If they get more money, they spend more money, period.
Hence my recommendation that we start complaining about the government spending money. The fact remains that the government does some worthwhile things that we need to fund. Taxes such as this carbon one are a sensable way of funding them. Categorically complaining about every tax and not complaining about many real expenditures is what has caused us to be so debt ridden.
An article by Robert Zubrin [rollcall.com] pegs this cost as $1800 for a family of four.
The articles argument is flawed. As I read it, the argument went thusly:
1) By 2015 the carbon price will be about $15/ton
2) United States currently emits about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year
3) The United states carbon output will not change as a result of this legislation
4) 2+3 -> In 2015, United States will emit about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year.
5) There will be about 300 million Americans in 2015
6) Any tax on carbon gets passed on directly to consumers who enjoy no financial benefit in return.
7) 4+5+6-> A group of 4 Americans will have an increased liability of $1800 annually as a result of this legislation
Several of these premises are false.
1- accepted
2- accepted
3 - Probably false though debatable
4- true/false depending on (3)
5 - accepted
6 - False. The taxed money isn't simply thrown in a hole and burned. The government will use that money and thereby reduce the need for other taxes or, more probably, use it to offset the rampant deficit spending already taking place. When the government does things (build roads, starts wars, provides social services, etc) that costs tax payers money. Unless a government is building a large surplus for no reason, taxes do not cost people money. Tax systems just determine who has to pay what portion of the money already spent with the aforementioned projects (build roads, starts wars, provides social services, etc). In this case, everybody will pay some, but those whose actions negatively affect society pay an additional price for it and are thereby incentivized to lessen the harmful behavior. This sort of tax pays for the things we bought and encourages sustainable business practices to boot. A real win-win.
If you want to complain about something, complain whenever the government tries to spend money, not when it tries to collect it. Approving every proposed government project and then screaming bloody murder over every government tax is how got to have the budget problems we now have.
I haven't had any trouble with any MS Office files I've thrown at OpenOffice. Granted I mostly open MS Word documents but they've all opened fine.
Office -> OO works better then OO -> Office. It really doesn't work either way if you attempt to use more complex tables, graphics, OLE, and such. When I was in college, I set my sister and girlfriend up with OO since I couldn't afford Office. Both of them were reduced to tears at least once trying to get OO to do what they wanted (often times what they wanted was for it to inter operate with Office). I now have a job and bought them both office. No more tears.
This will also affect the large number of non-spam affiliate marketers. For instance the site in my sig. I have made a strong effort to make it a value added service and not just spam. (Washington/Utah have the most hikes listed so far)
but how exactly do we determine any of these variables?
A reasonable approximation could be achieved through a well designed anonymous survey to determine what people would have done. We will never know for sure, but it would be closer then the all or nothing approach currently taken.
Realistically though, this sort of assessment isn't going to happen. To dissuade crime, the punishment must statistically outweigh the benefit. If, for example, the punishment for stealing $100 was a $100 fine, there would be no reason not to steal (morals aside). It's only when (the benefit gained from the crime) * (the chance of getting caught) < (the price of punishment) that you'll see people abstain from the activity. These million dollar verdicts for petty theft are needed for the RIAA because the chances of getting caught are one in a million.
I'm not really sure whose side I'm on here, but that's the reality of it.
Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...
I think the premise behind the damages is not just what she downloaded but the amount she distributed. If she seeded a lot of files, the amount uploaded would quickly dwarf whatever she personally downloaded. The real damage is likely X where (The retail value of the songs she downloaded) < X < (The retail value of the songs she distributed). Not everybody she shared with would have bought the song if piracy weren't an option, but a lot would have. The RIAA assumes X = (The retail value of the songs she distributed) whereas the people here on slashdot seem to assume X = (The retail value of the songs she downloaded). Both of these assumptions are rediculous.
