Republicans see Democrats that way too. As long as that's the prevailing perspective, the predators (both R and D) will continue to run the farm in the same manner.
They differ on relatively minor issues, because none of them will make substantive change unless it increases their power. They talk big about issues people believe to be important, but don't actually act on them. The division caused by the argument is enough to keep them in power, since people run scared when confronted with the possibility that a person with the opposing letter after their name will win.
Continuing to support established politicians absolutely guarantees that the status quo will continue. People voting Democrat keep Republicans in power, and vice versa.
This will just empower the drive to privatize prisons, in order to defray the cost. It's a great investment, since they get a captive slave population which continues to feed the prison industry by permanently disenfranchising people (and in large part, their descendants).
An artist doesn't owe royalties or license fees to themselves unless they set up a separate legal entity to hold the copyright from that which broadcasts the performance.
Even then, the law allows for direct negotiation of broadcast payments of royalties and license fees. SoundExchange only covers fees required for non-negotiated broadcast of a performance. For example, I can broadcast anything I like legally, without contacting the rights owner, so long as I pay statutory license fees through SoundExchange. If I were to negotiate directly with the rights owner, SoundExchange would not have authority to collect anything for that distribution.
Well, yeah, since ICQ, if not inventing IM (I'm not 100% that they did, it's been a long time), certainly popularized it amongst geeks. It's hard not to be the most popular when you precede the competition by several years.:)
I believe the poster doesn't want the use of the completely moronic middle endian date format (MM/DD/YYYY), but would prefer to continue using the much more logical little or big endian format (DD/MM/YYYY or YYYY/MM/DD).
If you've ever needed to sort by date, it's readily apparent which system is superior.
Really, an actual denial? I'd like to see an article where he unequivocally denies that tax issues don't play a huge role in Amazon decisions. From the article, all the examples there are of Amazon cutting out states that want to play hardball about taxes. Those decisions are driven by cost analysis. I'd be surprised if Bezos said something that clearly contradictory to basic business sense.
If I've been following the case correctly, the states demanding action are states where Amazon has a business presence and a customer.
There are states that don't consider holding facilities to constitute a "substantial business presence." Those that do, Amazon is pulling out of in order to not have a business presence there. It seems pretty clear, at least from the article, that they are attempting to stay very firmly on the right side of tax law. Each state indicated by the article is a state that Amazon has ceased having ANY physical presence in.
Are you going to claim that sending an envelope of money to someone in another state is not an interstate transaction? If it is one, then sending a digital representation of money to someone in another state is functionally no different. If it is not one, I'd like to propose that your Kool-Aid be listed as a Schedule II drug.
I know there are a lot of stupid laws out there, but that's pretty far-fetched. Privacy has a vanishingly small number of supporters (at least those with any influence at all in politics). The likelihood of a law that strongly protecting a specific privacy interest being passed is pretty close to zero.
That said, after reading the patent excerpt, it appears as though it requires 2nd-party notification of the tagging to be covered. That limits the scope incredibly, and seems as though it would make it fairly easy to avoid.
Yup, the correct term is "Doctor of Chiropractic," though I'm sure that's not what you actually meant.
No, it's not an MD. The term "doctor" is fairly general, and used in a wide manner to mean people other than those who can prescribe controlled substances or perform surgery.
Are you arguing the fault does not ultimately rest with the populace, or that they are getting more (or less) than they deserve? I limited my assumption regarding to which you were referring, since those are the two possibilities from the quote. I suppose it could mean something else as well...
The only reason corporations can no longer be held to account through complete legal dissolution is because of the politicians and those they appoint. Then again, the root fault for those politicians is the people who elected them.
No matter who is in control, the fault rests with the masses. They get what they deserve. Unfortunately, those who don't agree get what everyone else deserves, too.
Either politicians or corporations can "potentially" be voted out (votes or money, if the difference matters to you), which is to say, cannot be avoided except in extremely limited circumstances. No, the only things that can be done to make a difference are not legal except in time of war (assuming you're the winner).
I've always found it interesting that bartering taxation shows your time is worth money to the IRS at a market rate when calculating for one side of a transaction, but not the other. Shows pretty clearly how it's based on accounting tricks, rather than actually being about "income."
Dental services for taxidermy services? Looks like you both made income on that deal by giving time worth nothing (your own) for time worth something (the other guy's). Oh, and you can't say that your time has deductible value, even though we say it does when it's to your detriment.
They're going after a small, independent developer in order to establish case law in their favor against a company that does not have the massive legal budget that the big dogs do. If it ends up that they can get a ruling in their favor, they can then use that as leverage against larger companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Republicans see Democrats that way too. As long as that's the prevailing perspective, the predators (both R and D) will continue to run the farm in the same manner.
They differ on relatively minor issues, because none of them will make substantive change unless it increases their power. They talk big about issues people believe to be important, but don't actually act on them. The division caused by the argument is enough to keep them in power, since people run scared when confronted with the possibility that a person with the opposing letter after their name will win.
