I know, I like to inject that word (embryonic) into these conversations. Some groups really love to go around with that "they hate saving people with stem cells" argument, leaving out that crucial word; completely changing the meaning of the statement.
I was aware embryonic cells weren't used here, but re-reading my post I see that wasn't clear.
That's the argument that kills me. I've heard people that should know better claim that Bush made stem cell research illegal. For example, on Dr. Dean Edell's radio show, he rails against Bush and the Church for halting stem cell research when he should know that it's simply not true. Bush made a compromise. He didn't outlaw stem cell research. He didn't ban federal funding for stem cell research. He authorized for the first time stem cell research limited it to existing stem cell lines only. No federal funds would go toward research involving new embryonic stem cell lines. People like Edell got pissed, even though there was no federal funding before this like a spoiled 16 yr-old girl who is mad that her new Ferrari is the wrong color.
This doesn't surprise me. I always figured some other country would start doing this, get amazing results, and then the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real, testable results. When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.
Remember that the "moral argument" against stem cells only deals with stem cells derived from by starting an embryo and destroying it. Embryonic stem cells from existing stem cell lines, embryonic stem cells derived from other methods such as cord blood, and adult derived stem cells have not "moral argument" against them.
Since the results discussed here are from adult stem cells, it actually supports the "moral argument" and makes the argument for embryonic stem cells that much harder. Even the "Father of Stem Cell Research", James Thomson now believes that there is no point in pursuing treatments from embryonic stem cells because of the risks involved and the superiority of adult derived cells from the actual patient.
It's you need an ID card to work. "They" want to disenfranchise you, they deny you an ID card. Then you can't work. No work, no money. No money, you become disenfranchised. Then you don't exist.
They have one now. It's called Social Security card. The only difference I see between that and this is that the old, paper SS card doesn't have biometric data, meaning anyone can use your SSN, making your live a living hell come tax time. I've seen it happen. It really sucks to see a friend of yours try to explain to the IRS how she worked 17 different jobs in three different states, and only paid taxes on one of them.
Wonderful how only the workers need ID-card. Maybe Benito Mussolini was on to something with the comparisons between corporatism and fascism, now you'll find out in USA.
Is bringing up Mussolini an implementation of Godwin's Law?
Isn't it required to show "papers" now when starting a job? I have had to provide a Social Security Card for every job I've worked. All this law attempts to do is ensure that the "papers" are legit.
And I'm so sick of the "Papers Please" quote. It's as if requiring someone to prove who they are, like when paying taxes, cashing a check, or boarding a plane somehow makes us a Fascist state and 6 million Jews dead. It is nothing more than a poorly disguised implementation of Godwin's Law.
Strange, showing papers in the past has never prevented me from taking advantage of any of Constitutional Rights.
Except you could probably just pour urea crystals into a cesspool and get largely the same effect, without the expense of the bags.
A single bag is 2-3 cents. Assuming you only use it for feces, you're going to use at least one of these a day. A village of 100 people is going to go through $3 a day in these, and on that kind of money you could feed six of them.
I'm not saying this is a bad idea, only that it appears to be an overengineered one.
If they are filling bags with poo, I'd be willing to guess that feeding them is not a problem.
Your Toyota argument completely falls apart because you pay them to build you a car and others pay them to build the exact same car. They retain the right to build the car despite you taking possession of the car your contracted with them to build. Coincidentally it's a great analogy.
So I'm sorry to say, those coders do have rights to keep the code they've produced no matter how badly you seem to not want them to. I'm not a coder, I just work with a few of them and have managed coders from time to time including contracting with coders where corporate counsel and I went over a lot of this. Mileage may vary as different states have wildly different laws. California is far more employee friendly than say Texas.
OK, the Toyota analogy was bad because I didn't pay for them to design the car. However, if I asked Toyota to design a car for me from scratch, you bet your ass I would make sure that it's mine to keep. Then again, if I could afford to have Toyota to design me a car, I could afford to have lawyers make sure that I keep it. But I think my GEICO/Pepsi analogy is better. If Pepsi pays for a jingle, do they still need permission to use it?
I think a better analogy would be the wedding photographer. If I hire a photographer to take pictures of my kids, they own the rights to those photos. I may pay for prints, but I am not allowed to copy those prints without the photographers permission. BTW, this is why I demand the rights to any photos the photographer takes BEFORE the sitting and make sure I have it in writing. I "own" every photo the photographer took at my wedding. Of course, I paid handsomely for them and ordered all kinds of prints from the photographer.
However, I still own some rights to those photos. The photographer, for example, may not use those photos without MY permission either. This is why they have to ask you to sign a waiver if they want to use your kid's pictures for their website, advertising, or to sell to pedophiles. In the same way, a programmer can not take your money to write software for you and then turn around and sell it to your competitors at half price. You still own some to the code, however, you can not stop the programmer from using pieces of it in their next job. And just as I am allowed to draw a mustache on my wife's wedding picture, I am allowed to sell my software package to any customers I wish, even if it includes code that contracted out.
