> We don't need a system where I become a millionaire, but it does need to be enough that I can make music
No it doesn't.
There are plenty of fields where people could produce good work, but there isn't a customer base to support that work. How many skilled pot makers can make a living throwing pots?
The thing is, there is no shortage in the supply of musicians. If nobody was producing good new work, _and_ there was demand for good new work, then you could charge people to come to your concerts.
The fact that you can't charge means that either there are plenty of other folks producing music, or that people don't want to pay for more/better music to be produced.
Carry on producing your music slowly and sparingly. Accept the fact that nobody cares enough about what you do to pay you to produce more.
Alternatively, I'm sure there are sites where you can promise to produce your next album in return for $50,000. Join one and see if you can convince people to pay to hear you.
If you're moderately big and you sell to Europe, then you charge vat based on the country of the person you are shipping to. Physical goods and electronic goods (like app stores) deal with this just fine. It's a pain, but it only kicks in when your business is big enough to deal with it (otherwise you don't have to register for VAT)
re figuring out where you are from; That's easy. Most of the time, your credit card won't work unless you provide the correct billing address. This doesn't need to be correct 100% of the time - it just needs to mostly collect the right sales tax and send that to the state governments.
there might be a small opportunity in re-shipping, but it is going to be pretty small. It only applies where
%tax differential between states * cost of goods > cost of re-shipping + profit for re-shipping company + saving to make it worthwhile for the additional hassle/delay
Countries (well - leaders) are desperate to win the bid. They get to stand around, look like winners, and hope that some of the magic will rub off on their next election campaign. At the time of bidding, the papers are either reporting win or lose regarding the bid. There isn't any examination of what is being agreed in order to win.
As a result, they'll swallow any crap the IOC (or football world cup, or whatever) thrust down their throat as conditions of bidding.
My understanding is that these rules are now a standard, and are required every cycle. Of course, as the IOC gets away with one batch of craziness, they ask for more next time round.
I'll certainly be doing my best to boy ignore the olympics.
a) We _could_ afford to do that if we wanted b) That isn't generally the argument used. It tends to run more along the lines of "nuclear is dangerous and expensive in the long run, so we shouldn't use it"
I'm not expert on the arguments, but knocking down an argument which isn't used (b) with a statement that isn't true (a) doesn't really demonstrate anything.
That's manageable. Get the person reporting the crime to sign a witness statement that they have got the data honestly and in good faith.
If you wind up with someone abusing the system to get raids on their enemies - then you can prosecute them for giving the police a false statement, wasting police time, etc.
Policing is frequently (mostly?) done on the basis of what someone says.
They believe they are the good guys who are fighting an unequal battle against the bad guys. As a result, they come to believe that whatever they need to do to catch those bad-guys is reasonable and required.
So they do bad things, and still believe they are good guys.
Plus, they naturally sympathise with their good-guy friends who probably had reason to do those things which might sound bad. They're good guys, so there must be a reasonable explanation.
really - let's assume for the sake of argument that he was planning to use a bomb to kill some people.
why would he send a text saying 'explode the competition'
it seems odd that an international terrorist would
1) encourage his team of associate killers by txt 2) target his team's competition at a trade fair (rather than say - the crowd in a train station, or all the people at the trade fair).
I say 'blast these idiot jobsworths'
you'll have to conclude for yourself whether I am implying the use of TNT.
It seems pretty clear to me. The agents would have lost way too much face if they just said 'sorry, we now realise this was a misunderstanding'
Instead, they were able to say 'yes - we defending the country, and never go over the top when investigating genuine threats to the security of our nation' as they convinced themselves that the kids should never have threatened America and were lucky to be sent back to the UK with a permanent ban on US travel rather than being hooded and sent straight to gitmo.
Never underestimate the power of people to delude themselves when the alternative is to admit that they foolishly over-reacted.
Germany is probably your best bet. They have fairly recent cultural memory of abuses of power in the context of privacy/spying and this strongly influences their laws and attitudes to data protection.
Remember how you laughed as they complained about google streetview? Those same attitudes give you a much safer home for _your_ data.
1) Raising fuel taxes a lot certainly influences car choice and average mileage. Look at the average car in the UK vs the average car in the USA. The large trucks/suv/etc which are common in the USA are almost unheard of in the UK. Similarly, your idea of a compact economy car (e.g. at a rental company) is our idea of a large sedan. Over the last few years, our fuel costs overall have gone up significantly and there has been a noticeable shift towards smaller more economical cars. I can't find hard stats, but I'll eat my hat if this doesn't flow through to average mpg.
