Who the hell goes to therapy? I live in southern california.
And "most" christians unless your a mormon don't actually give 10% I'm not mormon, neither are most of my friends who give 10%. Of course the church does not require it, but how is the church supposed to raise funds and operate without it?
nice to claim on taxes though. I'm not sure why to government lets you write off charitable contributions. It seems to me that it's still income. They should only let you write off business expenses. Tax law is fubar.
Most of the stuff I buy from china comes from the "other stuff" department, which is my smallest expense. I think this is also a pretty typical for other Americans. I don't think it's fair to say that I or people like me waste "all their money on useless shipt that they hardly ever use and dont really need."
A bigger contributor to the trade deficit is China's deliberate manipulation of their currency. Measured in nominal dollars, the GDP of china is only about $2.5 trillion, but at purchasing power parity with US prices, it's $10 trillion. That's means that a dollar is worth four times as much in china as it is in the US. It's no wonder people chose to manufacture things in China.
It's a good example because it is extremely valuable, and it has been able to hold it's value over time. It is a good example of the need for extended or unlimited copyright terms because of it's staying power.
"Copyright is not property, it is a license for a monopoly. "
All property is a government enforced monopoly. In this regard, IP is no different.
"create derivative works"
Copyright does not bar derivative works, though it does limit them. You may have noticed that it is extremely common in pop culture to reference or spoof other works which are still protected by copyright.
"a short copyright term would still allow the vast majority of profits to be made from a given copyrighted work"
Do you have any reason to make this claim? It seems. . . unlikely to be true. In any case I believe a creator is entitled to the entirety of the profit, not a portion of it according you your determination.
"I will not shoot you unless you give me all your money"
You may be surprised to learn this, but threatening to murder someone is highly illegal. Refusing to give someone something for free is not. I think you are the one playing word games.
"the author should hand the work back to society where it came from"
This is the same kind of nonsense people are always spewing about rich or lucky people. You feel entitled to the fruits of their labor, so you play the victim. Oh, if it weren't for society, they never would have made their work, so they should have no say in how it is used. That is bullshit. It is their choice what they will do with what they've created, not yours. If you're so smart that you know what to do with it better than they do, then how come you didn't come up with the idea? It should be the creators choice, and if they choose to sell it, I see nothing wrong with that.
If people will pay for it, it is a net benefit society. You should be grateful for that, not greedily demanding that they give it to you for free.
"but I would expect society as a whole (being the other party to the copyright agreement), to negotiate a fair deal"
Yeah, that's what they have. They agree to give us music and we agree to pay a dollar per song. It's fair because both parties agree to it. It would not be fair to say "no, you have to give me the music for free after you've made enough money", unless of course they agreed to it. Likewise it wound not be fair for them to say, "you have to give me a dollar". It's the fact that both sides agree to it that makes it fair. This is not rocket science.
"I do not see who suggested otherwise."
Saying that they have enough money, so they shouldn't make more is suggesting otherwise. Duh!
"Do I think the "seller" of the music deserves a dollar in compensation? No, I don't."
Then don't pay it. They're not forcing you to buy it at gunpoint.
"The deal enforced by the government, so ultimately the people creates a monopoly on content for long decades"
You could say that about any kind of property ownership. I don't see what it matters. I honestly don't see any reason copyright should ever expire (though in practice, it will basically expire once everyone who wants one has a copy, so there is a practical limit). Some people say that it should expire when the artist dies, but what it the artists wants to sell the future value of the work? They should be able to do that.
So if you are able to get buy on the wages you are making, you would turn down your next raise, right? Oh wait, we're not communists in this country, so people expect to be paid what they're worth, not what they need. This is America, it's from each according to his abilities to each according to his abilities in this country. If the music is worth a dollar to you, pay a dollar for it. If it's not, don't listen to it.
This just goes to show how antiquated our schools and universities have become. They've taken so long implement internet-based learning, and when they do, all they can think of is online quizzes and retarded video lectures. When some student shows them how to do it, and what the internet is really useful for, the only thing they can think to do is expel them. What a bunch of idiots.
