If I recall correctly, where I live (the Netherlands) copyright law (auteursrecht) also applies to running a program, which is seen as making a copy into computer's memory or something.
That was the original excuse for the abomination that is the modern EULA (a contract, masquerading as a license, intended to change the terms of sale post sale.) That's why, in the US, we have USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
So, if you don't need a license to run the software, or install the software (essential step in the utilization), what's the point of the EULA. After all, there's Adobe vs Softman, where the court found that a single payment for perpetual use constitutes a sale, not a license. If buying the software doesn't get you the right to have it, what did you pay for? If buying the software does give you the right to have it, and copyright law doesn't allow the creator of the software to prevent your using it, then what's the point of the EULA in the first place? When you buy a book, it has a copyright notice, but no license. None is necessary - your purchase gives you a right to use it. Anything else would be silly.
Now, there is a specific case where they are useful, and make sense. A true license (not the modern bastardization) only grants freedoms, but can do so according to terms. Ultimately, it's not the license that takes your ability to do things away, but the law itself. Here's an example:
I make a piece of sheet music. Copyright law states that you cannot distribute copies you make of said music.
Suppose I attach a license to it stating that "you are permitted to make and distribute copies, provided the copyright notice and this notice remain intact". This grants freedoms ("make and distribute copies"), subject to terms ("the copyright notice and this notice remain intact.") You aren't required to accept the license - you can use the sheet music just fine without a license. Should you choose to avail yourself of the additional freedoms I grant you with my work, you may do so (subject to terms).
So, for software, it makes sense to have a license when the author wishes to expand the user's rights beyond that provided by the Doctrine of First Sale, Fair Use, etc. He could, for example, permit the use on a second machine (a laptop perhaps), etc.
As income level rises, consumption as a proportion of this income falls. Progressive taxes tend to have an economic stimulating effect because they decrease the tax burden on those who plug back a higher proportion of their income back into the economy.
Generally speaking, rich people tend not to be really stupid. Those who are don't (usually) stay rich very long.
We start by assuming the goal is to get money out of the rich, in order to save the poor people from paying an "unfair" portion of taxes. My goal would be to decrease spending, but that's a seperate issue.
So, the "ideal" situation would be that the rich spend 100% of their money, or at least enough to cut the taxes of the poor (and middle class) down to "fair" levels. This would maximize the amount of the money that goes to the government coffers.
Ok, let's consider the "worst case" scenario. As you state, consumption tends to decrease as a percentage of income as income rises, so let's assume that 0% (effectively) is spent on consumption. What happens?
Since this is the "worst" case scenario, the hypothetical rich person is monumentally stupid. He hordes all his money, and gets to face inflation.
Now, the current CPI is misleading using pre-clinton style numbers it's around 7.5%. Still, it makes more sense to look at the worldwide buying power of the dollar. USD vs Euro: Down almost 15% YOY. USD vs Hungarian Floring: Down around 13% YOY. USD vs Chinese Yuan: Down around 9% YOY USD vs Swiss Franc: Down around 18% YOY USD vs Japan Yen: Down around 15% YOY
So, even if we weren't facing 8%+ inflation, we'd still be losing 9-15% of the value of the dollar this year. So, even in the "worst case" scenario, the rich man is still paying considerable taxes. Sales taxes apply once, income taxes apply once. Inflation disproportionally affects those with money way more than those without, and happens every single year. In fact, those with massive amounts of debt and no currency whatsoever can end up benefiting from it, as the "real world" cost of their debt drops.
So, let's look at a more real world scenario, shall we? Rich people stay rich because they do things with their money. If you aren't seeing a return on your investments, you are losing money every day. So, what happens when money is invested? It doesn't sit there - it moves around. Money that doesn't move doesn't make a return.
What happens when money goes into the bank? Well, historically speaking, we tend to have about a 10% reserve. So, a $100,000 deposit turns into $900,000 worth of loans. These tend to go towards purchasing goods for businesses (business loans), or things like mortgages.
So, we have a $100,000 deposit that leads to $900,000 worth of loans. Say these go to construction loans. The fairtax percentage of 23% results in $207,000 worth of sales taxes paid on $100,000 worth of deposits. Where does the difference come from? Inflation, of course, resulting in even more taxes for those with money.
The money can also be loaned to individuals, for things like buying cars (sales tax is paid), or to businesses (where it can be taxed as income to employees, tax on the goods purchased with it, or tax on the goods sold derived from it). Ultimately, it all gets taxed, because it's either spent, loaned to someone who spends it, or taxed away in the form of inflation.
Currently, the mortgage market is largely dead, which would change things slightly; however, ultimately it won't matter because the federal reserve has no money.
To quote them, "By definition, nonborrowed reserves are equal to total reserves minus borrowed reserves." So, a negative nonborrowed reserve would mean that we have, in fact, loaned out more money than is in the reserve, leading to a system where we can just print up however much money we want, since we've abandoned any pretense of trying to maintain our currency. So, we just print money like it's coming out of style, and then ramp up welfare programs to help the impact of rising costs in food, energy, etc.
