They are proposing a federal law, which would simply allow the states to collect the taxes...
IANAL but the point was that the SCOTUS made a ruling on the matter based off their interpetation of the constitution which makes it a precedent.
Even if congress creates and the president signs a law stating that states can go ahead and tax interstate commerce, it does not supercede the SCOTUS ruling.
In order to do so, they would have to modify the constitution itself or have the Supreme Court revisit the issue on appeal.
And historically neither has happened that often in the history of the US.
If congress does go ahead and pass it, chances are SCOTUS will strike it down immediately citing precedence of previous ruling. If anything positive can be said about the US Supreme Court is that they hate to reverse their decisions of prior members.
Practically every social psychology text book out there cites statistics that place violence in the media and increases in real world violence as the second strongest correlation we have - second only to smoking and lung cancer.
Then explain why violent crimes are down when violence in the media has increased?
(Though some people have argued the reason for this has been economic, educational, the outlawing of lead paint in children's products, or the legalization of abortion in the 1970s. Take your pick.)
You still haven't convinced me. Why I should pay more now (Apple License and a Windows License) for a mac with bootcamp, when I can just have my regular ole PC (Just a windows license) to play games?
Because it can run OS X and WinXP?
Whereas, if I buy a PC, I still have buy a Mac to run a second computer to run OS X.
Though I could have maybe hacked OS X to run on a PC, but if I was going to break the EULA and do that, I could have done the same thing and not pay for the license for WinXP on the Mac.
Look... Games is not really an excuse to not buy a mac if you were buying it for other reasons.
In all reality, if you were really wanted to get into games you'd probably buy an Xbox360 anyways or only use your gaming rig so customized you don't do anything with it except specifically to play games and nothing else.
If you are a casual gamer, then there is no reason you can't use bootcamp on a mac.
Without education infrastructure in place to train current generations, low cost robots will compete with unskilled laborers for work. While this could be 30-50 years down the road, what happens when the poor huddled masses can no longer do manual jobs? Will their quality of living be raised up since it will be cheap to produce things, or will those who own the means of production horde it for themselves and leave everyone who can't afford their price to starve?
That's a really good question and one that I've thought over in my head.
If history has any precedent, the answer is that "humans will survive". The industrialization of the 1880's to the 1950's didn't put everyone out on the street, but rather created more jobs.
Even though it logically makes you think that if you didn't have that backhoe manned by one person, that you could hire 10 men to dig the hole with shovels doesn't take into account that because you have increased productivity that the employer can expand his business and maybe have 10 guys at 10 different locations with backhoes.
Now, the problem you advise is when machines require no one to man them and that we can assume can repair themselves.
To that... I don't know.
If we assume basic economics is still in play and that automation does result in high unemployment, high unemployment will cause deflation and prices will fall.
Now depending on how the government react, either they will do something with government spending or nothing at all. So what happens will not be predictable at this point...
That said, unemployment with high deflation in a world where machines do everything anyways might not be that bad.
Yes, but when robots do all the work, then the human population needs less food.
Huh? Are you saying that if people don't work then they will eat less?
If that were true, then when you retire you don't need that pension.
And I don't think the robots most efficient method of gathering energy for themselves would be to grow tomatoes.
Every time, (and I mean EVERY time) someone throughout history says that when technology that makes it easier to do something with less manpower, that humans will be obsolete and starve on the streets has been WRONG.
They were wrong during the Luddites of the mills of England in the 1800's and they are wrong now.
If quality of life was improved by increasing manual labor instead of using technology, then the Romans would still be around using slaves to do everything (hey it keeps everyone busy).
My point is even if the machines do everything physical at some point in the future, chances are humans will be enabled to do other things...
Some (a small minority) will use the free time to become great artists and thinkers, and the rest will probably watch sports on TV or surf the internet.
Is that a bad thing?
No. Because you have a choice to do something with your free time, unlike in the past, you worked from dawn to dusk just to survive, and died of an old age of 30.
