The fact that you have to bring a parent along to the movies proves my point - you can't see it unless your parent/guardian/friend approves, and the only way they know you have their approval is that they are with you.
what if the victim isn't murdered, but 'merely' assaulted? In this scenario, the punishment for general assault would not take into account the intent to terrorize the community. With hate crime legislation in place, the threat to the community is additionally punished.
You don't mean a hate crime law for this. Accounting for motivation for sentencing can handle this. A premeditated murder has a heavier sentence than negligent homicide.
Pro-no-IRS. How much would a 100% tax cut affect the poor?
It would benefit the poor. By getting rid of income tax there'd be more money to invest which would create more jobs.
* Favors cutting gas taxes (go figure)
Favors cutting all taxes.
If true I disagree. A tax on fuel is an excellent use tax, you only pay a tax on what you use. The money can then be used for road building and maintenance.
Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt
Because grand societal experiments involving innocent babies backed up with the force of federal law is such a good idea...
Now this is one place I disagree with Ron Paul.
Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without "Under God"
What does he think about "In God We Trust"?
This is the other thing I disagree with. Overall there's two negatives and a bunch of positives. Ron Paul still comes the closest to being the best candidate for president.
"Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt"...well, if that's true, I guess I'll concede that no one is 100% right.
"Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without Under God'" and then "Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools" Are you sure he did BOTH? They seem to be opposing views being expressed.
Yea these two votes surprised me too. I'd think he'd be for striking "under god" from the pledge and for allowing same sex couples to adopt.
There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up.
That is not what Ron Paul says. He does not believe there is any conspiracy with the US government behind the terrorist attacks, just that our government's incompetence made it easier for them.
I agree saying Ron Paul believes in or talks about there being a conspiracy of the CIA/NSA hiring al Qaeda harms him. However the US did help in the creation of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda emerged from the mujahideen fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And the US supported the mujahideen.
I think NJ is a bit of an anomaly, but municipalities are the only property tax assessors.
The state of New Jersey doesn't tax property? Nor do the counties, or the equivalent? I didn't know that.
Also, tax rates are not uniform even within a municipality -- many use a factoring system where property value is only one part of the tax assessment equation. IE, property value != assessment value for taxes.
What other factors do they use? It seems property value would be the best seeing as how the value depends on many other things. Such as whether the schools are good, how the road are, and such. This can have the adverse affect of driving out poorer people though, as happens with Gentrification.
My point is that sales tax of any kind doesn't make any sense if you believe that only goods and services the government provides should be taxed.
Ok, yes that's what I believe. If government isn't providing anything why tax it? It costs the government nothing so it shouldn't be taxed. Anything else is simply wealth redistribution by government fiat.
Everyone must take responsibility, however, or it will never be fixed.
That's the problem, a lot of people won't take the responsibility.
Regardless of the actions of the media, there was a vote, and the vote came down to electing people with a particular stance.
Although people still make wrong choices when they know a lot of the facts, it makes it harder to make a wise decision when you don't have the pertinent facts.
Divorcing yourself from that reality by claiming it was the media's fault, or whatever else does not help.
Neither does it help denying the media has the responsibility to furnish all relevant details.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was ignoring history.
Sorry for implying you were ignoring history.
However WWII didn't have much to do with it
Until you study the history of American debt, and it's strong correlation to maintaining the very large armed force developed by it in WWII in order to win that war.
While keeping a large standing army does have an effect, the Great Depression was over before the US entered WWII. Economic indicators had recovered to pre-depression levels by 1936 in the US, before the Recession of 1937. The war boom in late 1940 did increase employment, however by mid 1938 the recovery was underway. Of course Korea kept defense spending up as did Viet Nam then Reagan.
What I find ironic is the same person who warned against Military Industrial Complex, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was the same one who had the US enter the conflict in Viet Nam. By 1955 North Viet Nam and France had agreed to hold a vote in both Viet Nams on reunification, Vietnamese were to vote on whether North and South would unite. However Ike was against the vote. He sent Colonel Edward Lansdale to South Vietnam to start a campaign against the vote in 1955. The colonel armed and trained those opposed to democracy.
