My other comments stand: Microsoft is subsidizing the Zune, but can't control the costs of the 'minutes'-- the music. This is lipstick on a pig, and no, I'm not an AppleFanBoi. Apple got a whopping headstart that SanDisk, and a raft of others haven't been able to touch. I'm reminded of paraphrasing a Stones lyric: they can't give away on Seventh Avenue.
When you sell below cost, it can be viewed as predatory pricing, something Microsoft knows well. But the 'carriers' in this case aren't willing to discount their price- unless there's a 'sweetheart' deal. In the mobiles/cell markets, the carriers subsidize the cost, not Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, etc.
And while many companies try to 'buy' market share, they do so with eventual business models in mind. Microsoft doesn't own the software, like they do with the Xbox, and don't control how the software is used-- only that they want to be a sales channel for it, and in doing so, pay the same software base cost that others do. It's a faulty model.
Enough marketshare has been lost that reducing the base price isn't likely to spawn more sales. The music will still cost about the same, the DRM is about the same, and the feature comparison is about the same.
In this case, Microsoft's just admitting that it has an unsuccessful, come-lately design that isn't taking the market by storm. In the mobile/cell business, you sell hardware differently, based on features, pizzaz, functionality, and rate plans that suit an audience. Only the rate plan might change, but the RIAA is going to charge Microsoft what it charges Real and Apple; they're unlikely to discount the 'minutes'.
Bad move: it cheapens the product rather than advancing it.
Great. Make the lawyer's rich. This is like a little British boat moving close to Iranian waters. Really.
It's the excuse Microsoft needs to start their barrage of litigation. They have lawyers. They have money. Guess who doesn't?
Ballmer's been waiting for this moment, and The Mozilla Foundation handed it to him on a platter. Wanna see what happens when it's not really David vs. Goliath, rather Genghis Khan vs your neighbors? Watch.
Cuban has a long history of rights protection motives, first with Broadcast.Com, which he sold to Yahoo (and used the proceeds to finance buying the Mavs) and now with HDNet and the movies owned by it. He's a transparent IP-protecting capitalist, which is not to criticize him, rather that he's part of the problem, and not the cure to the concerns of content problems and content distribution methodologies.
Ok, class, here's the header, now tell me what's wrong with it:
Date: March 28, 2007 9:36:46 AM EDT From: admin@paypal.com Subject: Your PayPal account access is limited. To: Reply-To: paypal@paypal.com Return-Path: Received: from 10.0.0.2 (ont-static-216.70.173.8.mpowercom.net [216.70.173.8] (may be forged)) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id l2SDfRsJ001136 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:41:29 -0500 Received: from by ; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:30:46 +0400 Message-Id: > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--542976798523875" X-Priority: 1 X-Msmail-Priority: High Status:
You guessed it! NOW WHY CAN'T EMAIL READERS have a parser in them that goes-- hey, user, wake up, this is a weird message and you should be advised that things don't match up like they should (in this case, replyto, sender, and source/origin).
In my 'hood' there are a lot of little computer stores. I can buy on eBay or at a hundred sites in a heartbeat and beat the hell out of their prices. But the little guys have an advantage: convenience. I drive over, pickup my bizarre cable, maybe a drive, some other tech junque, and leave.
I hit the big box places and cherry pick their loss leaders. Once in a very rare while, I might make a purchase there of a major item, but only after extensive homework--> and only because their service dept will be equipped to deal with failures. I *might* buy a service policy if it's in my favor-- and most are not.
We agree: people should think about it. Tempus pecunia est-- and I'm often time-squeezed and have to resort to expedient purchases. Others in my family HATE shopping, or HATE crowds, or have other problems with the "retail experience" and would rather listen to Eddy Arnold doing Sinatra than go into a sprawl-mall or a big box joint. I don't blame them.
The important thing to do is to lift away from using your own rationale to become sensitive to why others shop the way that they do, and their motivations. I thought everybody had the same reasons as I when I was young, and low-and-behold, I wasn't listening. Value propositions are key and are the primary motivator; convenience often being at the top of those lists in our time-pressured society. Convenience to many == value and motivation to buy. I succumb to it sometimes, too. Other times, I try and buy by my wits and personal philosophies. It works for me, and will not be the same for others. My values are different.... along the lines of Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Others will do things for valued reasons. No one does it randomly (ok, there must be exceptions). One of the motivations: price, in lieu of other obvious (and sometimes even hidden) considerations.
