You put XYZ memory into an ABC computer and it blows the power supply. ABC shouldn't have to pay for the blown power supply. XYZ claims that you inserted the memory backwards first, destroying the memory. XYZ claims no fault, no liability.
That's why you should always buy insurance for your appliances (and car) from a third party insurer rather than paying for an extended warranty. Multi-product policies usually work out cheaper too.
India's movie industry is so huge because until recently, the cinema and the radio were the only options for mass entertainment for much of the country. The poor (but not the very poorest) can afford tickets to film screenings. Bollywood took a hit from TV and now satellite breaking out into every village. They clawed much of this back with exclusive deals with operators like Star TV.
The price point to engage in piracy remains way too high for most Indians - you either need a TV and VCR or a computer. However the numbers that can afford such consumer luxuries are ballooning with the growth of what in the West would be called the middle classes (though a smaller percentage of the population than in the West, the Indian middle classes are in many respects wealthier than their Western counterparts as they are able to afford extensive home help). Bollywood does not want to miss a trick and will do what it can to keep making money in the urban centres where connections sufficient to consider downloading movies are available.
I live in Britain and have considered it but don't speak the language well enough yet.
By most measures, Denmark is one of the most libertarian countries in the world. It has progressive tax rates, sure, but they are no higher for say the upper-middle classes than the US.
Progressive taxation clearly reduces some people's ability to spend money and increases other people's ability to spend money. Whether "liberty" is even a question in relation to non-punitive, non-discriminatory and non-retrospective taxation I am not sure. I prefer to fight the more important battles, like against countries that impose barbaric punishments on their prisoners.
The population of Hong Kong had very little idea of what regime would be imposed on them by the mainland following reunification. It is not surprising that so many kept investments rather than tying up all their money in expensive Hong Kong land. If the reunification had been bloody, millions would have fled.
So not really a valid comparator for individual savings rates, though I take the point that many countries beat the States.
The important question is, can the government affordably meet its obligations?
Where there is growth in the retiring population, there will always be concerns as to whether the goverment can afford pay as you go social security to effectively support more people, and for longer. If the government cannot easily afford its spending commitments it has three options:
higher taxes, which will generally lead to lower growth;
higher borrowing or printing of money, which will generally lead to inflationary pressures; or
default on spending promises.
Strong economic growth now will remove or reduce these problems in the future, as tax revenues will naturally increase.
A switch to a market-based system for social security does not remove the above problem of choices. However it makes the third option much easier for the government to choose, in the event that the market does not help out over the next 20 years. It will provide the defaulting government with a fig-leaf of modesty: "it's not our fault the market fell on the day you turned 65".
The other humps come from the indirect effect of tax cuts and rises on the money supply and can have as much to do with the speed of change in tax rates as the absolute change.
A wide fiscal loosening (here from tax cuts) will result in an increase in the money supply, which will be resolved by one or more of the following:
inflation currency depreciation an increase in the cost of borrowing money the imposition of exchange controls
Each of thes feed back into the economy (and therefore tax receipts) at different points, in different rates and with different lag periods.
A dramatic fiscal tightening will normally have the reverse effect.
It was Argentina under the Menem dictatorship in the 1980s.
For fifteen years, during the economic good times, and the handover to democracy, the system was held up to the world as an example to copy. Then a depression hit and people were starving in the streets of a previously rich country.
The point of a residual state retirement system is that it smoothes out the economic cycle for those who are least able to cope with change(which will be all of us when we are too old to work).
The provision of universal state pensions has coincided with the introduction of universal sufferage in almost every democratic country in the world. It just works.
Sounds like an awful lot of work to achieve the same aim. And if what is being done here is effectively reverse-engineering, isn't there the risk of falling into the same trap again, i.e. inadvertently writing into the kernel patent-infringing code?
You can either sue for the promises made in the contract to be enforced, or for damages if the other party cannot/will not carry out their obligations.
If you can sue for damages, you can sell the right to sue for damages.