Seriously, though, there are some really important things that you obviously don't get, at all, and you need more help than you are going to find on Slashdot. Please talk to someone. Best of luck.
Exactly. The poor fools just needs to talk to the right person. He doesn't realize that in Amsterdam red district, it only costs $25 for someone to solve his problem.
Why on earth should the government need to work hard to keep the financial system going? Money is just a means of exchange.
Because historically, when left to its own devices and because of human nature, the financial system always results in a boom/bust cycle which causes economic problems for everyone involved.
Those persons who are affected negativity by the bust situation tend to either vote vote for change and if that doesn't work encourage radical forms of government who are willing to scrap the original process all together.
The whole point of the Fed was because of the bank panics in the 1900's in order to work against the natural boom bust cycles so people are eased into it or generally prevent the boom bust from happening.
Of course the Fed did nothing to stop the great depression, but perhaps they did at least east us into and out of the current crisis.
You're talking about a world where nobody produces anything, so the only income they have is from banks. That's not a realistic model.
Economic activity happens when money changes hands for goods and services. Not when something is produced.
If the later were true, the Soviet Union would have been fine just meeting production and farming quotas.
Yes, economic activity does lead to production and technological innovation and vice versa, but production without economic activity simply involves people producing for the sake of producing whether other people want it or not.
And I think that is specifically what the USSR did.
See the difference? Its hard for the government to write off bad debt when its the one thats upside down.
That's ok. The US debt is backed by nuclear weapons, the IRS, and 2 million prisoners providing near free labor.
I'm trying to be funny, but I'm sort of serious. The fact that the USA can invade another nation with impunity to enforce its economic policies, use the IRS with impunity, and throw you into jail if you don't follow laws specifically created to create criminals makes the USD more valuable.
I'm mostly being pragmatic about the issue even though I don't agree with it. I mean, have you ever tried to pay the IRS in something over than US dollars. I don't think they will be happy with you. By the mere fact they force people to pay in USD means that it is made de facto valuable because you have to pay or face jail time.
Not being in jail is important to you, right? Therefore the USD is valuable to you.
Capitalism would let ALL of these companies fail. If you can't make a product that people want or need at an affordable price, then it's a product that should NOT BE MADE.
The problem is that unfettered capitalism historically always results in a panic which results in deflationary situation which itself will eventually resolve itself but you'll have about 10 years of "suckage" (at best you'll have high unemployment and economic stagnation and at worst you'll have the great depression).
There is no if's ands or buts about this because it has been historically observed that this is the natural cycle of hands off free market capitalism. (mostly during the long depressions of the 1870s and 1900's)
So in that regard, yes it would fix itself eventually, but do you want to live through 10 years of economic stagnation?
Most average citizens don't so they usually vote in people that interfere with the economy. Simple as that and no amount of arguing to them will change their minds because they want their jobs now and not 10 years from it.
What needs to happen to GM is a very structured bankruptcy in which they are phased out and not all at once. Otherwise you get large group of unemployed people all at once that amplifies a deflationary death spin cycle which was the root cause of the great depression.
How much people would play chess if players could pay 20$ to change one of his pieces into a queen?
There is nothing preventing a player from spending that $20 to buy a book on how to play chess (if if they had deep pockets, maybe take personal training from chess master).
I couldn't disagree more. The fact that people are paying money in addition to their subscription means that the game is fun or has value to the player.
Umm... I really disagree.
Mythic has really shown how you get rid of gold farmers in Warhammer online.
By making gold (or currency) a moot point in the economy.
The majority of the game revolves around rewards for either PvP or quests which result in no-drop bound loot which cannot be traded.
I mean money is still worth some things (like buying mounts and non-essentials), but overall most players are worried about actually playing than grinding.
I don't like gold farmers either, but I see them as a sign the game is broken and not the other way around like the GP.
After all, if the government can choose to not obey this law that you dislike, what's to prevent them from disobeying a law you like?