The tax mess that Washington State is in portends a future solution, but legislatures seem to need to keep themselves in business by never finishing issues or building practical infrastructure. It's as though self-perpetuation of power mandates constantly re-hashing issues that should have been finished decades ago. Certainly flexibility to meet modern demands is important, but slicing and dicing the same junk and not facing the realities of ongoing financing needs is prima facie cowardice.
You believe they cannot change this inequitable system, and are therefore doomed. If you also believe in democracy, this might not be so. Ever heard of Chambers of Commerce? Small Business Associations? Testifying in legislative sessions?
Things like the Walmart wave came, and any number of small businesses had to either adapt or perish. Does Walmart have an unfair advantage? Perhaps, perhaps they're like Dell and found a suitable business model that's very difficult to battle-- and certianly not impossible. Other businesses have adapted and thrived, both competitors to Walmart and Dell.
What's not going to happen is consumers doing a lot of soul-searching, and 'remembering the guy in our community' sorts of guilt trips when making purchases. It's horrible, but money is a strange thing, we need it and are never paid enough. Does the guy in the community offer value or services that justify his/her existence? Heard of unbelievably bad warranty and service problems for out-of-state purchasers? People take a risk and sometimes pay awful prices when things go bad or awry. There is value in local buying. People know this. They take a risk buing online/out-of-state.
Just opening a store, hanging out a shingle, doesn't provide value. It's service of a product that sells the product and justifies existence. Convenience and other components also add to value. If they didn't then every 7-11 and Circle K would go out of business, because they don't exist because of their low prices.
Making this a buying guilt trip for the home-boy-stores doesn't quite get traction. It's not as easy as that. With the Friedman 'Flat Earth' concept comes internationalism, and borderless transactions. Most of your stuff comes from China, and your food from Mexico, Canada, and Peru. Your PC came from China, too. These business ecologies tell a big story about value propositions and why we buy things the way that we do. Guilt trips aren't one of them, or if they are, they don't last long. Guilt is a poor motivator.
Washington State's brick-and-mortar businesses ought to ask the Washington State legislature to get real, and consider the fact that the time is past to use sales tax as a 50% contributor to the budget. Sales are too mercurial to do this.
In terms of morality, there is no questions that governments need to be financed. But it's fascist to think that we're under an obligation to conserve our income. Much work needs to be done to harmonize tax infrastructure. More work needs to be done to prohibit governments giving tax breaks as economic development incentive. We ought to pay the same rates, and the rates need to be a flat percentage, with harmonized methods of determining actual cost of goods and expenses. Currently, the 21" thick volumes of the United States Tax Code is a lesson in legislative bribery and inequity. Where's the morality in that???
I don't feel for Washington's businesses. I'm in business myself. Things are tough all over. Outrageous sales tax laws need to be fought. Show me the businesses in Washington that are closing up. The last time I traveled through Washington State, things looked great. People were buying like crazy. And the hotel I stayed at nicked me for 21% in taxes that were absolutely captive. I bought gasoline there. Taxed. The rental car was taxed, although I can't really determine what the percentage was; I'll guess ~20% not counting dodgy 'recovery fees'.
Tax haven states are tough to compete with. That's why harmonization is a useful thing. Is what I describe selfish, greedy, consumerism? Tell me, how many legal tax deductions did you take last year. What??? You took some????
The government of Washington State can do whatever encouragement it wants. Without a physical presence in the state, businesses are under no obligation to do squat in terms of reporting to Washington State government what's been sold into Washington State.
There are a number of theories of laws to support *not* sending the information, even if encouraged to do so. Imagine the litigation pain in the butt for private citizens accused of importing goods from say, Nevada, for a measily $100 in plausible return.
It used to be fun to live in Washington State, having no income tax, while shopping totally in Oregon, which had no state sales tax. My friends that lived in Vancouver Washington were overjoyed at their 20% higher net-of-taxes income possibilities.
In reality, Washington needs to come to grips with taxes, just like every other state government. A nice non-Federal treaty that harmonizes things would be perhaps the most useful, as state governments indeed face numerous expenditure mandates. The goofiness of 'encouragement' borders on the hilarious, however. And I promise not to crack Microsoft Millionaire jokes.
