I'm fully aware of this. That's why a database would be useful. You need to know the tax rates in the various jurisdictions and what items are subject to tax in what circumstances. That is precisely the information that needs to go into a database. Currently there are commercial outfits that collect this information and use it to provide services. My suggestion was that if more companies, and particularly, smaller operations, have to worry about collecting sales tax on internet sales, an open-source database might be
a plausible way to keep the cost down.
The big question is, does he have any yakuza buddies? Some Japanese gangsters, known as sokaiya, buy shares in companies so as to have the right to attend shareholder meetings, then exort money from the company by threatening to disrupt the meeting.
Well, if that's what the poster meant he should have said so.
I agree that the sanctions were probably ill-advised, but they did have exemptions for food and medicine. The fact that Iraqi children didn't get needed medicine is due largely to the fact that the money intended for them was diverted by Saddam Hussein and his buddies.
Right, I think the two are not related. In fact, I'd say the evidence is overwhelming that Al-Qaeda is not motivated by the casualties resulting from US intervention in Iraq since Al-Qaeda's major actions preceded the US invasion of Iraq. Nor does Al-Qaeda care about US support for oppressive and corrupt regimes. Al-Qaeda is fine with oppressive and corrupt regimes as long as they are, by Al-Qaeda's criteria. Witness the Taliban.
If they do start taxing internet sales and lots of small companies start having to worry about this, I wouldn't be surprised to see an open-source tax info project come into existence. Getting the individual pieces of information is presumably simple since it is public information and not voluminous or sensitive - the problem is just one of scale. If people were contribute the information for their area, it seems like it would be pretty easy to construct a national database.
I'm no fan of US foreign policy, but are you smoking crack? What 500,000 children has the US murdered in the Middle East? And in any case, al-Qaeda is quite explicit about the reasons for its actions and it has said nothing about any 500,000 murdered children. It wants and end to US presence and influence in the Muslim world, especially Saudi Arabia.
Well, it dependw on how you define early, but the earliest users of Unix at Bell Labs, that is, people other than the programmers themselves, were in fact the women doing word-processing for patents. Much of the development of Unix beyond hacker's toy was as a word-processing system centered on troff and ed.
Nothing prevents real experts from contributing to Wikipedia now. The difference is that they have no special status and may have to spend a lot of time and energy arguign with non-experts if they want to revise things. This proposal isn't about giving experts access, which they already have, its about giving experts authority.
I suspect that this study over-estimates the accuracy of Wikipedia because it was limited to natural science topics. My impression is that Wikipedia is pretty accurate in this area because people tend to know whether they know what they are talking about or not and people who really don't know anything aren't very likely to write about
something like chemistry. Where Wikipedia seems to me to have more of a problem is in areas that people who really don't know what they are talking about think that they do, which is more common outside of the natural sciences. My own field of linguistics is like this. Pseudo-experts seem to be particularly common in historical linguistics. I'd be interested to see a study like the one cited but covering areas like linguistics and psychology.
This has to be one of the least informed Slashdot discussions I've ever seen. With a very few exceptions, people who obviously know nothing about the law are spouting off about what they think it is or would like it to be. Here are a few facts about US libel law.
First, only statements of FACT are actionable. You can publish all the negative opinions you like and you're okay.
Second, truth is an absolute defense to libel. This is not true in every country, but it is true in the United States.
Third, there is a difference between public figures and everybody else. In order to win, a public figure must show that the libel was not only false but malicious, that is, that the libeler knew or ought to have known that the statement was false and nonetheless made it for the purpose of damaging the reputation of the person libelled. The idea is that the freedom of public discourse requires that people be able to make reckless statements about matters of public interest without fear of being sued. On the other hand, if the person libelled is not a public figure, he or she can win without proving malice.
Fourth, the false factual statement must be one that would cause the average person to feel injured. Thus, for example, if you mistakenly publish that John Smith drank tea, not knowing that he is a Mormon and that for him this is an accusation that he has violated the rules of his religion, you're probably off the hook.
Fifth, certain types of statements are considered to be intrinsically defamatory. These include allegations of criminal conduct and, interestingly, the allegation that a woman is unchaste.
