A great deal has been made about the expansions to fair dealing in this bill. However, there is a provision that "digital locks" cannot be circumvented, even for the legitimate purposes enumerated in the fair dealing expansions. The logical conclusion of this is that anybody producing any intellectual property can just slap a ROT13 cipher on their work and call it a digital lock. From there, all the new restrictions will apply, and none of the benefits. Anybody who reads the digital locks provision would realize that it's a loophole big enough to fly a 747 through, but based on the Conservative government's repeated refusal to amend that provision, it seems to be a feature, not a defect.
In short, this is a huge loss for the Canadian public, and a huge win for content producers.
All it takes is for one person to unlock that lock -- and suddenly all the fair dealing applies again, unless it can be proven that the person circumvented a lock to get the content. Since everyone is allowed to possess tools needed to circumvent the lock, good luck proving who it was who circumvented it -- for less than $5,000.
There are so many loopholes in both sides of this law that it will be interesting to see how it actually works itself out in court (if it even makes it there for anything but massive for-profit piracy cases).
He's angry because even though he's paying the CRIA a levy on every digital storage device he owns except micro-SD cards (this includes hard disks, flash drives, thumb drives, CDs, DVDs, BDs, or any of these embedded in any electronics), he has lost the protection that this levy originally brought. So now the CRIA is allowed by law to both have their cake and eat it too.
Then again, there are exemptions for downloading from Youtube and the like, as well as for uploading to services to Youtube and the like, so for audiophiles who want high quality music, they now have to buy it -- but for people who just want to share the latest poptrash, they can now do so with impunity. However, it still feels wrong, as Canadians are paying the CRIA for the use of media that has no direct correlation to the CRIA's private mandate -- and the CRIA products are now protected by other laws that SHOULD make these levies redundant.
You CANNOT copy DVDs, despite paying to be able to on blank media. They are protected by a digital lock and digital locks trump *every* other right you have. You CANNOT format shift when a digital lock is applied. Wanna hold your breath on waiting for digital locks to be applied preventing you from doing that? You can. I guarantee you will not suffocate.
While true, and worrying, exemptions can be created, and unlike the US, things like that actually happen in Canada. I expect the exemption list to get pretty big over time. Secondly, actual damages for breaking a digital lock for personal use are restricted to actual damages, not punitive damages. Good luck proving (in Canadian court) that some megacorp is damaged by me breaking a digital lock to watch my DVD on my iPad. They may try to push the "We provide an iPad version and lost that sale" argument, at which point I have the choice of paying them $14.95 or replying that if I had known I could not do this when I purchased the DVD in the first place, I would not have bought ANY copy, so they actually come out ahead. Unlike the US, this is actually considered a reasonable argument in (some) Canadian courts. When the money at stake is less than $15, good luck getting someone to actually pursue a case.
Now, if someone is provably breaking DRM on a significant amount of digital media (cracked versions of expensive software that can be proved to be cracked and not received DRM-free), the digital locks issue could begin to be a problem.
The way it's set up though, the DRM statute is really only an issue for businesses or people engaging in black market profiteering. This in itself could be a serious issue for small businesses who deal with format-shifting digital content, but everyone else is pretty safe. Of course, any modifications to the bill as it stands now could have a number of unforeseen negative consequences.
So... if something has DRM, someone can send it out of Canada, have the DRM removed, and have the DRM-free version sent back to Canada where it will now be subject to the consumer rights statutes?
The big question forms around what is considered a "digital lock" and what is considered "format shifting" -- I like to shift my content from encrypted to world-readable, so that I don't have to worry about key expiration. Is this legal until someone claims that the encryption was actually a lock? Is it even legal after that?
I don't agree that my presence within a boundary drawn by other people constitutes consent. I'm in a spot that your government claims, but the claim is not legitimate and does not rest on any legitimate principle that makes it "theirs" and not "mine." I don't consent. I agree with you as far as raising children, but your analogy fails because I am not in your house. I am in my house. You and I did not partner together to buy two houses and form an association where we each have some say in what goes on in each other's houses.