An email service is provided to you on the basis of a contract. So there is probably some property right in the contract (even if it is just a license).
There certainly can be property in the content of an email - consider an email received by a publisher after his death with the work of an author contracted to him attached.
I taught my grandmother to use a PC and she does fine, thank you. In fact, as she finds double-clicking difficult (arthritis) she was happier to right-click and select "open" than left-click and hit enter on the keyboard.
And what did you do with the one-button mouse supplied? Was it wasted?
It would have been a step too far for Apple to automatically ship with two or three-button mice, but it was a bold step in that direction to not ship a mouse at all and let you choose your own peripheral.
I would say it is a similar move to not putting a floppy drive in the iMac - it allows the customer to continue in the traditional way - or to explore using "new" devices. (CDROM was not new at the time of the iMac, but newer than two+ button mice!)
Yes, a bold move, by not supplying peripherals you get to choose your own without wasting money.
That way you can have one, two or even four buttons on you mouse...
Exactly. This is a bold move by Apple essentially because they are admitting that they may have been wrong.
On a 1980s computer, with a more limited set of functions, and a computing public with a lower level of computing knowledge, one mouse button was probably better than two.
But now, pressing Apple+click to get context menus seems a bit daft so it only makes sense to move over. And if they can't innovate in mice futher at the moment, why not let another manufacturer make the low-margin product so you can concentrate on the profitable computer itself?
Wouldn't a lot of IBM's 40,000 patents be for hardware?
They would be reasonably justified in maintaining those while saying they have released "most" software patents (or even just "most" software patents relevant to Linux).
> Wow, you really scream liberal (in the worst sense of the word).
I consider myself a social democrat. Not really sure what Americans consider "liberal" to mean.
> In a (gasp!) for-profit company, people are hired for a job, so that the company MAKES money off of you.
Understood. However people generally work as teams, and do so better in an atmosphere of mutual trust.
> A person is expected to do X amount of work for the time worked. Thats a simple hourly schedule, but common on the lower and consultation classes. The upper-level jobs use a money per event accomplished. No matter what you do, you end up making money for the company.
You make money for the company, the company makes money for you. But for most jobs it's not as mechanical ("X words per hour") as you imply.
> However, what happens if certain processes end up costing more money than they return? The company stops that process.
And if it is sensible it will re-train existing staff to perform other duties.
> What happens if the person costs more money than they produce? The company stops the job.
Very short-termist. When there's trouble hiring good people in the upturn, people will not go for the employer who ruthlessly sacked everybody in the downturn. Although I understand that in America there is sufficient structural underemployment in the educated classes that employers do not have to worry so much about labour shortages.
> For everybody in a company (in a public company, even the president), they are all resources. They must have a return on money than they make, as to stay profitible.
And to stay profitable in the long term, a company must invest in and improve the value it receives from its employees to stay profitable. Although with management rather than shareholders being in charge of most companies, there is a tendency to look for the quick buck rather than the long term investment.
> Why should I show loyalty to "my" company if they are willing to leave me soo quickly? I show no loyalty, as they show me no loyalty.
Because the shelf-life of an "average" company is 30 years, yet some of the best employers have been around for hundreds, and continue to innovate. I know which I'd rather invest in.
If you are tired, stressed and bitter at your job all the time, which will be most people working an 80-hour week, you will produce more for your company on a day to day basis but at some point you, or a colleague in your position, will make a mistake and in many jobs a serious mistake can cost the company far more than they save in the short term.
Of course there should be rewards for those few people who not only cope with the strain of long hours but thrive on it. But if you are really working double your contracted time, don't you think your bonus should be 100% rather than 20%?
Slashdot Mirror
India's movie industry is so huge because until recently, the cinema and the radio were the only options for mass entertainment for much of the country. The poor (but not the very poorest) can afford tickets to film screenings. Bollywood took a hit from TV and now satellite breaking out into every village. They clawed much of this back with exclusive deals with operators like Star TV.