I can't believe our politicians are always clamoring to give more money to traditional education institutions. They're practically worthless.
What he really means is that the market for terabit Ethernet is not large enough to justify major investments in the necessary research and development. That means smaller nonstandard implementations will have to be the norm, at least until there is a bigger market for it.
The point of my argument is that if you are required to pay a tax on the value of a piece property, the situation is identical to what the situation would be if you didn't own the property at all and merely rented it.
I think we can all agree that there should be a difference between owning something and renting something. So this is not some whacked out, new-age libertarian definition of property.
Moreover, I do not care what is or is not currently taxed, it is completely irrelevant to my assertion that property *should* not be taxed. Taxing property literally forces people to work for the government. If all property was taxed, it would be impossible to own property without paying money to the government. You might say that the income tax does the same thing, but the income tax is only a percentage. For example, I work 60 hours a week, 20 of those hours go to the government. My roommate works 30 hours a week, and if he made enough money to pay taxes, about 10 of those hours would go the government. The less income you have the less you have to pay. It's also nice to know that the government is claiming only a portion of my time, while property tax implies government ownership of all my property (if I had any, that is).
Yes, there are other situations by which you can lose your property. I think it's perfectly fair that if you owe someone money, they should be able to liquidate your assets in order to enforce payment (unless of course it is not fair that you owe them money, but I'll leave that determination to the courts). Eminent domain and adverse possession are separate issues entirely, but I'm sure that you can tell from my views on property taxes that I do not hold them in high regard.
Finally, the most important point I'd like to make is that property taxes often hide the true tax burden from people who pay taxes. The cost of business property which is taxed is passed on to the consumer (especially renters), but they are not specifically aware of the portion of the cost which is derived from taxes (and it's impossible to know, really, other than it is not zero). This is a big gripe I have with a lot of other taxes and fees. The government should not be allowed to raise funds through means other than the income tax or the sales tax, because it is simply too hard to let voters know how much money they pay for those taxes. Also, they should not allow the sales tax, because it so damaging to poor people.
"say you didn't have a sales tax. some people would generate all of their income and sales"
I've got news for you, income derived from sales is still income. In fact, almost all income is derived from sales. So your argument there is really stupid. Sales tax is always redundant. Sales tax almost always applies only to consumer sales. All consumer purchases are made with money that is part of a consumers income, all income is taxed.
"land property is an abstract concept"
Again, your ignorance really shows through here. All property is an abstract concept. Nothing you have is really yours. I could come and take anything you have from you, not just your land property. We use the concept of property to ensure that people don't waste as much time fighting about what they think is theirs. It's nice not to worry as much about defending your property, but the whole point of property is lost if you don't really own any of it, and you have to constantly earn an income in order to defend it. Property tax is a way that the government enforces social norms. It is impossible to own property without earning an income in order to pay the property tax. In a very fundamental way, this means that you are not free.
"all libertarian ideals result in, in the real world, is aristocracy, and an underclass of poor."
All economic systems result in this, even ones that claim to be designed not to like communism or socialism. In fact, you can find people immigrating to the US in droves from countries like these in order to be free from oppression. When ever someone promises you to protect you from these things they are lying to you, and intend to enslave you for their own purposes.
For the record, I am not a libertarian, I just think that any tax other than the income tax is stupid and/or deceptive.
Property tax is evil, and it should not be legal. The whole point of property is that once you have something, it's yours and no one can take it from you. With property tax, it's like you don't really own your property, and you are just renting it from the government. Once you stop paying, they come and take it away from you.
Moreover, if you are going to ask where is the tax on IP, why don't you ask where the tax is on everyday objects around your house. Where is the property tax on industrial equipment, where is the property tax on you bank account, your stock investments, the money other people owe you, labor contracts? All these things are forms of property that are used to generate revenue but are not taxed under property tax.