I understand that you don't agree, but the people with the biggest guns and largest mob do agree -- which means you really don't have a choice unless you can convince enough other powerful people to side with you -- this is pretty much Marxist ideology in a nutshell.
As far as "your government" goes -- there's no way I'd submit myself to that government, which is why I don't. I try to avoid setting foot on soil claimed by the US as much as possible. You, however, are making use of public services provided by that collective federal/state/municipal government, are under the protection of that government (military/police/fire/ambulance), and are a consumer of goods subsidized by that government. It doesn't really matter that you don't want to be -- unless you outright reject it all and call your plot of land a sovereign nation and stand up to the other government that lays claim to the land, you're part of the current situation. You say you're in your house, but then you are fine with someone else paying your utility bill, doing maintenance, and generally cleaning up your messes -- and you're OK dealing with everyone else living in that same house who sees things differently than you. This house is not your plot of land, it's your community.
Refusing to vote is just as much a part of the system as casting a ballot
I'm glad to hear that. Then my decision ought to be praised, as well as my efforts to persuade others to also withdraw their consent.
None of this is going to be praised by people who disagree with you. If you refuse to play the game, those invested in it aren't going to take their ball and go home, they're going to keep on playing and leave you out of it -- and try to pressure you to re-join the game as they "know" they're right.
Maybe another kid analogy: You want to play hopscotch on the hopscotch pad at school, so you get there early and start playing. Then, a group of bigger guys decide they want to play some street hockey, so they set up some nets on either side of your hopscotch pad, and start playing, ignoring your protests that you were there first.
Are you right? sure -- but it's not going to make them all stop playing hockey.
Remember: if everyone agreed with your mindset, North America would still be populated by aboriginal peoples with only a light population of those from other parts of the world. Governments are bullies, and get their own way because they can. They also bring stability and a measure of wealth that smaller groups of individuals could not achieve on their own.
it just lowers your stress
I wish. If you think being blue in a red state, or red in a blue state is hard, try being the guy who doesn't raise his hand at the office when the VP says "So, who voted today?"
Bingo -- you're working in a government-supported office. Your VP, and presumably your co-workers all subscribe to said government, although they disagree with how it should be run. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
until it's too late to act.
It essentially already is. But there's some faint hope if we can get a critical mass of people to believe in everybody having the freedom to withdraw consent, and nobody having the right to force others to say pledges, fund wars they don't believe in, adhere to rel
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I don't consent to this system. I've heard most of the arguments for it, and I don't agree. You haven't persuaded me, and I don't consent. It's fine with me if the rest of you live under whatever system you like, but I don't think you should be allowed to get your way at the expense of the rest of us.
Anyway, when the other guys wins, don't complain to me for the next four years, all right? You agreed to live under this crazy majority rule system. I did not.
You may dissent with the current system, but you have also agreed to live under it, unless you do not have the means to leave the country or stage an armed revolution.
I get this from my kids all the time... they seem to think that saying they don't want to eat their broccoli means they can have chocolate cake for dinner. That's not how life works -- if they want chocolate cake, they're going to have to go live elsewhere or somehow convince me to agree with them. Stomping their feet and shouting that "it's not fair" doesn't do a thing to change our house from a Broccoli house to a Chocolate Cake house.
If you think that not agreeing with the way things are currently run somehow exempts you from participation, you're just deluding yourself. Refusing to vote is just as much a part of the system as casting a ballot. If you don't like it that way, move to Australia -- there, what you're doing would be illegal. If you disagree with elections altogether, go invade Sealand or take over some small African country.
Just ask the ostriches... sticking your head in the sand won't protect you from anything; it just lowers your stress until it's too late to act.
why do a very few states, like OH, seem to never 'come together' one way or the other politically? What keeps them from doing what most states seem to naturally do, which is to move to predominately one side or the other?
It probably has to do with the amount of interstate activity between OH and the states around it; Ohio is really a mix of north, south, east and west, complete with the political ideologies predominant there. Since it has major cities but also bedroom communities specifically interstate commuting communities, you end up with fairly active and strong rep and dem contingents living side by side in the same state.