The price point to engage in piracy remains way too high for most Indians - you either need a TV and VCR or a computer. However the numbers that can afford such consumer luxuries are ballooning with the growth of what in the West would be called the middle classes (though a smaller percentage of the population than in the West, the Indian middle classes are in many respects wealthier than their Western counterparts as they are able to afford extensive home help). Bollywood does not want to miss a trick and will do what it can to keep making money in the urban centres where connections sufficient to consider downloading movies are available.
I live in Britain and have considered it but don't speak the language well enough yet.
By most measures, Denmark is one of the most libertarian countries in the world. It has progressive tax rates, sure, but they are no higher for say the upper-middle classes than the US.
Progressive taxation clearly reduces some people's ability to spend money and increases other people's ability to spend money. Whether "liberty" is even a question in relation to non-punitive, non-discriminatory and non-retrospective taxation I am not sure. I prefer to fight the more important battles, like against countries that impose barbaric punishments on their prisoners.
The population of Hong Kong had very little idea of what regime would be imposed on them by the mainland following reunification. It is not surprising that so many kept investments rather than tying up all their money in expensive Hong Kong land. If the reunification had been bloody, millions would have fled.
So not really a valid comparator for individual savings rates, though I take the point that many countries beat the States.
It can print more money after all!
The important question is, can the government affordably meet its obligations?
Where there is growth in the retiring population, there will always be concerns as to whether the goverment can afford pay as you go social security to effectively support more people, and for longer. If the government cannot easily afford its spending commitments it has three options:
higher taxes, which will generally lead to lower growth;
higher borrowing or printing of money, which will generally lead to inflationary pressures; or
default on spending promises.
Strong economic growth now will remove or reduce these problems in the future, as tax revenues will naturally increase.
A switch to a market-based system for social security does not remove the above problem of choices. However it makes the third option much easier for the government to choose, in the event that the market does not help out over the next 20 years. It will provide the defaulting government with a fig-leaf of modesty: "it's not our fault the market fell on the day you turned 65".
Don't be fooled.
The other humps come from the indirect effect of tax cuts and rises on the money supply and can have as much to do with the speed of change in tax rates as the absolute change.
A wide fiscal loosening (here from tax cuts) will result in an increase in the money supply, which will be resolved by one or more of the following:
inflation
currency depreciation
an increase in the cost of borrowing money
the imposition of exchange controls
Each of thes feed back into the economy (and therefore tax receipts) at different points, in different rates and with different lag periods.
A dramatic fiscal tightening will normally have the reverse effect.
It was Argentina under the Menem dictatorship in the 1980s.
For fifteen years, during the economic good times, and the handover to democracy, the system was held up to the world as an example to copy. Then a depression hit and people were starving in the streets of a previously rich country.
The point of a residual state retirement system is that it smoothes out the economic cycle for those who are least able to cope with change(which will be all of us when we are too old to work).
The provision of universal state pensions has coincided with the introduction of universal sufferage in almost every democratic country in the world. It just works.
There are many democratic countries which have neither hungry nor homeless in any statistically significant number.
Progressive taxation reduces absolute poverty.
Which is now called Mumbai anyway!
But Bollywood stuck as a name.
By the way if you want really interesting and varied Indian movies, often with comparable budgets to Bollywood, try Tamil films.
Of course it just means "soldier", but that is un-PC because it reminds you that there is a real person there that might die.
Warfighter just sounds like a robot.
Sounds like an awful lot of work to achieve the same aim. And if what is being done here is effectively reverse-engineering, isn't there the risk of falling into the same trap again, i.e. inadvertently writing into the kernel patent-infringing code?
In a free market, there wouldn't be any need for a visa.
What is a contract? Something you can sue upon.
You can either sue for the promises made in the contract to be enforced, or for damages if the other party cannot/will not carry out their obligations.
If you can sue for damages, you can sell the right to sue for damages.
