the total is not the cumulative reach of all local stores."
In a fantasy world where we are discussing a single book you may be right. But in this world we are discussing lots of people, poaching lots of books in lots of local stores. We aren't discussing the reach of a book, we are talking about the ECONOMIC reach of these cumulative actions across the entire relevant markets.
The potential audience of a specific book doesn't especially matter and in fact garnering a greater audience for a book than is required to sell it only serves to promote inflation of the price. It isn't as if the man who pays a higher price in your global market has more right to the book than the man who hunts through local bookstores and pays a lower price.
"You are assuming that all small bookstores are interchangeable and carry the same stock. Only if this is the case can we talk about their "cumulative total" and assume that we multiply the size of a small market by the number of small markets. If they all carry a unique stock then their total is much smaller."
Total what? Is there some basis for this claim or are you just making up random requirements? What does stock have to do with anything?
Your argument was dependent on the total reach of the market. You claimed it was better to get the books into a global market at an inflated price. I pointed out that these scavengers are robbing all local bookstores so the total reach is that of all the local stores vs your global market, not one individual store.
"If the approximately $2 in shipping is too rich for you, then this guy is indeed impacting your hobby and you'll need to rethink the library."
It isn't whether or not $2 is too rich for me. When your marketplace (the typical used bookstore) sells most of their wares for $0.25 - $0.50 and a serious reader goes through 7-10 books a week that difference becomes substantial pretty quickly.
"He's still not doing anything unethical."
That depends on perspective. Should anyone be running after him with pitchforks? No. But he is reducing the average spending power of the dollar because he is raising the price of goods without adding any value. Basically, he is an economic parasite causing inflation and hurting the economy.
"Couldn't you do the same thing, only sell your books on Amazon Marketplace, also buying new ones on Amazon Marketplace, and essentially just pay postage?"
You could, but the postage will be more than the price of the books, let alone the price after credit for trade in.
"This does not seem to be true in the US. Are you in another country?"
You are mistaken, apparently you've never tried it. By all means, go to your library and walk up with a mint condition used book and ask to donate it. You'll be turned away.
I'm going to have to disagree pretty much entirely. There are thousands of those little shots that don't work in 2D either. Those shots are the reason there are professionals and that there is a wide gap between their work and that of any random joe with an hd camcorder. I can't imagine how these could possibly be worth giving up an entire depth of perception.
I'm going to have to disagree, 3D is better than bacon. Frankly, 2D is a terrible shoddy hack we have suffered through on the way to effective 3D technology. Now that 3D can be done right I can understand having movies be backwards compatible with 2D until the technology is pervasive but I can't see filming 2D only movies or sacrificing 3D shots for the benefit of 2D viewing.
Personally, I see life in 3D and have trouble grasping how someone could find a 2D picture to be more lifelike or immersible than the 3D we see in natively.
Poking through stock is a far cry from systematically deshelving and scanning the entire store. Even the staff wouldn't do that during business hours for inventory purposes.
"Why were you, as a poor person, going through thrift shops instead of borrowing from the library?"
Maybe you read A LOT of books and give them to the local thrift store in exchange for credit on books you haven't read yet (many do this). The publishing industry has made sure that your local library can't accept secondhand book donations so the selection is limited as are the number of copies.
Libraries also are not some charity program for poor people to get books. Libraries are our collective public archive of knowledge and learning. They exist as a resource for all citizens (including those who can afford to purchase from amazon) and as a symbol of our knowledge. You can tell from the quality, importance, and selection of the public libraries a society keeps whether it is a gathering of the educated and enlightened or a pit of the ignorant and obtuse.
There is a flaw in your argument. Your argument falls apart if your global market is not larger than your local market... the problem is that you are arguing as if that applies to one local market but your argument isn't valid unless the cumulative total of ALL local markets are (substantially) smaller than your global market.
If not then it is quite possible that those who can't afford to shop on your global marketplace and purchase instead from the cumulative local marketplaces of the world are in fact the majority and not the minority you propose them to be.
This adds absolutely no value to the economy, the books sell anyway. He isn't enhancing the value of the book in any way he is simply inflating the price. By doing so he is devaluing the purchasing power of the dollar AND robbing society of any value he might be adding to our economy doing something productive.
This rewards the lazy person who would rather spend extra money to sit on their rear and punishes the active person who will work a little harder by going to the bookstore themselves in order to save. The first leads to inflation while the second does the opposite. The first is the pattern of behavior that has recently culminated in a crash of the global economy.
Slashdot Mirror
The planet doesn't give a damn. It's us who are fucked.