You can see this to some degree in other nearby states like WV as well -- due to the north part being significantly different from the south. PA, on the other hand, tends to be more homogeneous, due to population density distribution and the fact that most people commute IN to PA, not out.
There was Dirac, a long time ago, that they were planning to use.... but that died a death. Not sure how willing they would be to fund another project of the same kind.
I think you're confusing patent-unencumbered codecs with license deals. The private media don't care how content is delivered, as long as they can control it. The people who control it aren't all that big players, as long as it works.
Actually, I was referring to the Dirac fiasco -- Dirac died because the private media wanted a controllable codec with DRM bundled in and closed-source players to protect the DRM. Without this, the private media didn't want to provide content to the BBC. Eventually the BBC complied, and Dirac died.
So, with the codec AND the player being legislated to be more open, we'd likely see all of this go around again, but with stronger government support -- IF this legislation applies to the BBC.
If it did change who you vote for, that would mean you are being coerced.
Or that you are afraid of being coerced.......and just wait until the machine isn't calibrated and it loudly calls out the name of someone you DIDN'T want to get elected... or at least that's what you tell everyone else....
Added to this: low-income people are generally low-income because they don't save their money, but live hand-to-mouth.
May I suggest that causation could be the other way around: Low income people generally live hand-to-mouth and don't save their money because they're low-income people.
Precisely... there's really no causation either way; it's a catch-22 situation. I've lived below "poverty" level, and I've lived at the top end of middle class, and a range in between. There are definite "magic numbers" that when your income passes that point, your entire lifestyle and way of saving/spending changes, due to what you can actually accomplish with the resources you have/the resources you can borrow. I presume that by the time you hit the top 0.1%, you have passed through a few more of these "magic numbers" that grant you even more powers of holding on to the majority of your money.
This is all getting away from the point though -- while there are "middle class" people with high incomes who have debt that equals their income, "upper class" people with high incomes tend to be the lenders, not the debtors. As such, people always owe them more (with interest) than they owe to others, thus perpetuating the high income. Spending more money would undo this situation, and really... there's only so much money a person can spend. Eventually you have to hire others to spend it for you.
low-income people are generally low-income because they don't save their money
i think you are confused. low income people don't have money to save. if you think that the only reason people are poor is because they spend all their money, you need to get out of your basement more often.
Bad choice of words on my part: low-income people are generally low-income because they have no way to save their money, but must spend it to survive. This should have been understandable by the context, but I see now how it could be misunderstood to be the rantings of a clueless libertarian basementist.
This "stunt" was pulled back in September as a run-of-the-mill decision. Three guesses as to why it was publicized THIS week?
and the pedophile says: "i molested that little girl back in 2007. i can't believe they decided to bring it up when i applied for my new teaching position."
why did they bring it up now? to try and keep those liars that are hiding the truth from getting elected? duh.
No, this is more like one peophile bringing it up when he's competing with another pedophile for the teaching position.
It's not to keep liars that are hiding the truth from getting elected... it's to help the OTHER liars that are hiding the truth get elected.
I'm glad it got brought up... I just wish it didn't take an election to get someone motivated to bring it up, as part of a mudfest.
Just wondering if this includes the BBC in its mandate?
I, for one, would LOVE all BBC offerings to be using patent-unencumbered codecs, etc. Of course, this could have a negative impact on license deals between the BBC and private media, but the BBC is big enough that I think it would win after the first few skirmishes.
I never understood that idea that giving a tax break to high salary people will stimulate the economy.
Usually the reasonning is that since they will have more money, they will consume more and that will help the economy. If you give a tax break to low income people for the same amount of tax dollars, they will use that money as well. They are not going to set it on fire, they will use it in a grocery store.
Am I understanding something wrong?
Added to this: low-income people are generally low-income because they don't save their money, but live hand-to-mouth -- so anything you give them will go right back into the economy (although not necessarily to the institutions that could benefit society the best).
Why are high income people rich? It's not because they give away all their money (in most cases)... wealth attracts wealth.
Actually, this decision could be taken a different route: we could argue that the US government has just upheld that information wants to be free.