Finally, I'm talking about software that was written for me to sell. I can see how it could be different if I contracted out a programmer to write me a backup routine for our IT department. Still, I have a hard time believing that a company has the same rights and limitations to software that they paid to have written as software that was prepackaged.
IANAL, so I can't say what the law is, but I can say that a law is BS. If what you are saying is true, that if I pay someone to write me a program and THEY get to keep it afterwards, then that's BS. I will make it a point to demand copyright from any coders who work for me in the contract just as I do for photographers.
More likely, he's a 1099 contractor/consultant. Since that isn't an employment relationship, your argument falls apart.
So my company can hire a programmer to write code that... let's say queries our customer database and sends emails to all customers that have not logged in for 6 months and removes customers that have not logged in for a year. After he completes the work, he shows it to us, proves that it works, takes his check and then GOES HOME WITH THE CODE because he owns it, refusing to allow us to use it because it's all his.
Your saying that this is perfectly legal? Are you saying that companies that are using code written by contractors FOR THEM are only allowed to use because the contractors are good people and allow it?
Sorry, but no. Whoever pays the bills makes the rules and owns the product.
Well last time I checked with my lawyer I in fact *do* own the code I write and I own the moral rights to any work I produce and those rights cannot be assigned away by copyright or any other because I am the original producer of the work.
So, does this mean that the people who built my house can move in tomorrow? I mean, I know I paid them to build it and all, but if paying someone to create something doesn't mean you own what is created, then why can't they? Why can't Toyota come and take my car back. After all, I just paid them to build it.
Nope. Sorry. If I pay you to create something, I own it. Let's take the company I work for. We sell computer services. Most of the software we write is in house, however, we do contract out some our programming. Does that mean that the people who wrote that code can come back and say, "Yeah, we just sold the code for that software to your competitor, so you can't use it anymore... unless you are willing to buy the code from me again."
Of course we do license software from third parties as well and that software we do NOT own, although, we didn't pay to have it created.
I know you coders like to say, "I made it, it's MINE-MINE-MINE!!!" but life doesn't work like that. If you want to keep the rights to the code, YOU pay to have it created and then license your creation to whoever you like. But if someone else pays you to make it, it is NOT yours. Just like the guy who designed the Pepsi logo or the GEICO jingle ("15 minutes can save you....") doesn't own it. GEICO and Pepsi do.
... and there certainly is a cyber war. However, it just falls under the espionage and sabotage categories. We have satellites and planes that specialize at electronic eavesdropping. We have *unknown* numbers of cyber spies constantly monitoring what emails and page traffic goes to and from what. Remember, ESCHELON is the one we in the public know about. How much is out there that we don't know about? How much of that is from other counties and pointed at us?
Don't change all the time like Windows seems to do. Be yourself and we'll accept you. Rebranding almost never helps. Consistency does.
I agree that they don't need a complete rebrand, but when something looks that bad, maybe a little change can be a good thing. For Pete's sake, the default color scheme in Ubuntu is the color of shit! What's wrong with a little Royal Blue or something?
If you read the article carefully, the new size is only 4K, not 4096K. The 4K size actually matches very well with most common files ystems. The 4096K is an error in the article.
Here is a quote from the article:
Advanced Format changes a hard drive's sector size from 512 bytes (the standard for the past three decades) to 4096K
However, it seems correct in other places, like a graphic for example.
I thought the point was to have a small sector size. With large sectors, say 4096K, a 1K file will actually take up the full 4096K. A 4097K file will take up 8194K. A thousand 1K files will end up taking up 4096000K. I understand that with larger HDD's that this becomes less of an issue, but unless you are dealing with a fewer number of large files, I don't see how this can be more efficient when the size of every file is rounded up to the next 4096K.
OK, it's 4K (4096 bytes), not 4096K. I guess that's a bit more doable when we're talking about sizes greater than 1TB.
I thought the point was to have a small sector size. With large sectors, say 4096K, a 1K file will actually take up the full 4096K. A 4097K file will take up 8194K. A thousand 1K files will end up taking up 4096000K. I understand that with larger HDD's that this becomes less of an issue, but unless you are dealing with a fewer number of large files, I don't see how this can be more efficient when the size of every file is rounded up to the next 4096K.
American-made computer? Most are made in Asia. I know all my personal computers are (primarily), and I'd bet this Dell on my office desk was too...
Just popped the side, I'm seeing a lot of "Made in China"s, DVD drive says "Made in Philippines," Keyboard and mouse are China, monitors - China. Also the GP could have made the same comment on heise.de.
Saying America has nothing to offer the world is quite stupid (oh wait, that was actually a strawman you made up? Well my point stands) but your Team America skit is no better.
