charging taxes has always been held as prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Because if the church didn't pay the taxes for whatever reason, they would be arrested. I completely disagree. What's to stop a group of people who claim a religious belief in equity funds or any other number of revenue-generating endevours?
Where's the line between a legitimate 'non-profit' (a term with a very specific meaning that does not preclude people from getting filthy rich) religion and a scam?
The members of the church pay the taxes, the church doesn't Huh wuh? "Donations" to churchs are tax-deductible.
Get a private mailbox at a place like "the ups store" (formerly mailboxes etc). You won't get any junk mail unless it is addressed to you by name. The smarter private mailbox places will also sign for packages and email you that you've got one waiting. Usually they have 24x7 pick up for packages that fit in the over-sized package 'lockers.' If you move, you can pay for forwarding service that won't share your new address with anyone (unlike the 'free' forwarding service from the usps).
Indeed. I usually get a handful of marketing calls on my cell phone every day. They come from telemarketers who are generally outside the USA using VOIP and whatever caller-id they want. They are practically immune to the do not call list.
It got so bad I started using google's Grandcentral to screen all calls - now if the caller-id doesn't say it is my GrandCentral number calling, I refuse to answer the phone. And if it is GC, they have to verbally identify themselves before I accept the call.
Some classes and races are far more likely to be bad guys than other classes and races. I'm sorry that you've been swept up in a category that you don't justifiably belong in... but it's not about you, or about *any* individual. It's about the numbers. So, you are saying that the police are innumerate? Because clearly a very large majority of these 'classes and races' are not 'bad guys.' So even if these 'classes and races' were 100x more likely to be 'bad guys' you are still looking at negligible differences on the order of 0.00001% vs 0.001% - which is not what I would consider effective use of limited resources.
You know, this is off-topic, but I'm tired of hearing about people claiming the employees never see the benefits of tax breaks. Even if they don't get paid more and the product doesn't get cheaper, the employees can BUY STOCK in their company and reap the benefits of greater profits from less taxes. Why does anyone not own any stock in the company they work for?? (A) Many are forced to through 401K matching programs that match employee contributions only in company stock that must be held for 3-5 years.
(B) It's called, "don't put all your eggs in one basket." If the company hits a bad spot the share prices will decline and the employee might get layed off too. So right when they are most likely to need to cash in some shares, the shares are guaranteed to be worth the least.
This is a big deal, and your snide reply (essentially "don't use the internet") doesn't come close to offering a workable solution. No big deal. Just change it to "don't put it on a server unless the server owner has a strong interest in preventing disclosure." Myspace doesn't really care if someone snags their customer's pictures because they have no legal liability. Your bank has all kinds of liability if your credit card, bank account, IRA or 401K accounts are compromised.
You don't write any emails that you wouldn't want published? You don't use SSH to access sensitive information? You don't send any instant messages that you wouldn't want published? You don't visit any websites that you wouldn't want the world to know about? The rest of your post is GOOD ADVICE - don't send sensitive IMs or email to people who don't care if they disclose them, and definitely don't post personally identify information on those dubious websites.
It's not impossible However, effective DRM is. Sooner or later the monopoly-on-distribution-channels business model will fail.
they may simply be better at marketing themselves Which, artistically, is absolutely no different from the current marketplace today.
As for the anti-social marketing defects who write and record and perform music that alters our lives...then we just have to hope that they can get their signal out through all the noise. Kind of like the way all of us struggle (or don't) to succeed in our chosen professions.
Are you asking whether theologically conservative, evangelical, Biblical inerrantists bother to read the original languages? Are you saying that theologically conservative, evangelical, Biblical inerrantists make public protests with signs that says things like, "God Hates foo?"
No?
Then I think you perfectly understood the context of the question and just felt like jousting at windmills out of conceit.
Well Beethoven was able to write music only because people like Rudolf Johannes Joseph Rainier Cardinal von Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke and Prince Imperial of Austria, Prince Royal of Hungry and Bohemia paid him large amounts of money to do so. So, he worked on contract. Musicians today can work on contract too. The big difference between now and then is that now the internet is able to bring thousands, even millions, of like-minded people together. If the net can bring them together, surely we can figure out a way for each one of them to toss in a dollar (or a euro) and in order to pay a modern Beethoven large amounts of money too.
