While I do understand the desire to see the night sky better, I'm not sure that this is "pollution" per se. Pollution (at least as defined by Merriam-Webster) implies contamination - light does not contaminate.
Uhm, let's see... Merriam-Webster's definition of light pollution:
Function: noun
: artificial skylight (as from city lights) that interferes especially with astronomical observations
In much of North America, the moisture in the sky causes a white high altitude fog as soon as the sun goes down, so light or no light, you can't see much of anything anyway, even when you are in the middle of nowhere, of which there actually is quite a lot of around here - it's a big place. So don't blame the white night sky on all the street lights - take a drive out of the city and look up, chances are that you'll still see nothing.
I grew up in the middle of nowhere, Florida, which is humid and I was able to see the stars at night quite well, until streetlights were put in. I could even go out at night while it was raining and see the stars. Of course back then we used to get sunshowers, in the middle of the day. That was weird, standing in the bright sun but getting wet from the rain.
Probably what should be done is a place like Cape Cod should be declared a 'sacrifice area' and all buildings should be vacated and leveled, and wind farms built on it.
Build them off shore?
YES! Build wind farms off shore, just make sure the construction is environmentally responsible. Many of those who are against wind ginnies in the cape oppose them because they are perceived as an eyesore, yet many of them also say they're environmentalists, so long as it's not in their backyard.
Did I miss something? Why must a wind farm be illuminated? Last I heard wind works fine in the dark...
Wind ginnies, generators, need to be lit at night because of birds. Without the lights birds won't know they are there. And it they are high, there's risk to low flying planes.
I grew up in a small town, and was used to driving on very dark roads. When I went to university, I went to the city. I borrowed a friends car once, and drove around for about 10 minutes before I realized that the headlights weren't on. I was so used to driving around on dark roads, that just the light from the street lights seemed like more than enough light to be driving.
This happens to me occasionally, I'll be somewhere and go to drive off and because the parking lot was lit up I'll forget to turn my headlights on. And the car having running lights doesn't help. Well they'll help other drivers, but they make it less likely I'll turn my headlights on.
At least where I live, many women demand more lighting during the night, for reasons of safety. And I think them feeling safer is worth more than more visible stars in the sky. Same goes for streetlights for road safety.
Both are an illusion. Regarding crime, as TFA says criminals need light too, when San Antonio started turning lights off at schools at night vandalism went down. Reality is better than illusion. As for driving at night, I've noticed street lights frequently bother my eyes. I can also see animals in the road better without streetlights, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one it happens to.
I have some fond memories from the week I spent houseboating with my cousins on Lake Powell. I slept on the top of the boat, and it was absolutely the clearest sky I've ever seen. Definitely much better than anything I've seen in the midwest, where I live. The only problem was the high walls blocked the sides of the sky.
I remember going out at night growing up in Florida and just lying on the ground gazing at the stars. It would be so clear and the stars would be bright. Then the county put in street lights and they ruined stargazing. About the only thing that spoiled it before the streetlights was the jets flying overhead, we lived a few miles from airport runways and one of the flight paths was over us. I especially loved watching rocket launches, we lived outside of Orlando and was about 50 miles from the cape.
I always thought it would be nice if we had one day a year where people made a conscious effort to turn off all their lights, like "Star's Day" or some other stupid name so people could have one night a year to keep lights off, but that would inevitably just lead to an increase in crime for that night, so... darn.
Not really, criminals need light too. And as TFA says when San Antonio started turning lights off at night at schools vandalism went down not up.
No. We both seem to agree on the definition of "patent troll". The only thing that I'm pointing out is that sometimes a patent troll really is a reasonably small-time inventor who legitimately invented something and patented it, then rationally decided that the only way to make money on his invention was to wait for a big company to use it (and carefully not release any products of his own to be counter-sued over).
Ok.
From the perspective of actually wanting to see technological progress (which works best given the use and combination of all human knowledge), patent trolling is horribly counterproductive. Coincidentally, it's also really bad from the perspective of a large corporation that uses patent licensing to enforce a small oligopoly. But, from the perspective of patents as "intellectual property" where the inventor "owns" the invention and deserves to get paid for its use, patent trolling is not only good but the only valid technique for small inventors.
