I see; thanks. As I suspected, the story given here was pretty much wrong in every detail. The ACLU didn't represent the guy (Friend Citizen did so; the ACLU filed a friend of the court brief). The case never reached SCOTUS. And his costs judgment was paid:
Curiously enough, we now find ourselves at the satisfying point where Taubman has paid us a grand total of $1,349.98 – which not only is $84.25 more than the amount that we originally requested, it's also $349.98 more than they could have paid me to settle this entire matter nearly two years ago!
sci-fi writers 200 years ago (if sci-fi writers existed then - did they?).
Well, Swift was writing then and Voltaire was alive, so yeah, although they hadn't actually written any sci-fi yet. You could make an argument about some earlier authors such as de Begerac or Bacon, but those guys usually get the credit for founding the genre.
The case eventually reached the SCOTUS who sided with the fan's right to free speech and owning a personal fan website. They also ordered the mall's lawyers to pay the bills incurred. To this day they still haven't paid.
I have trouble believing this story; it's relatively easy to collect a judgment, especially from a company, if they have enough to pay it. You don't really need their cooperation to collect, although it makes it easier. An award for costs of litigation will always be for a specific amount, so unless they've appealed it there's simply no argument to be made about what costs are involved. I don't see anything about the story from a bit of Googlery, either. I think you, or whomever you heard it from, got the details mixed up a bit somewhere.
You'd think that, but I highly suspect you'd be wrong.
You'd think that, but I highly suspect you have little idea what you're talking about.
This Wikipedia article cites numerous studies with different methodologies which disagree with you. One study found lower risks with hands-free phones, but still an increased risk from driving with your mind on the road. Check out the "Handsfree device" section cites in particular. Conversing with a passenger is (probably) safer, but the difference between holding a cell and calling hands-free is at best minor, at worst zero.
I don't think the big danger in driving while holding a cell phone is because you're talking, I think it's because you've just taken a hand away from controlling the vehicle
There you're close: The big danger is dialing. If you must yammer while blithely careening down the road, threatening the lives and limbs of innocent children, at least respect others enough to use voice-dialing. Better yet, realize that your conversations aren't more important than the lives of others, turn the damn phone off, and keep your entire attention where it should be: On the stereo controls.
There's nothing wrong with complaining about monopolies.
No, and I'm usually the one up on a soapbox railing against 'em. But Steam isn't a monopoly. There needs to be a special barrier to entry for a company or industry to be one, and I just don't see it. There's no legal bar, like with government-granted monopolies or Google books. There's no incredible infrastructure needed, just reasonable bandwidth and servers. There's not a "desktop" barrier in which users only benefit from one similar product. There's not even an "I wanted to be the car" barrier that caused so much consternation in my youth. Nobody's accusing 'em of coercion. Popularity alone doesn't a monopoly make.
Sorry I wasn't clear. The 5% figure I gave was the increase from the projected deficit when Obama took office (well, from the February numbers, which're the closest I had). You can't seriously blame his policies for deficit spending that was in place before his inauguration.
The bailouts contributed to the deficit, but they were red-inked well before Obama took office; Obama agreed with and went through with them, but GWB (and, ultimately, Congress) initiated them.
Ditto the economic stimulus--Congress anticipated and budgeted for spending of that nature, although the plan Obama pushed was larger than planned. Some stimulus spending was in the projected deficit before he took office, but that number got larger later.
If you can stand a.pdf, here is the CBO's February report. I may've been hasty in attributing the deficit increase to war overspending, tho', now that I look at the source numbers.
Here is another damn.pdf from the CBO analyzing spending in FY2009 based on policy changes since January. It notes a $400 billion increase in spending offset somewhat by increased revenue from the stimulus pushing the projected deficit to 1.7 trillion. This includes changes in spending prior to Obama taking office, so essentially, his economic stimulus is the only single major change to the deficit since he took office.
Here is a WSJ article detailing the bailout plans and an early glimpse of the stimulus plan from January 8, with a photo of Obama as the President Elect. It notes the recent lowered tax revenue on the deficit and a recent $500 billion spending increase.