Why would a tax on corporations be flat? Of course a tax on corporations should be progressive on net profit.
You missed the point. My point is that one _cannot_ do a flat tax on corporations; however, the alternative is exploitable, and gets more so the higher taxes get.
The brain is a physical machine, subject to physical rules. This is apparent when things like drugs, alcohol, tumors cause it to behave in atypical manners.
As an example, I know of a case where a man lost his family, job, etc. because of him swearing, behaving violently, etc. Turns out he had a tumor, and once it was removed, his behavior went back to normal.
To accept the concept of free will, one should accept that there is something above and beyond the physical processes involved, that there is something beyond the physical processes going on here. Were it not, you would be defined entirely by who you are (genetically speaking), and the experiences you go through.
I've writeen software using neural networking (warcraft bot). It's capable of "learning", and it's behaviors will change as a result of what it's been through. Were it capable of thinking, it might feel that it's "free" to make whatever choices it wants. However, if one could go back in time and do it over again, it would give the same output, given the same input. Fundamentally, that's what it is.
How, ultimately, is it different from humans?
I have a sibling who is nearly 8 years old. Were I to offer him a cookie, he would accept it. If I could go back in time, and make that same offer a million times, he would accept it a million times. Each time, he is "free" to reject it, but he will not because of who he is.
This, of course, presents a dilemma - if a human is, in fact, nothing more than the product of his genetic makeup and his experiences, how can you truly blame to anyone for anything?
This also leads to an interesting shift in "corrections". If people don't, in fact, have free will, then how can it be just to punish them for behaving as is their nature? The correct purpose of the justice system would then be to adjust the cost-benefit ratio of crime (deterrant), as well as to provide for restitution for the victim, and protection for society.
It is precisely because rich people are utilizing loopholes to avoid taxation like purchasing land and such.
No, it is precisely because the government spends way too much money. If our government spent less, there would be less need for taxes.
As a practical matter, it is always going to be difficult as a matter of practicality to tax the rich, or the corporations for their "fair share", as the more you raise taxes, the more profitable using offshore tax havens, etc. become.
Corporations, for example, must be able to deduct business expenses. If you don't, any business with razor-thin profit margins (a good thing, competition) would be bankrupt. A 5% flat tax would be wonderful for my software company with 95%+ margins, but "unfair" (and lethal) to someone making 1-5% doing manufacturing. They would have to raise their rates, making it difficult to compete with imports, requiring more taxation on imported goods to maintain a "level" playing field.
So, it's relatively easy for modern businesses to structure relationships with other companies (not in the US) by licensing technology (for a hefty fee), borrowing money, etc. Payments can go into trust funds, foundations, etc. outside US jurisdiction. To stop these kinds of games, you would need to ban:
- owning, managing, and receiving payments from foreign corporations - banking by private citizens using banks located outside the United States - ownership of US corporations by foreign corporations and vice-versa - prior approval by the US government for all business transactions between US companies and foreign companies, in order to ensure that all contracts are "fair", and not allowing money to be funneled outside the US - use of foreign-based prepaid debit cards/gift cards, and purchase of us-based cards by foreign nationals and corporations
Even if all this did happen, unscrupulous people would simply conspire with those outside the United States to act fronts. Long story short - the more you attempt to raise taxes on these people, the more profitable it is to be a "tax cheat", and the less revenue you actually bring in.
Besides, I don't know about you, but I'd rather not live in a world like that. On the other hand, reducing spending by the government would go a long way towards fixing budget problems. How about starting with the illegal/unconstitutional ones?
That being said, the simpler and easier the tax code is, the harder it is to dodge taxes. The problem isn't the rich, it's the insane inefficiency and incredible waste of government. A simple straightforward sales tax applied to imports and domestic sales (with a prebate to avoid screwing over the poor) would eliminate most loopholes, practically eliminate the need for the IRS (saving a decent amount of money), and save so much time and effort it's scary.
No "tax day", as your taxes are always paid. No itemization, no deductions, no worrying about whether this is an acceptable business expense.
OpenDNS monitors Phising sites and will not let you resolve to it. That's assuming, of course, that it's using a unique DNS name. For pages hosted on SourceForge, Geocities, etc. it won't do anything at all, and may provide a false sense of security.
Furthermore, it's really easy to create phishing pages that will only show their contents to humans, and not spiders.
You seem unclear on the concept of "rights". A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do.
You also seem unclear on the concept of a "right". A right is something that a person intrinsically may do. The word you are looking for is privilege. Attitudes like yours are dangerous, and responsible for much of the erosion of liberty seen in the modern world.
In the United States, the Constitution and Declaration of independence specifically recognize this. The government derives it's power from the people, who hold all rights and privileges by default. Some privileges are given up, in order to ensure the rights of others. Governments can infringe rights; however, that doesn't mean you don't have them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
If the "right" was granted by the government, how could said government infringe upon it?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Well, it wasn't on a porn site, but I've done proxying of captchas (Proof of Concept) for:
PayPal GMail eBay
It's not hard - use CURL, have it handle cookies. Populate database, give to users (requires decent traffic). My system even used a regex on the registration success page to fail users who failed the captcha.
