Absolutely. I can buy transmissions, transmission parts, engines, partial engines, electronics, etc. I could, if I wanted, buy all the pieces to a car except maybe the underlying frame at this point and time. In fact, that's the only piece I think I cannot buy "unassembled".
Example time: Apple makes an iPhone in China, except for putting the home button / fingerprint sensor thing on it. They then ship them like that from China to some low-rent factory in the cheapest real estate market in the US, along with a pallet of fingerprint sensors
Great - as any parts shipped in must be available for sale at stated prices. I can buy buttons, so I can buy the other piece(s) also, right? No? Then I guess the valuation will be whatever the customs folks think is fair.
Except the law will be written in a completely foolish way that allows for one of the following results:
The new tax / tariff only applies to completed goods for sale.
Except the law could be written in a way to completely foolish way that won't allow for any of this, and any item changing hands is subject to sales tax, as it was obviously "completed" enough for sale. (I am simply in awe of your logic so I immediately took it as my own!)
I actually am proposing a universal sales tax. Not a VAT, just a flat sales tax. Every change of ownership results in a charge. It is simple, no exceptions, and can be a relatively low rate. It will impact imports slightly more, but that's the nature of the game. It will also stabilize the revenue flow for the federal government, and should be coupled to a general reduction of income taxes.
Copyright when it was originally conceived was to protect an author (creator) against a distributor stealing their work and profiting from it, pure and simple.
That's only half the story. The other half is about encouraging the creation of material to steal from after the reasonably short term copyright runs out.
It was about encouraging the small author to publish, as stealing was rampant at the time. In fact copyright in the US only applied to US citizens created works. Foreign works or works by non-citizens were fair game for any publisher to steal. By having more small authors publish, more items entered into the public domain, which was the general intent to spur more material. Far-sighted? Surely.
Neither NAFTA nor TPP prohibit sales taxes nor inspections. Inspecting every item should be happening anyways, how can we guarantee border security without full inspections? (I have different reasons for it, but hey, a Trump stumping point can be useful:)
Except economically tariffs fail at everything actually good and do a ton of bad things. They increase costs more than anything, and given the way logistics works and the whole comparative advantage from geography bit, all they do is cause more consumers to be forced to do without a good.
Except that is exactly what tariffs are good at when used uniformly and fairly. One - they raise revenue. Two - they raise prices on imported goods. Full inspections will also raise prices on imported goods. As for consumers having to do without: when prices are fair given the current situation, people in general can afford fewer things. That is because currently prices are not fair, being supported by child/slave labor and/or subsidies. Using the tax on imports to cut the costs of domestic labor such as employer side social security and various employee costs such as unemployment insurance likely would dramatically reduce the resistance of domestic employment. This could oddly help imports as more people with more money means they actually might be able to afford more imports. The current race to the bottom certainly isn't working out for the average person.
actually very simply and doesn't require anything new legally - raise import taxes at the borders (yes, Congress will have to act, but it is not anything they weren't allowed from day 1) and inspect every single item. Does the inspection cost a lot? Of course, but you just charge the guy coming across the border. Voila - instant tax on externally produced products and job creation in one fell swoop.
Copyright when it was originally conceived was to protect an author (creator) against a distributor stealing their work and profiting from it, pure and simple. To obtain a copyright, you had to file paperwork and a copy of your work with the Library of Congress, and you got 14 years of protection for providing a copy for posterity (one of the original goals of copyright. If you filed more paperwork, you could get that extended to 28 years, which seems more than enough to profit from your work in exchange for making it public domain afterwards. Everything since in copyright law has effectively made the distributors richer at the expense of the creators themselves and the public for which copyright was originally conceived.
The founders touted the "All men are created equal" line but then ensured that slaves were not defined as men.
It should be noted that while slaves were not defined as "men", neither were: women, anyone under 21, anyone not propertied and self-sufficient, and certainly no convicted felons, IIRC. You might also note that while many assume only white propertied males over 21, that was not exactly the case either.
...we can damn well prosecute and then incarcerate those who break our laws regardless of their claim that they were simply following orders.
I believe this is finally coming round, and we can only hope everyone is held to the same yardstick.
My cheeky comment was more to open a discussion on one aspect that always troubled me - the founders talked a good game, but they certainly didn't walk it. This well known violation seems at odds with their ideals.
And yet, after all this time, we do know that they FBI routinely acted against people like Martin Luther King, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger and John Lennon among many others without "intel" of any kind other than a gut feeling by Jedgar himself.
And we know that Benjamin F read the mail of suspected Tories... I guess the Amendments may have been tongue in cheek?
Depends on your priorities. If you are aiming for minimum weight and want something so thin that flexing is an issue, then sone titanium alloys are great. If not, other alloys that will ding up less at the expense of a small amount more weight, and you can design it to be more resistant to flex by giving components more space.
Do you have the slightest idea exactly how tough and strong Titanium is?
If you don't count 90% of the devices connected to the Internet.
They are clients or a shrinking set of servers, but not internet infrastructure. There's a solid reason for this, and that is security. Windows doesn't have it.