Here I disagree about patent trolling being valid. The reason for a patent is to get the invention into the public thus encouraging progress. Just sitting on a patent, and waiting until someone else comes up with the same thing independently, doesn't do that. All it does is steals the hard work others put into making and producing the item. It's not part of the law but I believe that there should be a tyme limit on how long a produce is released for sale before the patent in invalidated. Say if someone invents something but does nothing and five years later someone else independently comes up with it and manufactures it, the patent should be voided. I'd also like to see patent terms go back to 14 years with one 14 year extension possible but to tell the truth I'm leaning more and more towards getting rid of patents all together. Patents are supposed to encourage progress by giving inventors an incentive to invent, the profit motive by granting a monopoly, but Open Source has shown a monopoly isn't needed for progress.
If you invent something and tell me I'll steal your idea -- so you keep it secret. But with patents you can tell me and the courts forbid me from stealing it.
Ah but inventors can't always patent something right away. I don't know if it's still true or not but originally an inventor had to submit a working prototype with the application for invention. And it can take a while before an inventor has one. In the meantime someone else could take the idea and create their own prototype. Someone else in this thread brought a example up, how an inventor comes up with a machine but not knowing how to machine it or not having a machinery shop goes to a machinist to build the prototype. The machinist then takes it and patents it his or her self. Maybe an NDA, Non Disclosure Agreement, may help but if the machinist does patent it the inventor has to hire an attorney to sue, and they may not have the money.
Corporations should pay pollution taxes, property tax and etcetera, but I don't see why they can't just pay a consumption tax on their expenses.
Maybe you can point out where I'm wrong but I see a consumption tax on what a corporation buys to make what they sale as a production tax. And I don't believe production should be taxed.
If we only tax fuels, than trucks, who cause far more damage then cars(damage is proportional to weight cubed), do not get taxed more. It is best to directly tax what causes the expense: the weight and miles driven. Licenses cost money, but not much, so the driver license fee in place should do it.
Ah but trucks do pay more in tax on the fuel, fuel is taxed by the gallon or other measure of volume, and it takes more fuel to operate a delivery truck than it does a passenger car for instance. And two reasons why it takes more fuel is because of weight and miles driven, along with less efficiency. Well actually it may be more efficient to move a given weight by truck than by car. I once read about a study, I think it was in the "Economist" magazine that compared the fuel needed to transport a given number of people between New York City and Washington DC by bus, car, and train. The car used the most fuel per person and the train the least. Of course the train, and bus, has to be full to get the benefit.
I skimmed over the pollution tax idea. Let me flesh it out a bit more: Every year, the government would auction off a certain number of CO2 credits(the number ideally determined by a council of scientists) to the highest bidder. These credits are licenses to emit a certain amount of CO2, and they can be traded between individuals and firms. Polluters at the end of the year need to demonstrate to the EPA that they have bought carbon credits to cover all of their emissions. The advantage of this over a simple tax is that the limited amount of CO2 that we set aside will go to the most profitable source, as everyone else will be priced out. This means that we will suffer the least economic damage for the most CO2 reduction. We currently have similar systems in place for SO2 and other pollutants, and it is working rather well.
I see this, I support a cap and trade regime wherein every year the maximum emissions allowed is reduced. However greenhouse gas and other air pollutants aren't only source of pollution. There's pollutants like PCBs that end up in water. General Electric for instance pumped a lot of PCB into the Hudson River in New York. There was Love Canal, the river that caught on fire I believe in Cincinnati, and others. There's another concern many may not classify as pollution but it's still related, drawing water from aquifers. For instance Intel and other semiconductor manufacturers have to use a lot of water in manufacturing. They need deionized water in manufacturing process to among other things rinse off contaminates. Or take Coke and Pepsi, they use massive amounts of water to make soda. Because of this water wells around soda plants in India used by the local people, for personal use like cooking and drinking as well as for watering crops, are going dry.
Property taxes cannot be levied by the federal government, by the constitution.
Oh, damn, I thought I said property tax at the state and local level but I didn't in this post you replied to. It must of been a post higher up... Nope, I clicked the parent links all the way up but didn't see anywhere where I said state or local property tax. My mistake.
Patent trolls aren't really the problem. A patent troll is one of two things: Lawyers abusing the broken patent system (a symptom of the larger problem) or a legitimate little guy who invented something (in which case this is the system working as it is supposedly intended to work).