2) Raising more tax via fuel would allow the government to reduce the tax burden elsewhere - so there isn't _necessarily_ a significant impact on the cost of all goods - just a shift of cost towards goods with high transport costs.
any earnings above $200k per year are marked as 'at risk' by law (in any company)
you (the highly paid employee) get this cash - but it can be recalled by the company if either: 1) it was shown that your negligent actions caused a major loss (your investments were toxic, your giant contract was a fraud,etc) 2) the company fails (goes bankrupt, requires bailout, etc)
the 'at risk' cash would gradually transfer to 'safe' ownership over a period of 5 years (20% per year)
this means that if you are a high earner at any company, you have a powerful interest in making sure that company doesn't screw up.
the ordinary workers who don't really have the ability to influence policy are protected - but anyone who earns a lot should then make it their business to understand what risks the company is taking.
so company directors who run their companies into the ground - creditors can come after your 'at risk' earnings for the last 5 years banks that fail - 'at risk' earnings go back into the creditor pot
I doubt that legal attacks will have much success. There will be something in the terms and conditions and it will all be justified 'for the kids'
Technical attacks will no doubt succeed for folks who are willing to jump through hoops - but this will stop casual users from just inserting a live disk and giving ubuntu a try.
Some manufacturers will give out a key, some will charge an 'admin fee' to get hold of it, some will refuse (and probably get bonus points from MS as they do)
rather than letting the electricity company switch things off - let them publish rate info electronically.
e.g. 6.00pm to 6.01pm high rate 6.01pm to 6.02pm low rate
then you can have a server in your home which makes decisions where you control the params. switch it onto 'don't give a damn' mode 'super green' mode or 'minimum bill' mode
it can broadcast info on your local power net (power cables can easily carry info) saying things like 'shut down now for a minute if it isn't critical' 'really shut down now' or 'do your heavy lifting now' and the devices can react accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
> We don't need a system where I become a millionaire, but it does need to be enough that I can make music
No it doesn't.
There are plenty of fields where people could produce good work, but there isn't a customer base to support that work.
How many skilled pot makers can make a living throwing pots?
The thing is, there is no shortage in the supply of musicians. If nobody was producing good new work, _and_ there was demand for good new work, then you could charge people to come to your concerts.
The fact that you can't charge means that either there are plenty of other folks producing music, or that people don't want to pay for more/better music to be produced.
Carry on producing your music slowly and sparingly. Accept the fact that nobody cares enough about what you do to pay you to produce more.
Alternatively, I'm sure there are sites where you can promise to produce your next album in return for $50,000. Join one and see if you can convince people to pay to hear you.
yup - works fine for Europe.
If you're moderately big and you sell to Europe, then you charge vat based on the country of the person you are shipping to.
Physical goods and electronic goods (like app stores) deal with this just fine. It's a pain, but it only kicks in when your business is big enough to deal with it (otherwise you don't have to register for VAT)
re figuring out where you are from; That's easy. Most of the time, your credit card won't work unless you provide the correct billing address. This doesn't need to be correct 100% of the time - it just needs to mostly collect the right sales tax and send that to the state governments.
there might be a small opportunity in re-shipping, but it is going to be pretty small. It only applies where
%tax differential between states * cost of goods > cost of re-shipping + profit for re-shipping company + saving to make it worthwhile for the additional hassle/delay
Countries (well - leaders) are desperate to win the bid. They get to stand around, look like winners, and hope that some of the magic will rub off on their next election campaign. At the time of bidding, the papers are either reporting win or lose regarding the bid. There isn't any examination of what is being agreed in order to win.
As a result, they'll swallow any crap the IOC (or football world cup, or whatever) thrust down their throat as conditions of bidding.
My understanding is that these rules are now a standard, and are required every cycle. Of course, as the IOC gets away with one batch of craziness, they ask for more next time round.
I'll certainly be doing my best to boy ignore the olympics.
a) We _could_ afford to do that if we wanted
b) That isn't generally the argument used. It tends to run more along the lines of "nuclear is dangerous and expensive in the long run, so we shouldn't use it"
I'm not expert on the arguments, but knocking down an argument which isn't used (b) with a statement that isn't true (a) doesn't really demonstrate anything.
not quite;
Taxpayers' get the benefit, and taxpayers' children, grandchildren and great grandchildren get the expense of decommissioning and handling the waste.
This is the big problem with nuclear - it's broadly equivalent to taking out a huge loan which will be paid down over the next few thousand years.
That's manageable. Get the person reporting the crime to sign a witness statement that they have got the data honestly and in good faith.
If you wind up with someone abusing the system to get raids on their enemies - then you can prosecute them for giving the police a false statement, wasting police time, etc.
Policing is frequently (mostly?) done on the basis of what someone says.
There's more to it than that.
They believe they are the good guys who are fighting an unequal battle against the bad guys. As a result, they come to believe that whatever they need to do to catch those bad-guys is reasonable and required.
So they do bad things, and still believe they are good guys.
Plus, they naturally sympathise with their good-guy friends who probably had reason to do those things which might sound bad. They're good guys, so there must be a reasonable explanation.
the jury found them guilty - but didn't award much damages
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=&sid=1577281
surely something as amusing as that must be protected free speech under a parody rule...
I thought we were all boycotting Sony after the Geohot abuse anyway?