Then, if you believe that politicians vote the interests of their constituents, then I'm sorry for your blindness, and hope one day they find a cure for your malady. It really is a miracle that you're able to get slashdot content read to you, what with this handicap slowing you down.
Finally, we don't disagree that the entertainment business is important. It is, however, leaden with greed, abhorent litigation problems, hubris, and the unmanageable lack of clarity of such masterworks-of-the-devil like the DCMA, enlongated rights terms, and other twists financed by direct and undeniable bribery. Should the oil companies be punished for their misdeeds? Can excessive profits be termed a 'misdeed'? Even if they break all world records? Certainly supply and demand is a fair concept, no?
That the Right Honorable Mr Mossberg finally gets it shouldn't be 'News for Nerds'. Good grief, this man has his own sycophantic glitterati 'conference'. I've watched him at trade shows, where PR people toss rose pedals in his path, hoping--ever hoping for a passing mention so that their stock price might go through the roof. Beyond the stench of ready influence, is his 'come-lately' attitude. Fie.
The Great and Honorable Walt Mossberg Jumps on Bandwagon (after 100,000,000 others).
The US Constitution is pretty clear about fair use; it's the bribed congress that has allowed intellectual property to become seemingly permanent for the benefit of IP aggregating organizations.
Does it matter that a self-aggregandizing WSJ columnist has now finally also asked for clarity that this is newsworthy? St Walt is going to get all of those lobbyists out of the pockets of Congress? I hardly think so.
Mark me up as flamebait, but he does clarity no great favor by asking for it, especially so late in the game. It's like asking Bush to remove troops from Iraq. The come-lately's have no guts.
First, you have a pipe going to an end node; it has a top-end, given protocols, in each direction, else it's symmetrical.
Then you have a neighborhood. Each home/business can be serviced by BoPL, FTTP, cable data, DSL, satellite (think HughesNet), or even simply tip-and-ring. Go ahead and assay *that*. Take each provider, then assay what their actual aggregate non-cached throughput is (or does cache count?), then assay the community, region, political subdivisions, etc.
This isn't easy. A few have proposed taxonomies to describe what it all means, but so far, with the US DOC and the NTIA shrinking in budget and size, it's unlikely to be able to be accurately assessed-- even if there wasn't pressure from ISPs and others to prevent this.
The devil of the details, even if it can be accurately described, then could easily become the basis to make inarticulate marketing observations about the 'competition'. Best the bold face lies we have now that now one believes, rather than the subtely ambiguous yet still inaccurate ones that might ensue.
It's a neo-condescending sort of way to describe it, but fresh meat is fresh meat. Perhaps Microsoft has an XML open document format that they'd like to try in return;)
Society != civility. The first is a cultural hierarchy with behavior patterns. Civility by contract, is the capacity to live by behavioral constraints suitable to others, and not necessarily to society. Civil individuals who were highly critical of society include people like Eugene V Debs and Hunter S Thompson. Both were civil (although Thompson's use of drugs was certainly borderline) yet were anti-society (that is the society of their times) in major critical ways.
Civility has always been a good thing. Society changes, and is commonly full of mistakes viewed historically. Civility has a long history of success. Societies (and cultures) come and go.
Behaving responsibly is civil. Traveling in a high speed chase for 900mi to terrorize a rival lover is uncivil. It's also irresponsible to the self, and over the top in so many ways.
I don't think that moral absolutism is necessarily wise, but it's a fascinating goal. There are those pillars from which we judge ourselves and others by, or not. It's impossible to ignore the actions of others. Decisions-judgments are a part of the human experience. They can be put aside, at the expense of emotional involvement and the automaton that likely results.
The non-self self of Buddhism seems practical in the comparison, too. Lao Tse, the Buddha, and the concept of the dharma self have additional implications.
But rather than the theocratic discussion that might ensue I have real work to do To satisfy the bills that I must pay So I'll leave the discussion to another day.
The parent comment applauded her for reacting in the way she did. My comments were poised towards the fact that she behaved irresponsibly. There are no mitigating circumstances for what she did, according to the observations that I've read. She is in charge of her emotions, but she let them get the best of her. The same sort of problem leads to dozens of murders every day.
Your 'eastern' method of viewing things in this way has merits, but it also allows one to be perhaps 'slippery' in application. At the root of a moral code needs to be values. Those values, in turn, present a civilization based on composites of those values.