The government should not be able to place an arbitrary value and tax rate on any property. I should have the right to be secure in my possessions. If I don't have that right, I don't have any property at all.
Is there any proof to back-up this claim? Obviously, in order to be tracked your phone has to give off a cell phone signal. If it's true that your phone does this even when it's "off", it should be pretty easy to tell. I haven't found any legitimate sources to either prove or disprove your claim.
People are always saying that you can buy a court victory. While it's true that you can try to intimidate someone into giving up, once you get to court your case had better have some substance or you will lose no matter how many lawyers you hire.
I always thought it was funny that the motto for BDSM is "safe, sane and consensual". The mere fact that you have to say it implies that it might not be true. And don't get all high and mighty on me for saying that. I've enjoyed tying people up and whipping them as a sex act (among other things), so I speak from experience when I say, something just isn't right about it.
All the same, I really doubt the BDSM guy killed anyone. You're right when you say that just being into BDSM isn't any king of proof that someone is a killer. It is proof that they're not right in the head, but then again almost no one really is.
There's a difference between losing your court case, and not being allowed to have one at all. In this case, the ACLU won the case, then lost on appeal, then the Supreme Court rejected a final appeal.
"The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests."
People always spout this kind of nonsense when they're trying to argue for more government controls. The government is corruptible. The problem is not that the people in charge are corrupt, this can/will/has be/been true for any entity with any kind of authority that has ever existed, does currently exist , or ever will exist. If you don't want a corrupt government, you're out of luck. The best you can do is to give the government as little authority as possible.
In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. This is the best possible arrangement of affairs, but it invariably means that you will end up with rulings like this one. If you read up on the case, you will see that the bank is claming that their ex-CEO is trying to use the website to influence the outcome of a separate legal case. So whose right would be more important, the right of the ex-CEO to leak confidential documents, of the right of the bank to have a fair court case in Sweden? People like to make these things seem cut and dry, but they're not.
The government services are the subsidy, not the tax break. If you want them to pay for the services, send them a bill, don't take 35% of their profits, that is retarded.
I think these nonsense predications are best described as retarded. You can't predict something that is beyond our current technological capability, since it depends on breakthroughs being made that are impossible to predict. These breakthroughs could come tomorrow, or they could never come at all. I don't know why I'm posting this. Even talking about this fantastic nonsense is a waste of time.
This line of reasoning always confuses me. How is giving someone a tax break the same as giving them a subsidy? You imply that businesses in some way pay taxes. I know the tax rate on corporate profits is 35% in most places, but the reality is that these costs are simply passed on to consumers. It's the consumers who really pay the tax.
We should outlaw corporate taxes entirely, since all they do is hide the tax from the people who really pay it.
Yeah, I'm probably the first poster in the history of slashdot that took the time to read the article before posting a comment. I just did it because I like to be contrary.
In all fairness a scanning-tunneling microscope is similar to an AFM in that it scans it's probe across the surface being imaged. The article also points out that the probe can be used to manipulate matter on the atomic level. When I was in college I used and AFM to manipulate nano-wires. That's not as impressive as moving around individual boron atoms, but it's still pretty cool.
I'm a fan of AFM, because it's a lot cheaper and easier, and because I worked with an AFM back in college.
Yeah, obviously you can't use light to generate images on this scale. This is one of the factors limiting the microelectronics industry, since they use photolithography, the minimum-feature size is limited by the wavelength of light being used. This is why they are interested in electron-beam, and x-ray lithography. Many of these images were generated using an AFM, which essentially scans a very fine tipped needle over the surface being imaged.
It's funny that people are saying these are photoshoped, since it is impossible to use visible light to image objects this small.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll try to keep that in mind while I listen to them talk about raising my taxes and taking away my guns.
Fair enough. As long as they're not Chinese blow and hookers my point still stands.