So the coward is off. Obama's policies are responsible for only a small percent of the deficit this year, which isn't surprising, since he inherited the budget. The huge deficits next year you can blame on him.
As to the ten-year projection, Here is yet another.pdf with the CBO's most recent ten-year. Note that it's a little different. By which I mean, a lot different: In it, the annual deficit returns to roughly normal in a few years (a few percent of the GDP), although admittedly a little higher than it should be since we'll have a lot of leftover debt.
It notes, however, that reducing deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan will alone reduce spending enough to service the debt somewhat. One day, perhaps we'll manage to elect a Prez and Congress that're willing to make some other cuts--there's plenty we can make that won't even hurt, but that's a topic for another day.
He hasn't really done anything toward those goals, but people like him, so maybe he'll be able to eventually?
Well, there's the Cuba thing; that's done a lot to soften up that relationship. He's backed the US off of the eastern Europe missile program, which is good. He managed to get Russia to stand beside us on the Iran issue as a result, which is huge in terms of war-prevention. He ordered the US military to end the war in Iraq. And he gave that big speech in Turkey about America's relationship with Islam, which is a decent first step on the road to accord with Islamic nations.
Just because you aren't paying attention doesn't mean he's done nothing.
Let me break this down for the benefit of others, since a coward like you won't see replies:
It's still 2009. Congress budgets a year ahead, which is why it's called a "budget". The 2009 budget was signed into law in 2008.
We're going to overspend the 2009 budget by about 5% of the deficit, most easily attributable to cost overruns in ongoing wars. The bailouts were budgeted for in 2008, because GWB and Congress anticipated the need for them (for certain values of the word "need", but I don't want to get into that). The final bailout costs were slightly higher than budgeted, but not enough to account for the difference.
The total deficit for the year will be $1.84 trillion after the increase. The current budget proposal for 2010 has a deficit of $1.26 trillion, lower than that of 2009. It will undoubtedly go higher than budgeted, because it always does, regardless of who's in command.
The short version of this is that you're a lying Republican shill. I've no great love for either party, but I do prefer honesty. There're valid grounds for criticism of Obama to choose from, but this isn't one of them.
Your other criticisms are too subjective to easily address beyond "I disagree"; there's little point in debating subjective issues with you, since you clearly don't understand even rudimentary practices like how budgets work, you've proven yourself willing to lie, and you're an anonymous coward.
It's interesting to note that even with the new estimate being 100X greater than the old, the new data is still only a billionth of a billionth of the maximum value.
Well, sure, but if you're raising that issue (and assuming maximum entropy is possible and leads to a heat death), it's worth noting that most of the time left will be spent in near-heat death, in which not much can go on but the last bits of decay. Regardless of which version of the heat death you favor (if any), only during a tiny fraction of the lifespan of the universe will there be much happening.
Also bear in mind that it isn't clear whether the increased entropy in black holes "counts". TFA barely touches on the notion that the finding may not mean we're closer to heat death, but only that the maximum entropy of the universe is higher than thought as well.
There's too many good suggestions in this thread; it's hard to add to. I'd consider including Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee. Pratchett, who writes brilliant social satire in a fantasy setting, is worth consideration, as well. The Niven and Pournelle collaborations are good hard sci-fi, usually with political themes. Dick is good for incredible books and, in high school, horrible high jokes about his name. And that's just scratching the surface. There's just so much out there.
Regardless of what you go with, however, were I you I would fix the damn grammar in the course description. "From the early formation of the genre, the genres have been about" indeed. Don't capitalize the names of genres; there's no need to capitalize "junior" or "senior", either, nor do you need a slash between them when the English language provides a perfectly good conjunction. Possible areas of interest include others? Really?
Will this section be worth anything if neither party is actually asking for software patents as a whole to be thrown out?
Yes. The court's job is to decide on the point of law and it's not limited to following the request of either party.
That's true, but they are limited to ruling on the case at hand. SCOTUS has long held that the Constitution limits them to declaratory judgments, that is rulings that involve an actual dispute before them. SCOTUS will not rule that software patents are unconstitutional because they don't promote science and the useful arts in a case about business method patents.