Or, perhaps, it was merely the result of the ever volatile issues affecting the differing people, cultures, and beliefs that comprise the middle east? It is not like the genocidal barbarism just started in the past 10, 50, or even 200 years.
Check out Amendment 1. Now if the FBI was to say they were keeping an eye on these folks because they had intel they were up to nefarious purposes, then yes.
That's commercial speech, not quite the same thing as non-commercial or political speech, as the linked article states. Accepting payment for publishing a bit of speech is different than providing a general platform for people to speak. I'd say first amendment principles apply here, although if it is ruled that the material posted in the accounts in question run afoul of laws, then she may have the basis for a lawsuit. (IANAL etc etc etc)
Not sure I follow either argument. If realistic constraints are put into economic models and upon society, then a realistic expectation can be set for the future. However, people in general may not appreciate the implications of such models because, as you already suspect, forces will push society to a more socialistic version than what we are today. The entire allowance concept is likely to become reality, unless you're particularly craving the dystopian futures enshrined in movies such as BladeRunner, Elysium, District 9, or even Judge Dredd or Total Recall where the masses subsist like animals. Like it or not, the results of robots taking over more and more jobs will be less and less work for a rather large percentage of the work force. When robots start fixing robots, there will be a large crash in jobs. I do not believe Joe/Jane Sixpack will be able to adept to this new economy, and even if they could, there won't be anything for them to do. Note that I don't think this is limited to Joe/Jane Sixpack either, as robots are already starting to perform surgery, and I suspect that the surgeon will become redundant for standard procedures within our lifetimes. Even actors will likely become redundant with computer models replacing them. I give us about 30 years to figure out how to handle the results of this inevitable future.
It's going to be a problem, because of all the code that's already there. Merely republishing it under MIT will not negate the fact that tons of solutions were already available in the public domain, and cannot be removed from PD no matter what you do. Once PD, always PD.
SO is a short cut for me which usually leads to the exact portion of whatever documentation I need to review to implement a specific solution. Anything I "copy" from such a source is usually too modified to ever be traceable back to the original, because "surprise" the problem isn't exactly the same, the naming and code formatting almost never matches the current policy not to mention what is actually being done, etc etc etc. So it really becomes code inspired by whatever was found, or that was used to leapfrog to what I really needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. I can buy transmissions, transmission parts, engines, partial engines, electronics, etc. I could, if I wanted, buy all the pieces to a car except maybe the underlying frame at this point and time. In fact, that's the only piece I think I cannot buy "unassembled".
Example time: Apple makes an iPhone in China, except for putting the home button / fingerprint sensor thing on it. They then ship them like that from China to some low-rent factory in the cheapest real estate market in the US, along with a pallet of fingerprint sensors
Great - as any parts shipped in must be available for sale at stated prices. I can buy buttons, so I can buy the other piece(s) also, right? No? Then I guess the valuation will be whatever the customs folks think is fair.
Except the law will be written in a completely foolish way that allows for one of the following results:
The new tax / tariff only applies to completed goods for sale.
Except the law could be written in a way to completely foolish way that won't allow for any of this, and any item changing hands is subject to sales tax, as it was obviously "completed" enough for sale. (I am simply in awe of your logic so I immediately took it as my own!)
I'd still see that as a sale.
You are now, but you weren't before:
raise import taxes at the borders
Although you're still saying:
It will impact imports slightly more
And I don't know how that would be the case if it's a flat tax.
Because there is a change of ownership at the border. Subsidiaries do not count as "same" owner.
I actually am proposing a universal sales tax. Not a VAT, just a flat sales tax. Every change of ownership results in a charge. It is simple, no exceptions, and can be a relatively low rate. It will impact imports slightly more, but that's the nature of the game. It will also stabilize the revenue flow for the federal government, and should be coupled to a general reduction of income taxes.
Trade secrets are generally not the thing that copyright protects.
Copyright when it was originally conceived was to protect an author (creator) against a distributor stealing their work and profiting from it, pure and simple.
That's only half the story. The other half is about encouraging the creation of material to steal from after the reasonably short term copyright runs out.
It was about encouraging the small author to publish, as stealing was rampant at the time. In fact copyright in the US only applied to US citizens created works. Foreign works or works by non-citizens were fair game for any publisher to steal. By having more small authors publish, more items entered into the public domain, which was the general intent to spur more material. Far-sighted? Surely.
Neither NAFTA nor TPP prohibit sales taxes nor inspections. Inspecting every item should be happening anyways, how can we guarantee border security without full inspections? (I have different reasons for it, but hey, a Trump stumping point can be useful :)
Except economically tariffs fail at everything actually good and do a ton of bad things. They increase costs more than anything, and given the way logistics works and the whole comparative advantage from geography bit, all they do is cause more consumers to be forced to do without a good.