Given my system took about half an hour to write, and people are going to lengths like the ones in the article to beat them, it's pretty much a given that people are out there doing it now. FWIW, I was working on ways to watermark a captcha to make the source obvious.
it's a strong disincentive for me to start buying movies in HD, until the DVD format is phased out completely, or until it becomes possible and easy to rip movies from Blu-Ray and reauthor them minus the DRM.
We're well past that point, and have been for some time. AnyDVD HD(commercial) rips the DRM off any blu-ray disc I've ever thrown at it, and is updated very frequently with new keys. It can use either the built-in key, or it's database.
Or, if you're looking for encryption keys, feel free to Grab a List (spans a bunch of pages, but that's what search is for), and decrypt 'em yourself. Tools are in the same forum.
TMDA does everything one needs. It can do whitelisting, blacklisting, time-based email addresses, challenge-response, and even includes a proxy you can use to automatically tag outgoing email for you.
Optical scan ballots really aren't a dramatic improvement in reliability.
They can be. Have the touchscreen device print the vote onto the paper ballot, and a barcode with a checksum. Scan it optically and verify it against the checksum.
Anyone can verify their ballot - they simply look at what is marked. Misreads simply don't happen - if the two don't match, there is a problem. Give they guy a new ballot (replacing the old one), and have him do it again.
If the hand recount doesn't _exactly_ match the automated totals, it can be scanned in batches (any size). Count X ballots, scan X ballots. If they don't match, there is a problem.
As a nice side effect, machines don't have to be trusted, and don't have to have a network connection either. The machine can't screw up your vote without marking the wrong thing (or the CRC would be wrong), and you can check that yourself before it's counted. Recounts can be done by hand, and in the event of total system failure, you can still mark the silly thing by hand.
As a nice bonus to this, you get the benefits of touchscreen voting - secret ballots for the blind (audio), multiple language support, pictures, the ability to offer more in-depth descriptions of line items, etc.
It's funny - I use the 2405FPW for the exact opposite reason. Few panels are bright enough for me to be comfortable, and it's been a long time since I had a monitor (other than this one) that I didn't perpetually have as bright as it could go. (Stupid OS X "I'm going to adjust your brightness for you unless you stop me" aside). I also like to replace all my lights with 100W equivalant "daylight" CFLs.
As a nice bonus, it keeps other people off my systems and out of my work space.
If we go by what's written, the first amendment only limits federal powers and a later amendment (I don't remember those numbers) points out that what the federal govt can't do is left up to the states.
That's the reason for amendment 14:
Section 1. ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
They tend to ignore this for the second, fourth, and fifth amendments, but the courts tend to apply it to the first with regards to the states.
That's not entirely accurate - a lot of it depends on the codecs you use.
I have a demo I like to do where I decode and play back 1080p HD using CoreAVC, on a 1GHz laptop (downclocked - it's hard to find a PC with a native resolution of 1920x1200 and a clock speed of 1GHz). Yes, it drops some frames, but it's quite watchable.
I also do 320x[240-320] H.264 (full screen) playback on a Treo 650. It's got a 312MHz ARM processor, and 32MB of RAM (~24 available).
None of this is hardware accelerated.
BenchMarks here. This is an older benchmark; CoreAVC is better now.
We get them in Arizona - my "master planned" community has a roundabout on the way into the neighborhood, as do a number of nearby neighborhoods.
Of course, they tend to be placed at the intersection of two roads at right angles to each other (traffic "calming" purposes), resulting in people either not knowing what to do (despite the signs that direct which way to go), or ignoring them. They actually cause more accidents than they prevent.
As usual, in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't.
Your SSL certificate checker has issues. Even when checking an SSL-enabled URL, with a valid commonName, it breaks because it's the wrong host. Your check page Wrong host for SSL certificate. Certificate for "services.corecodec.com", actual host "www.corecodec.com". (Peer certificate commonName does not match host, expected www.corecodec.com, got services.corecodec.com)
There's a reason we don't link to https://www.corecodec.com/ - the SSL cert is appropriate for the URLs we call it under. Disregarding that, pulling a https cert for a different host, then complaining that it's not "valid" is bad practice.
Many sites don't use SSL on their main domain - they often use secure.theirdomain.com, ssl.theirdomain.com, etc. It's still a SSL cert for the domain, what's the problem?
Also, your "address checker" needs some real work too - we get a negative rating because we don't have an address on the site. We have a "Contact Us" link on nearlyeverypageonoursites. From the details, it looks like your address regex could some tweaking - it thinks "Windows Mobile, PocketPC" is an address, but our street address isn't.
Legitimate businesses have no reason to hide their identity.