They may, however, rule that machine-independent patents fail that test. However, I suspect they won't, since it's a stupid argument--Congress, not the courts, is given the discretion to choose how to promote science and the useful arts. They may well strike down machine-independent patents, but I highly, highly doubt they'd second-guess Congress based on such a subjective criterion as whether it promotes good stuff, or at least explicitly.
Mind you, even if SCOTUS does lay the smackdown on machine-independent patents, we'll still be in for round two: Whether a compatable computer is a specific-enough machine for patents to stick to it. Unless they rule very broadly, which would be very untypical of SCOTUS, that question will have to go through a full judicial vetting before the question of software patents is settled.
"Would you rather have ads tailored to your tastes or ads delivered at random?" Tailored.
This phraseology is remarkably close to what they used. Among other questions, folks were asked, orally:
Please tell me whether or not you want websites you visit to...
Show you ads that are tailored to your interests.
Give you discounts that are tailored to your interests.
Show you news that is tailored to your interests.
The "ads" question had the most negative response; the "discounts" one, the most positive. Things were broken down a bit further in asking folks if they'd be cool with it if the "interests" were determined based on their activity on the current website, other websites, or offline behavior. Interestingly, the more specific questions got more negative responses than the general ones - that is, a few people favor tailored advertising as long as it's not based on any actual information. Heh.
And although you didn't ask, as such, TFA doesn't detail all this, but it does link to the actual working paper that does, which is nice. Big props to IT World for that.
Maybe so, but I'm not the one who claimed to be poor. Equating minor inconvenience in the lap of privilege with real poverty takes a special arrogance. You haven't shared the pain of hunger because you once missed a meal, you don't feel the pain of torture victims from stubbing a toe, and attending grad school didn't teach you the plight of poverty. Believing otherwise is shockingly narcissistic, and it does not reflect well upon you.
Your point that the poor should just grill some chicken and make salads is fine for some. It may've been true that it was faster for you, in your horrible plight, to drive the car mommy gave you to the grocery store to buy your organically-produced chicken breast, but many folks must walk miles to buy groceries, and they'd have to do it every day since they don't have refrigeration, with sore feet from working and after figuring out what to do with the kids.
There's no shame in affluence and no virtue in poverty, but there's something to be said for understanding the difference between them.
I've never really understood that - here poor people (and I should know, I was a grad student for six years)
Being a grad student is not poor; that's having little disposable income. Being poor is riding the bus home from a near-minimum wage job for an abusive boss who screws you out of minutes' pay every day, only to find a 3-day notice on the door when you get there, and inside your unemployed spouse is already drinking something bought with money that was supposed to go to the gas bill, while your kid, who needs braces and new shoes, complains that the old computer your cousin gave you crashed again.
Poor is when your feet hurt and your stomach hurts every day when you get a letter from a creditor demanding money you don't have plus another late fee, so you just throw it unopened on the pile. Poor is when bank fees matter because that could have kept your phone on. Poor is when your parents try to borrow money from you and you can't help them. Poor is hoping the toothache goes away on its own.
Poor is not eating ramen in grad school, working part time and occasionally hitting the folks up for money.
If I, a gmail account holder living in Australia, had my account nuked by some craniorectal US judge, I would be mightily pissed off, since no US judge has jurisdiction over me. But no matter how pissed off I was, I would have no redress.
A US judge has jurisdiction over any business you do or agreements you make in the US, and in general Australia recognizes it. Folks who use GMail explicitly agree to a California jurisdiction of the contract.
That's not a bad thing; it's reciprocal. You wouldn't want to allow US citizens to be allowed to ignore their obligations if they make a contract or do business in Australia, so Australian courts can exert jurisdiction on US folks over such matters. It isn't a matter of one country confusing their laws with world law, it's a matter of people needing to understand that, when they do business in a foreign country, they have to follow the local rules - and it works both ways.
(Naturally, it's not entirely clear-cut; when foreign courts exert jurisdiction, it's reviewed locally, and the local courts can deny it. But generally, if you do business with an entity in a foreign country, you're doing it under their laws.)