We're provoked, manipulated, and otherwise cajoled into results. These judgments and the actions that result are how we communicate emotions. Responsibility for them means active control over them and the implications of the results. I see the merits of being free as a causality of lack of being a judge. There's a Zen koan that applies.... something about looking upwards during a cloudburst and cursing the sky.
It's important to separate emotions with basal sanity. Godel despite his other admirable characteristics and outstanding work, was insane to starve himself to death. If you believe suicide to be morally wrong under his circumstances, then he was out of control. If an individual refuses medications that allow him to live civilly, then it's a choice, and a wrong one, morally. It's measuring ourselves against society civilly that can be used as a metric for behavior.
Can suicide be moral? Under some circumstances, yes; the easiest example to cite in my opinion is suicide to avoid a horrid painful death. Oregon allows assisted suicide under what I believe to be a very humane law. Is paranoia a good reason? Probably not.
When a person refuses medication that allows the person to have control of their actions-- separating this from their emotions-- then they've refused control. Hideous as that may sound, subsequent emotional malaise may overtake them to bad ends, from the aforementioned civil perspective. That choice was morally wrong, just like drunk/drink-driving is morally wrong. There is no contradiction when taken from that perspective.
Sociopathy is another bag of worms; how does one deal with an emotionally (and genetically) robbed individual? The answers are tough.
I'm sorry to have made the mistakes of lumping all of the variations of schizophrenia into a single lump for illustration purposes.
However, I understand why you eschew medication. It may be right, and it may be wrong, depending on how you can live your life in a civil environment. With meds, I've seen some individuals diagnosed with SPD do wonderfully, others not so. Sometimes the meds were plainly wrong. Others live life without them successfully; I have individuals in my immediate family that fall into both groups. Clearly some can't be successful without medication or other intervention. Others can do it. The capacity to be responsible is the crux of my argument. Lose that capacity voluntarily and you're far more dangerous than the 'normal' human. Involuntarily losing the capacity is something different.
Goaded behavior is involuntary; then there is the problem of co-dependency. On the surface, they seem the same, but are different.
Torture serves the aggressive and inhumane motives of individuals. The individuals that torture are responsible for their emotions. One of them should be to bring no harm to other humans. The person being tortured relinquishes control involuntarily.
Goaded behavior is still the responsibility of the person, but when torture robs one of control through physical or intensely focused psychological pain, the person becomes incapable of being responsible for their emotions in the same way that a sanity-challenged schizophrenic believes the voices in their head.
Is the schizophrenic individual responsible for their own emotions? Yes. Is there culpability to, having had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, to take their meds and get needed therapy? Yes-- that's part of the responsibility part. If they eschew medication, become violent and hurt someone, are they culpable? Yes. If they were undiagnosed, then and only then, perhaps not.
These are fine lines divided over capacity to be responsible. Do sociopaths have an obligation to mimic behavior in such a way as to become responsible? There lays a deeper question. There are also additional interesting classes and groups, such as highly functioning autistic individuals, Type A personalities with explosive profiles and others. I think the key is capacity for responsibility and exercising based on knowledge of that capacity.
The tortured become robbed of that responsibility. Torturers defy the responsibility of acting for the better good. And their emotions are suspect if they indeed have them at all.
The act of eliciting a response involuntarily is a bad idea, just like you suggest.
The fact that the US Government condones such beha vior betrays one of the reasons I find them so contemptuous. Torture isn't what I learned in civics class.
But you get the essence of my comment correctly when you cite that it doesn't excuse her behavior.
Sociopaths must still be culpable for whatever emotions they have, don't have, can't express, etc. Otherwise, we end up with two classes of humans: can't control emotions but excusable; can't control emotions but inexcusable.
No, that's not true. People are responsible for their own emotions; they are indeed in charge of them.
Slicing this into an opinion that says that clinical psychology tells people they have no problems is the gruff of the sociopath. Indeed we all have problem, but we're in charge of the emotional ones, how they affect us, and others.
Slashdot Mirror
My other comments stand: Microsoft is subsidizing the Zune, but can't control the costs of the 'minutes'-- the music. This is lipstick on a pig, and no, I'm not an AppleFanBoi. Apple got a whopping headstart that SanDisk, and a raft of others haven't been able to touch. I'm reminded of paraphrasing a Stones lyric: they can't give away on Seventh Avenue.