Actually, the government does it all the time. I forget the exact phrase, but it is mostly where the executive branch just ignores the enforcement part of the law.
I think Jefferson and early presidents were noted to this by the admission that the law was unconstitutional and therefore they were under no obligation to enforce it.
GWB did this quite a bit as well, but I don't think it was the same reason but just failing to enforce laws that he didn't agree with. It wasn't that he was breaking the law, but he was not really obligated (or punished) for not fulfilling the executive duties.
Also, jury nullification has been upheld by the supreme court in which juries can basically give a person a "not guilty" verdict because they feel the law was wrong or unjust even though the person has broke the law.
People often forget that legal does not always equal moral and that sometimes you have to break those laws simply because it would be unethical and immoral to follow those laws, or impractical (usually this is the one that most people get caught up with) to a point that you could not follow the law even if you life depended on it.
Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for violating it
And I don't mean to reply 3 times to your post, but I was bored and actually came across the law in question that gives actually states a good reason to be ignorant of the tax law rather than being away of it.
7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting "felony" for "misdemeanor" and "5 years" for "1 year".
It can't be willful unless you knew about the law, now can it? One would rather have 1 year in the block rather than 5 years, no? Even the law itself sometimes admits you cannot always know the law. How else could you willfully evade taxes?
The US Government don't not have tax permits for private individuals but rather corporations, so many of us are scratching your head about "tax permits" that you have to get first to perform business. Many of the US private citizens do often have income "under the table" and the government turns a blind eye because everyone does it and only goes after people with big bucks.
(Perhaps this is why the US has more economic activity that most nations... Or it might be the black market because of the war on drugs, but that is speculation)
The US tax system is very complex and people are good money to exploit it legally.
And lastly... There are some laws in the US that are codified specifically for "intent" and "purpose" of the accused.
In which depending on the motive of those charged will depend on how they are charged (like manslaughter versus murder or conspiracy etc etc) and often you can be charged for attempting to willfully bypass a law.
If your lawyer can argue your ignorance of the law, then you can be charged with a lesser version of the crime. Not because of your ignorance but rather that you weren't doing the crime maliciously.
Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for violating it.
I always hated this reasoning simply because it is usually said by people who study or write laws for a living.
The crux of the matter is that society often has too many laws that it impossible to know them all without consulting a lawyer who even then has paid legal assistants to look up the issue in question.
I can't find the quote right now, but there was a Roman senator who once said, if they made enough laws, they could simply arrest anyone for any reason at anytime.
In that regard a government could hold power over its people because the people did not know what laws they had broken when they were in jail. (Which is one of the reasons the US Constitution specifies that the accused to be allowed to face his accusers so to know why he has been arrested)
In that regard, if a corrupt government made enough laws, they could cherry pick any one of them to arrest someone whom they did not approve of while letting everyone else scott free simply because it would not be practical to arrest everyone who actually did break the law except this particular person who they did not like.
Getting a new "tax card" from your local tax office before engaging in any kind of serious employment is how it's done in many parts of the world, from Finland to Japan.
We don't do it like that in the US. The way it works is that it is automatically taken out of your paycheck if you work for a registered corporation.
Or if you are self employed, you are simply expected to report it directly to the Feds using a very complex system of itemization. If not, eventually someone looks at your bank account and audits you.
How long would it take to repair if a few lines were cut, and the manhole cover was rigged so that the person opening would set off a pipe bomb or grenade? O.k. What kinda of union hassles/strikes would happen if that happened once, twice, or a half dozen times?
As opposed to putting a bomb on a bus or the subway?
Anyone who wants to hurt another human can and will. There is no real good way to stop that except to hide in a cave.
Actually, I remember that History Channel about that guy who goes underground of cities and they did a Washington, DC episode and the sewer system security was pretty strict. I think most manhole covers in DC are locked down and electronically monitored.
Slashdot Mirror
They are proposing a federal law, which would simply allow the states to collect the taxes...