Sixth, contrary to one poster's assertion, hedging a statement by saying "I think that X" or even "It is reported that X", does not necessarily get you off the hook. From a purely linguistic point you would think that it would, since you are not asserting the truth of the allegation, but libel law doesn't work that way.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I have studied the law of defamation to some extent. A wee bit of googling would turn up the same information.
Yes, Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. They can be impeached, but it is not easy. They are potentially subject to social pressure, but I suspect that any reluctance on the part of the Supreme Court to rule against the President is due to the justices' interpretation of the Constitution and, at worst, in some cases, their political views, not fear of retaliation.
What I don't understand is why it would cost them ANYTHING to support a browser other than IE. Do they really need some IE-ony technology, e.g. ActiveX? It's not as if they're being asked to support a bunch of different browsers. All they have to do is follow the standards and they'll support everything automatically.
It's one thing to expect people to read the main article. It's
another thing to expect people to read an article linked from a comment. The point is, anybody reading your comment and taking it at face value is likely to think that Ontario is seriously considering imposing Sharia law on everybody. The fact that the person who reads the linked article will discover that that isn't true doesn't change the fact that making the statement without the necessary qualifications is misleading.
Yes, you mentioned that it was a recommendation, but not that it would have been voluntary and restricted to Muslims or it had already been definitively rejected.
On the subject of laws against hate speech, I agree that they are wrong, but that's another topic. Overall civil liberties in Canada are in good shape, better than the great majority of other countries, but it is true that there are areas, such as the hate speech laws, that could use improvement.
Right. Specifically, atari is the Japanese word meaning a "hit", that is, "something that reaches the mark", as when an arrow or bullet goes where it is supposed to.
It's conceivable that there are cases in which there is a legitimate reason for surveilance but in which the courts would not under current law issue a warrant. However, I think that it is important to note that NO SUCH ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE by the Bush Administration. They haven't outlined any such situations much less described any actual cases in which this problem has arisen. There is not a shred of evidence that the requirement for a warrant has been, or would have been had Bush not authorized warrantless interception, an impediment.
Bush et al. just don't like having anyone keeping them in check. Its part of their general contempt for the rule of law.
That was to be voluntary, only for Muslims, and in any case was NOT implemented. In fact, the Ontario government not only decided against this proposal, it now plans to abolish all use of religious law in the legal system, including the Jewish courts, which have not been a problem.
Hezbollah may not have the world-wide scope of Al-Qaeda, but their activities certainly do extend outside of Lebanon: they have repeatedly attacked Israel. Since Hezbollah routinely attacks civilian targets in Israel (farmers working in their fields, villages) they are a terrorist group.
The distinction between direct and representative democracy is not a false distinction. The distinction between a democracy and a republic is a false distinction as these words are used in modern times.
Digging up the etymology or usage long past when it conflicts with
well-established modern usage is silly.
If Microsoft came up with a technically superior standard I would have no problem adopting it if it were truly open and unemcumbered, AT THE RIGHT TIME. The problem with what they're doing now, beyond the fact that they still don't seem to be ready to go with a truly open standard, is that they're late to the game. Competition among standards is fine at an early stage, but after some evolution and refinement, when the desirability of a true Standard becomes apparent, we want to settle on a single standard. At that point a negotiation takes place. It may result in one of the existing standards being chosen or it may result in the development of a hybrid of some sort. That process has already taken place. Until now, Microsoft wasn't interested. Only now that they realize that there is a real movement toward an open standard and that their lock-in strategy is in trouble are they interested in playing ball.
Its too late.
In any case, as far as I can see there is no technical advantage to Microsoft's proposal.
This is a false distinction. A Republic is a kind of democracy
in that the power is ultimately in the hands of the people.
What you mean is that the U.S. is not a direct democracy because the people who immediately wield power are elected representatives.