You use "patent troll" different than I do. To me a patent troll is something that gets a patent on something but then sits on patent and waits until someone releases a product with the patent in it. No one who gets a patent then tries to manufacture for sale a product with the patent is a troll.
It takes more than just showing a judge a notebook and claiming that the date on it is correct. There's a well established practice of sending mail to yourself so you can show the postmark on the unopened envelope and show the court that the USPS attests to the date on it.
Don't attempt a "poor man's patent" - putting documentation of your invention into an envelope and mailing it to yourself is of next to no value when it comes to defending your invention or establishing the date of its conception.
if the invention was published before you filed for a patent, you have lost by prior art.
SO all anyone would have to do is steal someone else's invention then publish it before the inventor actually patents it.
From the rest of the world's perspective, the american first-to-invent system is just considered mad, and europeans regularly accuse american defence companies of pulling that sort of shit.
I don't know about the rest of the world but in the US the reason patents are issued is to encourage inventors to invent. By having a first to file system it discourages inventions not encourages them. The inventor deserves the credit not the first to file!
Taxing corporations on their spending as well as on their income smacks of double taxation. Corporations should just be taxed on what they spend, the shareholders will be indirectly taxed by lower dividends. Not only that, but if we were the only industrialized first world nation without a corporate income tax, we would most likely attract massive amounts of business.
I wouldn't tax corporations for spending, only on income, revenue - expenses, tax. Corporations don't so much consume stuff like people do, their expenses or what they buy is or should be spent to create or increase profit. Of course, they'll also pay property tax on property they own. And a pollution tax, as would others.
"Instead tax consumption and usage. A sales tax on vehicles as well as license taxes would pay for regulation and inspection of vehicles. A tax on fuel would pay for road building and maintenance. Local infrastructure is financed by property tax."
Again, seems a bit too much like double taxation.
Licenses cost money as does inspections therefore the license tax. A tax on fuel because vehicles use the roads. Two taxes cover and pay for different things. The sales tax is a consumption tax, versus the fuel tax which is for road maintenance and building.
The basic idea is that cars are outfitted with GPS devices
BS! I don't want anyone tracking me. There is absolutely no need for the government to where I go. And where government has the ability business will find a use.
A separate carbon tax can cover global warming.
I like a pollution tax but I'm not sure how it could be setup. Wouldn't a pollution tax be double taxation though?
Oh, I just realized also when I said property tax would be used for infrastructure, fuel tax already pays for roads, property tax should actually go to services rendered such as the fire department, police, and the courts.
Because litigation is expensive, and juries award outrageous amounts of money. The only beneficial aspect of malpractice to society is it keeps docs on their toes, and we've gotten way past that point, to the point where it is difficult to find certain specialists in certain states, especially where people tend to be poor.
In other words someone injured should just shutup and be thankful they're alive? I don't know about you but I've always been one who'd rather be dead than not be able to take care of myself. That's why I wish I were dead now, I survived a serious disability in an accident, a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. I have some problems now because of the injury and no longer see the point in life, my life.
JPFO = Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Thanks, it's good to know. Unfortunately with my memory I probably won't recall it tomorrow.
The main difference between JPFO, the GOA, and the NRA is that the JPFO and GOA tend to be absolutists with respect to the 2nd Amendment (one might even say "militant" about it), while the NRA is much more sportsman and hunting oriented.
Yea, I knew that about the GOA. So the JPFO is like the GOA in that respect then.
Personally, I think most of the government social programs are functions that could be better handled by community churches and other charities (faith-based or not). They're cheaper, too. I mean, the church only asks for 10% of my money.
I agree whole heartedly. I'd much rather Civil society help the needy rather than government.
If we can change tax policies, I would prefer a consumption tax.
Same here, I'd have consumption and usage tax and get rid of income tax. People shouldn't be taxed on what they earn, only what they spend. When I say this I mean at the federal level, if state residents want an income tax let them tax it, but I'd rather not. The only income tax I'd have is a corporate tax. Because corporations allow their stockholders limited liability, the only liability stockholders have is the amount they bought stocks for, corporations should then be taxed. Instead tax consumption and usage. A sales tax on vehicles as well as license taxes would pay for regulation and inspection of vehicles. A tax on fuel would pay for road building and maintenance. Local infrastructure is financed by property tax.
Medical Savings accounts don't allow workers to spend the money that they don't use on health care. This prompts a desperate spree to spend every last cent of it, and a lot of underinvestment. But if you allow people to withdraw from such accounts, I would support it wholeheartedly. I am not opposed to social security privatization in principle, but the version Bush proposed was rather horrendous.