When you sell below cost, it can be viewed as predatory pricing, something Microsoft knows well. But the 'carriers' in this case aren't willing to discount their price- unless there's a 'sweetheart' deal. In the mobiles/cell markets, the carriers subsidize the cost, not Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, etc.
And while many companies try to 'buy' market share, they do so with eventual business models in mind. Microsoft doesn't own the software, like they do with the Xbox, and don't control how the software is used-- only that they want to be a sales channel for it, and in doing so, pay the same software base cost that others do. It's a faulty model.
Enough marketshare has been lost that reducing the base price isn't likely to spawn more sales. The music will still cost about the same, the DRM is about the same, and the feature comparison is about the same.
In this case, Microsoft's just admitting that it has an unsuccessful, come-lately design that isn't taking the market by storm. In the mobile/cell business, you sell hardware differently, based on features, pizzaz, functionality, and rate plans that suit an audience. Only the rate plan might change, but the RIAA is going to charge Microsoft what it charges Real and Apple; they're unlikely to discount the 'minutes'.
Bad move: it cheapens the product rather than advancing it.
Great. Make the lawyer's rich. This is like a little British boat moving close to Iranian waters. Really.
It's the excuse Microsoft needs to start their barrage of litigation. They have lawyers. They have money. Guess who doesn't?
Ballmer's been waiting for this moment, and The Mozilla Foundation handed it to him on a platter. Wanna see what happens when it's not really David vs. Goliath, rather Genghis Khan vs your neighbors? Watch.
Cuban has a long history of rights protection motives, first with Broadcast.Com, which he sold to Yahoo (and used the proceeds to finance buying the Mavs) and now with HDNet and the movies owned by it. He's a transparent IP-protecting capitalist, which is not to criticize him, rather that he's part of the problem, and not the cure to the concerns of content problems and content distribution methodologies.
Ok, class, here's the header, now tell me what's wrong with it:
Date: March 28, 2007 9:36:46 AM EDT
From: admin@paypal.com
Subject: Your PayPal account access is limited.
To:
Reply-To: paypal@paypal.com
Return-Path:
Received: from 10.0.0.2 (ont-static-216.70.173.8.mpowercom.net [216.70.173.8] (may be forged)) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id l2SDfRsJ001136 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:41:29 -0500
Received: from by ; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:30:46 +0400
Message-Id: >
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--542976798523875"
X-Priority: 1
X-Msmail-Priority: High
Status:
You guessed it! NOW WHY CAN'T EMAIL READERS have a parser in them that goes-- hey, user, wake up, this is a weird message and you should be advised that things don't match up like they should (in this case, replyto, sender, and source/origin).
Egads.
And who is Steve Ballmer married to? Pam Edstrom.
Therein lies part of the problem: WE is captive to Microsoft.
It is, what it is.
The Big Boxers have their place.
In my 'hood' there are a lot of little computer stores. I can buy on eBay or at a hundred sites in a heartbeat and beat the hell out of their prices. But the little guys have an advantage: convenience. I drive over, pickup my bizarre cable, maybe a drive, some other tech junque, and leave.
I hit the big box places and cherry pick their loss leaders. Once in a very rare while, I might make a purchase there of a major item, but only after extensive homework--> and only because their service dept will be equipped to deal with failures. I *might* buy a service policy if it's in my favor-- and most are not.
We agree: people should think about it. Tempus pecunia est-- and I'm often time-squeezed and have to resort to expedient purchases. Others in my family HATE shopping, or HATE crowds, or have other problems with the "retail experience" and would rather listen to Eddy Arnold doing Sinatra than go into a sprawl-mall or a big box joint. I don't blame them.
The important thing to do is to lift away from using your own rationale to become sensitive to why others shop the way that they do, and their motivations. I thought everybody had the same reasons as I when I was young, and low-and-behold, I wasn't listening. Value propositions are key and are the primary motivator; convenience often being at the top of those lists in our time-pressured society. Convenience to many == value and motivation to buy. I succumb to it sometimes, too. Other times, I try and buy by my wits and personal philosophies. It works for me, and will not be the same for others. My values are different.... along the lines of Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Others will do things for valued reasons. No one does it randomly (ok, there must be exceptions). One of the motivations: price, in lieu of other obvious (and sometimes even hidden) considerations.