IANAL but the point was that the SCOTUS made a ruling on the matter based off their interpetation of the constitution which makes it a precedent.
Even if congress creates and the president signs a law stating that states can go ahead and tax interstate commerce, it does not supercede the SCOTUS ruling.
In order to do so, they would have to modify the constitution itself or have the Supreme Court revisit the issue on appeal.
And historically neither has happened that often in the history of the US.
If congress does go ahead and pass it, chances are SCOTUS will strike it down immediately citing precedence of previous ruling. If anything positive can be said about the US Supreme Court is that they hate to reverse their decisions of prior members.
Practically every social psychology text book out there cites statistics that place violence in the media and increases in real world violence as the second strongest correlation we have - second only to smoking and lung cancer.
Then explain why violent crimes are down when violence in the media has increased?
(Though some people have argued the reason for this has been economic, educational, the outlawing of lead paint in children's products, or the legalization of abortion in the 1970s. Take your pick.)
You still haven't convinced me. Why I should pay more now (Apple License and a Windows License) for a mac with bootcamp, when I can just have my regular ole PC (Just a windows license) to play games?
Because it can run OS X and WinXP?
Whereas, if I buy a PC, I still have buy a Mac to run a second computer to run OS X.
Though I could have maybe hacked OS X to run on a PC, but if I was going to break the EULA and do that, I could have done the same thing and not pay for the license for WinXP on the Mac.
Look... Games is not really an excuse to not buy a mac if you were buying it for other reasons.
In all reality, if you were really wanted to get into games you'd probably buy an Xbox360 anyways or only use your gaming rig so customized you don't do anything with it except specifically to play games and nothing else.
If you are a casual gamer, then there is no reason you can't use bootcamp on a mac.
Without education infrastructure in place to train current generations, low cost robots will compete with unskilled laborers for work. While this could be 30-50 years down the road, what happens when the poor huddled masses can no longer do manual jobs? Will their quality of living be raised up since it will be cheap to produce things, or will those who own the means of production horde it for themselves and leave everyone who can't afford their price to starve?
That's a really good question and one that I've thought over in my head.
If history has any precedent, the answer is that "humans will survive". The industrialization of the 1880's to the 1950's didn't put everyone out on the street, but rather created more jobs.
Even though it logically makes you think that if you didn't have that backhoe manned by one person, that you could hire 10 men to dig the hole with shovels doesn't take into account that because you have increased productivity that the employer can expand his business and maybe have 10 guys at 10 different locations with backhoes.
Now, the problem you advise is when machines require no one to man them and that we can assume can repair themselves.
To that... I don't know.
If we assume basic economics is still in play and that automation does result in high unemployment, high unemployment will cause deflation and prices will fall.
Now depending on how the government react, either they will do something with government spending or nothing at all. So what happens will not be predictable at this point...
That said, unemployment with high deflation in a world where machines do everything anyways might not be that bad.
but when robots are working alongside seasonal farm laborers
Don't worry.
You remember those articles about robots being able to eat meat to power themselves?
What do you think the seasonal migrant labor is for?
Yes, but when robots do all the work, then the human population needs less food.
Huh? Are you saying that if people don't work then they will eat less?
If that were true, then when you retire you don't need that pension.
And I don't think the robots most efficient method of gathering energy for themselves would be to grow tomatoes.
Every time, (and I mean EVERY time) someone throughout history says that when technology that makes it easier to do something with less manpower, that humans will be obsolete and starve on the streets has been WRONG.
They were wrong during the Luddites of the mills of England in the 1800's and they are wrong now.
If quality of life was improved by increasing manual labor instead of using technology, then the Romans would still be around using slaves to do everything (hey it keeps everyone busy).
My point is even if the machines do everything physical at some point in the future, chances are humans will be enabled to do other things...
Some (a small minority) will use the free time to become great artists and thinkers, and the rest will probably watch sports on TV or surf the internet.
Is that a bad thing?