The chips that run the computer were designed in America by an American company (AMD, IBM, Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and so on). That is what I meant by American made. Maybe I should have said "designed" or "invented", although the abacus was around long before the Phenom.
Imagine, using these machines to compose sibling symphonies, when played alone, sound pleasing, but when played together combine to form an entirely new harmony.
I've thought the same thing when listening to good Jazz or some old Rush. Listen to YYZ or La Villa Strangiato. Each musician is playing their own solo piece that would pretty much stand up on its own. Together, it makes a whole new tune. Especially true if you are in a quiet room with the lights out listening to a lossless recording or straight from the CD with headphones.
And more on topic, I heard a chick call Rush "Math Rock".
Because it produces so many and issues so few passports.
Says the guy using an American made computer to communicate over an American invention (the Internet) on a forum owned by an American company on computers hosted in America. Yeah, America has nothing to offer the world.
However, it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming.
No, not the Bush bullshit all over again. I understand you Americans don't give a fuck about droughts in Africa and floods in Bangladesh but haven't you have enough of hurricanes, snowstorms, tornadoes, wildfires, desertification, droughts, etc. etc. etc.? Global warming affects you too, and BIG TIME!
Take your head out of your ass, it's about time.
You mean there were no "hurricanes, snowstorms, tornadoes, wildfires, desertification, droughts, etc. etc. etc." before industrialization? Who knew all these things were man made? Would you explain how much of N. America was once covered under 4 KM of ice? Better yet, explain what happened to all that ice since there were no coal fired power plants or SUV's to cause global warming that got rid of it all.
Mankind has increased greenhouse gas 40% over pre industrial levels
Sadly, not true. Not even close.
First of all, the greatest greenhouse gas is naturally produced water vapor. It makes up about 95% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Industrialization has not changed this much, certainly not by 40%. More like 0.0001%. From HERE
When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.
From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.
Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
However, if you are just talking about CO2, then you're still not close. I believe the number you are looking for can be found here:
To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.
But if the cause isn't man made, then we can say "don't blame me!" when disaster strikes.
Imagine if this thinking was applied to other areas. Hurricanes aren't man made, so we don't need to get out of the way. Floods aren't man made so I can build my house on the river bank. Lightning is a natural phenomena so I can keep golfing in the rain.
And that was kinda Bjorn's point. It doesn't really matter so much as to WHY the climate is getting warmer and there is little we can do about it. Sure, we can do some things like make more efficient cars and power our homes with nuclear/wind/solar/hydro power, but with the massive amounts of cash we are throwing at the problem could be better spent preparing for global warming than fighting it. For example, rather than spend trillions of dollars to get third world countries to not build their economies, we could spend billions feeding or moving the people that may or may not be affected by GW.
As to Bjorn's sources being debunked or whatever, this conclusion that I've mentioned above is clearly sited by common sense. No more citation is required.
They do NOT affect total energy received from the sun over the course of the year which remains constant.
Small nitpick here. While the sun is extremely stable when compared to its interstellar cousins, it is by no means constant. For example, there is an 11-year sunspot cycle that varies the amount of solar radiation we receive by about.1%, which is much greater than the amount of change caused by the amount of C02 man has put into the atmosphere. Of course, there are longer cycles as well that may affect climate over a much longer range, but we have not had the instruments to make measurements that far back to nail down the exact effect on the climate.
And while you did say, "over the course of of the year", the orbit of the Earth itself is elliptical enough to vary the amount of energy we receive from the sun.
And what if the rich make a huge sum of money after they have paid for that house, boat, Ferrari, furniture etc.? Is that tax-free money? The rich use a lot of resources and govt, tax-payer infrastructure to earn their money. They should therefore be required to pay more than a common employee.
Couple more points I forgot to bring up: First, they WILL pay more in taxes than the "common employee" because they will spend more than the "common employee". And if they don't spend more than the common employee, then they are not really living that rich, then are they? If they are living like their employees, then shouldn't they pay taxes like their employees? If someone chooses to live like a pauper, shouldn't they pay taxes like one?
Next, tax payer infrastructure? Really? Um, no. If anything the company paid for all that stuff in its taxes. You know, that's why communities try like hell to bring business in. Oh, and businesses give people jobs and all those people also pay taxes. It's such a boon for a community that many will offer companies sweet deals, like tax free and interest free loans, because having an employed population buying stuff and paying taxes is worth it to these communities. Oh, and most local communities exist on property tax and... yep, you guess it, SALES TAX! And for some reason, I don't hear a whole lot about how communities where billionaires live having too many budget shortfalls. That includes communities that do NOT charge an income tax like Texas and Florida. Michigan charges an income tax. How are they doing? With all those rich people leaving and freeing up all those tax-payer funded infrastructure, Detroit should be booming, right? How about NY? They should have a huge budget surplus with all of the rich people leaving there. How's NY doing?