Direct democracies are very rare and probably are only workable
in small societies.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm fully aware of this. That's why a database would be useful. You need to know the tax rates in the various jurisdictions and what items are subject to tax in what circumstances. That is precisely the information that needs to go into a database. Currently there are commercial outfits that collect this information and use it to provide services. My suggestion was that if more companies, and particularly, smaller operations, have to worry about collecting sales tax on internet sales, an open-source database might be a plausible way to keep the cost down.
The big question is, does he have any yakuza buddies? Some Japanese gangsters, known as sokaiya, buy shares in companies so as to have the right to attend shareholder meetings, then exort money from the company by threatening to disrupt the meeting.
Well, if that's what the poster meant he should have said so. I agree that the sanctions were probably ill-advised, but they did have exemptions for food and medicine. The fact that Iraqi children didn't get needed medicine is due largely to the fact that the money intended for them was diverted by Saddam Hussein and his buddies.
Right, I think the two are not related. In fact, I'd say the evidence is overwhelming that Al-Qaeda is not motivated by the casualties resulting from US intervention in Iraq since Al-Qaeda's major actions preceded the US invasion of Iraq. Nor does Al-Qaeda care about US support for oppressive and corrupt regimes. Al-Qaeda is fine with oppressive and corrupt regimes as long as they are, by Al-Qaeda's criteria. Witness the Taliban.
If they do start taxing internet sales and lots of small companies start having to worry about this, I wouldn't be surprised to see an open-source tax info project come into existence. Getting the individual pieces of information is presumably simple since it is public information and not voluminous or sensitive - the problem is just one of scale. If people were contribute the information for their area, it seems like it would be pretty easy to construct a national database.
We're talking about the 1970s. They didn't have much of an alternative other than typewriters. Framemaker wasn't available.
I'm no fan of US foreign policy, but are you smoking crack? What 500,000 children has the US murdered in the Middle East? And in any case, al-Qaeda is quite explicit about the reasons for its actions and it has said nothing about any 500,000 murdered children. It wants and end to US presence and influence in the Muslim world, especially Saudi Arabia.
For gosh's sake, don't give Microsoft any ideas. The next thing you know they'll be demanding extraterritoriality.
Well, it dependw on how you define early, but the earliest users of Unix at Bell Labs, that is, people other than the programmers themselves, were in fact the women doing word-processing for patents. Much of the development of Unix beyond hacker's toy was as a word-processing system centered on troff and ed.
Nothing prevents real experts from contributing to Wikipedia now. The difference is that they have no special status and may have to spend a lot of time and energy arguign with non-experts if they want to revise things. This proposal isn't about giving experts access, which they already have, its about giving experts authority.
I suspect that this study over-estimates the accuracy of Wikipedia because it was limited to natural science topics. My impression is that Wikipedia is pretty accurate in this area because people tend to know whether they know what they are talking about or not and people who really don't know anything aren't very likely to write about something like chemistry. Where Wikipedia seems to me to have more of a problem is in areas that people who really don't know what they are talking about think that they do, which is more common outside of the natural sciences. My own field of linguistics is like this. Pseudo-experts seem to be particularly common in historical linguistics. I'd be interested to see a study like the one cited but covering areas like linguistics and psychology.
Not having to deal with imake will make any hackers you know who build or work on X a lot less irritable.
This has to be one of the least informed Slashdot discussions I've ever seen. With a very few exceptions, people who obviously know nothing about the law are spouting off about what they think it is or would like it to be. Here are a few facts about US libel law.
First, only statements of FACT are actionable. You can publish all the negative opinions you like and you're okay.
Second, truth is an absolute defense to libel. This is not true in every country, but it is true in the United States.
Third, there is a difference between public figures and everybody else. In order to win, a public figure must show that the libel was not only false but malicious, that is, that the libeler knew or ought to have known that the statement was false and nonetheless made it for the purpose of damaging the reputation of the person libelled. The idea is that the freedom of public discourse requires that people be able to make reckless statements about matters of public interest without fear of being sued. On the other hand, if the person libelled is not a public figure, he or she can win without proving malice.
Fourth, the false factual statement must be one that would cause the average person to feel injured. Thus, for example, if you mistakenly publish that John Smith drank tea, not knowing that he is a Mormon and that for him this is an accusation that he has violated the rules of his religion, you're probably off the hook.