If your theory is correct the spending pattern for a typical american might look something like:
1) Taxes (35%)
2) Rent (17%)
3) Food (11%)
4) Blow and Hookers (10%)
5) Transportation (7%)
6) Student Loans (7%)
7) Therapy (6%)
6) Bills (4%)
7) Other stuff (3%)
My biggest expenses are:
1) Taxes (35%)
2) Rent (17%)
3) Food (11%)
4) Tythe (10%)
5) Transportation (7%)
6) Student Loans (7%)
7) Therapy (6%)
6) Bills (4%)
7) Other stuff (3%)
Most of the stuff I buy from china comes from the "other stuff" department, which is my smallest expense. I think this is also a pretty typical for other Americans. I don't think it's fair to say that I or people like me waste "all their money on useless shipt that they hardly ever use and dont really need."
A bigger contributor to the trade deficit is China's deliberate manipulation of their currency. Measured in nominal dollars, the GDP of china is only about $2.5 trillion, but at purchasing power parity with US prices, it's $10 trillion. That's means that a dollar is worth four times as much in china as it is in the US. It's no wonder people chose to manufacture things in China.
It's a good example because it is extremely valuable, and it has been able to hold it's value over time. It is a good example of the need for extended or unlimited copyright terms because of it's staying power.
"Copyright is not property, it is a license for a monopoly. "
All property is a government enforced monopoly. In this regard, IP is no different.
"create derivative works"
Copyright does not bar derivative works, though it does limit them. You may have noticed that it is extremely common in pop culture to reference or spoof other works which are still protected by copyright.
"a short copyright term would still allow the vast majority of profits to be made from a given copyrighted work"
Do you have any reason to make this claim? It seems. . . unlikely to be true. In any case I believe a creator is entitled to the entirety of the profit, not a portion of it according you your determination.
"I will not shoot you unless you give me all your money"
You may be surprised to learn this, but threatening to murder someone is highly illegal. Refusing to give someone something for free is not. I think you are the one playing word games.
"the author should hand the work back to society where it came from"
This is the same kind of nonsense people are always spewing about rich or lucky people. You feel entitled to the fruits of their labor, so you play the victim. Oh, if it weren't for society, they never would have made their work, so they should have no say in how it is used. That is bullshit. It is their choice what they will do with what they've created, not yours. If you're so smart that you know what to do with it better than they do, then how come you didn't come up with the idea? It should be the creators choice, and if they choose to sell it, I see nothing wrong with that.
If people will pay for it, it is a net benefit society. You should be grateful for that, not greedily demanding that they give it to you for free.
"but I would expect society as a whole (being the other party to the copyright agreement), to negotiate a fair deal"
Yeah, that's what they have. They agree to give us music and we agree to pay a dollar per song. It's fair because both parties agree to it. It would not be fair to say "no, you have to give me the music for free after you've made enough money", unless of course they agreed to it. Likewise it wound not be fair for them to say, "you have to give me a dollar". It's the fact that both sides agree to it that makes it fair. This is not rocket science.
"I do not see who suggested otherwise."
Saying that they have enough money, so they shouldn't make more is suggesting otherwise. Duh!
"Do I think the "seller" of the music deserves a dollar in compensation? No, I don't."
Then don't pay it. They're not forcing you to buy it at gunpoint.
"The deal enforced by the government, so ultimately the people creates a monopoly on content for long decades"
You could say that about any kind of property ownership. I don't see what it matters. I honestly don't see any reason copyright should ever expire (though in practice, it will basically expire once everyone who wants one has a copy, so there is a practical limit). Some people say that it should expire when the artist dies, but what it the artists wants to sell the future value of the work? They should be able to do that.
"have no living standard problems"
So if you are able to get buy on the wages you are making, you would turn down your next raise, right? Oh wait, we're not communists in this country, so people expect to be paid what they're worth, not what they need. This is America, it's from each according to his abilities to each according to his abilities in this country. If the music is worth a dollar to you, pay a dollar for it. If it's not, don't listen to it.