Aye, I believe the most valuable patent to be that for the cats-eye, measured in the billions not millions.
An email service is provided to you on the basis of a contract. So there is probably some property right in the contract (even if it is just a license).
There certainly can be property in the content of an email - consider an email received by a publisher after his death with the work of an author contracted to him attached.
Why is the sale of more Macs a problem for Bill Gates?
It reduces his liability to competition law challenges, and most customers will be buying his software anyway, in the form of Office for Mac.
Love this place really.
I taught my grandmother to use a PC and she does fine, thank you. In fact, as she finds double-clicking difficult (arthritis) she was happier to right-click and select "open" than left-click and hit enter on the keyboard.
And what did you do with the one-button mouse supplied? Was it wasted?
It would have been a step too far for Apple to automatically ship with two or three-button mice, but it was a bold step in that direction to not ship a mouse at all and let you choose your own peripheral.
I would say it is a similar move to not putting a floppy drive in the iMac - it allows the customer to continue in the traditional way - or to explore using "new" devices. (CDROM was not new at the time of the iMac, but newer than two+ button mice!)
Yes, a bold move, by not supplying peripherals you get to choose your own without wasting money. That way you can have one, two or even four buttons on you mouse...
Exactly. This is a bold move by Apple essentially because they are admitting that they may have been wrong.
On a 1980s computer, with a more limited set of functions, and a computing public with a lower level of computing knowledge, one mouse button was probably better than two.
But now, pressing Apple+click to get context menus seems a bit daft so it only makes sense to move over. And if they can't innovate in mice futher at the moment, why not let another manufacturer make the low-margin product so you can concentrate on the profitable computer itself?
Wouldn't a lot of IBM's 40,000 patents be for hardware?
They would be reasonably justified in maintaining those while saying they have released "most" software patents (or even just "most" software patents relevant to Linux).
> Wow, you really scream liberal (in the worst sense of the word).
I consider myself a social democrat. Not really sure what Americans consider "liberal" to mean.
> In a (gasp!) for-profit company, people are hired for a job, so that the company MAKES money off of you.
Understood. However people generally work as teams, and do so better in an atmosphere of mutual trust.
> A person is expected to do X amount of work for the time worked. Thats a simple hourly schedule, but common on the lower and consultation classes. The upper-level jobs use a money per event accomplished. No matter what you do, you end up making money for the company.
You make money for the company, the company makes money for you. But for most jobs it's not as mechanical ("X words per hour") as you imply.
> However, what happens if certain processes end up costing more money than they return? The company stops that process.
And if it is sensible it will re-train existing staff to perform other duties.
> What happens if the person costs more money than they produce? The company stops the job.
Very short-termist. When there's trouble hiring good people in the upturn, people will not go for the employer who ruthlessly sacked everybody in the downturn. Although I understand that in America there is sufficient structural underemployment in the educated classes that employers do not have to worry so much about labour shortages.
> For everybody in a company (in a public company, even the president), they are all resources. They must have a return on money than they make, as to stay profitible.
And to stay profitable in the long term, a company must invest in and improve the value it receives from its employees to stay profitable. Although with management rather than shareholders being in charge of most companies, there is a tendency to look for the quick buck rather than the long term investment.
> Why should I show loyalty to "my" company if they are willing to leave me soo quickly? I show no loyalty, as they show me no loyalty.
Because the shelf-life of an "average" company is 30 years, yet some of the best employers have been around for hundreds, and continue to innovate. I know which I'd rather invest in.
Which is why listed companies' tax returns should be made public...
If you are tired, stressed and bitter at your job all the time, which will be most people working an 80-hour week, you will produce more for your company on a day to day basis but at some point you, or a colleague in your position, will make a mistake and in many jobs a serious mistake can cost the company far more than they save in the short term.
Of course there should be rewards for those few people who not only cope with the strain of long hours but thrive on it. But if you are really working double your contracted time, don't you think your bonus should be 100% rather than 20%?