Without an income tax MSAs wouldn't be needed. But with an income tax I'd allow people to rollover the account from one year to the next. I'd also allow the MSA to be invested in the markets. If money withdrawn is used for an emergency it wouldn't be taxed, the same for a withdrawal when the account has more than enough for typical medical expenses only if the money is put into a regular investment account. Of course a problem with all this is it would mean a lot of accountants and or lawyers would be needed.
I am not opposed to social security privatization in principle, but the version Bush proposed was rather horrendous.
I don't really know how Bush's plan is. One reason I support social security privatization is because investment markets have consistently out performed Social Security. Over any given 20 year period since the start of SS the stockmarkets have shown a higher ROI, Return on Investments. Given the same amount of money investments will return more to the investor than the person would get if it were all put in the SS then the person collected the monthly payment when retired. Compound interest does wonderful things. If a person starts saving and investing $2000 a year when they are 18 and invest $2000 a year until 25, 7 years, by the tyme they are 65 at 10% that $14,000 will become more than $800,000. At 5% interest, $800,000 would pay $40,000 a year. Of course there may or will be bad years but the person can continue to invest yearly and not stop investing when they reach 25. Some say but not everyone can save $2000 a year. Guess what? If more people invested more jobs would be created, the more jobs there are the higher the pay for those jobs will be. Like employees have, employers will compeat for employees. Look at Google as well as many other startups. They offer high pay, stock options, and or large benefits packages to lure good employees to work for them.
Honest question: who funds it then and where's the motivation? I've thought about a scheme whereby the government or international organization would buy important patents from the developers, thereby encouraging them to develop and freeing up the drugs for mass distribution, but it doesn't seem like it would work in practice.
Nonprofits can do the research. Though it may not be true in all cases, nonprofits can and are in some cases are, more efficient than government. Somebody like the Bill And Mellisa Gates Foundation could fund research, at least initially. Drug manufacturers can then be licensed to make and sell the drugs. Royalties they pay can then be used for more research. That's essentially what'd done now, only it's done in house or is contracted out. However because of patents, only the patent owner can make and sale a drug, unless they allow someone else to do so. Having such control of the availability of the drug they can charge whatever they want and not have to think someone else may undercut their price.
I am all in favor of being able to sue reckless drivers. Car insurance isn't $100,000 a year. Malpractice insurance (for an obstetrician, in certain states) is.
So because malpractice insurance is expensive docs should get away with anything and everything? If so they wouldn't need insurance. Malpractice insurance is for malpractice. Sure docs make mistakes, everyone does, but corrective action still needs to be taken. Why should anyone have to live with a mistake a doc made just because it was "an accident" and not receive some sort of compensation?
He couldn't shrink government like he would like given the congress.
While he won't have control of congress, no president should, he has one thing he can use. He can veto. He can ask one question, "is this constitutional?" If not he can veto it. That's exactly what I would do. Then let congress bicker over trying to override the veto. If government came to a stand still so much the better, then nothing would get done.
Since I'm a fiscal conservative/social liberal the current administration is the worst thing that could happen.
They are making a socially conservative court while spending like drunken sailors.
Yeap, Bush is more fiscally neoliberal or whatever than Clinton was. Which is not the same as Classical Liberalism.
I have one simple question for those who support the display of Christian images and text such as the Ten Commandments in government building what they would think of having a display of the Buddhist Four Noble Truths and the Wiccan Rede right next to it?
I'm all for this and I'm one of those evil fundametalists you were warned about.
Truth isn't afraid of competition, just let us speak.
That I accept, what concerns me is religious persecution. I still remember after more than 30 year about young students having a ruler forcibly applied to their hands or forearms because they refused to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance in a public school by the teacher. I was one of them being punished.
Freedom from religion is as much a part of the First Amendment as is worship.
No it's not. Just like freedom from speech is not as much part of the First Amendment as freedom of speech.
I wonder if you'd say the same if you have a ruler forcibly applied to your hand in a public school because you refused to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. Freedom of religion was included in part because they knew about religious persecution.
Slashdot Mirror
While I do understand the desire to see the night sky better, I'm not sure that this is "pollution" per se. Pollution (at least as defined by Merriam-Webster) implies contamination - light does not contaminate.