Continuing to support established politicians absolutely guarantees that the status quo will continue. People voting Democrat keep Republicans in power, and vice versa.
This will just empower the drive to privatize prisons, in order to defray the cost. It's a great investment, since they get a captive slave population which continues to feed the prison industry by permanently disenfranchising people (and in large part, their descendants).
An artist doesn't owe royalties or license fees to themselves unless they set up a separate legal entity to hold the copyright from that which broadcasts the performance.
Even then, the law allows for direct negotiation of broadcast payments of royalties and license fees. SoundExchange only covers fees required for non-negotiated broadcast of a performance. For example, I can broadcast anything I like legally, without contacting the rights owner, so long as I pay statutory license fees through SoundExchange. If I were to negotiate directly with the rights owner, SoundExchange would not have authority to collect anything for that distribution.
Well, yeah, since ICQ, if not inventing IM (I'm not 100% that they did, it's been a long time), certainly popularized it amongst geeks. It's hard not to be the most popular when you precede the competition by several years. :)
Yup, this was my experience as well.
I believe the poster doesn't want the use of the completely moronic middle endian date format (MM/DD/YYYY), but would prefer to continue using the much more logical little or big endian format (DD/MM/YYYY or YYYY/MM/DD).
If you've ever needed to sort by date, it's readily apparent which system is superior.
Deal.
Really, an actual denial? I'd like to see an article where he unequivocally denies that tax issues don't play a huge role in Amazon decisions. From the article, all the examples there are of Amazon cutting out states that want to play hardball about taxes. Those decisions are driven by cost analysis. I'd be surprised if Bezos said something that clearly contradictory to basic business sense.
I don't think anyone denies that.
You're quite correct, but one episode does not excuse another.
If I've been following the case correctly, the states demanding action are states where Amazon has a business presence and a customer.
There are states that don't consider holding facilities to constitute a "substantial business presence." Those that do, Amazon is pulling out of in order to not have a business presence there. It seems pretty clear, at least from the article, that they are attempting to stay very firmly on the right side of tax law. Each state indicated by the article is a state that Amazon has ceased having ANY physical presence in.
I should have said "... envelope of money to purchase something from ..."
It should be clear what I meant, but this is /. after all.
this isn't an interstate transaction
That's some pretty specious logic.
Are you going to claim that sending an envelope of money to someone in another state is not an interstate transaction? If it is one, then sending a digital representation of money to someone in another state is functionally no different. If it is not one, I'd like to propose that your Kool-Aid be listed as a Schedule II drug.
There are a number of much bigger fish on the other side of Righthaven. The money balance is the difference.
If you hadn't posted anonymously, there would be demands for you to hand in your /. card.
It was "dismemberment" for me.
I know there are a lot of stupid laws out there, but that's pretty far-fetched. Privacy has a vanishingly small number of supporters (at least those with any influence at all in politics). The likelihood of a law that strongly protecting a specific privacy interest being passed is pretty close to zero.
Disclaimer: Software patents are stupid.
That said, after reading the patent excerpt, it appears as though it requires 2nd-party notification of the tagging to be covered. That limits the scope incredibly, and seems as though it would make it fairly easy to avoid.
Yup, the correct term is "Doctor of Chiropractic," though I'm sure that's not what you actually meant.
No, it's not an MD. The term "doctor" is fairly general, and used in a wide manner to mean people other than those who can prescribe controlled substances or perform surgery.
Are you arguing the fault does not ultimately rest with the populace, or that they are getting more (or less) than they deserve? I limited my assumption regarding to which you were referring, since those are the two possibilities from the quote. I suppose it could mean something else as well...
The only reason corporations can no longer be held to account through complete legal dissolution is because of the politicians and those they appoint. Then again, the root fault for those politicians is the people who elected them.
No matter who is in control, the fault rests with the masses. They get what they deserve. Unfortunately, those who don't agree get what everyone else deserves, too.
Either politicians or corporations can "potentially" be voted out (votes or money, if the difference matters to you), which is to say, cannot be avoided except in extremely limited circumstances. No, the only things that can be done to make a difference are not legal except in time of war (assuming you're the winner).
Heh, if only. Jobsites eat your most commonly-used tools.
I've always found it interesting that bartering taxation shows your time is worth money to the IRS at a market rate when calculating for one side of a transaction, but not the other. Shows pretty clearly how it's based on accounting tricks, rather than actually being about "income."
Dental services for taxidermy services? Looks like you both made income on that deal by giving time worth nothing (your own) for time worth something (the other guy's). Oh, and you can't say that your time has deductible value, even though we say it does when it's to your detriment.
They're going after a small, independent developer in order to establish case law in their favor against a company that does not have the massive legal budget that the big dogs do. If it ends up that they can get a ruling in their favor, they can then use that as leverage against larger companies.
Funny to note saying Apple computers were not PCs, yet used a CPU called PowerPC.