Except that is exactly what tariffs are good at when used uniformly and fairly. One - they raise revenue. Two - they raise prices on imported goods. Full inspections will also raise prices on imported goods. As for consumers having to do without: when prices are fair given the current situation, people in general can afford fewer things. That is because currently prices are not fair, being supported by child/slave labor and/or subsidies. Using the tax on imports to cut the costs of domestic labor such as employer side social security and various employee costs such as unemployment insurance likely would dramatically reduce the resistance of domestic employment. This could oddly help imports as more people with more money means they actually might be able to afford more imports. The current race to the bottom certainly isn't working out for the average person.
actually very simply and doesn't require anything new legally - raise import taxes at the borders (yes, Congress will have to act, but it is not anything they weren't allowed from day 1) and inspect every single item. Does the inspection cost a lot? Of course, but you just charge the guy coming across the border. Voila - instant tax on externally produced products and job creation in one fell swoop.
Copyright when it was originally conceived was to protect an author (creator) against a distributor stealing their work and profiting from it, pure and simple. To obtain a copyright, you had to file paperwork and a copy of your work with the Library of Congress, and you got 14 years of protection for providing a copy for posterity (one of the original goals of copyright. If you filed more paperwork, you could get that extended to 28 years, which seems more than enough to profit from your work in exchange for making it public domain afterwards. Everything since in copyright law has effectively made the distributors richer at the expense of the creators themselves and the public for which copyright was originally conceived.
The founders touted the "All men are created equal" line but then ensured that slaves were not defined as men.
It should be noted that while slaves were not defined as "men", neither were: women, anyone under 21, anyone not propertied and self-sufficient, and certainly no convicted felons, IIRC. You might also note that while many assume only white propertied males over 21, that was not exactly the case either.
...we can damn well prosecute and then incarcerate those who break our laws regardless of their claim that they were simply following orders.
I believe this is finally coming round, and we can only hope everyone is held to the same yardstick.
My cheeky comment was more to open a discussion on one aspect that always troubled me - the founders talked a good game, but they certainly didn't walk it. This well known violation seems at odds with their ideals.
And yet, after all this time, we do know that they FBI routinely acted against people like Martin Luther King, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger and John Lennon among many others without "intel" of any kind other than a gut feeling by Jedgar himself.
And we know that Benjamin F read the mail of suspected Tories... I guess the Amendments may have been tongue in cheek?
Depends on your priorities. If you are aiming for minimum weight and want something so thin that flexing is an issue, then sone titanium alloys are great. If not, other alloys that will ding up less at the expense of a small amount more weight, and you can design it to be more resistant to flex by giving components more space.
Do you have the slightest idea exactly how tough and strong Titanium is?
99% of the internet is run on Linux and BSD.
If you don't count 90% of the devices connected to the Internet.
They are clients or a shrinking set of servers, but not internet infrastructure. There's a solid reason for this, and that is security. Windows doesn't have it.
As long as Apple's BSD based system will run on the CPU, I think any *nix system will run on them.
If you want it to last, titanium.
Or was that Russian military adventurism?
Or, perhaps, it was merely the result of the ever volatile issues affecting the differing people, cultures, and beliefs that comprise the middle east? It is not like the genocidal barbarism just started in the past 10, 50, or even 200 years.
Check out Amendment 1. Now if the FBI was to say they were keeping an eye on these folks because they had intel they were up to nefarious purposes, then yes.
That's commercial speech, not quite the same thing as non-commercial or political speech, as the linked article states. Accepting payment for publishing a bit of speech is different than providing a general platform for people to speak. I'd say first amendment principles apply here, although if it is ruled that the material posted in the accounts in question run afoul of laws, then she may have the basis for a lawsuit. (IANAL etc etc etc)
Not sure I follow either argument. If realistic constraints are put into economic models and upon society, then a realistic expectation can be set for the future. However, people in general may not appreciate the implications of such models because, as you already suspect, forces will push society to a more socialistic version than what we are today. The entire allowance concept is likely to become reality, unless you're particularly craving the dystopian futures enshrined in movies such as BladeRunner, Elysium, District 9, or even Judge Dredd or Total Recall where the masses subsist like animals. Like it or not, the results of robots taking over more and more jobs will be less and less work for a rather large percentage of the work force. When robots start fixing robots, there will be a large crash in jobs. I do not believe Joe/Jane Sixpack will be able to adept to this new economy, and even if they could, there won't be anything for them to do. Note that I don't think this is limited to Joe/Jane Sixpack either, as robots are already starting to perform surgery, and I suspect that the surgeon will become redundant for standard procedures within our lifetimes. Even actors will likely become redundant with computer models replacing them. I give us about 30 years to figure out how to handle the results of this inevitable future.
It's going to be a problem, because of all the code that's already there. Merely republishing it under MIT will not negate the fact that tons of solutions were already available in the public domain, and cannot be removed from PD no matter what you do. Once PD, always PD.
SO is a short cut for me which usually leads to the exact portion of whatever documentation I need to review to implement a specific solution. Anything I "copy" from such a source is usually too modified to ever be traceable back to the original, because "surprise" the problem isn't exactly the same, the naming and code formatting almost never matches the current policy not to mention what is actually being done, etc etc etc. So it really becomes code inspired by whatever was found, or that was used to leapfrog to what I really needed.