Uhm, let's see... Merriam-Webster's definition of light pollution:
Function: noun
Falcon: artificial skylight (as from city lights) that interferes especially with astronomical observations
In much of North America, the moisture in the sky causes a white high altitude fog as soon as the sun goes down, so light or no light, you can't see much of anything anyway, even when you are in the middle of nowhere, of which there actually is quite a lot of around here - it's a big place. So don't blame the white night sky on all the street lights - take a drive out of the city and look up, chances are that you'll still see nothing.
I grew up in the middle of nowhere, Florida, which is humid and I was able to see the stars at night quite well, until streetlights were put in. I could even go out at night while it was raining and see the stars. Of course back then we used to get sunshowers, in the middle of the day. That was weird, standing in the bright sun but getting wet from the rain.
FalconProbably what should be done is a place like Cape Cod should be declared a 'sacrifice area' and all buildings should be vacated and leveled, and wind farms built on it.
Build them off shore?
YES! Build wind farms off shore, just make sure the construction is environmentally responsible. Many of those who are against wind ginnies in the cape oppose them because they are perceived as an eyesore, yet many of them also say they're environmentalists, so long as it's not in their backyard.
FalconDid I miss something? Why must a wind farm be illuminated? Last I heard wind works fine in the dark...
Wind ginnies, generators, need to be lit at night because of birds. Without the lights birds won't know they are there. And it they are high, there's risk to low flying planes.
I grew up in a small town, and was used to driving on very dark roads. When I went to university, I went to the city. I borrowed a friends car once, and drove around for about 10 minutes before I realized that the headlights weren't on. I was so used to driving around on dark roads, that just the light from the street lights seemed like more than enough light to be driving.
This happens to me occasionally, I'll be somewhere and go to drive off and because the parking lot was lit up I'll forget to turn my headlights on. And the car having running lights doesn't help. Well they'll help other drivers, but they make it less likely I'll turn my headlights on.
FalconAt least where I live, many women demand more lighting during the night, for reasons of safety. And I think them feeling safer is worth more than more visible stars in the sky. Same goes for streetlights for road safety.
Both are an illusion. Regarding crime, as TFA says criminals need light too, when San Antonio started turning lights off at schools at night vandalism went down. Reality is better than illusion. As for driving at night, I've noticed street lights frequently bother my eyes. I can also see animals in the road better without streetlights, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one it happens to.
FalconI have some fond memories from the week I spent houseboating with my cousins on Lake Powell. I slept on the top of the boat, and it was absolutely the clearest sky I've ever seen. Definitely much better than anything I've seen in the midwest, where I live. The only problem was the high walls blocked the sides of the sky.
I remember going out at night growing up in Florida and just lying on the ground gazing at the stars. It would be so clear and the stars would be bright. Then the county put in street lights and they ruined stargazing. About the only thing that spoiled it before the streetlights was the jets flying overhead, we lived a few miles from airport runways and one of the flight paths was over us. I especially loved watching rocket launches, we lived outside of Orlando and was about 50 miles from the cape.
FalconI always thought it would be nice if we had one day a year where people made a conscious effort to turn off all their lights, like "Star's Day" or some other stupid name so people could have one night a year to keep lights off, but that would inevitably just lead to an increase in crime for that night, so... darn.
Not really, criminals need light too. And as TFA says when San Antonio started turning lights off at night at schools vandalism went down not up.
FalconNo. We both seem to agree on the definition of "patent troll". The only thing that I'm pointing out is that sometimes a patent troll really is a reasonably small-time inventor who legitimately invented something and patented it, then rationally decided that the only way to make money on his invention was to wait for a big company to use it (and carefully not release any products of his own to be counter-sued over).
Ok.
From the perspective of actually wanting to see technological progress (which works best given the use and combination of all human knowledge), patent trolling is horribly counterproductive. Coincidentally, it's also really bad from the perspective of a large corporation that uses patent licensing to enforce a small oligopoly. But, from the perspective of patents as "intellectual property" where the inventor "owns" the invention and deserves to get paid for its use, patent trolling is not only good but the only valid technique for small inventors.