This just goes to show how antiquated our schools and universities have become. They've taken so long implement internet-based learning, and when they do, all they can think of is online quizzes and retarded video lectures. When some student shows them how to do it, and what the internet is really useful for, the only thing they can think to do is expel them. What a bunch of idiots.
I can't believe our politicians are always clamoring to give more money to traditional education institutions. They're practically worthless.
Lighten up, it was a joke. I knew what you meant. Obviously I'm a republican, and I don't agree with you. Don't take everything so seriously.
"On the one side is Fascism, on the other Socialism."
So you feel that Clinton and Obama are your only choices?
What he really means is that the market for terabit Ethernet is not large enough to justify major investments in the necessary research and development. That means smaller nonstandard implementations will have to be the norm, at least until there is a bigger market for it.
The point of my argument is that if you are required to pay a tax on the value of a piece property, the situation is identical to what the situation would be if you didn't own the property at all and merely rented it.
I think we can all agree that there should be a difference between owning something and renting something. So this is not some whacked out, new-age libertarian definition of property.
Moreover, I do not care what is or is not currently taxed, it is completely irrelevant to my assertion that property *should* not be taxed. Taxing property literally forces people to work for the government. If all property was taxed, it would be impossible to own property without paying money to the government. You might say that the income tax does the same thing, but the income tax is only a percentage. For example, I work 60 hours a week, 20 of those hours go to the government. My roommate works 30 hours a week, and if he made enough money to pay taxes, about 10 of those hours would go the government. The less income you have the less you have to pay. It's also nice to know that the government is claiming only a portion of my time, while property tax implies government ownership of all my property (if I had any, that is).
Yes, there are other situations by which you can lose your property. I think it's perfectly fair that if you owe someone money, they should be able to liquidate your assets in order to enforce payment (unless of course it is not fair that you owe them money, but I'll leave that determination to the courts). Eminent domain and adverse possession are separate issues entirely, but I'm sure that you can tell from my views on property taxes that I do not hold them in high regard.
Finally, the most important point I'd like to make is that property taxes often hide the true tax burden from people who pay taxes. The cost of business property which is taxed is passed on to the consumer (especially renters), but they are not specifically aware of the portion of the cost which is derived from taxes (and it's impossible to know, really, other than it is not zero). This is a big gripe I have with a lot of other taxes and fees. The government should not be allowed to raise funds through means other than the income tax or the sales tax, because it is simply too hard to let voters know how much money they pay for those taxes. Also, they should not allow the sales tax, because it so damaging to poor people.
"say you didn't have a sales tax. some people would generate all of their income and sales"
I've got news for you, income derived from sales is still income. In fact, almost all income is derived from sales. So your argument there is really stupid. Sales tax is always redundant. Sales tax almost always applies only to consumer sales. All consumer purchases are made with money that is part of a consumers income, all income is taxed.
"land property is an abstract concept"
Again, your ignorance really shows through here. All property is an abstract concept. Nothing you have is really yours. I could come and take anything you have from you, not just your land property. We use the concept of property to ensure that people don't waste as much time fighting about what they think is theirs. It's nice not to worry as much about defending your property, but the whole point of property is lost if you don't really own any of it, and you have to constantly earn an income in order to defend it. Property tax is a way that the government enforces social norms. It is impossible to own property without earning an income in order to pay the property tax. In a very fundamental way, this means that you are not free.
"all libertarian ideals result in, in the real world, is aristocracy, and an underclass of poor."
All economic systems result in this, even ones that claim to be designed not to like communism or socialism. In fact, you can find people immigrating to the US in droves from countries like these in order to be free from oppression. When ever someone promises you to protect you from these things they are lying to you, and intend to enslave you for their own purposes.
For the record, I am not a libertarian, I just think that any tax other than the income tax is stupid and/or deceptive.
Property tax is evil, and it should not be legal. The whole point of property is that once you have something, it's yours and no one can take it from you. With property tax, it's like you don't really own your property, and you are just renting it from the government. Once you stop paying, they come and take it away from you.