Of course, they'd just counter with "no, information just wants to be OURS" -- but the precedent could still add weight to arguments that cloud data is in the public domain. Kind of like celebrity privacy protections.
That said, I don't think I would want to submerge any of these fully electric cars. I did put down 5k to be in line for one of these babies, but I will also leave money aside to have a rock-solid gasoline-powered car that will handle the situations that the Tesla shouldn't. No need to pull all eggs in one basket.
Excuse me, but I don't like I would want to submerge *any* car of any type. Especially when you're talking about storm surge (brackish water).
You've obviously never driven the Lotus Esprit....
There are white ones And more white ones And they all have those blinky lights and they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all fail just the same.
Hmm...or, make it easy on yourself, always be suspicious and analytical when dealing with strangers?
I trust my friends, and while when I meet someone new, I certainly am hesitant, and looking for trouble when someone new comes into my area....
Do that many people give a shit or have feelings for strangers they happen across / first meetings?
When you get a message from a friend over the internet, do you engage your empathic or your analytic net? Because unless you engage your analytic net, you'll nave no way to tell if it's really your friend contacting you. However, if you leave that on while responding to them, they probably won't be your friend for long.
Star Wars will get transfers of the film reels from the early '90s THX-enhanced theater releases to BluRay all right -- and they'll keep them in their vault until 2040, when they'll release them to everyone who still has a BluRay player.
Disney is even more hamfisted about what gets released when than Lucas -- and they might even edit some of the original content to "sanitize" it -- even more than Lucas.
Slashdot Mirror
A great deal has been made about the expansions to fair dealing in this bill. However, there is a provision that "digital locks" cannot be circumvented, even for the legitimate purposes enumerated in the fair dealing expansions. The logical conclusion of this is that anybody producing any intellectual property can just slap a ROT13 cipher on their work and call it a digital lock. From there, all the new restrictions will apply, and none of the benefits. Anybody who reads the digital locks provision would realize that it's a loophole big enough to fly a 747 through, but based on the Conservative government's repeated refusal to amend that provision, it seems to be a feature, not a defect.
In short, this is a huge loss for the Canadian public, and a huge win for content producers.
All it takes is for one person to unlock that lock -- and suddenly all the fair dealing applies again, unless it can be proven that the person circumvented a lock to get the content. Since everyone is allowed to possess tools needed to circumvent the lock, good luck proving who it was who circumvented it -- for less than $5,000.
There are so many loopholes in both sides of this law that it will be interesting to see how it actually works itself out in court (if it even makes it there for anything but massive for-profit piracy cases).
He's angry because even though he's paying the CRIA a levy on every digital storage device he owns except micro-SD cards (this includes hard disks, flash drives, thumb drives, CDs, DVDs, BDs, or any of these embedded in any electronics), he has lost the protection that this levy originally brought. So now the CRIA is allowed by law to both have their cake and eat it too.
Then again, there are exemptions for downloading from Youtube and the like, as well as for uploading to services to Youtube and the like, so for audiophiles who want high quality music, they now have to buy it -- but for people who just want to share the latest poptrash, they can now do so with impunity. However, it still feels wrong, as Canadians are paying the CRIA for the use of media that has no direct correlation to the CRIA's private mandate -- and the CRIA products are now protected by other laws that SHOULD make these levies redundant.
You clearly do not understand the bill.
You CANNOT copy DVDs, despite paying to be able to on blank media. They are protected by a digital lock and digital locks trump *every* other right you have. You CANNOT format shift when a digital lock is applied. Wanna hold your breath on waiting for digital locks to be applied preventing you from doing that? You can. I guarantee you will not suffocate.
While true, and worrying, exemptions can be created, and unlike the US, things like that actually happen in Canada. I expect the exemption list to get pretty big over time. Secondly, actual damages for breaking a digital lock for personal use are restricted to actual damages, not punitive damages. Good luck proving (in Canadian court) that some megacorp is damaged by me breaking a digital lock to watch my DVD on my iPad. They may try to push the "We provide an iPad version and lost that sale" argument, at which point I have the choice of paying them $14.95 or replying that if I had known I could not do this when I purchased the DVD in the first place, I would not have bought ANY copy, so they actually come out ahead. Unlike the US, this is actually considered a reasonable argument in (some) Canadian courts. When the money at stake is less than $15, good luck getting someone to actually pursue a case.
