I didn't bother reading any replies below this parent's post yet.
Agreed, more or less, but I would be okay with solar noon coming at 1pm all year round (more or less around 1pm).
Schools, businesses, etc. can just offset their schedules if they don't like the current clock hours. One idea should be letting kids sleep in, and not require them to be at school until 4 hours before solar noon. So when noon comes at 1pm, school would start at 9am and go until 3:30pm.
It would be better to switch back. Why? Because there are unfixed errors in a lot of software that are still causing problems. For the fixed bugs, well, those can be "unfixed" if they were fixed in the first place. It isn't too late to switch back.
A person or business creates material then copyrights it. The person or business has two choices.
Choice one: Do as they do now. Pay taxes on their income generated from the copyrighted material, and go after those illegally downloading said material.
Choice two: Choose a tax-exempt option. They would be exempt from federal taxes on the income generated from the copyrighted material. However, if they so choose to do such a thing, the material becomes public domain. However, it would still be illegal for someone to sell said copyrighted material because that would be a form of theft. However, freely distributing the material and downloading it wouldn't be a crime in any shape or form.
How about making it legal to download copies? It would still be illegal to sell someone else's copyrighted material. However, in addition to making it legal to download copies, the government would make them a tax-exempt organization.
Now, tell me, would the companies supposedly losing money to piracy end up having more money if they were tax exempt as opposed to going around suing people (which makes them look like a bad guy) and such?
I'd think maintaining company loyalty is more important than money. At least that way you gain some security. Think about it as if you were an employer. Would you be willing to hire someone who hasn't stayed with a company for a reasonable amount of time?
I don't have much, if any, experience, so don't take my comments too seriously. Consider this though. If I take a job (not a tech job), I'm going to honor my commitment to it even if more money is offered elswhere.
Hypothetically, someone spends $1000 on materials making something. Then that person sells that something for $1000 on eBay (ignore the issue of sales tax for now). How much is considered income?
This is why colleges need to focus on someone's character, merits, grades, and the ability to perform well as opposed to things that are biologically unchangeable, more or less. No matter how hard someone tries, you cannot change fundamental things such as race, sex, ethnicity, etc.
On another note, and this isn't a reply to the parent poster I'm replying to, but I have a comment. It doesn't matter what college you go too. Sure, it might help when it comes to resumes, but you can get a good education anywhere. I'm told that the prestige might have more to do with resources the college has. Perhaps a prestigious college has guest lecturers. Go to a state college near a prestigious college, and I'm sure they won't mind it if you go sit in on one of those.
The CFLs (I think that's what they are) I use I think are rated at using only 12 or so watts as opposed to the 60 watts a regular bulb uses.
Although over time, the bulb has dimmed significantly, and I'm either forced into buying a new one, or finding an incandescent bulb to put into the lamp, or using an incandescent bulb in another lamp and the dim one at the same time to provide adequate lighting, which I think ironically, is using more than an incandescent bulb alone would.
What I believe they need to do is put a unit tax on incandescent bulbs. Perhaps 25 cents a bulb. That money would go into a program to help low-income families make a switch over to CFLs. A program, through electric companies, in which low-income families would be given the bulbs free of charge, and after all, low-income families have the most to gain, provided they can withstand the dimming issue.
Agreed, more or less. A ban is a very bad idea, especially since CFLs tend to having dimming problems, and they don't work in all lamps. Think about it. I can either run 1 60 watt lightbulb or I can run 5 CFL lightbulbs that use 12 watts each. Except in the latter case, it will be more expensive.
There is no limit to what they're going to want to tax. With this in mind, perhaps it's best not to have any levies at all.
A better solution may encompass letting the recording industry go tax free in all regards. By this I mean no income tax, no sales tax on the materials purchased (i.e. the CDs), etc. In exchange for this, they would have to agree not to sue anyone unless it's for true piracy. I.e. selling someone else's intellectual property (like making copies and eBaying them off).