Moreover, if you are going to ask where is the tax on IP, why don't you ask where the tax is on everyday objects around your house. Where is the property tax on industrial equipment, where is the property tax on you bank account, your stock investments, the money other people owe you, labor contracts? All these things are forms of property that are used to generate revenue but are not taxed under property tax.
The government should not be able to place an arbitrary value and tax rate on any property. I should have the right to be secure in my possessions. If I don't have that right, I don't have any property at all.
Is there any proof to back-up this claim? Obviously, in order to be tracked your phone has to give off a cell phone signal. If it's true that your phone does this even when it's "off", it should be pretty easy to tell. I haven't found any legitimate sources to either prove or disprove your claim.
People are always saying that you can buy a court victory. While it's true that you can try to intimidate someone into giving up, once you get to court your case had better have some substance or you will lose no matter how many lawyers you hire.
I always thought it was funny that the motto for BDSM is "safe, sane and consensual". The mere fact that you have to say it implies that it might not be true. And don't get all high and mighty on me for saying that. I've enjoyed tying people up and whipping them as a sex act (among other things), so I speak from experience when I say, something just isn't right about it.
All the same, I really doubt the BDSM guy killed anyone. You're right when you say that just being into BDSM isn't any king of proof that someone is a killer. It is proof that they're not right in the head, but then again almost no one really is.
There's a difference between losing your court case, and not being allowed to have one at all. In this case, the ACLU won the case, then lost on appeal, then the Supreme Court rejected a final appeal.
"The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests."
People always spout this kind of nonsense when they're trying to argue for more government controls. The government is corruptible. The problem is not that the people in charge are corrupt, this can/will/has be/been true for any entity with any kind of authority that has ever existed, does currently exist , or ever will exist. If you don't want a corrupt government, you're out of luck. The best you can do is to give the government as little authority as possible.
In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. This is the best possible arrangement of affairs, but it invariably means that you will end up with rulings like this one. If you read up on the case, you will see that the bank is claming that their ex-CEO is trying to use the website to influence the outcome of a separate legal case. So whose right would be more important, the right of the ex-CEO to leak confidential documents, of the right of the bank to have a fair court case in Sweden? People like to make these things seem cut and dry, but they're not.
The government services are the subsidy, not the tax break. If you want them to pay for the services, send them a bill, don't take 35% of their profits, that is retarded.
I think these nonsense predications are best described as retarded. You can't predict something that is beyond our current technological capability, since it depends on breakthroughs being made that are impossible to predict. These breakthroughs could come tomorrow, or they could never come at all. I don't know why I'm posting this. Even talking about this fantastic nonsense is a waste of time.
This line of reasoning always confuses me. How is giving someone a tax break the same as giving them a subsidy? You imply that businesses in some way pay taxes. I know the tax rate on corporate profits is 35% in most places, but the reality is that these costs are simply passed on to consumers. It's the consumers who really pay the tax.
We should outlaw corporate taxes entirely, since all they do is hide the tax from the people who really pay it.
Yeah, I'm probably the first poster in the history of slashdot that took the time to read the article before posting a comment. I just did it because I like to be contrary.
In all fairness a scanning-tunneling microscope is similar to an AFM in that it scans it's probe across the surface being imaged. The article also points out that the probe can be used to manipulate matter on the atomic level. When I was in college I used and AFM to manipulate nano-wires. That's not as impressive as moving around individual boron atoms, but it's still pretty cool.
I'm a fan of AFM, because it's a lot cheaper and easier, and because I worked with an AFM back in college.
Yeah, obviously you can't use light to generate images on this scale. This is one of the factors limiting the microelectronics industry, since they use photolithography, the minimum-feature size is limited by the wavelength of light being used. This is why they are interested in electron-beam, and x-ray lithography. Many of these images were generated using an AFM, which essentially scans a very fine tipped needle over the surface being imaged.
It's funny that people are saying these are photoshoped, since it is impossible to use visible light to image objects this small.