The tax mess that Washington State is in portends a future solution, but legislatures seem to need to keep themselves in business by never finishing issues or building practical infrastructure. It's as though self-perpetuation of power mandates constantly re-hashing issues that should have been finished decades ago. Certainly flexibility to meet modern demands is important, but slicing and dicing the same junk and not facing the realities of ongoing financing needs is prima facie cowardice.
You believe they cannot change this inequitable system, and are therefore doomed. If you also believe in democracy, this might not be so. Ever heard of Chambers of Commerce? Small Business Associations? Testifying in legislative sessions?
Things like the Walmart wave came, and any number of small businesses had to either adapt or perish. Does Walmart have an unfair advantage? Perhaps, perhaps they're like Dell and found a suitable business model that's very difficult to battle-- and certianly not impossible. Other businesses have adapted and thrived, both competitors to Walmart and Dell.
What's not going to happen is consumers doing a lot of soul-searching, and 'remembering the guy in our community' sorts of guilt trips when making purchases. It's horrible, but money is a strange thing, we need it and are never paid enough. Does the guy in the community offer value or services that justify his/her existence? Heard of unbelievably bad warranty and service problems for out-of-state purchasers? People take a risk and sometimes pay awful prices when things go bad or awry. There is value in local buying. People know this. They take a risk buing online/out-of-state.
Just opening a store, hanging out a shingle, doesn't provide value. It's service of a product that sells the product and justifies existence. Convenience and other components also add to value. If they didn't then every 7-11 and Circle K would go out of business, because they don't exist because of their low prices.
Making this a buying guilt trip for the home-boy-stores doesn't quite get traction. It's not as easy as that. With the Friedman 'Flat Earth' concept comes internationalism, and borderless transactions. Most of your stuff comes from China, and your food from Mexico, Canada, and Peru. Your PC came from China, too. These business ecologies tell a big story about value propositions and why we buy things the way that we do. Guilt trips aren't one of them, or if they are, they don't last long. Guilt is a poor motivator.
Washington State's brick-and-mortar businesses ought to ask the Washington State legislature to get real, and consider the fact that the time is past to use sales tax as a 50% contributor to the budget. Sales are too mercurial to do this.
In terms of morality, there is no questions that governments need to be financed. But it's fascist to think that we're under an obligation to conserve our income. Much work needs to be done to harmonize tax infrastructure. More work needs to be done to prohibit governments giving tax breaks as economic development incentive. We ought to pay the same rates, and the rates need to be a flat percentage, with harmonized methods of determining actual cost of goods and expenses. Currently, the 21" thick volumes of the United States Tax Code is a lesson in legislative bribery and inequity. Where's the morality in that???
I don't feel for Washington's businesses. I'm in business myself. Things are tough all over. Outrageous sales tax laws need to be fought. Show me the businesses in Washington that are closing up. The last time I traveled through Washington State, things looked great. People were buying like crazy. And the hotel I stayed at nicked me for 21% in taxes that were absolutely captive. I bought gasoline there. Taxed. The rental car was taxed, although I can't really determine what the percentage was; I'll guess ~20% not counting dodgy 'recovery fees'.
Tax haven states are tough to compete with. That's why harmonization is a useful thing. Is what I describe selfish, greedy, consumerism? Tell me, how many legal tax deductions did you take last year. What??? You took some????
The government of Washington State can do whatever encouragement it wants. Without a physical presence in the state, businesses are under no obligation to do squat in terms of reporting to Washington State government what's been sold into Washington State.
There are a number of theories of laws to support *not* sending the information, even if encouraged to do so. Imagine the litigation pain in the butt for private citizens accused of importing goods from say, Nevada, for a measily $100 in plausible return.
It used to be fun to live in Washington State, having no income tax, while shopping totally in Oregon, which had no state sales tax. My friends that lived in Vancouver Washington were overjoyed at their 20% higher net-of-taxes income possibilities.
In reality, Washington needs to come to grips with taxes, just like every other state government. A nice non-Federal treaty that harmonizes things would be perhaps the most useful, as state governments indeed face numerous expenditure mandates. The goofiness of 'encouragement' borders on the hilarious, however. And I promise not to crack Microsoft Millionaire jokes.