Now, if someone is provably breaking DRM on a significant amount of digital media (cracked versions of expensive software that can be proved to be cracked and not received DRM-free), the digital locks issue could begin to be a problem.
The way it's set up though, the DRM statute is really only an issue for businesses or people engaging in black market profiteering. This in itself could be a serious issue for small businesses who deal with format-shifting digital content, but everyone else is pretty safe. Of course, any modifications to the bill as it stands now could have a number of unforeseen negative consequences.
So... if something has DRM, someone can send it out of Canada, have the DRM removed, and have the DRM-free version sent back to Canada where it will now be subject to the consumer rights statutes?
The big question forms around what is considered a "digital lock" and what is considered "format shifting" -- I like to shift my content from encrypted to world-readable, so that I don't have to worry about key expiration. Is this legal until someone claims that the encryption was actually a lock? Is it even legal after that?
Time to start reading the details I guess....
I don't agree that my presence within a boundary drawn by other people constitutes consent. I'm in a spot that your government claims, but the claim is not legitimate and does not rest on any legitimate principle that makes it "theirs" and not "mine." I don't consent. I agree with you as far as raising children, but your analogy fails because I am not in your house. I am in my house. You and I did not partner together to buy two houses and form an association where we each have some say in what goes on in each other's houses.
I understand that you don't agree, but the people with the biggest guns and largest mob do agree -- which means you really don't have a choice unless you can convince enough other powerful people to side with you -- this is pretty much Marxist ideology in a nutshell.
As far as "your government" goes -- there's no way I'd submit myself to that government, which is why I don't. I try to avoid setting foot on soil claimed by the US as much as possible. You, however, are making use of public services provided by that collective federal/state/municipal government, are under the protection of that government (military/police/fire/ambulance), and are a consumer of goods subsidized by that government. It doesn't really matter that you don't want to be -- unless you outright reject it all and call your plot of land a sovereign nation and stand up to the other government that lays claim to the land, you're part of the current situation. You say you're in your house, but then you are fine with someone else paying your utility bill, doing maintenance, and generally cleaning up your messes -- and you're OK dealing with everyone else living in that same house who sees things differently than you. This house is not your plot of land, it's your community.
Refusing to vote is just as much a part of the system as casting a ballot
I'm glad to hear that. Then my decision ought to be praised, as well as my efforts to persuade others to also withdraw their consent.
None of this is going to be praised by people who disagree with you. If you refuse to play the game, those invested in it aren't going to take their ball and go home, they're going to keep on playing and leave you out of it -- and try to pressure you to re-join the game as they "know" they're right.
Maybe another kid analogy: You want to play hopscotch on the hopscotch pad at school, so you get there early and start playing. Then, a group of bigger guys decide they want to play some street hockey, so they set up some nets on either side of your hopscotch pad, and start playing, ignoring your protests that you were there first.
Are you right? sure -- but it's not going to make them all stop playing hockey.
Remember: if everyone agreed with your mindset, North America would still be populated by aboriginal peoples with only a light population of those from other parts of the world. Governments are bullies, and get their own way because they can. They also bring stability and a measure of wealth that smaller groups of individuals could not achieve on their own.
it just lowers your stress
I wish. If you think being blue in a red state, or red in a blue state is hard, try being the guy who doesn't raise his hand at the office when the VP says "So, who voted today?"
Bingo -- you're working in a government-supported office. Your VP, and presumably your co-workers all subscribe to said government, although they disagree with how it should be run. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
until it's too late to act.
It essentially already is. But there's some faint hope if we can get a critical mass of people to believe in everybody having the freedom to withdraw consent, and nobody having the right to force others to say pledges, fund wars they don't believe in, adhere to rel
Yes. Obama "ruined" the US. All by himself. Just like magic.