That's not always accurate. My mother runs a housing information web site (talking about the Housing Bubble). People doing this can, and do, receive death threats. Anonymity is crucial when saying things people don't want to hear. Sometimes, it's spam, sometimes it's political or speech that others want to shut up. Besides, what's to stop someone from joe-jobbing someone to get their contact information - be it to intimidate, kill, or harass them?
People should be free to say what they want on their sites, even if it's something others consider "spammy". It's only when they connect to other servers (spam) the problem starts to be a problem. If that's the case, block the IPs, and go after the money trail (transaction processors, banks, etc). It may not be as easy as a whois and a lawsuit, but it's necessary to protect religious, political, and otherwise risky speech.
Furthermore, web sites aren't always ran by corporations - if one of my personal software development domains is down, or busted, or whatever, oh well. You shouldn't be calling me.
I also used to keep my personal cell number and email on all my business-related domains - if there was a problem, people would call or email, and all was good. Between the solicitors (no-call list doesn't apply to companies) and spammers, I've had to change my email and switch the phone to a voicemail system. It's not that I'm hiding, but rather that if I dealt with all the spam I received by hand, I would never get anything done.
At least with the on-domain contact pages, people have to exert a little bit of effort to talk to me - the captcha keeps the bots out, and it's redirected to my push email on the phone, ensuring I get it near instantly.
Bots are actually fairly easy to beat, they can't use second order logic (playing your opponents tendencies, not just your cards).
Bad bots don't do second order logic.
As anyone who has played any poker knows, there are a variety of strategies one can do in poker, affecting everything from when to bluff or fold, raise or call, etc. It's relatively trivial to have a bot that can try different techniques depending on who it's playing against, and learn what works and doesn't.
Furthermore (and especially at high levels, where there are fewer players, who each play more games than at lower levels), the bot potentially has access to the complete history of every visible card from every game ever played by the bot. So, even for hands the bot did not participate in (or folded early, or whatever), a bot can still analyze which of it's strategies most corresponded to the methods employed by opponents against the target, and determine their effectiveness against said target. Simple probabilistic analysis.
For unknown opponents, one can take the the database of played hands, and determine which strategies are most effective against each other. Default to a random choice of the better (on average) performing techniques, then analyze every hand to see which playing style(s) most correspond to the players in the current hand. As their techniques become more or less like ones in the database, adjust the playing style of the bot to most counter the playing styler of the other players.
Where it gets really difficult is playing against an opponent who knows you are playing his tendencies. It's possible to "bait" a bot like this by (for example) bluffing a bunch of small hands (and getting caught), then trying to convince the bot you are doing the same thing with a good hand and a larger pot.
If you're looking to build a really nice poker bot, I would recommend using a FANN-based neural network. It does a pretty good job of handling probabilistic analysis for you, if you train the net properly and have good inputs. Neural networks are pretty good at coming up with good answers for unknowns, when properly implemented.
Actually, the AHRA doesn't differentiate at all between things copied from purchased media, or friends:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
If you were copying things you already owned, then it wouldn't be copyright infringement, would it? The tax is to compensate for the added piracy from when things went digital. Basically, it says "you pay a tax because we assume you are going to pirate, and in exchange, it's not copyright infringement when you do."
It is important to note that the courts have said that sharing into a network like BitTorrent is in fact commercial (and as such outside the scope of the AHRA) because you derive a benefit (even though it's non-monetary) from the sharing. Also, the act exempts the noncommercial use of such a device for making said recordings, not the distribution of them.
Please explain to me how paying sales tax on a blank cd somehow makes stealing someone else's intellectual property ok.
He wasn't talking about sales tax, so before you go calling someone an idiot (or a drunk), you might want to make sure you're not sounding like a fool.
Under the Audio Home Recording Act, a levy (tax) is paid for every "digital audio recording device", and "digital audio recording media". This tax was lobbied for by the RIAA and the like, and the funds are paid into the Musical Works Fund and the Sound Recordings Fund, which are partially distributed by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, as well as the Aliance of Artists and Recording Companies.
This fund was intended to compensate musicians, and the (often) parasites who feed on them, for the extra losses that would be incurred due to the added piracy enabled by digital technology. In exchange, said digital technology was given legal protection, with the exemption:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Basically, his point was this - if he's paying royalties on every player, recorder, and blank music cd he buys to compensate for the piracy he is assumed to commit, then shouldn't he have the right to commit said piracy? In other words, if you are going to be punished for a crime whether you commit it or not, then why should you be punished again when you actually do?
You have us on pins and needles, what was the file format she couldn't use? Zip. Linux needs to get up to speed - it still uses Tape for storing files.
Yes, I know it's technically the GNU toolchain, and that Linux is a kernel, but it's just less funny when you explain it first.
They certainly wouldn't do this over Burma; however, they are promising to do it if we follow through on our threaten to sanction them for their currency manipulation.
My point is that this could be one in a series of things that could potentially push the Chinese over the edge. In general, it's better to just not tick them off.