I see a lot of people here advocating javascript+xhtml+css over silverlight. I have to assume you've never actually used silverlight, because anybody who has would see that it is immensely easier. XAML makes way more sense then xhtml+css. C# is way easier to maintain then Javascript. The.net library has way more functionality then anything Javascript has to offer.
Just FYI, the first bailout was passed by the Bush administration, Sotomayor hasn't been confirmed yet so checks/balances can still occur, Obama's health care legislation has yet to occur so that too could still be checked/balanced.
If piracy wasn't available, I'd have to pay $60 to find out that new game is absolute ass-nuggets, I'd have to pay at least $10 to see a movie in the theatres to know it was crap
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure they invented demos/trailers/reviews for that purpose. Most games still have demos, every movie has a trailer, and everything gets reviewed. There are plenty of legal ways to try before you buy.
And according to Gartner the TCO for a company to support Windows was $9,784 per anum per computer
Then Gartner is either bad at math or full of shit. You could buy a new Windows license every year and pay somebody $25/hour to work on every single machine individually for an hour every single day of the year and still not spend that much.
Windows, of course, costs more then the sticker price, but the amount you cited is just absurd. At that rate, the CS dept at the college I went to would be spending $2 million a year, the company I work for would be spending $1.2 million a year, and Microsoft would be spending well over $2 billion. It can easily be varified that none of those institutions spend even close to that.
Based on last years death rates in the US
Heart disease: 652,091
Cancer: 559,312
Traffic accident: 41,059
Murder(including non-firearm related): 16,692
We clearly need to ban cheeseburgers, cigarettes, and cars as well.
In a sense free news sites really are a broken business model. How many of you have adblock installed? News sites lose money every time one of you reads a story. With ad blockers becoming more and more prevalent I can see the free model becoming extremely problematic in a few years.
It will be quite difficult for the first websites to transition to some form of micropayment or subscription system as all of their competitors will still be free, but I believe it will ultimately be necessary.
Tried to install it, found out a lot of my hardware was unsupported, couldn't figure out how to install needed drivers, gave up, watched TV. Not exactly a great success story in my case:(
If you already have office / exchange, Office Communicator is exactly the product you're looking for. (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/communicator/FX101729051033.aspx) It's not free, but with volume licensing it's fairly inexpensive.
Instead of launching a DOS attack on google(that might just make google more money) over the TOS, why not use Microsoft or Yahoo search until they fix it? It's not like Google is the only search provider in the world.
I've always wondered why the movie studios care about catching these people. These bootlegs are the worst quality you can find and anyone who would knowingly buy them would never be a customer anyway.
You're wrong on two accounts. First, many theater cams are actually quite good. Sure no digital surround sound and its a bit grainy on a 60 inch tv, but never the less perfectly watchable. Second, assuming that 100 downloads translates into 0 lost sales is just as silly as the when the RIAA assumes 100 downloads translates into 100 lost sales. It all depends on the price elasticity for a particular item.
We have other alternatives. I could quit and get a job elsewhere. Thing is that, even with the 10% cut, I'll still likely be making more then anybody else is offering.
The problem may not be as widespead as the summery would lead you to believe. 99% of the complaints on the blog are from mac users. That said, I think I'll just keep going with the normal WMP version. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
If they get more money, they spend more money, period.
Hence my recommendation that we start complaining about the government spending money. The fact remains that the government does some worthwhile things that we need to fund. Taxes such as this carbon one are a sensable way of funding them. Categorically complaining about every tax and not complaining about many real expenditures is what has caused us to be so debt ridden.
2. Global Warming has been exposed as false
[Citation Needed]
An article by Robert Zubrin [rollcall.com] pegs this cost as $1800 for a family of four.
The articles argument is flawed. As I read it, the argument went thusly:
1) By 2015 the carbon price will be about $15/ton
2) United States currently emits about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year
3) The United states carbon output will not change as a result of this legislation
4) 2+3 -> In 2015, United States will emit about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year.
5) There will be about 300 million Americans in 2015
6) Any tax on carbon gets passed on directly to consumers who enjoy no financial benefit in return.