Re:No more Clippy (I say Clippit) for President?
on
The Death of Clippy
·
· Score: 1
Maybe you would have preferred if I wrote it as, "No more Clippy for President?". I would have had to make a side note that I say Clippit, not Clippy, when referring to the character.
No more Clippy (I say Clippit) for President?
on
The Death of Clippy
·
· Score: 1
No more Clippy, or as I say, Clippit, for President?
I thought this wasn't a problem. I thought most websites do post warnings. Is Congress just trying to solve a non-existent to show they are doing something supposedly worthwhile?
What about a bare minimum incase of sudden death? If the creator dies 1 year after copyrighting something, perhaps the children (only if under 21) should be able to receive the copyright for something like 10 years?
I was thinking the same thing about how incandescents are still good in some situations. I know the CFL, which I think I have in my bedroom, is getting so dim, that using it alone doesn't provide enough light, so I turn on an incandescent on the other part of my room. I should either replace it with one of those cheap 99 cent CFL bulbs they sell (I think they are CFL), or just buy an incandescent.
I agree with the tax. Don't sales tax it though. Instead, you would want a unit tax on the lightbulbs, among other things. To encourage people to be environmental, you could essentially force them to avoid buying incandescents and high flow toilets by putting a tax per unit. 25-50 cents per incandescent bulb would probably convince some people. $100 per toilet for high flows would probably convince people to go over to low flows.
As for the tax revenue, that could be used to help low-income families purchase/receive environmental-friendly goods.
Understand this. Lawmakers need to show they are doing something productive. By doing idiotic things, that may or may not work, instead of tackling the tough issues, they are enticing voters to re-elect them.
This is pretty much what I was going to say. There is no way to trust what a politician says. I forget what specifically, but something about her voting record really tweaked me years ago. I wish I could remember what it was.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't bother reading any replies below this parent's post yet.
Agreed, more or less, but I would be okay with solar noon coming at 1pm all year round (more or less around 1pm).
Schools, businesses, etc. can just offset their schedules if they don't like the current clock hours. One idea should be letting kids sleep in, and not require them to be at school until 4 hours before solar noon. So when noon comes at 1pm, school would start at 9am and go until 3:30pm.
It would be better to switch back. Why? Because there are unfixed errors in a lot of software that are still causing problems. For the fixed bugs, well, those can be "unfixed" if they were fixed in the first place. It isn't too late to switch back.
I don't think I agree with what you said, if I understand it correctly.
What I meant is as follows.
A person or business creates material then copyrights it.
The person or business has two choices.
Choice one: Do as they do now. Pay taxes on their income generated from the copyrighted material, and go after those illegally downloading said material.
Choice two: Choose a tax-exempt option. They would be exempt from federal taxes on the income generated from the copyrighted material. However, if they so choose to do such a thing, the material becomes public domain. However, it would still be illegal for someone to sell said copyrighted material because that would be a form of theft. However, freely distributing the material and downloading it wouldn't be a crime in any shape or form.
How about making it legal to download copies? It would still be illegal to sell someone else's copyrighted material. However, in addition to making it legal to download copies, the government would make them a tax-exempt organization.
Now, tell me, would the companies supposedly losing money to piracy end up having more money if they were tax exempt as opposed to going around suing people (which makes them look like a bad guy) and such?
I'd think maintaining company loyalty is more important than money. At least that way you gain some security. Think about it as if you were an employer. Would you be willing to hire someone who hasn't stayed with a company for a reasonable amount of time?
I don't have much, if any, experience, so don't take my comments too seriously. Consider this though. If I take a job (not a tech job), I'm going to honor my commitment to it even if more money is offered elswhere.
Let me make this a bit easier.
Hypothetically, someone spends $1000 on materials making something. Then that person sells that something for $1000 on eBay (ignore the issue of sales tax for now). How much is considered income?
What if someone spent X amount of dollars growing or building something, then sold it years later for Y amount of dollars?
Would income be equal to $Y - $X ?