TransUnion works with them, and since TransUnion is the one selling your info (which they get from credit apps), it's not like you're providing any information they couldn't already get.
Slashdot Mirror
That was the original excuse for the abomination that is the modern EULA (a contract, masquerading as a license, intended to change the terms of sale post sale.) That's why, in the US, we have USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs.
So, if you don't need a license to run the software, or install the software (essential step in the utilization), what's the point of the EULA. After all, there's Adobe vs Softman, where the court found that a single payment for perpetual use constitutes a sale, not a license. If buying the software doesn't get you the right to have it, what did you pay for? If buying the software does give you the right to have it, and copyright law doesn't allow the creator of the software to prevent your using it, then what's the point of the EULA in the first place? When you buy a book, it has a copyright notice, but no license. None is necessary - your purchase gives you a right to use it. Anything else would be silly.
Now, there is a specific case where they are useful, and make sense. A true license (not the modern bastardization) only grants freedoms, but can do so according to terms. Ultimately, it's not the license that takes your ability to do things away, but the law itself. Here's an example:
I make a piece of sheet music. Copyright law states that you cannot distribute copies you make of said music.
Suppose I attach a license to it stating that "you are permitted to make and distribute copies, provided the copyright notice and this notice remain intact". This grants freedoms ("make and distribute copies"), subject to terms ("the copyright notice and this notice remain intact.") You aren't required to accept the license - you can use the sheet music just fine without a license. Should you choose to avail yourself of the additional freedoms I grant you with my work, you may do so (subject to terms).
So, for software, it makes sense to have a license when the author wishes to expand the user's rights beyond that provided by the Doctrine of First Sale, Fair Use, etc. He could, for example, permit the use on a second machine (a laptop perhaps), etc.
As income level rises, consumption as a proportion of this income falls. Progressive taxes tend to have an economic stimulating effect because they decrease the tax burden on those who plug back a higher proportion of their income back into the economy.
Generally speaking, rich people tend not to be really stupid. Those who are don't (usually) stay rich very long.
We start by assuming the goal is to get money out of the rich, in order to save the poor people from paying an "unfair" portion of taxes. My goal would be to decrease spending, but that's a seperate issue.
So, the "ideal" situation would be that the rich spend 100% of their money, or at least enough to cut the taxes of the poor (and middle class) down to "fair" levels. This would maximize the amount of the money that goes to the government coffers.
Ok, let's consider the "worst case" scenario. As you state, consumption tends to decrease as a percentage of income as income rises, so let's assume that 0% (effectively) is spent on consumption. What happens?
Since this is the "worst" case scenario, the hypothetical rich person is monumentally stupid. He hordes all his money, and gets to face inflation.
Now, the current CPI is misleading using pre-clinton style numbers it's around 7.5%.
Still, it makes more sense to look at the worldwide buying power of the dollar.
USD vs Euro: Down almost 15% YOY.
USD vs Hungarian Floring: Down around 13% YOY.
USD vs Chinese Yuan: Down around 9% YOY
USD vs Swiss Franc: Down around 18% YOY
USD vs Japan Yen: Down around 15% YOY
So, even if we weren't facing 8%+ inflation, we'd still be losing 9-15% of the value of the dollar this year. So, even in the "worst case" scenario, the rich man is still paying considerable taxes. Sales taxes apply once, income taxes apply once. Inflation disproportionally affects those with money way more than those without, and happens every single year. In fact, those with massive amounts of debt and no currency whatsoever can end up benefiting from it, as the "real world" cost of their debt drops.
So, let's look at a more real world scenario, shall we? Rich people stay rich because they do things with their money. If you aren't seeing a return on your investments, you are losing money every day. So, what happens when money is invested? It doesn't sit there - it moves around. Money that doesn't move doesn't make a return.
What happens when money goes into the bank? Well, historically speaking, we tend to have about a 10% reserve. So, a $100,000 deposit turns into $900,000 worth of loans. These tend to go towards purchasing goods for businesses (business loans), or things like mortgages.
So, we have a $100,000 deposit that leads to $900,000 worth of loans. Say these go to construction loans. The fairtax percentage of 23% results in $207,000 worth of sales taxes paid on $100,000 worth of deposits. Where does the difference come from? Inflation, of course, resulting in even more taxes for those with money.
The money can also be loaned to individuals, for things like buying cars (sales tax is paid), or to businesses (where it can be taxed as income to employees, tax on the goods purchased with it, or tax on the goods sold derived from it). Ultimately, it all gets taxed, because it's either spent, loaned to someone who spends it, or taxed away in the form of inflation.
Currently, the mortgage market is largely dead, which would change things slightly; however, ultimately it won't matter because the federal reserve has no money.
To quote them, "By definition, nonborrowed reserves are equal to total reserves minus borrowed reserves." So, a negative nonborrowed reserve would mean that we have, in fact, loaned out more money than is in the reserve, leading to a system where we can just print up however much money we want, since we've abandoned any pretense of trying to maintain our currency. So, we just print money like it's coming out of style, and then ramp up welfare programs to help the impact of rising costs in food, energy, etc.