Finally, if a rich guy makes a shit load of cash and doesn't spend it, why do you care? What business is it of yours? Don't you worry, it will be spent eventually, but even if they want to burn it up in a bonfire, it's none of your damn business.
And what if the rich make a huge sum of money after they have paid for that house, boat, Ferrari, furniture etc.? Is that tax-free money? The rich use a lot of resources and govt, tax-payer infrastructure to earn their money. They should therefore be required to pay more than a common employee.
Yep! Tax free money. They can take all that cash and fill their mattresses with it. They can put glue on the back of it and use $100 bills to wall paper their dog house. Yep! All 100% tax free.
Now, how many wealthy people that have everything they ever wanted are going to stop buying stuff and bury the money in their back yard? So, even if they did stop spending money and start living frugally, you know, mowing their own yards, changing their own oil, cutting their own hair with the flowbee, patching up their own clothes and putting foil over their windows, because... well, because we all know how rich people do everything for themselves, they still would have invested their money somehow. Yep, even though they didn't spend their money, odds are that the bank loaned it to someone else. Even if they didn't put it in a bank and bought stock or bonds or something, whatever business they purchased or loaned the money to spent it.
So even if the hypothetical, frugal fat-cat you like to dream of won't spend their money, someone else gladly will. No money sits idle unless it is literally buried in someone's backyard or mattress.
Re:The IRS is not a *kind* organization...
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Rich people spend a way, way smaller percentage of their income on retail goods than the poor.
So? They still spend more, meaning they will be taxed more. Can you show me where in The Constitution where it says that those who have more, must pay a higher percentage in taxes?
They also have the means at their disposal to easily avoid such a tax, assuming the government doesn't try to tax goods purchased overseas and never brought in to the 'States.
Huh? If you buy a house, you pay taxes. Rich people buy houses. If you buy furniture for that house, it is taxed. Rich people buy furniture. If you buy a boat, car, ceiling fan, computer, whatever... it is taxed. Rich people buy such things. Those items will be taxed. If a rich person bought a surfboard in Haiti... why do you care? When they bring it stateside, it will be taxed.
Now, think about how much money "rich" people make. If I gave you $20,000,000, you would pay pretty hefty taxes on it this year because it's all counted as income. Now, how much money would you make NEXT year? I assume you invest the money somehow, but let's say your investments don't do so well. Let's say you broke even. How much money would you pay in taxes? That's right! $0.00, no matter how well you lived or how much money you spent, you would owe $0.00 to the government because you made $0.00 for the year. Hell, you might even get money back!
Let me tell you "rich" people spend money. I have a cousin that owns his own custom home building business. His company built a house for demo purposes. My cousin lives there. It's a very nice home that they may show to potential customers about once or twice a year. My cousin, of course didn't have to pay taxes on the house. He didn't have to pay any income taxes on the money that bought the house. The business called it an investment and used it as a deduction, meaning that it LOWERED THE TAXES THE COMPANY OWED, and does so every year as the house "depreciates". Of course, the company also has to furnish the house and provide work vehicles for my cousin and his wife. Yard upkeep, home maintenance, vehicle maintenance and all living expenses that are not food or clothing, are paid by the company because the company owns all the stuff. In years that the business does well, my cousin does well salary wise and pays good taxes on it. In years that the business does not do well, my cousin doesn't do as well and may not pay any taxes at all, even though he is still living like a king. Now, if you look at various CEO's around the country, they are living well beyond their income levels because many of the things they'd normally have to purchase are provided by the company and counted as expenses when tax time comes. Private planes, nice cars, limo service, even homes are all company owned so that the person using them usually doesn't have to claim them on their taxes. Of course, the company writes it off and doesn't pay taxes on it either.
This is what a sales tax will prevent.
Further, this has the effect of dampening consumer spending, which, despite what the trickle-down dumbasses say, drives the economy. This recession has given proof enough of that, for anyone who couldn't figure it out on their own.
This recession didn't start until Democrats took over Congress. If you read the Constitution, you will find out that CONGRESS CONTROLS THE ECONOMY because CONGRESS WRITES THE BUDGET! It has nothing to do with "trickle-down" economics. But since you brought it up, who do you work for? Is he a wealthy or poor. If he were poor, would he be able to hire you?
You don't have to look too hard to find stories about business owners complaining that loans and tax cuts won't help them much, since they can't hire more people unless they've got the orders to justify it.
Maybe if people like me were not paying so much in taxes, I'd be able to buy more stuff meaning
Re:The IRS is not a *kind* organization...
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1, Troll
The fix is simple. Federal sales tax. Period.
No IRS. No tax code other than a percentage and what items will remain tax free (food, medicine, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I like to inject that word (embryonic) into these conversations. Some groups really love to go around with that "they hate saving people with stem cells" argument, leaving out that crucial word; completely changing the meaning of the statement.