No. Because you have a choice to do something with your free time, unlike in the past, you worked from dawn to dusk just to survive, and died of an old age of 30.
Seriously, though, there are some really important things that you obviously don't get, at all, and you need more help than you are going to find on Slashdot. Please talk to someone. Best of luck.
Exactly. The poor fools just needs to talk to the right person. He doesn't realize that in Amsterdam red district, it only costs $25 for someone to solve his problem.
Why on earth should the government need to work hard to keep the financial system going? Money is just a means of exchange.
Because historically, when left to its own devices and because of human nature, the financial system always results in a boom/bust cycle which causes economic problems for everyone involved.
Those persons who are affected negativity by the bust situation tend to either vote vote for change and if that doesn't work encourage radical forms of government who are willing to scrap the original process all together.
The whole point of the Fed was because of the bank panics in the 1900's in order to work against the natural boom bust cycles so people are eased into it or generally prevent the boom bust from happening.
Of course the Fed did nothing to stop the great depression, but perhaps they did at least east us into and out of the current crisis.
You're talking about a world where nobody produces anything, so the only income they have is from banks. That's not a realistic model.
Economic activity happens when money changes hands for goods and services. Not when something is produced.
If the later were true, the Soviet Union would have been fine just meeting production and farming quotas.
Yes, economic activity does lead to production and technological innovation and vice versa, but production without economic activity simply involves people producing for the sake of producing whether other people want it or not.
And I think that is specifically what the USSR did.
See the difference? Its hard for the government to write off bad debt when its the one thats upside down.
That's ok. The US debt is backed by nuclear weapons, the IRS, and 2 million prisoners providing near free labor.
I'm trying to be funny, but I'm sort of serious. The fact that the USA can invade another nation with impunity to enforce its economic policies, use the IRS with impunity, and throw you into jail if you don't follow laws specifically created to create criminals makes the USD more valuable.
I'm mostly being pragmatic about the issue even though I don't agree with it. I mean, have you ever tried to pay the IRS in something over than US dollars. I don't think they will be happy with you. By the mere fact they force people to pay in USD means that it is made de facto valuable because you have to pay or face jail time.
Not being in jail is important to you, right? Therefore the USD is valuable to you.
Plus you end up going down the path of requiring anti-virus and security software to run on the phone all the time, reducing the battery life.
Yes, just like OS X requires anti-virus and security software!
Capitalism would let ALL of these companies fail. If you can't make a product that people want or need at an affordable price, then it's a product that should NOT BE MADE.
The problem is that unfettered capitalism historically always results in a panic which results in deflationary situation which itself will eventually resolve itself but you'll have about 10 years of "suckage" (at best you'll have high unemployment and economic stagnation and at worst you'll have the great depression).
There is no if's ands or buts about this because it has been historically observed that this is the natural cycle of hands off free market capitalism. (mostly during the long depressions of the 1870s and 1900's)
So in that regard, yes it would fix itself eventually, but do you want to live through 10 years of economic stagnation?
Most average citizens don't so they usually vote in people that interfere with the economy. Simple as that and no amount of arguing to them will change their minds because they want their jobs now and not 10 years from it.
What needs to happen to GM is a very structured bankruptcy in which they are phased out and not all at once. Otherwise you get large group of unemployed people all at once that amplifies a deflationary death spin cycle which was the root cause of the great depression.
How much people would play chess if players could pay 20$ to change one of his pieces into a queen?
There is nothing preventing a player from spending that $20 to buy a book on how to play chess (if if they had deep pockets, maybe take personal training from chess master).
I couldn't disagree more. The fact that people are paying money in addition to their subscription means that the game is fun or has value to the player.
Umm... I really disagree.
Mythic has really shown how you get rid of gold farmers in Warhammer online.
By making gold (or currency) a moot point in the economy.
The majority of the game revolves around rewards for either PvP or quests which result in no-drop bound loot which cannot be traded.