I know I am. It's a shame - they make good e-readers and I would have bought one otherwise.
really - let's assume for the sake of argument that he was planning to use a bomb to kill some people.
why would he send a text saying 'explode the competition'
it seems odd that an international terrorist would
1) encourage his team of associate killers by txt
2) target his team's competition at a trade fair (rather than say - the crowd in a train station, or all the people at the trade fair).
I say 'blast these idiot jobsworths'
you'll have to conclude for yourself whether I am implying the use of TNT.
yup - they laughed at him.
right there, they sealed their fate.
It seems pretty clear to me. The agents would have lost way too much face if they just said 'sorry, we now realise this was a misunderstanding'
Instead, they were able to say 'yes - we defending the country, and never go over the top when investigating genuine threats to the security of our nation' as they convinced themselves that the kids should never have threatened America and were lucky to be sent back to the UK with a permanent ban on US travel rather than being hooded and sent straight to gitmo.
Never underestimate the power of people to delude themselves when the alternative is to admit that they foolishly over-reacted.
nope - Gordon Brown tried to do that deal with the US, he was rebuffed.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/wikileaks_us_no_deal_to_gordon_brown_s_plea_to_keep_scots_hacker_in_uk_1_836400
Germany is probably your best bet. They have fairly recent cultural memory of abuses of power in the context of privacy/spying and this strongly influences their laws and attitudes to data protection.
Remember how you laughed as they complained about google streetview? Those same attitudes give you a much safer home for _your_ data.
Survey monkey is perfect.
A friend of a friend recently used it for her wedding. She included the question :
'Does anyone have a size 10 wedding dress that I can borrow'
spend the money you save on more/better champagne for your guests.
let's try a thought experiment.
Thought World A:
-Fuel costs $7.70/gallon (about the cost of unleaded in the UK)
-Average commute 100 miles/day
Thought World B:
-Fuel costs $7.70/gallon (about the cost of unleaded in the UK)
-Average commute 10 miles/day
Which of these worlds is going to experience a faster movement to smaller more fuel-efficient cars?
My guess is that World A is the one which will switch further/faster due to the much higher cost/day.
Small fuel efficient cars can still cover large distances.
Not so simple.
1) Raising fuel taxes a lot certainly influences car choice and average mileage. Look at the average car in the UK vs the average car in the USA.
The large trucks/suv/etc which are common in the USA are almost unheard of in the UK. Similarly, your idea of a compact economy car (e.g. at a rental company) is our idea of a large sedan. Over the last few years, our fuel costs overall have gone up significantly and there has been a noticeable shift towards smaller more economical cars. I can't find hard stats, but I'll eat my hat if this doesn't flow through to average mpg.
2) Raising more tax via fuel would allow the government to reduce the tax burden elsewhere - so there isn't _necessarily_ a significant impact on the cost of all goods - just a shift of cost towards goods with high transport costs.
If the government is publishing the list of supporters, shouldn't they publish the list of people who have objected?
the government site is here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_RogueWebsites.html
perhaps nobody has objected?
my suggestion:
any earnings above $200k per year are marked as 'at risk' by law (in any company)
you (the highly paid employee) get this cash - but it can be recalled by the company if either:
1) it was shown that your negligent actions caused a major loss (your investments were toxic, your giant contract was a fraud,etc)
2) the company fails (goes bankrupt, requires bailout, etc)
the 'at risk' cash would gradually transfer to 'safe' ownership over a period of 5 years (20% per year)
this means that if you are a high earner at any company, you have a powerful interest in making sure that company doesn't screw up.
the ordinary workers who don't really have the ability to influence policy are protected - but anyone who earns a lot should then make it their business to understand what risks the company is taking.
so company directors who run their companies into the ground - creditors can come after your 'at risk' earnings for the last 5 years
banks that fail - 'at risk' earnings go back into the creditor pot
etc, etc..
go on - tell us what it does (in English)
I doubt that legal attacks will have much success. There will be something in the terms and conditions and it will all be justified 'for the kids'
Technical attacks will no doubt succeed for folks who are willing to jump through hoops - but this will stop casual users from just inserting a live disk and giving ubuntu a try.
Some manufacturers will give out a key, some will charge an 'admin fee' to get hold of it, some will refuse (and probably get bonus points from MS as they do)
Google already know where traffic jams are. They have their own broadly deployed tracking system. (android/google maps/google navigation).
the smart meter business is backwards.
rather than letting the electricity company switch things off - let them publish rate info electronically.
e.g. 6.00pm to 6.01pm high rate
6.01pm to 6.02pm low rate
then you can have a server in your home which makes decisions where you control the params.
switch it onto 'don't give a damn' mode 'super green' mode or 'minimum bill' mode
it can broadcast info on your local power net (power cables can easily carry info) saying things like 'shut down now for a minute if it isn't critical' 'really shut down now' or 'do your heavy lifting now' and the devices can react accordingly.
you have to watch those stats as well. E.g. prostrate cancer survival ~ #alive after n years/#diagnosed
the 'real' measure would be
#alive after n years/#with cancer
different countries will have different values for
#diagnosed/#with cancer
and the diagnosed group is unlikely to be an unbiased sample.