Take, for instance, the page on the New Deal you cited; at what point did debt soar? (Hint; there is a helpful graph.)
Thanks for pointing that out. If I'm looking at the right graph, it show the national debt skyrocketing in 1943 before peaking in 1946. I'd like to see it past 1950, when it was more than twice as high as the debt was in the '30s. I'd bet it skyrockets again in the mid to late '50s, when Ike starts arming some Vietnamese.
FDR was never a fan of deficit spending, and most of the programs he created were repealed once the Depression ended. (Unless you're calling out either Social Security or the SEC?)
I'd keep but reform the SEC, however one of the very few things I agree with Bush on is privatizing Social Security. I don't know what to do about those who have or are close to retirement, but at least to start with I'll allow people to use part of what they pay into SS to invest instead and increase the amount, as a percentage, yearly. Perhaps what could be done for those who have or are close to retirement is to have immigrants pay into SS with the understanding they won't collect any themselves. So called illegal immigrants have already paid more than $50 billion into SS.
I live in NJ. More urban areas have deifinitely lower median and mean home prices. Yes, you get more physical property in the more rural areas, BUT it doesn't really matter, since your housing choices are limited by what's in inventory -- never mind the fact that those living in urban areas also gain intangible benefits like reduced commuting time. Example: three bedroom row house in Irvington, NJ (Newark suburb, very urban) might cost 300,000. Very small three bedroom house in High Bridge NJ (much more rural) might cost 425,000. Yes, schools etc are better in High Bridge, it's safer, etc -- but it is literally impossible to find a house there for under $325,000, whereas I could find a house in Irvington for $250,000.
That may be true in NJ, but I can go, if I had the money, to the middle of nowhere Montana and buy an acre for under $10,000. Try that in NJ or NY. Well it might be possible in central or upstate NY.
As for taxes, are you assuming that the rate is equal across urban and rural areas?
What rate, property tax rate? State property tax rates should be uniform, the city or county sets it's own tax rate. Which is based on the value of the property, two properties of the same value in the same tax district will pay the same tax. A ten acre lot worth $100,000 will pay the same as a half acre lot with a home also worth $100,000 in the same district. Actually the half acre lot may pay less, simply because the owner can file a homestead exemption where the 10 acre lot may not be able to. Or it might be the opposite.
Since the government does not provide the service the government should not be taxing it.
What? The government doesn't provide cigarettes, yet they tax them... the government doesn't provide automobiles, yet they are taxed... I fail to understand your point.
The only reason I'd support a tax on cigarettes is for paying for the healthcare costs related to smoking. However that should be left to health insurance issuers, to have higher premiums for smokers, actually the government shouldn't tax tobacco. Automobiles use public roads, however it should be a use tax on fuel that pays for building and maintaining them. And unless your point is life should be taxed, I fail to understand your point.
movie theaters won't let anyone under 18 into R rated movies. That's definitely censorship.
Unless things have changed this is wrong. Growing up, under the age of 17, I was able to watch an R rated if I was with a parent. It was X rated movies I couldn't see.
I know the libertarians in the crowd would love to say it's their right not to show the movie. That's very true. But that doesn't make it not censorship.
It is censorship, however as long as it's the theatre's decision they can do so. The First amendment bars the government from censorship. If there's two theatres next to each other and one decides to not show a movie but the other one does I have no problem with it.
This case has already proven that the free market doesn't work, if that's so: regulate!
This IS NOT the free market. A free market requires a voluntary exchange, and I bet no where in any Verizon contract does it say Verizon will block any pro choice messages. Without such a statement it's not voluntary if Verizon does block said messages.
I am more of a consumer who believes in the power of capitalism. As long as the phone company in question outlines their company policies I can make my own decision on which company behaves the way I like.
I believe in capitalism as well, however it requires you to do the details and limitations and I bet most people didn't know that Verizon would block messages they signed up to receive. I bet here's nothing in any contract you sign when signing up with Verizon saying they will block pro choice text messages.
But not the federal government; and note that progressively over the years voters have voted for a larger government - and one that goes to war to the tune of $900B.
Many were against going to war but like puppets the media downplayed them.
"Oh, we should have kept a small government and not racked up so much debt" is never going to help.