Here I disagree about patent trolling being valid. The reason for a patent is to get the invention into the public thus encouraging progress. Just sitting on a patent, and waiting until someone else comes up with the same thing independently, doesn't do that. All it does is steals the hard work others put into making and producing the item. It's not part of the law but I believe that there should be a tyme limit on how long a produce is released for sale before the patent in invalidated. Say if someone invents something but does nothing and five years later someone else independently comes up with it and manufactures it, the patent should be voided. I'd also like to see patent terms go back to 14 years with one 14 year extension possible but to tell the truth I'm leaning more and more towards getting rid of patents all together. Patents are supposed to encourage progress by giving inventors an incentive to invent, the profit motive by granting a monopoly, but Open Source has shown a monopoly isn't needed for progress.
If you invent something and tell me I'll steal your idea -- so you keep it secret. But with patents you can tell me and the courts forbid me from stealing it.
Ah but inventors can't always patent something right away. I don't know if it's still true or not but originally an inventor had to submit a working prototype with the application for invention. And it can take a while before an inventor has one. In the meantime someone else could take the idea and create their own prototype. Someone else in this thread brought a example up, how an inventor comes up with a machine but not knowing how to machine it or not having a machinery shop goes to a machinist to build the prototype. The machinist then takes it and patents it his or her self. Maybe an NDA, Non Disclosure Agreement, may help but if the machinist does patent it the inventor has to hire an attorney to sue, and they may not have the money.
FalconCorporations should pay pollution taxes, property tax and etcetera, but I don't see why they can't just pay a consumption tax on their expenses.
Maybe you can point out where I'm wrong but I see a consumption tax on what a corporation buys to make what they sale as a production tax. And I don't believe production should be taxed.
If we only tax fuels, than trucks, who cause far more damage then cars(damage is proportional to weight cubed), do not get taxed more. It is best to directly tax what causes the expense: the weight and miles driven. Licenses cost money, but not much, so the driver license fee in place should do it.
Ah but trucks do pay more in tax on the fuel, fuel is taxed by the gallon or other measure of volume, and it takes more fuel to operate a delivery truck than it does a passenger car for instance. And two reasons why it takes more fuel is because of weight and miles driven, along with less efficiency. Well actually it may be more efficient to move a given weight by truck than by car. I once read about a study, I think it was in the "Economist" magazine that compared the fuel needed to transport a given number of people between New York City and Washington DC by bus, car, and train. The car used the most fuel per person and the train the least. Of course the train, and bus, has to be full to get the benefit.
I skimmed over the pollution tax idea. Let me flesh it out a bit more: Every year, the government would auction off a certain number of CO2 credits(the number ideally determined by a council of scientists) to the highest bidder. These credits are licenses to emit a certain amount of CO2, and they can be traded between individuals and firms. Polluters at the end of the year need to demonstrate to the EPA that they have bought carbon credits to cover all of their emissions. The advantage of this over a simple tax is that the limited amount of CO2 that we set aside will go to the most profitable source, as everyone else will be priced out. This means that we will suffer the least economic damage for the most CO2 reduction. We currently have similar systems in place for SO2 and other pollutants, and it is working rather well.
I see this, I support a cap and trade regime wherein every year the maximum emissions allowed is reduced. However greenhouse gas and other air pollutants aren't only source of pollution. There's pollutants like PCBs that end up in water. General Electric for instance pumped a lot of PCB into the Hudson River in New York. There was Love Canal, the river that caught on fire I believe in Cincinnati, and others. There's another concern many may not classify as pollution but it's still related, drawing water from aquifers. For instance Intel and other semiconductor manufacturers have to use a lot of water in manufacturing. They need deionized water in manufacturing process to among other things rinse off contaminates. Or take Coke and Pepsi, they use massive amounts of water to make soda. Because of this water wells around soda plants in India used by the local people, for personal use like cooking and drinking as well as for watering crops, are going dry.
Property taxes cannot be levied by the federal government, by the constitution.
Oh, damn, I thought I said property tax at the state and local level but I didn't in this post you replied to. It must of been a post higher up... Nope, I clicked the parent links all the way up but didn't see anywhere where I said state or local property tax. My mistake.
FalconPatent trolls aren't really the problem. A patent troll is one of two things: Lawyers abusing the broken patent system (a symptom of the larger problem) or a legitimate little guy who invented something (in which case this is the system working as it is supposedly intended to work).
You use "patent troll" different than I do. To me a patent troll is something that gets a patent on something but then sits on patent and waits until someone releases a product with the patent in it. No one who gets a patent then tries to manufacture for sale a product with the patent is a troll.