I was aware embryonic cells weren't used here, but re-reading my post I see that wasn't clear.
That's the argument that kills me. I've heard people that should know better claim that Bush made stem cell research illegal. For example, on Dr. Dean Edell's radio show, he rails against Bush and the Church for halting stem cell research when he should know that it's simply not true. Bush made a compromise. He didn't outlaw stem cell research. He didn't ban federal funding for stem cell research. He authorized for the first time stem cell research limited it to existing stem cell lines only. No federal funds would go toward research involving new embryonic stem cell lines. People like Edell got pissed, even though there was no federal funding before this like a spoiled 16 yr-old girl who is mad that her new Ferrari is the wrong color.
This doesn't surprise me. I always figured some other country would start doing this, get amazing results, and then the laws would change fast once it stopped being claims of future magic and became real, testable results. When you start getting these kind of great results, the moral argument gets harder.
Remember that the "moral argument" against stem cells only deals with stem cells derived from by starting an embryo and destroying it. Embryonic stem cells from existing stem cell lines, embryonic stem cells derived from other methods such as cord blood, and adult derived stem cells have not "moral argument" against them.
Since the results discussed here are from adult stem cells, it actually supports the "moral argument" and makes the argument for embryonic stem cells that much harder. Even the "Father of Stem Cell Research", James Thomson now believes that there is no point in pursuing treatments from embryonic stem cells because of the risks involved and the superiority of adult derived cells from the actual patient.
It's you need an ID card to work. "They" want to disenfranchise you, they deny you an ID card. Then you can't work. No work, no money. No money, you become disenfranchised. Then you don't exist.
They have one now. It's called Social Security card. The only difference I see between that and this is that the old, paper SS card doesn't have biometric data, meaning anyone can use your SSN, making your live a living hell come tax time. I've seen it happen. It really sucks to see a friend of yours try to explain to the IRS how she worked 17 different jobs in three different states, and only paid taxes on one of them.
Wonderful how only the workers need ID-card.
Maybe Benito Mussolini was on to something with the comparisons between corporatism and fascism, now you'll find out in USA.
Is bringing up Mussolini an implementation of Godwin's Law?
I must see your papers.
Isn't it required to show "papers" now when starting a job? I have had to provide a Social Security Card for every job I've worked. All this law attempts to do is ensure that the "papers" are legit.
And I'm so sick of the "Papers Please" quote. It's as if requiring someone to prove who they are, like when paying taxes, cashing a check, or boarding a plane somehow makes us a Fascist state and 6 million Jews dead. It is nothing more than a poorly disguised implementation of Godwin's Law.
Strange, showing papers in the past has never prevented me from taking advantage of any of Constitutional Rights.
Except you could probably just pour urea crystals into a cesspool and get largely the same effect, without the expense of the bags.
A single bag is 2-3 cents. Assuming you only use it for feces, you're going to use at least one of these a day. A village of 100 people is going to go through $3 a day in these, and on that kind of money you could feed six of them.
I'm not saying this is a bad idea, only that it appears to be an overengineered one.
If they are filling bags with poo, I'd be willing to guess that feeding them is not a problem.
Your Toyota argument completely falls apart because you pay them to build you a car and others pay them to build the exact same car. They retain the right to build the car despite you taking possession of the car your contracted with them to build. Coincidentally it's a great analogy.
So I'm sorry to say, those coders do have rights to keep the code they've produced no matter how badly you seem to not want them to. I'm not a coder, I just work with a few of them and have managed coders from time to time including contracting with coders where corporate counsel and I went over a lot of this. Mileage may vary as different states have wildly different laws. California is far more employee friendly than say Texas.
OK, the Toyota analogy was bad because I didn't pay for them to design the car. However, if I asked Toyota to design a car for me from scratch, you bet your ass I would make sure that it's mine to keep. Then again, if I could afford to have Toyota to design me a car, I could afford to have lawyers make sure that I keep it. But I think my GEICO/Pepsi analogy is better. If Pepsi pays for a jingle, do they still need permission to use it?
I think a better analogy would be the wedding photographer. If I hire a photographer to take pictures of my kids, they own the rights to those photos. I may pay for prints, but I am not allowed to copy those prints without the photographers permission. BTW, this is why I demand the rights to any photos the photographer takes BEFORE the sitting and make sure I have it in writing. I "own" every photo the photographer took at my wedding. Of course, I paid handsomely for them and ordered all kinds of prints from the photographer.
However, I still own some rights to those photos. The photographer, for example, may not use those photos without MY permission either. This is why they have to ask you to sign a waiver if they want to use your kid's pictures for their website, advertising, or to sell to pedophiles. In the same way, a programmer can not take your money to write software for you and then turn around and sell it to your competitors at half price. You still own some to the code, however, you can not stop the programmer from using pieces of it in their next job. And just as I am allowed to draw a mustache on my wife's wedding picture, I am allowed to sell my software package to any customers I wish, even if it includes code that contracted out.