Magic Johnson?
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I don't consent to this system. I've heard most of the arguments for it, and I don't agree. You haven't persuaded me, and I don't consent. It's fine with me if the rest of you live under whatever system you like, but I don't think you should be allowed to get your way at the expense of the rest of us.
Anyway, when the other guys wins, don't complain to me for the next four years, all right? You agreed to live under this crazy majority rule system. I did not.
You may dissent with the current system, but you have also agreed to live under it, unless you do not have the means to leave the country or stage an armed revolution.
I get this from my kids all the time... they seem to think that saying they don't want to eat their broccoli means they can have chocolate cake for dinner. That's not how life works -- if they want chocolate cake, they're going to have to go live elsewhere or somehow convince me to agree with them. Stomping their feet and shouting that "it's not fair" doesn't do a thing to change our house from a Broccoli house to a Chocolate Cake house.
If you think that not agreeing with the way things are currently run somehow exempts you from participation, you're just deluding yourself. Refusing to vote is just as much a part of the system as casting a ballot. If you don't like it that way, move to Australia -- there, what you're doing would be illegal. If you disagree with elections altogether, go invade Sealand or take over some small African country.
Just ask the ostriches... sticking your head in the sand won't protect you from anything; it just lowers your stress until it's too late to act.
why do a very few states, like OH, seem to never 'come together' one way or the other politically? What keeps them from doing what most states seem to naturally do, which is to move to predominately one side or the other?
It probably has to do with the amount of interstate activity between OH and the states around it; Ohio is really a mix of north, south, east and west, complete with the political ideologies predominant there. Since it has major cities but also bedroom communities specifically interstate commuting communities, you end up with fairly active and strong rep and dem contingents living side by side in the same state.
You can see this to some degree in other nearby states like WV as well -- due to the north part being significantly different from the south. PA, on the other hand, tends to be more homogeneous, due to population density distribution and the fact that most people commute IN to PA, not out.
There was Dirac, a long time ago, that they were planning to use.... but that died a death. Not sure how willing they would be to fund another project of the same kind.
I think you're confusing patent-unencumbered codecs with license deals. The private media don't care how content is delivered, as long as they can control it. The people who control it aren't all that big players, as long as it works.
Actually, I was referring to the Dirac fiasco -- Dirac died because the private media wanted a controllable codec with DRM bundled in and closed-source players to protect the DRM. Without this, the private media didn't want to provide content to the BBC. Eventually the BBC complied, and Dirac died.
So, with the codec AND the player being legislated to be more open, we'd likely see all of this go around again, but with stronger government support -- IF this legislation applies to the BBC.
If it did change who you vote for, that would mean you are being coerced.
Or that you are afraid of being coerced.... ...and just wait until the machine isn't calibrated and it loudly calls out the name of someone you DIDN'T want to get elected... or at least that's what you tell everyone else....
Added to this: low-income people are generally low-income because they don't save their money, but live hand-to-mouth.
May I suggest that causation could be the other way around: Low income people generally live hand-to-mouth and don't save their money because they're low-income people.
Precisely... there's really no causation either way; it's a catch-22 situation. I've lived below "poverty" level, and I've lived at the top end of middle class, and a range in between. There are definite "magic numbers" that when your income passes that point, your entire lifestyle and way of saving/spending changes, due to what you can actually accomplish with the resources you have/the resources you can borrow. I presume that by the time you hit the top 0.1%, you have passed through a few more of these "magic numbers" that grant you even more powers of holding on to the majority of your money.
This is all getting away from the point though -- while there are "middle class" people with high incomes who have debt that equals their income, "upper class" people with high incomes tend to be the lenders, not the debtors. As such, people always owe them more (with interest) than they owe to others, thus perpetuating the high income. Spending more money would undo this situation, and really... there's only so much money a person can spend. Eventually you have to hire others to spend it for you.
low-income people are generally low-income because they don't save their money
i think you are confused. low income people don't have money to save. if you think that the only reason people are poor is because they spend all their money, you need to get out of your basement more often.