First, go here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ar ticle01/39.html to find out about how US case law finds the constitution and related fair use provisions of copyright law.
Then, if you believe that politicians vote the interests of their constituents, then I'm sorry for your blindness, and hope one day they find a cure for your malady. It really is a miracle that you're able to get slashdot content read to you, what with this handicap slowing you down.
Finally, we don't disagree that the entertainment business is important. It is, however, leaden with greed, abhorent litigation problems, hubris, and the unmanageable lack of clarity of such masterworks-of-the-devil like the DCMA, enlongated rights terms, and other twists financed by direct and undeniable bribery. Should the oil companies be punished for their misdeeds? Can excessive profits be termed a 'misdeed'? Even if they break all world records? Certainly supply and demand is a fair concept, no?
That the Right Honorable Mr Mossberg finally gets it shouldn't be 'News for Nerds'. Good grief, this man has his own sycophantic glitterati 'conference'. I've watched him at trade shows, where PR people toss rose pedals in his path, hoping--ever hoping for a passing mention so that their stock price might go through the roof. Beyond the stench of ready influence, is his 'come-lately' attitude. Fie.
The Great and Honorable Walt Mossberg Jumps on Bandwagon (after 100,000,000 others).
The US Constitution is pretty clear about fair use; it's the bribed congress that has allowed intellectual property to become seemingly permanent for the benefit of IP aggregating organizations.
Does it matter that a self-aggregandizing WSJ columnist has now finally also asked for clarity that this is newsworthy? St Walt is going to get all of those lobbyists out of the pockets of Congress? I hardly think so.
Mark me up as flamebait, but he does clarity no great favor by asking for it, especially so late in the game. It's like asking Bush to remove troops from Iraq. The come-lately's have no guts.
First, you have a pipe going to an end node; it has a top-end, given protocols, in each direction, else it's symmetrical.
Then you have a neighborhood. Each home/business can be serviced by BoPL, FTTP, cable data, DSL, satellite (think HughesNet), or even simply tip-and-ring. Go ahead and assay *that*. Take each provider, then assay what their actual aggregate non-cached throughput is (or does cache count?), then assay the community, region, political subdivisions, etc.
This isn't easy. A few have proposed taxonomies to describe what it all means, but so far, with the US DOC and the NTIA shrinking in budget and size, it's unlikely to be able to be accurately assessed-- even if there wasn't pressure from ISPs and others to prevent this.
The devil of the details, even if it can be accurately described, then could easily become the basis to make inarticulate marketing observations about the 'competition'. Best the bold face lies we have now that now one believes, rather than the subtely ambiguous yet still inaccurate ones that might ensue.
It's a neo-condescending sort of way to describe it, but fresh meat is fresh meat. Perhaps Microsoft has an XML open document format that they'd like to try in return ;)
Society != civility. The first is a cultural hierarchy with behavior patterns. Civility by contract, is the capacity to live by behavioral constraints suitable to others, and not necessarily to society. Civil individuals who were highly critical of society include people like Eugene V Debs and Hunter S Thompson. Both were civil (although Thompson's use of drugs was certainly borderline) yet were anti-society (that is the society of their times) in major critical ways.
Civility has always been a good thing. Society changes, and is commonly full of mistakes viewed historically. Civility has a long history of success. Societies (and cultures) come and go.
Behaving responsibly is civil. Traveling in a high speed chase for 900mi to terrorize a rival lover is uncivil. It's also irresponsible to the self, and over the top in so many ways.
An interesting perspective.
It smacks of Ayn Rand in someways....
I don't think that moral absolutism is necessarily wise, but it's a fascinating goal. There are those pillars from which we judge ourselves and others by, or not. It's impossible to ignore the actions of others. Decisions-judgments are a part of the human experience. They can be put aside, at the expense of emotional involvement and the automaton that likely results.
The non-self self of Buddhism seems practical in the comparison, too. Lao Tse, the Buddha, and the concept of the dharma self have additional implications.
But rather than the theocratic discussion that might ensue
I have real work to do
To satisfy the bills that I must pay
So I'll leave the discussion to another day.
Thanks.
The parent comment applauded her for reacting in the way she did. My comments were poised towards the fact that she behaved irresponsibly. There are no mitigating circumstances for what she did, according to the observations that I've read. She is in charge of her emotions, but she let them get the best of her. The same sort of problem leads to dozens of murders every day.