Do you really believe that any of those 'fundies' have ever even bothered to read the original hebrew? The god hates shrimp people are completely right in criticizing them because as far as most all of these 'fundies' know, the prohibitions are equivalent.
"Any problem in computer science can be solved with another layer of indirection." "Except having too many layers of indirection." That's easy - just add another layer of indirection that bypasses all the previous layers!
I'm thinking that perhaps the claim is not that the governments of Turkey and Israel are involved, which, in the case of Israel at least, is implausible Don't be so quick to assume. Motivations and results get all twisted up and seemingly illogical in the world of covert international actions.
For example, Israel was a primary source of funding for Hamas in the early days - the thinking was that they wanted a group that could challenge Arafat. The phrase, "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.
Its entirely plausible that a similar sort of thinking is at work here.
If anything a world without copyright would see less incentive to release source, since the only value in information would be secrecy. The seller does not make a market, the buyer does. When the default expectation of buyers is for the hood to be openable, then only the fringes will be able to survive by selling cars with the hood welded shut. In other words, there is absolutely no value to the buyer when the source is closed. At best it is neutral so a market without the distortion of copyright will favor products with open source.
Do you have a citation for your statement? Not particularly, but google is rife with references to RMS and the welded-hood analogy.
The problem with ISPs (cable and DSL) is that they charge a flat fee regardless of usage. Thus their customer's have incentive to over-use the product (to 'get the most for their money') and the ISPs have incentive to reduce customer usage and put in the bare minimum infrastructure (and to come up with alternative revenue sources like downloadable-for-a-fee content). Thus the ISPs market is a zero-sum game.
Usage fees have the potential to completely rearrange the market. If ISPs are able to charge more the more their customers use the network, then the ISP's interest is now aligned with their customer's interest. The ISP actually benefits the more their customers use the network. Thus they have incentive to build up infrastructure and no need to search for alternative sources of revenue like selling download-able content (or screwing with network neutrality to blackmail 3rd parties). They should start to actively promote the usage of bittorrent and any other bandwidth consuming system because every new user (aka bandwidth consumer) will earn the ISP more money, instead of causing them to lose profits the way it does now.
I don't think that's true, or at least it isn't true anymore. For example, GPLv3 and AGPL (which was included in an early draft of GPLv3) defend against two phenomena that would be impossible to prevent in a copyright-free world: Tivoization, and web services derived from modified open source, respectively. If RMS truly wanted a world without copyright, he never would have released these licenses. The way I've heard it put is that just as the current market does not accept cars with their hoods welded shut, a market without the effects of copyright would not accept software that was locked up without source. Tivoization and black-box web-services are no different than regular closed source from that perspective.
Well, that is pretty much RMS's goal - the copyleft is just a hack of copyright law to use it against itself. The abolishment of copyright is pretty much an indirect goal. So if copyright can't be used to hurt GPL'd software, there would be no reason to continue using the GPL either.
Folks who are depressed are HISTORICALLY far more productive and motivated... Nothing will get a man off his ass as surely as a fire lit beneath. Yeah... You think 'depressed' means 'motivated' don't you? It doesn't.
I hit the intersection just when it turns green and still have some momentum left saving myself some fuel and time. Or maybe they prefer the extra g-force of quick stops and jack-rabbit starts.
Seen plenty of long-lived deadwood in the non-academic world too. I've always taken the meaning of that phrase to be that people who "can" get paid a lot more for "doing" than they would for teaching. So, rather than a barrier of entry, it is an incentive not to teach.
Likewise this is also an incentive for Caltech to continue producing usable technology if the grants don't decrease. What's the point of federal funding in the first place if the goal is simply to produce marketable research? Seems that in a a country where capitalism is generally considered to be a good thing, there should be absolutely no federally funded research to begin with.
IANAL, but it *used* to be that federally-funded research needed to be made available to everyone - not licensed in perpetuity to a private company. When did this change? It didn't change, at least not in my lifetime. I still remember there being a bit of brouhaha over the GNU licensing of linux ethernet drivers (by Donald Becker I think) and parts of beowulf clustering written under contract to NASA over a decade ago. Lots of corporate entitlement types were PO'ed about the GNU licensing of that stuff because it went against long-standing tradition and they couldn't easily privatize that work and charge us over and over again for what had been paid for with tax dollars to begin with.