Bad choice of words on my part: low-income people are generally low-income because they have no way to save their money, but must spend it to survive. This should have been understandable by the context, but I see now how it could be misunderstood to be the rantings of a clueless libertarian basementist.
This "stunt" was pulled back in September as a run-of-the-mill decision. Three guesses as to why it was publicized THIS week?
and the pedophile says: "i molested that little girl back in 2007. i can't believe they decided to bring it up when i applied for my new teaching position."
why did they bring it up now? to try and keep those liars that are hiding the truth from getting elected? duh.
No, this is more like one peophile bringing it up when he's competing with another pedophile for the teaching position.
It's not to keep liars that are hiding the truth from getting elected... it's to help the OTHER liars that are hiding the truth get elected.
I'm glad it got brought up... I just wish it didn't take an election to get someone motivated to bring it up, as part of a mudfest.
Just wondering if this includes the BBC in its mandate?
I, for one, would LOVE all BBC offerings to be using patent-unencumbered codecs, etc. Of course, this could have a negative impact on license deals between the BBC and private media, but the BBC is big enough that I think it would win after the first few skirmishes.
I never understood that idea that giving a tax break to high salary people will stimulate the economy.
Usually the reasonning is that since they will have more money, they will consume more and that will help the economy. If you give a tax break to low income people for the same amount of tax dollars, they will use that money as well. They are not going to set it on fire, they will use it in a grocery store.
Am I understanding something wrong?
Added to this: low-income people are generally low-income because they don't save their money, but live hand-to-mouth -- so anything you give them will go right back into the economy (although not necessarily to the institutions that could benefit society the best).
Why are high income people rich? It's not because they give away all their money (in most cases)... wealth attracts wealth.
If you are going to pull a stunt like this, you are supposed to wait until AFTER the elections!
This "stunt" was pulled back in September as a run-of-the-mill decision. Three guesses as to why it was publicized THIS week?
Actually, this decision could be taken a different route: we could argue that the US government has just upheld that information wants to be free.
Of course, they'd just counter with "no, information just wants to be OURS" -- but the precedent could still add weight to arguments that cloud data is in the public domain. Kind of like celebrity privacy protections.
They had huge latency and packet loss back then, didn't they?
There may be huge latency and packet ordering problems, but hey... it's been over 60 years and they're still able to completely recover those packets!
Now the issue will be buffering them up and getting them in order....
I never would have thought my first electric car would be powered by sand!
Who needs a sand car when you've got ornithopters?
That said, I don't think I would want to submerge any of these fully electric cars. I did put down 5k to be in line for one of these babies, but I will also leave money aside to have a rock-solid gasoline-powered car that will handle the situations that the Tesla shouldn't. No need to pull all eggs in one basket.
Excuse me, but I don't like I would want to submerge *any* car of any type. Especially when you're talking about storm surge (brackish water).
You've obviously never driven the Lotus Esprit....
For those still missing the reference:
http://ingeb.org/songs/littlebo.html
A classic from the 60's.
There are white ones
And more white ones
And they all have those blinky lights
and they're all made out of ticky tacky
and they all fail just the same.
Hmm...or, make it easy on yourself, always be suspicious and analytical when dealing with strangers?
I trust my friends, and while when I meet someone new, I certainly am hesitant, and looking for trouble when someone new comes into my area....
Do that many people give a shit or have feelings for strangers they happen across / first meetings?
When you get a message from a friend over the internet, do you engage your empathic or your analytic net? Because unless you engage your analytic net, you'll nave no way to tell if it's really your friend contacting you. However, if you leave that on while responding to them, they probably won't be your friend for long.
They don't typically do that with their subsidiary studios, though, do they? Have they sent any of the Marvel movies to "the vault", for instance?
They did it with The Muppets.
You know about Disney's release cycle, right?
Star Wars will get transfers of the film reels from the early '90s THX-enhanced theater releases to BluRay all right -- and they'll keep them in their vault until 2040, when they'll release them to everyone who still has a BluRay player.
Disney is even more hamfisted about what gets released when than Lucas -- and they might even edit some of the original content to "sanitize" it -- even more than Lucas.