7) 4+5+6-> A group of 4 Americans will have an increased liability of $1800 annually as a result of this legislation
Several of these premises are false.
1- accepted
2- accepted
3 - Probably false though debatable
4- true/false depending on (3)
5 - accepted
6 - False. The taxed money isn't simply thrown in a hole and burned. The government will use that money and thereby reduce the need for other taxes or, more probably, use it to offset the rampant deficit spending already taking place. When the government does things (build roads, starts wars, provides social services, etc) that costs tax payers money. Unless a government is building a large surplus for no reason, taxes do not cost people money. Tax systems just determine who has to pay what portion of the money already spent with the aforementioned projects (build roads, starts wars, provides social services, etc). In this case, everybody will pay some, but those whose actions negatively affect society pay an additional price for it and are thereby incentivized to lessen the harmful behavior. This sort of tax pays for the things we bought and encourages sustainable business practices to boot. A real win-win.
If you want to complain about something, complain whenever the government tries to spend money, not when it tries to collect it. Approving every proposed government project and then screaming bloody murder over every government tax is how got to have the budget problems we now have.
I haven't had any trouble with any MS Office files I've thrown at OpenOffice. Granted I mostly open MS Word documents but they've all opened fine.
Office -> OO works better then OO -> Office. It really doesn't work either way if you attempt to use more complex tables, graphics, OLE, and such. When I was in college, I set my sister and girlfriend up with OO since I couldn't afford Office. Both of them were reduced to tears at least once trying to get OO to do what they wanted (often times what they wanted was for it to inter operate with Office). I now have a job and bought them both office. No more tears.
This will also affect the large number of non-spam affiliate marketers. For instance the site in my sig. I have made a strong effort to make it a value added service and not just spam. (Washington/Utah have the most hikes listed so far)
but how exactly do we determine any of these variables?
A reasonable approximation could be achieved through a well designed anonymous survey to determine what people would have done. We will never know for sure, but it would be closer then the all or nothing approach currently taken.
Realistically though, this sort of assessment isn't going to happen. To dissuade crime, the punishment must statistically outweigh the benefit. If, for example, the punishment for stealing $100 was a $100 fine, there would be no reason not to steal (morals aside). It's only when (the benefit gained from the crime) * (the chance of getting caught) < (the price of punishment) that you'll see people abstain from the activity. These million dollar verdicts for petty theft are needed for the RIAA because the chances of getting caught are one in a million.
I'm not really sure whose side I'm on here, but that's the reality of it.
Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...
I think the premise behind the damages is not just what she downloaded but the amount she distributed. If she seeded a lot of files, the amount uploaded would quickly dwarf whatever she personally downloaded. The real damage is likely X where (The retail value of the songs she downloaded) < X < (The retail value of the songs she distributed). Not everybody she shared with would have bought the song if piracy weren't an option, but a lot would have. The RIAA assumes X = (The retail value of the songs she distributed) whereas the people here on slashdot seem to assume X = (The retail value of the songs she downloaded). Both of these assumptions are rediculous.
Silverlight is awful.
[citation needed]. Have you even used it?
I see a lot of people here advocating javascript+xhtml+css over silverlight. I have to assume you've never actually used silverlight, because anybody who has would see that it is immensely easier. XAML makes way more sense then xhtml+css. C# is way easier to maintain then Javascript. The .net library has way more functionality then anything Javascript has to offer.
Simple example: A 3 column layout in xaml:
<Canvas x:Name="LayoutRoot">
<Rectangle Fill="#BBBBFFFF" Width="800" HorizontalAlignment="Center"/>
</Canvas%gt;
As simple as this is, html+css simply can't do it. At best you can kind of fake it
Just FYI, the first bailout was passed by the Bush administration, Sotomayor hasn't been confirmed yet so checks/balances can still occur, Obama's health care legislation has yet to occur so that too could still be checked/balanced.
also "corrupt chicago-style politician"
[Citation Needed]
If piracy wasn't available, I'd have to pay $60 to find out that new game is absolute ass-nuggets, I'd have to pay at least $10 to see a movie in the theatres to know it was crap
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure they invented demos/trailers/reviews for that purpose. Most games still have demos, every movie has a trailer, and everything gets reviewed. There are plenty of legal ways to try before you buy.