Finally, I'm talking about software that was written for me to sell. I can see how it could be different if I contracted out a programmer to write me a backup routine for our IT department. Still, I have a hard time believing that a company has the same rights and limitations to software that they paid to have written as software that was prepackaged.
IANAL, so I can't say what the law is, but I can say that a law is BS. If what you are saying is true, that if I pay someone to write me a program and THEY get to keep it afterwards, then that's BS. I will make it a point to demand copyright from any coders who work for me in the contract just as I do for photographers.
More likely, he's a 1099 contractor/consultant. Since that isn't an employment relationship, your argument falls apart.
So my company can hire a programmer to write code that... let's say queries our customer database and sends emails to all customers that have not logged in for 6 months and removes customers that have not logged in for a year. After he completes the work, he shows it to us, proves that it works, takes his check and then GOES HOME WITH THE CODE because he owns it, refusing to allow us to use it because it's all his.
Your saying that this is perfectly legal? Are you saying that companies that are using code written by contractors FOR THEM are only allowed to use because the contractors are good people and allow it?
Sorry, but no. Whoever pays the bills makes the rules and owns the product.
Well last time I checked with my lawyer I in fact *do* own the code I write and I own the moral rights to any work I produce and those rights cannot be assigned away by copyright or any other because I am the original producer of the work.
So, does this mean that the people who built my house can move in tomorrow? I mean, I know I paid them to build it and all, but if paying someone to create something doesn't mean you own what is created, then why can't they? Why can't Toyota come and take my car back. After all, I just paid them to build it.
Nope. Sorry. If I pay you to create something, I own it. Let's take the company I work for. We sell computer services. Most of the software we write is in house, however, we do contract out some our programming. Does that mean that the people who wrote that code can come back and say, "Yeah, we just sold the code for that software to your competitor, so you can't use it anymore... unless you are willing to buy the code from me again."
Of course we do license software from third parties as well and that software we do NOT own, although, we didn't pay to have it created.
I know you coders like to say, "I made it, it's MINE-MINE-MINE!!!" but life doesn't work like that. If you want to keep the rights to the code, YOU pay to have it created and then license your creation to whoever you like. But if someone else pays you to make it, it is NOT yours. Just like the guy who designed the Pepsi logo or the GEICO jingle ("15 minutes can save you....") doesn't own it. GEICO and Pepsi do.
There is no Cyber-War ...and these are not the droids you are looking for.
But those WERE the droids you were looking for!
... and there certainly is a cyber war. However, it just falls under the espionage and sabotage categories. We have satellites and planes that specialize at electronic eavesdropping. We have *unknown* numbers of cyber spies constantly monitoring what emails and page traffic goes to and from what. Remember, ESCHELON is the one we in the public know about. How much is out there that we don't know about? How much of that is from other counties and pointed at us?
Don't change all the time like Windows seems to do. Be yourself and we'll accept you. Rebranding almost never helps. Consistency does.
I agree that they don't need a complete rebrand, but when something looks that bad, maybe a little change can be a good thing. For Pete's sake, the default color scheme in Ubuntu is the color of shit! What's wrong with a little Royal Blue or something?
If you read the article carefully, the new size is only 4K, not 4096K. The 4K size actually matches very well with most common files ystems. The 4096K is an error in the article.
Here is a quote from the article:
Advanced Format changes a hard drive's sector size from 512 bytes (the standard for the past three decades) to 4096K
However, it seems correct in other places, like a graphic for example.
I thought the point was to have a small sector size. With large sectors, say 4096K, a 1K file will actually take up the full 4096K. A 4097K file will take up 8194K. A thousand 1K files will end up taking up 4096000K. I understand that with larger HDD's that this becomes less of an issue, but unless you are dealing with a fewer number of large files, I don't see how this can be more efficient when the size of every file is rounded up to the next 4096K.
OK, it's 4K (4096 bytes), not 4096K. I guess that's a bit more doable when we're talking about sizes greater than 1TB.
I thought the point was to have a small sector size. With large sectors, say 4096K, a 1K file will actually take up the full 4096K. A 4097K file will take up 8194K. A thousand 1K files will end up taking up 4096000K. I understand that with larger HDD's that this becomes less of an issue, but unless you are dealing with a fewer number of large files, I don't see how this can be more efficient when the size of every file is rounded up to the next 4096K.
American-made computer? Most are made in Asia. I know all my personal computers are (primarily), and I'd bet this Dell on my office desk was too...
Just popped the side, I'm seeing a lot of "Made in China"s, DVD drive says "Made in Philippines," Keyboard and mouse are China, monitors - China. Also the GP could have made the same comment on heise.de.