Ignoring history won't help either.
It's interesting you mention Lincoln and the Civil War, though; that is generally regarded at the point in our history wherein the 'federalism' so espoused by the Founding Fathers stopped being a predominant policy, and we started to assert Federal rights over States rights. The other major jump was WWII.
Yeap, Lincoln certainly strengthened the federal government. However WWII didn't have much to do with it, FDR started the ball rolling in the early '30s, before WWII, with the New Deal. WWII did help make the US what it it today though. After the war because of the GI Bill of 1944 a lot of GIs were able to go to college. There was a pretty big shift in demographics from low class to the middle class.
A tax may not harm the internet but it can mean some will lose their access. Right now some can barely afford access but with a tax they no longer will be able to afford it.
That's not true. Any US citizen can afford 20 USD for his internet connection, can't he. Dial-up and the slower broadband connections still count as "access" in my eye.
Some can most certainly lose their internet connection it they have to pay more for it. I guess you've never heard of the poor.
Because we all know the most important thing that poor folks need is internet access. You do realize that they already have this access if they chose to go to a library.
Hell YES!, The poor can get just as much use out of the internet as someone who can afford net access. Heck they can even use the net to find a job, or a better paying job, just like those who can afford it. I knew homeless people who had a cellphone just for this reason. Sure some may be able to use the library, but if you're looking for work it's a good idea to have email as well and some libraries block web based email. Years ago I talked with one librarian about why they blocked email and they said it was because people were taking too long using the computers to check email. With only a set number of computers and a line of people waiting to use the computers they didn't want users to take too long.
Mr. Vernor was trying to sell multiple copies of AutoCAD that he had picked up at garage sales and flea markets. Autodesk petitioned eBay to "take down" Vernor's auctions on several occasions explaining the terms of the software license. Vernor even admits that he discussed the licensing terms with Autodesk and was frustrated when they wouldn't alter their policies. Vernor clearly knew that buyers would not be able to use the software, yet he persisted in trying to sell it. eBay finally had to suspend Vernor's account because he would not stop posting auctions for AutoCAD software.
Ok, I didn't see that in tfa, that it was a license not a sale.
Does that sound like Vernor was acting on good faith?
If he knew it was a license then no it wasn't in good faith. My mistake, I thought he bought software.
to the extent that the government is responsible for building and maintaining that network
The government is NOT responsible for building and maintaining the network. It is the responsibility of the providers to build and maintain their own part of it. Of course this hasn't stopped the government from giving these businesses billions of taxpayer dollars to buildout the network. Since this is the case it should be the corporations that received money who should be taxed. They should also be made to have open access, net neutrality.
I'm in favor of tax incentives for people to live in urban areas. I'm willing to pay a surcharge to live in a less-populated area (which I do, by paying higher property taxes, and by paying more for my property).
You made a mistake, property cost more in urban areas, not less. And since the value is higher urban landowners pay more in property taxes.
What I wanted to address was that the taxation is upon the cash transaction, not on the services provided.
Since the government does not provide the service the government should not be taxing it. There should be no need for any taxing of services.
There is a case for it, too; the government needs money, badly.
The government wouldn't need anymore revenue if it stayed small. If the feds hadn't got so big federal income wouldn't be needed so much. The 4% income tax President Lincoln had would be plenty. And btw when Lincoln raised the income tax to $4 to pay for the Civil War people didn't like it, I wonder what they'd think of the tax now. With low federal income tax cities, counties, and states could raise property tax. Then between property tax and a consumption tax there should be quite enough revenue to run local and state government.
A tax may not harm the internet but it can mean some will lose their access. Right now some can barely afford access but with a tax they no longer will be able to afford it.
The question is rather: why on Earth tax it in the first place.
Because the money grubbing politicians want to tax anything and everything they can.
I hope you arn't an American, because if you are then you need to take a remedial civics class.
Bills come out of the House and Senate. Congress makes the laws, Congress passes the laws, and in 1997 Congress was controlled by the Republicans.
But the president still has to sign it, unless congress overrides the veto.