No but the next time he has to bid against other toilet cleaners he might bid lower to make sure he gets the contract especially since he knows the other toilet cleaners may have done likewise.
Collusion between toilet cleaners ruins this but that is another issue. You don't handle government "ip" incorrectly just because business is corrupt.
Significant relative to what? Certainly not the point being made. A group paying only 58% of the taxes while holding 85% of the wealth still isn't paying anywhere near their share. This is a serious imbalance whether we are talking about 85% or 95%.
or the invdividuals who use the patents, or the individuals who are able to buy cheaper goods because there is no patent tax attached, or the individuals who are able to buy superior foods using yet more advanced technologies that were developed from research done on the original nasa tech
This saves taxpayers whatever NASA gets from the sale, in proportion. Which means the poor benefit the least if at all. That isn't how the system is SUPPOSED to work. We pay our taxes in fair proportion and then everyone, regardless of the how large their portion was, has the opportunity to benefit equally from the results.
yeah because private ventures couldn't have used it in if it were in the public domain.
"Ok, so I see this a lot but what never seem to be mentioned is what percentage of total income is make by the people in those upper brackets. "
That is because it is difficult to generate those numbers. The best you can do is find what they reported. What is called tax evasion for you and I is called tax planning for them. There isn't anyone in the top 1% who is paying taxes on even 1% of the money they make.
Instead you look at total wealth and they hold well over 95% of the wealth in this nation.
The fact is the top 1% used to pay 60% so their share of the taxes has been cut in half. The fact is that the top 10% have over 95% of the wealth so they SHOULD be paying 95% of all taxes.
If you make $100 million you pay a higher number of dollars but a smaller portion relative to your income.
No don't quote tax rates at me. There are a million and one tax tricks and shelters the wealthy utilize to shrink their income on paper to almost nothing. If there is anyone reporting $100 million who didn't make at least a couple billion then I'm the pope.
Your system takes 30ms so 126ms is downright impressive?
Sealand has been successfully defended from the British Navy. Additionally the United Kingdom has upheld the sovereignty of Sealand in multiple court verdicts. Germany later recognized the sovereignty of Sealand by sending a diplomat to negotiate the release of some of its citizens who attempted to take the base by force.
There is also no reason that multiple links couldn't be run through international waters the same as any other nation.
From http://www.sealandgov.org/history.html
"Initial Challenge to Sealand's Sovereignty
By late 1968, the British navy had become aware of the new situation off the coast of England. They were interested in terminating the state of affairs brought about by an error committed by the most senior military authorities without causing too much uproar.
Units of the navy entered the territorial waters claimed by Roy of Sealand. As he was aware of his sovereignty, Roy of Sealand threatened the navy by undertaking defensive activity. Shots were fired from Sealand in warning.
Since Roy of Sealand was still an English citizen, he was thus accused of extensive crimes in Britain and was summoned to an English court. The result of this lawsuit in Chelmsford, Essex was a spectacular success for Sealand's claim to sovereignty. In its judgment of 25 November 1968, the court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any jurisdiction outside of British national territory. This is the first de facto recognition of the Principality of Sealand. English law had ruled that Sealand was not part of the United Kingdom, nor did any other nation claim it, hence Prince Roy's declaration of a new Sovereign State was de facto upheld. "
If I am not mistaken you don't magically own copyright on photos of objects you own anyway. Not unless the object is a work of art and you hold the copyright on that work.
Somehow I doubt these guys are the original artists or that the copyright on Stonehenge is still valid.
Just because you own something doesn't mean you own the copyright on pictures of it. Unless these guys claim to be the artists who created Stonehenge?
The people are especially diminished here in the US. The government progressively disarms them so they have no teeth (I doubt anyone argues that improvised explosives and small arms are useless for fighting a modern military anymore) and the courts have already removed the only direct check the people have vs government (jury nullification).
I know its a joke but seriously don't spread this garbage for the US propoganda machine. He was accused of having consensual sex without a condom. They call that molestation in Sweden.
"any organization that threatens to undermine the authority of enough governments"
I find the impact of the Pirate Party in this regard to be truly frightening. It is very sad that there are so many governments in the pockets of the copyright cartels that an organization which is pro-pirate and not anti-government is labeled as a 'terrorist threat'.
"You cannot claim that the reach of a book is increased by local stores that do not carry that book. So you are wrong, the total is not the cumulative reach of all local stores."