Saying America has nothing to offer the world is quite stupid (oh wait, that was actually a strawman you made up? Well my point stands) but your Team America skit is no better.
The chips that run the computer were designed in America by an American company (AMD, IBM, Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and so on). That is what I meant by American made. Maybe I should have said "designed" or "invented", although the abacus was around long before the Phenom.
Imagine, using these machines to compose sibling symphonies, when played alone, sound pleasing, but when played together combine to form an entirely new harmony.
I've thought the same thing when listening to good Jazz or some old Rush. Listen to YYZ or La Villa Strangiato. Each musician is playing their own solo piece that would pretty much stand up on its own. Together, it makes a whole new tune. Especially true if you are in a quiet room with the lights out listening to a lossless recording or straight from the CD with headphones.
And more on topic, I heard a chick call Rush "Math Rock".
"Why does America house so many nutjobs?"
Because it produces so many and issues so few passports.
Says the guy using an American made computer to communicate over an American invention (the Internet) on a forum owned by an American company on computers hosted in America. Yeah, America has nothing to offer the world.
However, it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming.
No, not the Bush bullshit all over again. I understand you Americans don't give a fuck about droughts in Africa and floods in Bangladesh but haven't you have enough of hurricanes, snowstorms, tornadoes, wildfires, desertification, droughts, etc. etc. etc.? Global warming affects you too, and BIG TIME!
Take your head out of your ass, it's about time.
You mean there were no "hurricanes, snowstorms, tornadoes, wildfires, desertification, droughts, etc. etc. etc." before industrialization? Who knew all these things were man made? Would you explain how much of N. America was once covered under 4 KM of ice? Better yet, explain what happened to all that ice since there were no coal fired power plants or SUV's to cause global warming that got rid of it all.
Mankind has increased greenhouse gas 40% over pre industrial levels
Sadly, not true. Not even close.
First of all, the greatest greenhouse gas is naturally produced water vapor. It makes up about 95% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Industrialization has not changed this much, certainly not by 40%. More like 0.0001%. From HERE
When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.
From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.
Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
However, if you are just talking about CO2, then you're still not close. I believe the number you are looking for can be found here:
To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.
But if the cause isn't man made, then we can say "don't blame me!" when disaster strikes.
Imagine if this thinking was applied to other areas. Hurricanes aren't man made, so we don't need to get out of the way. Floods aren't man made so I can build my house on the river bank. Lightning is a natural phenomena so I can keep golfing in the rain.
And that was kinda Bjorn's point. It doesn't really matter so much as to WHY the climate is getting warmer and there is little we can do about it. Sure, we can do some things like make more efficient cars and power our homes with nuclear/wind/solar/hydro power, but with the massive amounts of cash we are throwing at the problem could be better spent preparing for global warming than fighting it. For example, rather than spend trillions of dollars to get third world countries to not build their economies, we could spend billions feeding or moving the people that may or may not be affected by GW.
As to Bjorn's sources being debunked or whatever, this conclusion that I've mentioned above is clearly sited by common sense. No more citation is required.
They do NOT affect total energy received from the sun over the course of the year which remains constant.
Small nitpick here. While the sun is extremely stable when compared to its interstellar cousins, it is by no means constant. For example, there is an 11-year sunspot cycle that varies the amount of solar radiation we receive by about .1%, which is much greater than the amount of change caused by the amount of C02 man has put into the atmosphere. Of course, there are longer cycles as well that may affect climate over a much longer range, but we have not had the instruments to make measurements that far back to nail down the exact effect on the climate.
And while you did say, "over the course of of the year", the orbit of the Earth itself is elliptical enough to vary the amount of energy we receive from the sun.
And what if the rich make a huge sum of money after they have paid for that house, boat, Ferrari, furniture etc.? Is that tax-free money? The rich use a lot of resources and govt, tax-payer infrastructure to earn their money. They should therefore be required to pay more than a common employee.
Couple more points I forgot to bring up:
First, they WILL pay more in taxes than the "common employee" because they will spend more than the "common employee". And if they don't spend more than the common employee, then they are not really living that rich, then are they? If they are living like their employees, then shouldn't they pay taxes like their employees? If someone chooses to live like a pauper, shouldn't they pay taxes like one?
Next, tax payer infrastructure? Really? Um, no. If anything the company paid for all that stuff in its taxes. You know, that's why communities try like hell to bring business in. Oh, and businesses give people jobs and all those people also pay taxes. It's such a boon for a community that many will offer companies sweet deals, like tax free and interest free loans, because having an employed population buying stuff and paying taxes is worth it to these communities. Oh, and most local communities exist on property tax and... yep, you guess it, SALES TAX! And for some reason, I don't hear a whole lot about how communities where billionaires live having too many budget shortfalls. That includes communities that do NOT charge an income tax like Texas and Florida. Michigan charges an income tax. How are they doing? With all those rich people leaving and freeing up all those tax-payer funded infrastructure, Detroit should be booming, right? How about NY? They should have a huge budget surplus with all of the rich people leaving there. How's NY doing?