Your 'eastern' method of viewing things in this way has merits, but it also allows one to be perhaps 'slippery' in application. At the root of a moral code needs to be values. Those values, in turn, present a civilization based on composites of those values.
We're provoked, manipulated, and otherwise cajoled into results. These judgments and the actions that result are how we communicate emotions. Responsibility for them means active control over them and the implications of the results. I see the merits of being free as a causality of lack of being a judge. There's a Zen koan that applies.... something about looking upwards during a cloudburst and cursing the sky.
It's important to separate emotions with basal sanity. Godel despite his other admirable characteristics and outstanding work, was insane to starve himself to death. If you believe suicide to be morally wrong under his circumstances, then he was out of control. If an individual refuses medications that allow him to live civilly, then it's a choice, and a wrong one, morally. It's measuring ourselves against society civilly that can be used as a metric for behavior.
Can suicide be moral? Under some circumstances, yes; the easiest example to cite in my opinion is suicide to avoid a horrid painful death. Oregon allows assisted suicide under what I believe to be a very humane law. Is paranoia a good reason? Probably not.
When a person refuses medication that allows the person to have control of their actions-- separating this from their emotions-- then they've refused control. Hideous as that may sound, subsequent emotional malaise may overtake them to bad ends, from the aforementioned civil perspective. That choice was morally wrong, just like drunk/drink-driving is morally wrong. There is no contradiction when taken from that perspective.
Sociopathy is another bag of worms; how does one deal with an emotionally (and genetically) robbed individual? The answers are tough.
I'm sorry to have made the mistakes of lumping all of the variations of schizophrenia into a single lump for illustration purposes.
However, I understand why you eschew medication. It may be right, and it may be wrong, depending on how you can live your life in a civil environment. With meds, I've seen some individuals diagnosed with SPD do wonderfully, others not so. Sometimes the meds were plainly wrong. Others live life without them successfully; I have individuals in my immediate family that fall into both groups. Clearly some can't be successful without medication or other intervention. Others can do it. The capacity to be responsible is the crux of my argument. Lose that capacity voluntarily and you're far more dangerous than the 'normal' human. Involuntarily losing the capacity is something different.
Goaded behavior is involuntary; then there is the problem of co-dependency. On the surface, they seem the same, but are different.
Torture serves the aggressive and inhumane motives of individuals. The individuals that torture are responsible for their emotions. One of them should be to bring no harm to other humans. The person being tortured relinquishes control involuntarily.
Goaded behavior is still the responsibility of the person, but when torture robs one of control through physical or intensely focused psychological pain, the person becomes incapable of being responsible for their emotions in the same way that a sanity-challenged schizophrenic believes the voices in their head.
Is the schizophrenic individual responsible for their own emotions? Yes. Is there culpability to, having had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, to take their meds and get needed therapy? Yes-- that's part of the responsibility part. If they eschew medication, become violent and hurt someone, are they culpable? Yes. If they were undiagnosed, then and only then, perhaps not.
These are fine lines divided over capacity to be responsible. Do sociopaths have an obligation to mimic behavior in such a way as to become responsible? There lays a deeper question. There are also additional interesting classes and groups, such as highly functioning autistic individuals, Type A personalities with explosive profiles and others. I think the key is capacity for responsibility and exercising based on knowledge of that capacity.
The tortured become robbed of that responsibility. Torturers defy the responsibility of acting for the better good. And their emotions are suspect if they indeed have them at all.
The act of eliciting a response involuntarily is a bad idea, just like you suggest.
The fact that the US Government condones such beha vior betrays one of the reasons I find them so contemptuous. Torture isn't what I learned in civics class.
No one needs to be robotic in behavior.
But you get the essence of my comment correctly when you cite that it doesn't excuse her behavior.
Sociopaths must still be culpable for whatever emotions they have, don't have, can't express, etc. Otherwise, we end up with two classes of humans: can't control emotions but excusable; can't control emotions but inexcusable.
Ok, maybe it's different in Washington DC.
No, that's not true. People are responsible for their own emotions; they are indeed in charge of them.
Slicing this into an opinion that says that clinical psychology tells people they have no problems is the gruff of the sociopath. Indeed we all have problem, but we're in charge of the emotional ones, how they affect us, and others.