Fifth, certain types of statements are considered to be intrinsically defamatory. These include allegations of criminal conduct and, interestingly, the allegation that a woman is unchaste.
Sixth, contrary to one poster's assertion, hedging a statement by saying "I think that X" or even "It is reported that X", does not necessarily get you off the hook. From a purely linguistic point you would think that it would, since you are not asserting the truth of the allegation, but libel law doesn't work that way.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I have studied the law of defamation to some extent. A wee bit of googling would turn up the same information.
Yes, Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. They can be impeached, but it is not easy. They are potentially subject to social pressure, but I suspect that any reluctance on the part of the Supreme Court to rule against the President is due to the justices' interpretation of the Constitution and, at worst, in some cases, their political views, not fear of retaliation.
What I don't understand is why it would cost them ANYTHING to support a browser other than IE. Do they really need some IE-ony technology, e.g. ActiveX? It's not as if they're being asked to support a bunch of different browsers. All they have to do is follow the standards and they'll support everything automatically.
It's one thing to expect people to read the main article. It's another thing to expect people to read an article linked from a comment. The point is, anybody reading your comment and taking it at face value is likely to think that Ontario is seriously considering imposing Sharia law on everybody. The fact that the person who reads the linked article will discover that that isn't true doesn't change the fact that making the statement without the necessary qualifications is misleading.
Yes, you mentioned that it was a recommendation, but not that it would have been voluntary and restricted to Muslims or it had already been definitively rejected.
On the subject of laws against hate speech, I agree that they are wrong, but that's another topic. Overall civil liberties in Canada are in good shape, better than the great majority of other countries, but it is true that there are areas, such as the hate speech laws, that could use improvement.
Right. Specifically, atari is the Japanese word meaning a "hit", that is, "something that reaches the mark", as when an arrow or bullet goes where it is supposed to.
It's conceivable that there are cases in which there is a legitimate reason for surveilance but in which the courts would not under current law issue a warrant. However, I think that it is important to note that NO SUCH ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE by the Bush Administration. They haven't outlined any such situations much less described any actual cases in which this problem has arisen. There is not a shred of evidence that the requirement for a warrant has been, or would have been had Bush not authorized warrantless interception, an impediment. Bush et al. just don't like having anyone keeping them in check. Its part of their general contempt for the rule of law.
That was to be voluntary, only for Muslims, and in any case was NOT implemented. In fact, the Ontario government not only decided against this proposal, it now plans to abolish all use of religious law in the legal system, including the Jewish courts, which have not been a problem.
I understand that they provide copies of the Koran. He can write his paper on that instead. :)
Hezbollah may not have the world-wide scope of Al-Qaeda, but their activities certainly do extend outside of Lebanon: they have repeatedly attacked Israel. Since Hezbollah routinely attacks civilian targets in Israel (farmers working in their fields, villages) they are a terrorist group.
The distinction between direct and representative democracy is not a false distinction. The distinction between a democracy and a republic is a false distinction as these words are used in modern times. Digging up the etymology or usage long past when it conflicts with well-established modern usage is silly.
If Microsoft came up with a technically superior standard I would have no problem adopting it if it were truly open and unemcumbered, AT THE RIGHT TIME. The problem with what they're doing now, beyond the fact that they still don't seem to be ready to go with a truly open standard, is that they're late to the game. Competition among standards is fine at an early stage, but after some evolution and refinement, when the desirability of a true Standard becomes apparent, we want to settle on a single standard. At that point a negotiation takes place. It may result in one of the existing standards being chosen or it may result in the development of a hybrid of some sort. That process has already taken place. Until now, Microsoft wasn't interested. Only now that they realize that there is a real movement toward an open standard and that their lock-in strategy is in trouble are they interested in playing ball. Its too late.
In any case, as far as I can see there is no technical advantage to Microsoft's proposal.
This is a false distinction. A Republic is a kind of democracy in that the power is ultimately in the hands of the people. What you mean is that the U.S. is not a direct democracy because the people who immediately wield power are elected representatives. Direct democracies are very rare and probably are only workable in small societies.