Finally, if a rich guy makes a shit load of cash and doesn't spend it, why do you care? What business is it of yours? Don't you worry, it will be spent eventually, but even if they want to burn it up in a bonfire, it's none of your damn business.
And what if the rich make a huge sum of money after they have paid for that house, boat, Ferrari, furniture etc.? Is that tax-free money? The rich use a lot of resources and govt, tax-payer infrastructure to earn their money. They should therefore be required to pay more than a common employee.
Yep! Tax free money. They can take all that cash and fill their mattresses with it. They can put glue on the back of it and use $100 bills to wall paper their dog house. Yep! All 100% tax free.
Now, how many wealthy people that have everything they ever wanted are going to stop buying stuff and bury the money in their back yard? So, even if they did stop spending money and start living frugally, you know, mowing their own yards, changing their own oil, cutting their own hair with the flowbee, patching up their own clothes and putting foil over their windows, because... well, because we all know how rich people do everything for themselves, they still would have invested their money somehow. Yep, even though they didn't spend their money, odds are that the bank loaned it to someone else. Even if they didn't put it in a bank and bought stock or bonds or something, whatever business they purchased or loaned the money to spent it.
So even if the hypothetical, frugal fat-cat you like to dream of won't spend their money, someone else gladly will. No money sits idle unless it is literally buried in someone's backyard or mattress.
Rich people spend a way, way smaller percentage of their income on retail goods than the poor.
So? They still spend more, meaning they will be taxed more. Can you show me where in The Constitution where it says that those who have more, must pay a higher percentage in taxes?
They also have the means at their disposal to easily avoid such a tax, assuming the government doesn't try to tax goods purchased overseas and never brought in to the 'States.
Huh? If you buy a house, you pay taxes. Rich people buy houses. If you buy furniture for that house, it is taxed. Rich people buy furniture. If you buy a boat, car, ceiling fan, computer, whatever... it is taxed. Rich people buy such things. Those items will be taxed. If a rich person bought a surfboard in Haiti... why do you care? When they bring it stateside, it will be taxed.
Now, think about how much money "rich" people make. If I gave you $20,000,000, you would pay pretty hefty taxes on it this year because it's all counted as income. Now, how much money would you make NEXT year? I assume you invest the money somehow, but let's say your investments don't do so well. Let's say you broke even. How much money would you pay in taxes? That's right! $0.00, no matter how well you lived or how much money you spent, you would owe $0.00 to the government because you made $0.00 for the year. Hell, you might even get money back!
Let me tell you "rich" people spend money. I have a cousin that owns his own custom home building business. His company built a house for demo purposes. My cousin lives there. It's a very nice home that they may show to potential customers about once or twice a year. My cousin, of course didn't have to pay taxes on the house. He didn't have to pay any income taxes on the money that bought the house. The business called it an investment and used it as a deduction, meaning that it LOWERED THE TAXES THE COMPANY OWED, and does so every year as the house "depreciates". Of course, the company also has to furnish the house and provide work vehicles for my cousin and his wife. Yard upkeep, home maintenance, vehicle maintenance and all living expenses that are not food or clothing, are paid by the company because the company owns all the stuff.
In years that the business does well, my cousin does well salary wise and pays good taxes on it. In years that the business does not do well, my cousin doesn't do as well and may not pay any taxes at all, even though he is still living like a king.
Now, if you look at various CEO's around the country, they are living well beyond their income levels because many of the things they'd normally have to purchase are provided by the company and counted as expenses when tax time comes. Private planes, nice cars, limo service, even homes are all company owned so that the person using them usually doesn't have to claim them on their taxes. Of course, the company writes it off and doesn't pay taxes on it either.
This is what a sales tax will prevent.
Further, this has the effect of dampening consumer spending, which, despite what the trickle-down dumbasses say, drives the economy. This recession has given proof enough of that, for anyone who couldn't figure it out on their own.
This recession didn't start until Democrats took over Congress. If you read the Constitution, you will find out that CONGRESS CONTROLS THE ECONOMY because CONGRESS WRITES THE BUDGET! It has nothing to do with "trickle-down" economics. But since you brought it up, who do you work for? Is he a wealthy or poor. If he were poor, would he be able to hire you?
You don't have to look too hard to find stories about business owners complaining that loans and tax cuts won't help them much, since they can't hire more people unless they've got the orders to justify it.
Maybe if people like me were not paying so much in taxes, I'd be able to buy more stuff meaning
The fix is simple. Federal sales tax. Period.
No IRS. No tax code other than a percentage and what items will remain tax free (food, medicine, etc).