This is why colleges need to focus on someone's character, merits, grades, and the ability to perform well as opposed to things that are biologically unchangeable, more or less. No matter how hard someone tries, you cannot change fundamental things such as race, sex, ethnicity, etc.
On another note, and this isn't a reply to the parent poster I'm replying to, but I have a comment. It doesn't matter what college you go too. Sure, it might help when it comes to resumes, but you can get a good education anywhere. I'm told that the prestige might have more to do with resources the college has. Perhaps a prestigious college has guest lecturers. Go to a state college near a prestigious college, and I'm sure they won't mind it if you go sit in on one of those.
The CFLs (I think that's what they are) I use I think are rated at using only 12 or so watts as opposed to the 60 watts a regular bulb uses.
Although over time, the bulb has dimmed significantly, and I'm either forced into buying a new one, or finding an incandescent bulb to put into the lamp, or using an incandescent bulb in another lamp and the dim one at the same time to provide adequate lighting, which I think ironically, is using more than an incandescent bulb alone would.
What I believe they need to do is put a unit tax on incandescent bulbs. Perhaps 25 cents a bulb. That money would go into a program to help low-income families make a switch over to CFLs. A program, through electric companies, in which low-income families would be given the bulbs free of charge, and after all, low-income families have the most to gain, provided they can withstand the dimming issue.
Agreed, more or less. A ban is a very bad idea, especially since CFLs tend to having dimming problems, and they don't work in all lamps. Think about it. I can either run 1 60 watt lightbulb or I can run 5 CFL lightbulbs that use 12 watts each. Except in the latter case, it will be more expensive.
There is no limit to what they're going to want to tax. With this in mind, perhaps it's best not to have any levies at all.
A better solution may encompass letting the recording industry go tax free in all regards. By this I mean no income tax, no sales tax on the materials purchased (i.e. the CDs), etc. In exchange for this, they would have to agree not to sue anyone unless it's for true piracy. I.e. selling someone else's intellectual property (like making copies and eBaying them off).
Maybe you would have preferred if I wrote it as, "No more Clippy for President?". I would have had to make a side note that I say Clippit, not Clippy, when referring to the character.
No more Clippy, or as I say, Clippit, for President?
Sorry, what do you mean? Do you mean the typo I made?
I thought this wasn't a problem. I thought most websites do post warnings. Is Congress just trying to solve a non-existent to show they are doing something supposedly worthwhile?
What about private driveways leading up to a group of houses? What to do then?
What about a bare minimum incase of sudden death? If the creator dies 1 year after copyrighting something, perhaps the children (only if under 21) should be able to receive the copyright for something like 10 years?
What is your opinion on when copyrights should expire?
What was the original intention of copyright laws? Wasn't it to prevent people from gaining from other people's works?
I was thinking the same thing about how incandescents are still good in some situations. I know the CFL, which I think I have in my bedroom, is getting so dim, that using it alone doesn't provide enough light, so I turn on an incandescent on the other part of my room. I should either replace it with one of those cheap 99 cent CFL bulbs they sell (I think they are CFL), or just buy an incandescent.
I agree with the tax. Don't sales tax it though. Instead, you would want a unit tax on the lightbulbs, among other things. To encourage people to be environmental, you could essentially force them to avoid buying incandescents and high flow toilets by putting a tax per unit. 25-50 cents per incandescent bulb would probably convince some people. $100 per toilet for high flows would probably convince people to go over to low flows.
As for the tax revenue, that could be used to help low-income families purchase/receive environmental-friendly goods.
Understand this. Lawmakers need to show they are doing something productive. By doing idiotic things, that may or may not work, instead of tackling the tough issues, they are enticing voters to re-elect them.
This is pretty much what I was going to say. There is no way to trust what a politician says. I forget what specifically, but something about her voting record really tweaked me years ago. I wish I could remember what it was.
For the same reason people pay $8 or more to buy a movie that's 4 times the length of a t.v. show.
Why type of bullying is it? I would say self-defense is justified, but I'd probably want to know the details.