And according to Gartner the TCO for a company to support Windows was $9,784 per anum per computer
Then Gartner is either bad at math or full of shit. You could buy a new Windows license every year and pay somebody $25/hour to work on every single machine individually for an hour every single day of the year and still not spend that much.
Windows, of course, costs more then the sticker price, but the amount you cited is just absurd. At that rate, the CS dept at the college I went to would be spending $2 million a year, the company I work for would be spending $1.2 million a year, and Microsoft would be spending well over $2 billion. It can easily be varified that none of those institutions spend even close to that.
[if you are rich enough] you can do pretty much as you please as long as its legal.
At least in the US, legality ceases to be a problem if you're rich enough.
Based on last years death rates in the US
Heart disease: 652,091
Cancer: 559,312
Traffic accident: 41,059
Murder(including non-firearm related): 16,692
We clearly need to ban cheeseburgers, cigarettes, and cars as well.
In a sense free news sites really are a broken business model. How many of you have adblock installed? News sites lose money every time one of you reads a story. With ad blockers becoming more and more prevalent I can see the free model becoming extremely problematic in a few years.
It will be quite difficult for the first websites to transition to some form of micropayment or subscription system as all of their competitors will still be free, but I believe it will ultimately be necessary.
Tried to install it, found out a lot of my hardware was unsupported, couldn't figure out how to install needed drivers, gave up, watched TV. Not exactly a great success story in my case :(
I'm just going to assume that it warned us:
In Soviet Russia, net neutralizes you.
1) Stick a filter on the end of your data center water line
2) Resell it as bottled water
3) Profit
Flash has a 100% supported plugin for Linux and Mac whereas Silverlight doesn't
Wrong.
Mac version: http://silverlight.net/GetStarted/
Linux version: http://mono-project.com/Moonlight
Flash has support on some things that Silverlight support will be impossible such as on the Nintendo Wii's Opera browser
Wrong. The Wii only supports Flash 7. Almost all flash apps check for version 9 or 10 right off the bat so Flash is useless on the Wii.
[Silverlight can't compete with] Flash lite for mobile devices.
Wrong. Silverlight mobile is coming along quite nicely.
Please research things instead of just making a bunch of stuff up and somehow getting +5 informative for it.
Here's another one: Silverlight supports the h.264 standard for video.
Heck there's an OSS version of silverlight
Face it, something Microsoft has created is more "open" then its competition.
If you already have office / exchange, Office Communicator is exactly the product you're looking for. (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/communicator/FX101729051033.aspx) It's not free, but with volume licensing it's fairly inexpensive.
Instead of launching a DOS attack on google(that might just make google more money) over the TOS, why not use Microsoft or Yahoo search until they fix it? It's not like Google is the only search provider in the world.
I've always wondered why the movie studios care about catching these people. These bootlegs are the worst quality you can find and anyone who would knowingly buy them would never be a customer anyway.
You're wrong on two accounts. First, many theater cams are actually quite good. Sure no digital surround sound and its a bit grainy on a 60 inch tv, but never the less perfectly watchable. Second, assuming that 100 downloads translates into 0 lost sales is just as silly as the when the RIAA assumes 100 downloads translates into 100 lost sales. It all depends on the price elasticity for a particular item.
just because your workers have no alternative.
We have other alternatives. I could quit and get a job elsewhere. Thing is that, even with the 10% cut, I'll still likely be making more then anybody else is offering.
The problem may not be as widespead as the summery would lead you to believe. 99% of the complaints on the blog are from mac users. That said, I think I'll just keep going with the normal WMP version. If it aint broke, don't fix it.