I sure didn't see the OP say anything about parties. You are just setting up a strawman argument by equating "right" with "republican." Talk about a predetermined bias...
Slashdot Mirror
Where's the line between a legitimate 'non-profit' (a term with a very specific meaning that does not preclude people from getting filthy rich) religion and a scam? The members of the church pay the taxes, the church doesn't Huh wuh? "Donations" to churchs are tax-deductible.
How does a vocal minority define the entire group?
That's the same reasoning that leads people to say that islam causes terrorism.
Get a private mailbox at a place like "the ups store" (formerly mailboxes etc).
You won't get any junk mail unless it is addressed to you by name.
The smarter private mailbox places will also sign for packages and email you that you've got one waiting. Usually they have 24x7 pick up for packages that fit in the over-sized package 'lockers.'
If you move, you can pay for forwarding service that won't share your new address with anyone (unlike the 'free' forwarding service from the usps).
Needs an 'invite' from a current user.
Hang out on the begging for coupons forum on fatwallet.com and you should be able to get yourself an invite.
Indeed. I usually get a handful of marketing calls on my cell phone every day. They come from telemarketers who are generally outside the USA using VOIP and whatever caller-id they want. They are practically immune to the do not call list.
It got so bad I started using google's Grandcentral to screen all calls - now if the caller-id doesn't say it is my GrandCentral number calling, I refuse to answer the phone. And if it is GC, they have to verbally identify themselves before I accept the call.
Because clearly a very large majority of these 'classes and races' are not 'bad guys.' So even if these 'classes and races' were 100x more likely to be 'bad guys' you are still looking at negligible differences on the order of 0.00001% vs 0.001% - which is not what I would consider effective use of limited resources.
(B) It's called, "don't put all your eggs in one basket." If the company hits a bad spot the share prices will decline and the employee might get layed off too. So right when they are most likely to need to cash in some shares, the shares are guaranteed to be worth the least.
No?
Then I think you perfectly understood the context of the question and just felt like jousting at windmills out of conceit.
Musicians today can work on contract too.
The big difference between now and then is that now the internet is able to bring thousands, even millions, of like-minded people together. If the net can bring them together, surely we can figure out a way for each one of them to toss in a dollar (or a euro) and in order to pay a modern Beethoven large amounts of money too.
Do you really believe that any of those 'fundies' have ever even bothered to read the original hebrew? The god hates shrimp people are completely right in criticizing them because as far as most all of these 'fundies' know, the prohibitions are equivalent.
For example, Israel was a primary source of funding for Hamas in the early days - the thinking was that they wanted a group that could challenge Arafat. The phrase, "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.
Its entirely plausible that a similar sort of thinking is at work here.
http://www.crypto.com/blog/
http://www.badscience.net/
http://www.schneier.com/blog/
The problem with ISPs (cable and DSL) is that they charge a flat fee regardless of usage. Thus their customer's have incentive to over-use the product (to 'get the most for their money') and the ISPs have incentive to reduce customer usage and put in the bare minimum infrastructure (and to come up with alternative revenue sources like downloadable-for-a-fee content). Thus the ISPs market is a zero-sum game.
Usage fees have the potential to completely rearrange the market. If ISPs are able to charge more the more their customers use the network, then the ISP's interest is now aligned with their customer's interest. The ISP actually benefits the more their customers use the network. Thus they have incentive to build up infrastructure and no need to search for alternative sources of revenue like selling download-able content (or screwing with network neutrality to blackmail 3rd parties). They should start to actively promote the usage of bittorrent and any other bandwidth consuming system because every new user (aka bandwidth consumer) will earn the ISP more money, instead of causing them to lose profits the way it does now.
Well, that is pretty much RMS's goal - the copyleft is just a hack of copyright law to use it against itself. The abolishment of copyright is pretty much an indirect goal. So if copyright can't be used to hurt GPL'd software, there would be no reason to continue using the GPL either.
It doesn't.
Seen plenty of long-lived deadwood in the non-academic world too.
I've always taken the meaning of that phrase to be that people who "can" get paid a lot more for "doing" than they would for teaching. So, rather than a barrier of entry, it is an incentive not to teach.
I sure didn't see the OP say anything about parties. You are just setting up a strawman argument by equating "right" with "republican." Talk about a predetermined bias...