Ethically, the seller shouldn't sell something that they know is worthless. It may be that eBay doesn't hold sellers accountable unless a buyer complains, but that isn't right. Furthermore, eBay has no real way of enforcing ethical behavior after the fact. I know many buyers that were never reimbursed for their losses, even though eBay mediation ruled in favor of the buyer.
True, sellers and eBay should be ethical and held accountable. That's true in all walks of life. As for eBay's practices, I don't know what they are however it would seem they'd take care of their brand. If they don't then people could switch to another auction website, Amazon or Yahoo! perhaps. eBay may be dominate now but it could change quickly.
Everyone wants to paint Autodesk as the bad guy in this scenario. It's human instinct to root for the underdog... but in this case, I think the underdog is just an opportunist that wants to take advantage of gullible people on eBay and he's just pissed off that Autodesk intervened.
I don't know all the details so I can't say who's right. Neither can you unless you have inside info. What I do know though is that there are plenty of cases where some corporation screwed up and someone else was made to pay, sometimes with their life.
I don't think this will ever go to court becasue the seller knows he was not acting on good faith.
And you have positive proof this is true, or are you just making it up?
Forget about using ad blocking software, instead use a Host file. Here's a good article on using one for Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File. Google has some links where you can download a Hosts file, all one is is a text file listing IP addies you want blocked.
You are confused. Autodesk is actually protecting the potential eBay consumer. If I bought a copy of AutoCAD on eBAY, I'd be very disappointed to learn that it wouldn't install without authentication and I'd be very, very disappointed to learn that I cannot authenticate without a license.
It's the eBay buyer's responsibility to make sure they can legally run any software they buy from eBay. And if they use a credit card to pay for it they can dispute the charge, make a chargeback, on the CC. Though I haven't bought anything from eBay, because of the price I've though of buying Photoshop there. Searching eBay you can find where the seller has a Transfer of Ownership form from Adobe.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that you have to bring a parent along to the movies proves my point - you can't see it unless your parent/guardian/friend approves, and the only way they know you have their approval is that they are with you.
Ah but I can still see an R rated movie.
Falconwhat if the victim isn't murdered, but 'merely' assaulted? In this scenario, the punishment for general assault would not take into account the intent to terrorize the community. With hate crime legislation in place, the threat to the community is additionally punished.
You don't mean a hate crime law for this. Accounting for motivation for sentencing can handle this. A premeditated murder has a heavier sentence than negligent homicide.
FslconPro-no-IRS. How much would a 100% tax cut affect the poor?
It would benefit the poor. By getting rid of income tax there'd be more money to invest which would create more jobs.
* Favors cutting gas taxes (go figure)
Favors cutting all taxes.
If true I disagree. A tax on fuel is an excellent use tax, you only pay a tax on what you use. The money can then be used for road building and maintenance.
Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt
Because grand societal experiments involving innocent babies backed up with the force of federal law is such a good idea...
Now this is one place I disagree with Ron Paul.
Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without "Under God"
What does he think about "In God We Trust"?
This is the other thing I disagree with. Overall there's two negatives and a bunch of positives. Ron Paul still comes the closest to being the best candidate for president.
Falcon"Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt" ...well, if that's true, I guess I'll concede that no one is 100% right.
"Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without Under God'" and then "Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools" Are you sure he did BOTH? They seem to be opposing views being expressed.
Yea these two votes surprised me too. I'd think he'd be for striking "under god" from the pledge and for allowing same sex couples to adopt.
FalconThere are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up.
That is not what Ron Paul says. He does not believe there is any conspiracy with the US government behind the terrorist attacks, just that our government's incompetence made it easier for them.
I agree saying Ron Paul believes in or talks about there being a conspiracy of the CIA/NSA hiring al Qaeda harms him. However the US did help in the creation of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda emerged from the mujahideen fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And the US supported the mujahideen.
FalconI think NJ is a bit of an anomaly, but municipalities are the only property tax assessors.
The state of New Jersey doesn't tax property? Nor do the counties, or the equivalent? I didn't know that.
Also, tax rates are not uniform even within a municipality -- many use a factoring system where property value is only one part of the tax assessment equation. IE, property value != assessment value for taxes.
What other factors do they use? It seems property value would be the best seeing as how the value depends on many other things. Such as whether the schools are good, how the road are, and such. This can have the adverse affect of driving out poorer people though, as happens with Gentrification.