FalconIt takes more than just showing a judge a notebook and claiming that the date on it is correct. There's a well established practice of sending mail to yourself so you can show the postmark on the unopened envelope and show the court that the USPS attests to the date on it.
From Expertlaw:
Don't attempt a "poor man's patent" - putting documentation of your invention into an envelope and mailing it to yourself is of next to no value when it comes to defending your invention or establishing the date of its conception.
Falconif the invention was published before you filed for a patent, you have lost by prior art.
SO all anyone would have to do is steal someone else's invention then publish it before the inventor actually patents it.
From the rest of the world's perspective, the american first-to-invent system is just considered mad, and europeans regularly accuse american defence companies of pulling that sort of shit.
I don't know about the rest of the world but in the US the reason patents are issued is to encourage inventors to invent. By having a first to file system it discourages inventions not encourages them. The inventor deserves the credit not the first to file!
FalconIt's a bad start, especially for small inventors. And it says nothing about getting rid of software patents.
FalconTaxing corporations on their spending as well as on their income smacks of double taxation. Corporations should just be taxed on what they spend, the shareholders will be indirectly taxed by lower dividends. Not only that, but if we were the only industrialized first world nation without a corporate income tax, we would most likely attract massive amounts of business.
I wouldn't tax corporations for spending, only on income, revenue - expenses, tax. Corporations don't so much consume stuff like people do, their expenses or what they buy is or should be spent to create or increase profit. Of course, they'll also pay property tax on property they own. And a pollution tax, as would others.
"Instead tax consumption and usage. A sales tax on vehicles as well as license taxes would pay for regulation and inspection of vehicles. A tax on fuel would pay for road building and maintenance. Local infrastructure is financed by property tax."
Again, seems a bit too much like double taxation.
Licenses cost money as does inspections therefore the license tax. A tax on fuel because vehicles use the roads. Two taxes cover and pay for different things. The sales tax is a consumption tax, versus the fuel tax which is for road maintenance and building.
The basic idea is that cars are outfitted with GPS devices
BS! I don't want anyone tracking me. There is absolutely no need for the government to where I go. And where government has the ability business will find a use.
A separate carbon tax can cover global warming.
I like a pollution tax but I'm not sure how it could be setup. Wouldn't a pollution tax be double taxation though?
Oh, I just realized also when I said property tax would be used for infrastructure, fuel tax already pays for roads, property tax should actually go to services rendered such as the fire department, police, and the courts.
FalconBecause litigation is expensive, and juries award outrageous amounts of money. The only beneficial aspect of malpractice to society is it keeps docs on their toes, and we've gotten way past that point, to the point where it is difficult to find certain specialists in certain states, especially where people tend to be poor.
In other words someone injured should just shutup and be thankful they're alive? I don't know about you but I've always been one who'd rather be dead than not be able to take care of myself. That's why I wish I were dead now, I survived a serious disability in an accident, a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. I have some problems now because of the injury and no longer see the point in life, my life.
FalconJPFO = Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Thanks, it's good to know. Unfortunately with my memory I probably won't recall it tomorrow.
The main difference between JPFO, the GOA, and the NRA is that the JPFO and GOA tend to be absolutists with respect to the 2nd Amendment (one might even say "militant" about it), while the NRA is much more sportsman and hunting oriented.
Yea, I knew that about the GOA. So the JPFO is like the GOA in that respect then.
FalconPersonally, I think most of the government social programs are functions that could be better handled by community churches and other charities (faith-based or not). They're cheaper, too. I mean, the church only asks for 10% of my money.
I agree whole heartedly. I'd much rather Civil society help the needy rather than government.
FalconIf we can change tax policies, I would prefer a consumption tax.
Same here, I'd have consumption and usage tax and get rid of income tax. People shouldn't be taxed on what they earn, only what they spend. When I say this I mean at the federal level, if state residents want an income tax let them tax it, but I'd rather not. The only income tax I'd have is a corporate tax. Because corporations allow their stockholders limited liability, the only liability stockholders have is the amount they bought stocks for, corporations should then be taxed. Instead tax consumption and usage. A sales tax on vehicles as well as license taxes would pay for regulation and inspection of vehicles. A tax on fuel would pay for road building and maintenance. Local infrastructure is financed by property tax.