Why would a tax on corporations be flat? Of course a tax on corporations should be progressive on net profit.
You missed the point. My point is that one _cannot_ do a flat tax on corporations; however, the alternative is exploitable, and gets more so the higher taxes get.
Free will is an interesting subject, isn't it?
The brain is a physical machine, subject to physical rules. This is apparent when things like drugs, alcohol, tumors cause it to behave in atypical manners.
As an example, I know of a case where a man lost his family, job, etc. because of him swearing, behaving violently, etc. Turns out he had a tumor, and once it was removed, his behavior went back to normal.
To accept the concept of free will, one should accept that there is something above and beyond the physical processes involved, that there is something beyond the physical processes going on here. Were it not, you would be defined entirely by who you are (genetically speaking), and the experiences you go through.
I've writeen software using neural networking (warcraft bot). It's capable of "learning", and it's behaviors will change as a result of what it's been through. Were it capable of thinking, it might feel that it's "free" to make whatever choices it wants. However, if one could go back in time and do it over again, it would give the same output, given the same input. Fundamentally, that's what it is.
How, ultimately, is it different from humans?
I have a sibling who is nearly 8 years old. Were I to offer him a cookie, he would accept it. If I could go back in time, and make that same offer a million times, he would accept it a million times. Each time, he is "free" to reject it, but he will not because of who he is.
This, of course, presents a dilemma - if a human is, in fact, nothing more than the product of his genetic makeup and his experiences, how can you truly blame to anyone for anything?
This also leads to an interesting shift in "corrections". If people don't, in fact, have free will, then how can it be just to punish them for behaving as is their nature? The correct purpose of the justice system would then be to adjust the cost-benefit ratio of crime (deterrant), as well as to provide for restitution for the victim, and protection for society.
It is precisely because rich people are utilizing loopholes to avoid taxation like purchasing land and such.
No, it is precisely because the government spends way too much money. If our government spent less, there would be less need for taxes.
As a practical matter, it is always going to be difficult as a matter of practicality to tax the rich, or the corporations for their "fair share", as the more you raise taxes, the more profitable using offshore tax havens, etc. become.
Corporations, for example, must be able to deduct business expenses. If you don't, any business with razor-thin profit margins (a good thing, competition) would be bankrupt. A 5% flat tax would be wonderful for my software company with 95%+ margins, but "unfair" (and lethal) to someone making 1-5% doing manufacturing. They would have to raise their rates, making it difficult to compete with imports, requiring more taxation on imported goods to maintain a "level" playing field.
So, it's relatively easy for modern businesses to structure relationships with other companies (not in the US) by licensing technology (for a hefty fee), borrowing money, etc. Payments can go into trust funds, foundations, etc. outside US jurisdiction. To stop these kinds of games, you would need to ban:
- owning, managing, and receiving payments from foreign corporations
- banking by private citizens using banks located outside the United States
- ownership of US corporations by foreign corporations and vice-versa
- prior approval by the US government for all business transactions between US companies and foreign companies, in order to ensure that all contracts are "fair", and not allowing money to be funneled outside the US
- use of foreign-based prepaid debit cards/gift cards, and purchase of us-based cards by foreign nationals and corporations
Even if all this did happen, unscrupulous people would simply conspire with those outside the United States to act fronts. Long story short - the more you attempt to raise taxes on these people, the more profitable it is to be a "tax cheat", and the less revenue you actually bring in.
Besides, I don't know about you, but I'd rather not live in a world like that. On the other hand, reducing spending by the government would go a long way towards fixing budget problems. How about starting with the illegal/unconstitutional ones?
That being said, the simpler and easier the tax code is, the harder it is to dodge taxes. The problem isn't the rich, it's the insane inefficiency and incredible waste of government. A simple straightforward sales tax applied to imports and domestic sales (with a prebate to avoid screwing over the poor) would eliminate most loopholes, practically eliminate the need for the IRS (saving a decent amount of money), and save so much time and effort it's scary.
No "tax day", as your taxes are always paid. No itemization, no deductions, no worrying about whether this is an acceptable business expense.
OpenDNS monitors Phising sites and will not let you resolve to it.
That's assuming, of course, that it's using a unique DNS name. For pages hosted on SourceForge, Geocities, etc. it won't do anything at all, and may provide a false sense of security.
Furthermore, it's really easy to create phishing pages that will only show their contents to humans, and not spiders.
You also seem unclear on the concept of a "right". A right is something that a person intrinsically may do. The word you are looking for is privilege. Attitudes like yours are dangerous, and responsible for much of the erosion of liberty seen in the modern world.
In the United States, the Constitution and Declaration of independence specifically recognize this. The government derives it's power from the people, who hold all rights and privileges by default. Some privileges are given up, in order to ensure the rights of others. Governments can infringe rights; however, that doesn't mean you don't have them.
If the "right" was granted by the government, how could said government infringe upon it?