My point is that sales tax of any kind doesn't make any sense if you believe that only goods and services the government provides should be taxed.
Ok, yes that's what I believe. If government isn't providing anything why tax it? It costs the government nothing so it shouldn't be taxed. Anything else is simply wealth redistribution by government fiat.
FalconEveryone must take responsibility, however, or it will never be fixed.
That's the problem, a lot of people won't take the responsibility.
Regardless of the actions of the media, there was a vote, and the vote came down to electing people with a particular stance.
Although people still make wrong choices when they know a lot of the facts, it makes it harder to make a wise decision when you don't have the pertinent facts.
Divorcing yourself from that reality by claiming it was the media's fault, or whatever else does not help.
Neither does it help denying the media has the responsibility to furnish all relevant details.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was ignoring history.
Sorry for implying you were ignoring history.
However WWII didn't have much to do with it
Until you study the history of American debt, and it's strong correlation to maintaining the very large armed force developed by it in WWII in order to win that war.
While keeping a large standing army does have an effect, the Great Depression was over before the US entered WWII. Economic indicators had recovered to pre-depression levels by 1936 in the US, before the Recession of 1937. The war boom in late 1940 did increase employment, however by mid 1938 the recovery was underway. Of course Korea kept defense spending up as did Viet Nam then Reagan.
What I find ironic is the same person who warned against Military Industrial Complex, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was the same one who had the US enter the conflict in Viet Nam. By 1955 North Viet Nam and France had agreed to hold a vote in both Viet Nams on reunification, Vietnamese were to vote on whether North and South would unite. However Ike was against the vote. He sent Colonel Edward Lansdale to South Vietnam to start a campaign against the vote in 1955. The colonel armed and trained those opposed to democracy.
Take, for instance, the page on the New Deal you cited; at what point did debt soar? (Hint; there is a helpful graph.)
Thanks for pointing that out. If I'm looking at the right graph, it show the national debt skyrocketing in 1943 before peaking in 1946. I'd like to see it past 1950, when it was more than twice as high as the debt was in the '30s. I'd bet it skyrockets again in the mid to late '50s, when Ike starts arming some Vietnamese.
FDR was never a fan of deficit spending, and most of the programs he created were repealed once the Depression ended. (Unless you're calling out either Social Security or the SEC?)
I'd keep but reform the SEC, however one of the very few things I agree with Bush on is privatizing Social Security. I don't know what to do about those who have or are close to retirement, but at least to start with I'll allow people to use part of what they pay into SS to invest instead and increase the amount, as a percentage, yearly. Perhaps what could be done for those who have or are close to retirement is to have immigrants pay into SS with the understanding they won't collect any themselves. So called illegal immigrants have already paid more than $50 billion into SS.
FalconI live in NJ. More urban areas have deifinitely lower median and mean home prices. Yes, you get more physical property in the more rural areas, BUT it doesn't really matter, since your housing choices are limited by what's in inventory -- never mind the fact that those living in urban areas also gain intangible benefits like reduced commuting time. Example: three bedroom row house in Irvington, NJ (Newark suburb, very urban) might cost 300,000. Very small three bedroom house in High Bridge NJ (much more rural) might cost 425,000. Yes, schools etc are better in High Bridge, it's safer, etc -- but it is literally impossible to find a house there for under $325,000, whereas I could find a house in Irvington for $250,000.
That may be true in NJ, but I can go, if I had the money, to the middle of nowhere Montana and buy an acre for under $10,000. Try that in NJ or NY. Well it might be possible in central or upstate NY.
As for taxes, are you assuming that the rate is equal across urban and rural areas?
What rate, property tax rate? State property tax rates should be uniform, the city or county sets it's own tax rate. Which is based on the value of the property, two properties of the same value in the same tax district will pay the same tax. A ten acre lot worth $100,000 will pay the same as a half acre lot with a home also worth $100,000 in the same district. Actually the half acre lot may pay less, simply because the owner can file a homestead exemption where the 10 acre lot may not be able to. Or it might be the opposite.
Since the government does not provide the service the government should not be taxing it.