Haha you are all idiots, seriously next time the cops raid your place and start using your things like over-entitled house guests, you share that sentiment.
I, of course, disagree - as I said before, the specifics here aren't too worrisome but it'd make a poor general rule.
However, I find myself compelled to reply out of curiosity: You'd really be annoyed if legitimate houseguests played your console? If I went out for a bit or slept in and found my guests playing video games, I don't think my first thought would be "Hey, those over-entitled bastards are using my stuff!" Or are you just exaggerating to make your argument appear stronger?
Even if they didn't use any of his things, the simple fact that officers were playing games while conducting the search shows them to be unprofessional and arguably irresponsible, so irresponsible in fact that they can't be trusted to accurately document evidence. Or so any half-wit lawyer could argue, and likely win.
Oh, I doubt it. A judge would likely find the behavior a harmless error. The guy whose house it was may try to press trespass charges, tho', as a separate matter.
I, personally, can't get outraged over this specific incident. A little slack on the job isn't such a bad thing, and playing a WII isn't so invasive. The cops involved should get yelled at a little, since allowing it would be a poor general rule, but let's not pillory them.
What you say is mostly true - which is why Microsoft has a campus in India. It's 54 acres.
I disagree that MS' campus could be rented at a profit. Opening up that much commercial space in one fell swoop in a fairly isolated area of Redmond would not only probably mean dirt-cheap pricing, but they'd be paying more property taxes (they currently have a complex agreement to get a break on 'em but they must employ a certain number of locals), and they'd pay revenue taxes on the leases whether they're profitable or not.
I'd also argue the notion that corporate taxation is racketeering. Corporations are allowed to exist at the sufferance of our laws; they aren't humans. In exchange for the benefits of incorporating (including limitations to personal liability and the ability to issue stock), they give us great big wads of cash. It's a social contract, and they should be held to it.
While there's some strength to the argument that taxing citizens is extortion - and I don't want to get into that here - it seems perfectly acceptable for corporations in my mind. Essentially, they're paying society for certain privileges, including the privilege to exist at all.
Sure, Microsoft employs folks. But you can darned well bet that if Microsoft packed up in Redmond and went offshore, the left-behind programmers would find something to do, although there would be a bit of temporary chaos. They're very bright, educated, motivated folks, in general, even if as a group their products often have issues.
I don't know about Washington, but my state, California has plenty of hits when you google "companies leaving California"...
I'm pretty sure Microsoft's tax tricks are one they learned from California: It's classical Hollywood accounting. The studios do the same thing, by having distribution companies in Nevada which license out the films, both for tax dodges and to play silly buggers with the studio's balance sheets.
... and threaten to move out. If MSFT leaves or even reduces force, greater Seattle's retail and real estate would be crippled, not to mention sales tax and property tax revenues. I'd like to see those taxes paid too, but unfortunately MSFT has the greater bargaining chip here.
I dunno if they do, at that. Their latest campus expansion alone cost a billion bucks. With the cost of building from scratch, paying to move many employees and hire new ones, moving their equipment, and so forth, I think it would cost them so much that they could earn more investing the money than they would lose by staying put and paying their taxes.
I remember at least one instance in the last 20 years where an American politician used a picture of his opponent and the ad mad the opponent look much lighter or darker than he looks in person in normal room light. There was some backlash charging the campaign with race-baiting or something like that.
You may be thinking of the Time O.J. cover, although that of course wasn't a political campaign. Time darkened O.J.'s mug shot to make him look darker, unshaven, and generally more sinister.
I wouldn't go for it (and I don't work for Apple), but money is money I suppose. For many, job satisfaction outweighs wages, to a certain point. There's also the time already invested in the current position to consider; even if you're not completely satisfied with your current gig, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
That's all true, but there's something to be said for getting in on the ground floor. Microsoft is trying its best to recruit the top salesfolk, and these're guys and gals who might well have their eyes on management slots. Joining a new, well-funded operation can be a good lure for the upwardly mobile.
Not that I'm aware of. I just make it a habit to assume that every/. poster is a slightly-over-50 technical consultant in Oakland, whose hobbies include piloting aircraft and photography. It's a much more accurate generalization than the mother's-basement-dwelling troglodyte stereotype to which people refer so often.