In a fantasy world where we are discussing a single book you may be right. But in this world we are discussing lots of people, poaching lots of books in lots of local stores. We aren't discussing the reach of a book, we are talking about the ECONOMIC reach of these cumulative actions across the entire relevant markets.
The potential audience of a specific book doesn't especially matter and in fact garnering a greater audience for a book than is required to sell it only serves to promote inflation of the price. It isn't as if the man who pays a higher price in your global market has more right to the book than the man who hunts through local bookstores and pays a lower price.
"You are assuming that all small bookstores are interchangeable and carry the same stock. Only if this is the case can we talk about their "cumulative total" and assume that we multiply the size of a small market by the number of small markets. If they all carry a unique stock then their total is much smaller."
Total what? Is there some basis for this claim or are you just making up random requirements? What does stock have to do with anything?
Your argument was dependent on the total reach of the market. You claimed it was better to get the books into a global market at an inflated price. I pointed out that these scavengers are robbing all local bookstores so the total reach is that of all the local stores vs your global market, not one individual store.
"If the approximately $2 in shipping is too rich for you, then this guy is indeed impacting your hobby and you'll need to rethink the library."
It isn't whether or not $2 is too rich for me. When your marketplace (the typical used bookstore) sells most of their wares for $0.25 - $0.50 and a serious reader goes through 7-10 books a week that difference becomes substantial pretty quickly.
"He's still not doing anything unethical."
That depends on perspective. Should anyone be running after him with pitchforks? No. But he is reducing the average spending power of the dollar because he is raising the price of goods without adding any value. Basically, he is an economic parasite causing inflation and hurting the economy.
Sounds like you've been lucky so far.
http://www.allaboutvision.com/sunglasses/spf.htm
First but hardly the only hit on google.
"Couldn't you do the same thing, only sell your books on Amazon Marketplace, also buying new ones on Amazon Marketplace, and essentially just pay postage?"
You could, but the postage will be more than the price of the books, let alone the price after credit for trade in.
"This does not seem to be true in the US. Are you in another country?"
You are mistaken, apparently you've never tried it. By all means, go to your library and walk up with a mint condition used book and ask to donate it. You'll be turned away.
I'm going to have to disagree pretty much entirely. There are thousands of those little shots that don't work in 2D either. Those shots are the reason there are professionals and that there is a wide gap between their work and that of any random joe with an hd camcorder. I can't imagine how these could possibly be worth giving up an entire depth of perception.
I'm going to have to disagree, 3D is better than bacon. Frankly, 2D is a terrible shoddy hack we have suffered through on the way to effective 3D technology. Now that 3D can be done right I can understand having movies be backwards compatible with 2D until the technology is pervasive but I can't see filming 2D only movies or sacrificing 3D shots for the benefit of 2D viewing.
Personally, I see life in 3D and have trouble grasping how someone could find a 2D picture to be more lifelike or immersible than the 3D we see in natively.
Poking through stock is a far cry from systematically deshelving and scanning the entire store. Even the staff wouldn't do that during business hours for inventory purposes.
"Why were you, as a poor person, going through thrift shops instead of borrowing from the library?"
Maybe you read A LOT of books and give them to the local thrift store in exchange for credit on books you haven't read yet (many do this). The publishing industry has made sure that your local library can't accept secondhand book donations so the selection is limited as are the number of copies.
Libraries also are not some charity program for poor people to get books. Libraries are our collective public archive of knowledge and learning. They exist as a resource for all citizens (including those who can afford to purchase from amazon) and as a symbol of our knowledge. You can tell from the quality, importance, and selection of the public libraries a society keeps whether it is a gathering of the educated and enlightened or a pit of the ignorant and obtuse.
nah, George C observed the clues. He discovered that people don't trust their local water.
There is a flaw in your argument. Your argument falls apart if your global market is not larger than your local market... the problem is that you are arguing as if that applies to one local market but your argument isn't valid unless the cumulative total of ALL local markets are (substantially) smaller than your global market.
If not then it is quite possible that those who can't afford to shop on your global marketplace and purchase instead from the cumulative local marketplaces of the world are in fact the majority and not the minority you propose them to be.
This adds absolutely no value to the economy, the books sell anyway. He isn't enhancing the value of the book in any way he is simply inflating the price. By doing so he is devaluing the purchasing power of the dollar AND robbing society of any value he might be adding to our economy doing something productive.
This rewards the lazy person who would rather spend extra money to sit on their rear and punishes the active person who will work a little harder by going to the bookstore themselves in order to save. The first leads to inflation while the second does the opposite. The first is the pattern of behavior that has recently culminated in a crash of the global economy.