What? The government doesn't provide cigarettes, yet they tax them... the government doesn't provide automobiles, yet they are taxed... I fail to understand your point.
The only reason I'd support a tax on cigarettes is for paying for the healthcare costs related to smoking. However that should be left to health insurance issuers, to have higher premiums for smokers, actually the government shouldn't tax tobacco. Automobiles use public roads, however it should be a use tax on fuel that pays for building and maintaining them. And unless your point is life should be taxed, I fail to understand your point.
Falconmovie theaters won't let anyone under 18 into R rated movies. That's definitely censorship.
Unless things have changed this is wrong. Growing up, under the age of 17, I was able to watch an R rated if I was with a parent. It was X rated movies I couldn't see.
I know the libertarians in the crowd would love to say it's their right not to show the movie. That's very true. But that doesn't make it not censorship.
It is censorship, however as long as it's the theatre's decision they can do so. The First amendment bars the government from censorship. If there's two theatres next to each other and one decides to not show a movie but the other one does I have no problem with it.
FalconThis case has already proven that the free market doesn't work, if that's so: regulate!
This IS NOT the free market. A free market requires a voluntary exchange, and I bet no where in any Verizon contract does it say Verizon will block any pro choice messages. Without such a statement it's not voluntary if Verizon does block said messages.
FalconI am more of a consumer who believes in the power of capitalism. As long as the phone company in question outlines their company policies I can make my own decision on which company behaves the way I like.
I believe in capitalism as well, however it requires you to do the details and limitations and I bet most people didn't know that Verizon would block messages they signed up to receive. I bet here's nothing in any contract you sign when signing up with Verizon saying they will block pro choice text messages.
FalconYoung people are going to be getting unasked for text messages advising them how to kill their children.
Making things up again? Naral only sends messages to those who sign up for them.
FalconBut not the federal government; and note that progressively over the years voters have voted for a larger government - and one that goes to war to the tune of $900B.
Many were against going to war but like puppets the media downplayed them.
"Oh, we should have kept a small government and not racked up so much debt" is never going to help.
Ignoring history won't help either.
It's interesting you mention Lincoln and the Civil War, though; that is generally regarded at the point in our history wherein the 'federalism' so espoused by the Founding Fathers stopped being a predominant policy, and we started to assert Federal rights over States rights. The other major jump was WWII.
Yeap, Lincoln certainly strengthened the federal government. However WWII didn't have much to do with it, FDR started the ball rolling in the early '30s, before WWII, with the New Deal. WWII did help make the US what it it today though. After the war because of the GI Bill of 1944 a lot of GIs were able to go to college. There was a pretty big shift in demographics from low class to the middle class.
FalconA tax may not harm the internet but it can mean some will lose their access. Right now some can barely afford access but with a tax they no longer will be able to afford it.
That's not true. Any US citizen can afford 20 USD for his internet connection, can't he. Dial-up and the slower broadband connections still count as "access" in my eye.
Some can most certainly lose their internet connection it they have to pay more for it. I guess you've never heard of the poor.
FalconInstead big companies get PAID to extend then monopolies to areas that they will operate at a LOSS on MY dime.
What's really bad is that the telcos and cablecos were paid to buildout but didn't. And now they're crying because they can't afford to.
FalconBecause we all know the most important thing that poor folks need is internet access. You do realize that they already have this access if they chose to go to a library.
Hell YES!, The poor can get just as much use out of the internet as someone who can afford net access. Heck they can even use the net to find a job, or a better paying job, just like those who can afford it. I knew homeless people who had a cellphone just for this reason. Sure some may be able to use the library, but if you're looking for work it's a good idea to have email as well and some libraries block web based email. Years ago I talked with one librarian about why they blocked email and they said it was because people were taking too long using the computers to check email. With only a set number of computers and a line of people waiting to use the computers they didn't want users to take too long.
FalconMr. Vernor was trying to sell multiple copies of AutoCAD that he had picked up at garage sales and flea markets. Autodesk petitioned eBay to "take down" Vernor's auctions on several occasions explaining the terms of the software license. Vernor even admits that he discussed the licensing terms with Autodesk and was frustrated when they wouldn't alter their policies. Vernor clearly knew that buyers would not be able to use the software, yet he persisted in trying to sell it. eBay finally had to suspend Vernor's account because he would not stop posting auctions for AutoCAD software.