Slashdot Mirror
Curiously enough, we now find ourselves at the satisfying point where Taubman has paid us a grand total of $1,349.98 – which not only is $84.25 more than the amount that we originally requested, it's also $349.98 more than they could have paid me to settle this entire matter nearly two years ago!
sci-fi writers 200 years ago (if sci-fi writers existed then - did they?).
Well, Swift was writing then and Voltaire was alive, so yeah, although they hadn't actually written any sci-fi yet. You could make an argument about some earlier authors such as de Begerac or Bacon, but those guys usually get the credit for founding the genre.
The case eventually reached the SCOTUS who sided with the fan's right to free speech and owning a personal fan website. They also ordered the mall's lawyers to pay the bills incurred. To this day they still haven't paid.
I have trouble believing this story; it's relatively easy to collect a judgment, especially from a company, if they have enough to pay it. You don't really need their cooperation to collect, although it makes it easier. An award for costs of litigation will always be for a specific amount, so unless they've appealed it there's simply no argument to be made about what costs are involved. I don't see anything about the story from a bit of Googlery, either. I think you, or whomever you heard it from, got the details mixed up a bit somewhere.
You'd think that, but I highly suspect you'd be wrong.
You'd think that, but I highly suspect you have little idea what you're talking about.
This Wikipedia article cites numerous studies with different methodologies which disagree with you. One study found lower risks with hands-free phones, but still an increased risk from driving with your mind on the road. Check out the "Handsfree device" section cites in particular. Conversing with a passenger is (probably) safer, but the difference between holding a cell and calling hands-free is at best minor, at worst zero.
I don't think the big danger in driving while holding a cell phone is because you're talking, I think it's because you've just taken a hand away from controlling the vehicle
There you're close: The big danger is dialing. If you must yammer while blithely careening down the road, threatening the lives and limbs of innocent children, at least respect others enough to use voice-dialing. Better yet, realize that your conversations aren't more important than the lives of others, turn the damn phone off, and keep your entire attention where it should be: On the stereo controls.
There's nothing wrong with complaining about monopolies.
No, and I'm usually the one up on a soapbox railing against 'em. But Steam isn't a monopoly. There needs to be a special barrier to entry for a company or industry to be one, and I just don't see it. There's no legal bar, like with government-granted monopolies or Google books. There's no incredible infrastructure needed, just reasonable bandwidth and servers. There's not a "desktop" barrier in which users only benefit from one similar product. There's not even an "I wanted to be the car" barrier that caused so much consternation in my youth. Nobody's accusing 'em of coercion. Popularity alone doesn't a monopoly make.
So the coward was off a bit, but not much.
Sorry I wasn't clear. The 5% figure I gave was the increase from the projected deficit when Obama took office (well, from the February numbers, which're the closest I had). You can't seriously blame his policies for deficit spending that was in place before his inauguration.
The bailouts contributed to the deficit, but they were red-inked well before Obama took office; Obama agreed with and went through with them, but GWB (and, ultimately, Congress) initiated them.
Ditto the economic stimulus--Congress anticipated and budgeted for spending of that nature, although the plan Obama pushed was larger than planned. Some stimulus spending was in the projected deficit before he took office, but that number got larger later.
If you can stand a .pdf, here is the CBO's February report. I may've been hasty in attributing the deficit increase to war overspending, tho', now that I look at the source numbers.
Here is another damn .pdf from the CBO analyzing spending in FY2009 based on policy changes since January. It notes a $400 billion increase in spending offset somewhat by increased revenue from the stimulus pushing the projected deficit to 1.7 trillion. This includes changes in spending prior to Obama taking office, so essentially, his economic stimulus is the only single major change to the deficit since he took office.
Here is a WSJ article detailing the bailout plans and an early glimpse of the stimulus plan from January 8, with a photo of Obama as the President Elect. It notes the recent lowered tax revenue on the deficit and a recent $500 billion spending increase.
So the coward is off. Obama's policies are responsible for only a small percent of the deficit this year, which isn't surprising, since he inherited the budget. The huge deficits next year you can blame on him.