Medical Savings accounts don't allow workers to spend the money that they don't use on health care. This prompts a desperate spree to spend every last cent of it, and a lot of underinvestment. But if you allow people to withdraw from such accounts, I would support it wholeheartedly. I am not opposed to social security privatization in principle, but the version Bush proposed was rather horrendous.
Without an income tax MSAs wouldn't be needed. But with an income tax I'd allow people to rollover the account from one year to the next. I'd also allow the MSA to be invested in the markets. If money withdrawn is used for an emergency it wouldn't be taxed, the same for a withdrawal when the account has more than enough for typical medical expenses only if the money is put into a regular investment account. Of course a problem with all this is it would mean a lot of accountants and or lawyers would be needed.
I am not opposed to social security privatization in principle, but the version Bush proposed was rather horrendous.
I don't really know how Bush's plan is. One reason I support social security privatization is because investment markets have consistently out performed Social Security. Over any given 20 year period since the start of SS the stockmarkets have shown a higher ROI, Return on Investments. Given the same amount of money investments will return more to the investor than the person would get if it were all put in the SS then the person collected the monthly payment when retired. Compound interest does wonderful things. If a person starts saving and investing $2000 a year when they are 18 and invest $2000 a year until 25, 7 years, by the tyme they are 65 at 10% that $14,000 will become more than $800,000. At 5% interest, $800,000 would pay $40,000 a year. Of course there may or will be bad years but the person can continue to invest yearly and not stop investing when they reach 25. Some say but not everyone can save $2000 a year. Guess what? If more people invested more jobs would be created, the more jobs there are the higher the pay for those jobs will be. Like employees have, employers will compeat for employees. Look at Google as well as many other startups. They offer high pay, stock options, and or large benefits packages to lure good employees to work for them.
FalconHonest question: who funds it then and where's the motivation? I've thought about a scheme whereby the government or international organization would buy important patents from the developers, thereby encouraging them to develop and freeing up the drugs for mass distribution, but it doesn't seem like it would work in practice.
Nonprofits can do the research. Though it may not be true in all cases, nonprofits can and are in some cases are, more efficient than government. Somebody like the Bill And Mellisa Gates Foundation could fund research, at least initially. Drug manufacturers can then be licensed to make and sell the drugs. Royalties they pay can then be used for more research. That's essentially what'd done now, only it's done in house or is contracted out. However because of patents, only the patent owner can make and sale a drug, unless they allow someone else to do so. Having such control of the availability of the drug they can charge whatever they want and not have to think someone else may undercut their price.
FalconI am all in favor of being able to sue reckless drivers. Car insurance isn't $100,000 a year. Malpractice insurance (for an obstetrician, in certain states) is.
So because malpractice insurance is expensive docs should get away with anything and everything? If so they wouldn't need insurance. Malpractice insurance is for malpractice. Sure docs make mistakes, everyone does, but corrective action still needs to be taken. Why should anyone have to live with a mistake a doc made just because it was "an accident" and not receive some sort of compensation?
FalconHe couldn't shrink government like he would like given the congress.
While he won't have control of congress, no president should, he has one thing he can use. He can veto. He can ask one question, "is this constitutional?" If not he can veto it. That's exactly what I would do. Then let congress bicker over trying to override the veto. If government came to a stand still so much the better, then nothing would get done.
Since I'm a fiscal conservative/social liberal the current administration is the worst thing that could happen.
They are making a socially conservative court while spending like drunken sailors.
Yeap, Bush is more fiscally neoliberal or whatever than Clinton was. Which is not the same as Classical Liberalism.
FalconI have one simple question for those who support the display of Christian images and text such as the Ten Commandments in government building what they would think of having a display of the Buddhist Four Noble Truths and the Wiccan Rede right next to it?
I'm all for this and I'm one of those evil fundametalists you were warned about. Truth isn't afraid of competition, just let us speak.
That I accept, what concerns me is religious persecution. I still remember after more than 30 year about young students having a ruler forcibly applied to their hands or forearms because they refused to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance in a public school by the teacher. I was one of them being punished.
FalconFreedom from religion is as much a part of the First Amendment as is worship.
No it's not. Just like freedom from speech is not as much part of the First Amendment as freedom of speech.
I wonder if you'd say the same if you have a ruler forcibly applied to your hand in a public school because you refused to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. Freedom of religion was included in part because they knew about religious persecution.
Falcon