Ok, I didn't see that in tfa, that it was a license not a sale.
Does that sound like Vernor was acting on good faith?
If he knew it was a license then no it wasn't in good faith. My mistake, I thought he bought software.
Falconto the extent that the government is responsible for building and maintaining that network
The government is NOT responsible for building and maintaining the network. It is the responsibility of the providers to build and maintain their own part of it. Of course this hasn't stopped the government from giving these businesses billions of taxpayer dollars to buildout the network. Since this is the case it should be the corporations that received money who should be taxed. They should also be made to have open access, net neutrality.
FalconI'm in favor of tax incentives for people to live in urban areas. I'm willing to pay a surcharge to live in a less-populated area (which I do, by paying higher property taxes, and by paying more for my property).
You made a mistake, property cost more in urban areas, not less. And since the value is higher urban landowners pay more in property taxes.
What I wanted to address was that the taxation is upon the cash transaction, not on the services provided.
Since the government does not provide the service the government should not be taxing it. There should be no need for any taxing of services.
FalconThere is a case for it, too; the government needs money, badly.
The government wouldn't need anymore revenue if it stayed small. If the feds hadn't got so big federal income wouldn't be needed so much. The 4% income tax President Lincoln had would be plenty. And btw when Lincoln raised the income tax to $4 to pay for the Civil War people didn't like it, I wonder what they'd think of the tax now. With low federal income tax cities, counties, and states could raise property tax. Then between property tax and a consumption tax there should be quite enough revenue to run local and state government.
FalconA tax may not harm the internet but it can mean some will lose their access. Right now some can barely afford access but with a tax they no longer will be able to afford it.
The question is rather: why on Earth tax it in the first place.
Because the money grubbing politicians want to tax anything and everything they can.
FalconI hope you arn't an American, because if you are then you need to take a remedial civics class.
Bills come out of the House and Senate. Congress makes the laws, Congress passes the laws, and in 1997 Congress was controlled by the Republicans.
But the president still has to sign it, unless congress overrides the veto.
FalocnEthically, the seller shouldn't sell something that they know is worthless. It may be that eBay doesn't hold sellers accountable unless a buyer complains, but that isn't right. Furthermore, eBay has no real way of enforcing ethical behavior after the fact. I know many buyers that were never reimbursed for their losses, even though eBay mediation ruled in favor of the buyer.
True, sellers and eBay should be ethical and held accountable. That's true in all walks of life. As for eBay's practices, I don't know what they are however it would seem they'd take care of their brand. If they don't then people could switch to another auction website, Amazon or Yahoo! perhaps. eBay may be dominate now but it could change quickly.
Everyone wants to paint Autodesk as the bad guy in this scenario. It's human instinct to root for the underdog... but in this case, I think the underdog is just an opportunist that wants to take advantage of gullible people on eBay and he's just pissed off that Autodesk intervened.
I don't know all the details so I can't say who's right. Neither can you unless you have inside info. What I do know though is that there are plenty of cases where some corporation screwed up and someone else was made to pay, sometimes with their life.
I don't think this will ever go to court becasue the seller knows he was not acting on good faith.
And you have positive proof this is true, or are you just making it up?
FalconThere are ads on Slashdot?
Forget about using ad blocking software, instead use a Host file. Here's a good article on using one for Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File. Google has some links where you can download a Hosts file, all one is is a text file listing IP addies you want blocked.
FalconYou are confused. Autodesk is actually protecting the potential eBay consumer. If I bought a copy of AutoCAD on eBAY, I'd be very disappointed to learn that it wouldn't install without authentication and I'd be very, very disappointed to learn that I cannot authenticate without a license.
It's the eBay buyer's responsibility to make sure they can legally run any software they buy from eBay. And if they use a credit card to pay for it they can dispute the charge, make a chargeback, on the CC. Though I haven't bought anything from eBay, because of the price I've though of buying Photoshop there. Searching eBay you can find where the seller has a Transfer of Ownership form from Adobe.
Falcon