As to the ten-year projection, Here is yet another .pdf with the CBO's most recent ten-year. Note that it's a little different. By which I mean, a lot different: In it, the annual deficit returns to roughly normal in a few years (a few percent of the GDP), although admittedly a little higher than it should be since we'll have a lot of leftover debt.
It notes, however, that reducing deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan will alone reduce spending enough to service the debt somewhat. One day, perhaps we'll manage to elect a Prez and Congress that're willing to make some other cuts--there's plenty we can make that won't even hurt, but that's a topic for another day.
He hasn't really done anything toward those goals, but people like him, so maybe he'll be able to eventually?
Well, there's the Cuba thing; that's done a lot to soften up that relationship. He's backed the US off of the eastern Europe missile program, which is good. He managed to get Russia to stand beside us on the Iran issue as a result, which is huge in terms of war-prevention. He ordered the US military to end the war in Iraq. And he gave that big speech in Turkey about America's relationship with Islam, which is a decent first step on the road to accord with Islamic nations.
Just because you aren't paying attention doesn't mean he's done nothing.
Name one. I'm serious.
If you're serious, log in and ask again. I've never seen a story with so many cowards.
quadrupling the deficit
Let me break this down for the benefit of others, since a coward like you won't see replies:
It's still 2009. Congress budgets a year ahead, which is why it's called a "budget". The 2009 budget was signed into law in 2008.
We're going to overspend the 2009 budget by about 5% of the deficit, most easily attributable to cost overruns in ongoing wars. The bailouts were budgeted for in 2008, because GWB and Congress anticipated the need for them (for certain values of the word "need", but I don't want to get into that). The final bailout costs were slightly higher than budgeted, but not enough to account for the difference.
The total deficit for the year will be $1.84 trillion after the increase. The current budget proposal for 2010 has a deficit of $1.26 trillion, lower than that of 2009. It will undoubtedly go higher than budgeted, because it always does, regardless of who's in command.
The short version of this is that you're a lying Republican shill. I've no great love for either party, but I do prefer honesty. There're valid grounds for criticism of Obama to choose from, but this isn't one of them.
Your other criticisms are too subjective to easily address beyond "I disagree"; there's little point in debating subjective issues with you, since you clearly don't understand even rudimentary practices like how budgets work, you've proven yourself willing to lie, and you're an anonymous coward.
It's interesting to note that even with the new estimate being 100X greater than the old, the new data is still only a billionth of a billionth of the maximum value.
Well, sure, but if you're raising that issue (and assuming maximum entropy is possible and leads to a heat death), it's worth noting that most of the time left will be spent in near-heat death, in which not much can go on but the last bits of decay. Regardless of which version of the heat death you favor (if any), only during a tiny fraction of the lifespan of the universe will there be much happening.
Also bear in mind that it isn't clear whether the increased entropy in black holes "counts". TFA barely touches on the notion that the finding may not mean we're closer to heat death, but only that the maximum entropy of the universe is higher than thought as well.
Regardless of what you go with, however, were I you I would fix the damn grammar in the course description. "From the early formation of the genre, the genres have been about" indeed. Don't capitalize the names of genres; there's no need to capitalize "junior" or "senior", either, nor do you need a slash between them when the English language provides a perfectly good conjunction. Possible areas of interest include others? Really?
Will this section be worth anything if neither party is actually asking for software patents as a whole to be thrown out?
Yes. The court's job is to decide on the point of law and it's not limited to following the request of either party.
That's true, but they are limited to ruling on the case at hand. SCOTUS has long held that the Constitution limits them to declaratory judgments, that is rulings that involve an actual dispute before them. SCOTUS will not rule that software patents are unconstitutional because they don't promote science and the useful arts in a case about business method patents.
They may, however, rule that machine-independent patents fail that test. However, I suspect they won't, since it's a stupid argument--Congress, not the courts, is given the discretion to choose how to promote science and the useful arts. They may well strike down machine-independent patents, but I highly, highly doubt they'd second-guess Congress based on such a subjective criterion as whether it promotes good stuff, or at least explicitly.