Well, it wasn't on a porn site, but I've done proxying of captchas (Proof of Concept) for:
PayPal
GMail
eBay
It's not hard - use CURL, have it handle cookies. Populate database, give to users (requires decent traffic). My system even used a regex on the registration success page to fail users who failed the captcha.
Given my system took about half an hour to write, and people are going to lengths like the ones in the article to beat them, it's pretty much a given that people are out there doing it now. FWIW, I was working on ways to watermark a captcha to make the source obvious.
it's a strong disincentive for me to start buying movies in HD, until the DVD format is phased out completely, or until it becomes possible and easy to rip movies from Blu-Ray and reauthor them minus the DRM.
We're well past that point, and have been for some time. AnyDVD HD(commercial) rips the DRM off any blu-ray disc I've ever thrown at it, and is updated very frequently with new keys. It can use either the built-in key, or it's database.
Or, if you're looking for encryption keys, feel free to Grab a List (spans a bunch of pages, but that's what search is for), and decrypt 'em yourself. Tools are in the same forum.
Actually, they just recommend using OpenDNS (see The Jesperbay, a Pirate Bay website).
TMDA does everything one needs. It can do whitelisting, blacklisting, time-based email addresses, challenge-response, and even includes a proxy you can use to automatically tag outgoing email for you.
Optical scan ballots really aren't a dramatic improvement in reliability.
They can be. Have the touchscreen device print the vote onto the paper ballot, and a barcode with a checksum. Scan it optically and verify it against the checksum.
Anyone can verify their ballot - they simply look at what is marked. Misreads simply don't happen - if the two don't match, there is a problem. Give they guy a new ballot (replacing the old one), and have him do it again.
If the hand recount doesn't _exactly_ match the automated totals, it can be scanned in batches (any size). Count X ballots, scan X ballots. If they don't match, there is a problem.
As a nice side effect, machines don't have to be trusted, and don't have to have a network connection either. The machine can't screw up your vote without marking the wrong thing (or the CRC would be wrong), and you can check that yourself before it's counted. Recounts can be done by hand, and in the event of total system failure, you can still mark the silly thing by hand.
As a nice bonus to this, you get the benefits of touchscreen voting - secret ballots for the blind (audio), multiple language support, pictures, the ability to offer more in-depth descriptions of line items, etc.
It's not exactly rocket science.
It's funny - I use the 2405FPW for the exact opposite reason. Few panels are bright enough for me to be comfortable, and it's been a long time since I had a monitor (other than this one) that I didn't perpetually have as bright as it could go. (Stupid OS X "I'm going to adjust your brightness for you unless you stop me" aside). I also like to replace all my lights with 100W equivalant "daylight" CFLs.
As a nice bonus, it keeps other people off my systems and out of my work space.
That's the reason for amendment 14:
They tend to ignore this for the second, fourth, and fifth amendments, but the courts tend to apply it to the first with regards to the states.
That's not entirely accurate - a lot of it depends on the codecs you use.
I have a demo I like to do where I decode and play back 1080p HD using CoreAVC, on a 1GHz laptop (downclocked - it's hard to find a PC with a native resolution of 1920x1200 and a clock speed of 1GHz). Yes, it drops some frames, but it's quite watchable.
I also do 320x[240-320] H.264 (full screen) playback on a Treo 650. It's got a 312MHz ARM processor, and 32MB of RAM (~24 available).
None of this is hardware accelerated.
BenchMarks here. This is an older benchmark; CoreAVC is better now.
We get them in Arizona - my "master planned" community has a roundabout on the way into the neighborhood, as do a number of nearby neighborhoods.
Of course, they tend to be placed at the intersection of two roads at right angles to each other (traffic "calming" purposes), resulting in people either not knowing what to do (despite the signs that direct which way to go), or ignoring them. They actually cause more accidents than they prevent.
As usual, in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't.
Your SSL certificate checker has issues. Even when checking an SSL-enabled URL, with a valid commonName, it breaks because it's the wrong host.
Your check page
Wrong host for SSL certificate. Certificate for "services.corecodec.com", actual host "www.corecodec.com". (Peer certificate commonName does not match host, expected www.corecodec.com, got services.corecodec.com)
There's a reason we don't link to https://www.corecodec.com/ - the SSL cert is appropriate for the URLs we call it under. Disregarding that, pulling a https cert for a different host, then complaining that it's not "valid" is bad practice.
Many sites don't use SSL on their main domain - they often use secure.theirdomain.com, ssl.theirdomain.com, etc. It's still a SSL cert for the domain, what's the problem?
Also, your "address checker" needs some real work too - we get a negative rating because we don't have an address on the site. We have a "Contact Us" link on nearly every page on our sites. From the details, it looks like your address regex could some tweaking - it thinks "Windows Mobile, PocketPC" is an address, but our street address isn't.
Legitimate businesses have no reason to hide their identity.