Mind you, even if SCOTUS does lay the smackdown on machine-independent patents, we'll still be in for round two: Whether a compatable computer is a specific-enough machine for patents to stick to it. Unless they rule very broadly, which would be very untypical of SCOTUS, that question will have to go through a full judicial vetting before the question of software patents is settled.
"Would you rather have ads tailored to your tastes or ads delivered at random?" Tailored.
This phraseology is remarkably close to what they used. Among other questions, folks were asked, orally:
Please tell me whether or not you want websites you visit to...
Show you ads that are tailored to your interests.
Give you discounts that are tailored to your interests.
Show you news that is tailored to your interests.
The "ads" question had the most negative response; the "discounts" one, the most positive. Things were broken down a bit further in asking folks if they'd be cool with it if the "interests" were determined based on their activity on the current website, other websites, or offline behavior. Interestingly, the more specific questions got more negative responses than the general ones - that is, a few people favor tailored advertising as long as it's not based on any actual information. Heh.
And although you didn't ask, as such, TFA doesn't detail all this, but it does link to the actual working paper that does, which is nice. Big props to IT World for that.
Well, I can top you, no problem.
Maybe so, but I'm not the one who claimed to be poor. Equating minor inconvenience in the lap of privilege with real poverty takes a special arrogance. You haven't shared the pain of hunger because you once missed a meal, you don't feel the pain of torture victims from stubbing a toe, and attending grad school didn't teach you the plight of poverty. Believing otherwise is shockingly narcissistic, and it does not reflect well upon you.
Your point that the poor should just grill some chicken and make salads is fine for some. It may've been true that it was faster for you, in your horrible plight, to drive the car mommy gave you to the grocery store to buy your organically-produced chicken breast, but many folks must walk miles to buy groceries, and they'd have to do it every day since they don't have refrigeration, with sore feet from working and after figuring out what to do with the kids.
There's no shame in affluence and no virtue in poverty, but there's something to be said for understanding the difference between them.
I've never really understood that - here poor people (and I should know, I was a grad student for six years)
Being a grad student is not poor; that's having little disposable income. Being poor is riding the bus home from a near-minimum wage job for an abusive boss who screws you out of minutes' pay every day, only to find a 3-day notice on the door when you get there, and inside your unemployed spouse is already drinking something bought with money that was supposed to go to the gas bill, while your kid, who needs braces and new shoes, complains that the old computer your cousin gave you crashed again.
Poor is when your feet hurt and your stomach hurts every day when you get a letter from a creditor demanding money you don't have plus another late fee, so you just throw it unopened on the pile. Poor is when bank fees matter because that could have kept your phone on. Poor is when your parents try to borrow money from you and you can't help them. Poor is hoping the toothache goes away on its own.
Poor is not eating ramen in grad school, working part time and occasionally hitting the folks up for money.
If I, a gmail account holder living in Australia, had my account nuked by some craniorectal US judge, I would be mightily pissed off, since no US judge has jurisdiction over me. But no matter how pissed off I was, I would have no redress.
A US judge has jurisdiction over any business you do or agreements you make in the US, and in general Australia recognizes it. Folks who use GMail explicitly agree to a California jurisdiction of the contract.
That's not a bad thing; it's reciprocal. You wouldn't want to allow US citizens to be allowed to ignore their obligations if they make a contract or do business in Australia, so Australian courts can exert jurisdiction on US folks over such matters. It isn't a matter of one country confusing their laws with world law, it's a matter of people needing to understand that, when they do business in a foreign country, they have to follow the local rules - and it works both ways.
(Naturally, it's not entirely clear-cut; when foreign courts exert jurisdiction, it's reviewed locally, and the local courts can deny it. But generally, if you do business with an entity in a foreign country, you're doing it under their laws.)
Haha you are all idiots, seriously next time the cops raid your place and start using your things like over-entitled house guests, you share that sentiment.
I, of course, disagree - as I said before, the specifics here aren't too worrisome but it'd make a poor general rule.
However, I find myself compelled to reply out of curiosity: You'd really be annoyed if legitimate houseguests played your console? If I went out for a bit or slept in and found my guests playing video games, I don't think my first thought would be "Hey, those over-entitled bastards are using my stuff!" Or are you just exaggerating to make your argument appear stronger?
Even if they didn't use any of his things, the simple fact that officers were playing games while conducting the search shows them to be unprofessional and arguably irresponsible, so irresponsible in fact that they can't be trusted to accurately document evidence. Or so any half-wit lawyer could argue, and likely win.
Oh, I doubt it. A judge would likely find the behavior a harmless error. The guy whose house it was may try to press trespass charges, tho', as a separate matter.
I, personally, can't get outraged over this specific incident. A little slack on the job isn't such a bad thing, and playing a WII isn't so invasive. The cops involved should get yelled at a little, since allowing it would be a poor general rule, but let's not pillory them.
I'm sure it would be much cheaper in India.
What you say is mostly true - which is why Microsoft has a campus in India. It's 54 acres. I disagree that MS' campus could be rented at a profit. Opening up that much commercial space in one fell swoop in a fairly isolated area of Redmond would not only probably mean dirt-cheap pricing, but they'd be paying more property taxes (they currently have a complex agreement to get a break on 'em but they must employ a certain number of locals), and they'd pay revenue taxes on the leases whether they're profitable or not.
I'd also argue the notion that corporate taxation is racketeering. Corporations are allowed to exist at the sufferance of our laws; they aren't humans. In exchange for the benefits of incorporating (including limitations to personal liability and the ability to issue stock), they give us great big wads of cash. It's a social contract, and they should be held to it.
While there's some strength to the argument that taxing citizens is extortion - and I don't want to get into that here - it seems perfectly acceptable for corporations in my mind. Essentially, they're paying society for certain privileges, including the privilege to exist at all.
Sure, Microsoft employs folks. But you can darned well bet that if Microsoft packed up in Redmond and went offshore, the left-behind programmers would find something to do, although there would be a bit of temporary chaos. They're very bright, educated, motivated folks, in general, even if as a group their products often have issues.
I don't know about Washington, but my state, California has plenty of hits when you google "companies leaving California"...
I'm pretty sure Microsoft's tax tricks are one they learned from California: It's classical Hollywood accounting. The studios do the same thing, by having distribution companies in Nevada which license out the films, both for tax dodges and to play silly buggers with the studio's balance sheets.
... and threaten to move out. If MSFT leaves or even reduces force, greater Seattle's retail and real estate would be crippled, not to mention sales tax and property tax revenues. I'd like to see those taxes paid too, but unfortunately MSFT has the greater bargaining chip here.
I dunno if they do, at that. Their latest campus expansion alone cost a billion bucks. With the cost of building from scratch, paying to move many employees and hire new ones, moving their equipment, and so forth, I think it would cost them so much that they could earn more investing the money than they would lose by staying put and paying their taxes.
Why not pass a 1 percent flat tax?
If Microsoft is using a dodge to bypass an existing revenue tax, what makes you think they'd pay a different revenue tax?
I remember at least one instance in the last 20 years where an American politician used a picture of his opponent and the ad mad the opponent look much lighter or darker than he looks in person in normal room light. There was some backlash charging the campaign with race-baiting or something like that.
You may be thinking of the Time O.J. cover, although that of course wasn't a political campaign. Time darkened O.J.'s mug shot to make him look darker, unshaven, and generally more sinister.
I wouldn't go for it (and I don't work for Apple), but money is money I suppose. For many, job satisfaction outweighs wages, to a certain point. There's also the time already invested in the current position to consider; even if you're not completely satisfied with your current gig, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
That's all true, but there's something to be said for getting in on the ground floor. Microsoft is trying its best to recruit the top salesfolk, and these're guys and gals who might well have their eyes on management slots. Joining a new, well-funded operation can be a good lure for the upwardly mobile.
Hmmmm do I know you?
Not that I'm aware of. I just make it a habit to assume that every /. poster is a slightly-over-50 technical consultant in Oakland, whose hobbies include piloting aircraft and photography. It's a much more accurate generalization than the mother's-basement-dwelling troglodyte stereotype to which people refer so often.