That's not always accurate. My mother runs a housing information web site (talking about the Housing Bubble). People doing this can, and do, receive death threats. Anonymity is crucial when saying things people don't want to hear. Sometimes, it's spam, sometimes it's political or speech that others want to shut up. Besides, what's to stop someone from joe-jobbing someone to get their contact information - be it to intimidate, kill, or harass them?
People should be free to say what they want on their sites, even if it's something others consider "spammy". It's only when they connect to other servers (spam) the problem starts to be a problem. If that's the case, block the IPs, and go after the money trail (transaction processors, banks, etc). It may not be as easy as a whois and a lawsuit, but it's necessary to protect religious, political, and otherwise risky speech.
Furthermore, web sites aren't always ran by corporations - if one of my personal software development domains is down, or busted, or whatever, oh well. You shouldn't be calling me.
I also used to keep my personal cell number and email on all my business-related domains - if there was a problem, people would call or email, and all was good. Between the solicitors (no-call list doesn't apply to companies) and spammers, I've had to change my email and switch the phone to a voicemail system. It's not that I'm hiding, but rather that if I dealt with all the spam I received by hand, I would never get anything done.
At least with the on-domain contact pages, people have to exert a little bit of effort to talk to me - the captcha keeps the bots out, and it's redirected to my push email on the phone, ensuring I get it near instantly.
Kill WHOIS already. It's outlived it's usefulness.
Bots are actually fairly easy to beat, they can't use second order logic (playing your opponents tendencies, not just your cards).
Bad bots don't do second order logic.
As anyone who has played any poker knows, there are a variety of strategies one can do in poker, affecting everything from when to bluff or fold, raise or call, etc. It's relatively trivial to have a bot that can try different techniques depending on who it's playing against, and learn what works and doesn't.
Furthermore (and especially at high levels, where there are fewer players, who each play more games than at lower levels), the bot potentially has access to the complete history of every visible card from every game ever played by the bot. So, even for hands the bot did not participate in (or folded early, or whatever), a bot can still analyze which of it's strategies most corresponded to the methods employed by opponents against the target, and determine their effectiveness against said target. Simple probabilistic analysis.
For unknown opponents, one can take the the database of played hands, and determine which strategies are most effective against each other. Default to a random choice of the better (on average) performing techniques, then analyze every hand to see which playing style(s) most correspond to the players in the current hand. As their techniques become more or less like ones in the database, adjust the playing style of the bot to most counter the playing styler of the other players.
Where it gets really difficult is playing against an opponent who knows you are playing his tendencies. It's possible to "bait" a bot like this by (for example) bluffing a bunch of small hands (and getting caught), then trying to convince the bot you are doing the same thing with a good hand and a larger pot.
If you're looking to build a really nice poker bot, I would recommend using a FANN-based neural network. It does a pretty good job of handling probabilistic analysis for you, if you train the net properly and have good inputs. Neural networks are pretty good at coming up with good answers for unknowns, when properly implemented.
If you were copying things you already owned, then it wouldn't be copyright infringement, would it? The tax is to compensate for the added piracy from when things went digital. Basically, it says "you pay a tax because we assume you are going to pirate, and in exchange, it's not copyright infringement when you do."
It is important to note that the courts have said that sharing into a network like BitTorrent is in fact commercial (and as such outside the scope of the AHRA) because you derive a benefit (even though it's non-monetary) from the sharing. Also, the act exempts the noncommercial use of such a device for making said recordings, not the distribution of them.
He wasn't talking about sales tax, so before you go calling someone an idiot (or a drunk), you might want to make sure you're not sounding like a fool.
Under the Audio Home Recording Act, a levy (tax) is paid for every "digital audio recording device", and "digital audio recording media". This tax was lobbied for by the RIAA and the like, and the funds are paid into the Musical Works Fund and the Sound Recordings Fund, which are partially distributed by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, as well as the Aliance of Artists and Recording Companies.
This fund was intended to compensate musicians, and the (often) parasites who feed on them, for the extra losses that would be incurred due to the added piracy enabled by digital technology. In exchange, said digital technology was given legal protection, with the exemption:
Basically, his point was this - if he's paying royalties on every player, recorder, and blank music cd he buys to compensate for the piracy he is assumed to commit, then shouldn't he have the right to commit said piracy? In other words, if you are going to be punished for a crime whether you commit it or not, then why should you be punished again when you actually do?
You have us on pins and needles, what was the file format she couldn't use?
Zip. Linux needs to get up to speed - it still uses Tape for storing files.
Yes, I know it's technically the GNU toolchain, and that Linux is a kernel, but it's just less funny when you explain it first.
Bah. Shouldn't type this late. If we follow through on our threats to sanction them.
They certainly wouldn't do this over Burma; however, they are promising to do it if we follow through on our threaten to sanction them for their currency manipulation.
My point is that this could be one in a series of things that could potentially push the Chinese over the edge. In general, it's better to just not tick them off.
No.
TransUnion works with them, and since TransUnion is the one selling your info (which they get from credit apps), it's not like you're providing any information they couldn't already get.