I mean money is still worth some things (like buying mounts and non-essentials), but overall most players are worried about actually playing than grinding.
I don't like gold farmers either, but I see them as a sign the game is broken and not the other way around like the GP.
After all, if the government can choose to not obey this law that you dislike, what's to prevent them from disobeying a law you like?
Actually, the government does it all the time. I forget the exact phrase, but it is mostly where the executive branch just ignores the enforcement part of the law.
I think Jefferson and early presidents were noted to this by the admission that the law was unconstitutional and therefore they were under no obligation to enforce it.
GWB did this quite a bit as well, but I don't think it was the same reason but just failing to enforce laws that he didn't agree with. It wasn't that he was breaking the law, but he was not really obligated (or punished) for not fulfilling the executive duties.
Also, jury nullification has been upheld by the supreme court in which juries can basically give a person a "not guilty" verdict because they feel the law was wrong or unjust even though the person has broke the law.
People often forget that legal does not always equal moral and that sometimes you have to break those laws simply because it would be unethical and immoral to follow those laws, or impractical (usually this is the one that most people get caught up with) to a point that you could not follow the law even if you life depended on it.
Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for violating it
And I don't mean to reply 3 times to your post, but I was bored and actually came across the law in question that gives actually states a good reason to be ignorant of the tax law rather than being away of it.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7203.html
It can't be willful unless you knew about the law, now can it? One would rather have 1 year in the block rather than 5 years, no? Even the law itself sometimes admits you cannot always know the law. How else could you willfully evade taxes?
Of course this again is only US law. YMMV
I mean, I thought the original package said "unlimited"?
Or is this really just "ulimited*"?
*Unlimited til you use more than $150 of bandwidth.
Oh and two more things...
The US Government don't not have tax permits for private individuals but rather corporations, so many of us are scratching your head about "tax permits" that you have to get first to perform business. Many of the US private citizens do often have income "under the table" and the government turns a blind eye because everyone does it and only goes after people with big bucks.
(Perhaps this is why the US has more economic activity that most nations... Or it might be the black market because of the war on drugs, but that is speculation)
The US tax system is very complex and people are good money to exploit it legally.
And lastly... There are some laws in the US that are codified specifically for "intent" and "purpose" of the accused.
In which depending on the motive of those charged will depend on how they are charged (like manslaughter versus murder or conspiracy etc etc) and often you can be charged for attempting to willfully bypass a law.
If your lawyer can argue your ignorance of the law, then you can be charged with a lesser version of the crime. Not because of your ignorance but rather that you weren't doing the crime maliciously.
It might be different in Sweeden...
Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for violating it.
I always hated this reasoning simply because it is usually said by people who study or write laws for a living.
The crux of the matter is that society often has too many laws that it impossible to know them all without consulting a lawyer who even then has paid legal assistants to look up the issue in question.
I can't find the quote right now, but there was a Roman senator who once said, if they made enough laws, they could simply arrest anyone for any reason at anytime.
In that regard a government could hold power over its people because the people did not know what laws they had broken when they were in jail. (Which is one of the reasons the US Constitution specifies that the accused to be allowed to face his accusers so to know why he has been arrested)
In that regard, if a corrupt government made enough laws, they could cherry pick any one of them to arrest someone whom they did not approve of while letting everyone else scott free simply because it would not be practical to arrest everyone who actually did break the law except this particular person who they did not like.
Getting a new "tax card" from your local tax office before engaging in any kind of serious employment is how it's done in many parts of the world, from Finland to Japan.
We don't do it like that in the US. The way it works is that it is automatically taken out of your paycheck if you work for a registered corporation.
Or if you are self employed, you are simply expected to report it directly to the Feds using a very complex system of itemization. If not, eventually someone looks at your bank account and audits you.
Now that's some vintage computer porn!
That makes me wonder... Who was the first person to depict the image of a naked woman on a computer (ASCII or otherwise)
It is mostly for those people who are OS impaired and don't want to install Linux/WinXP/Mac OS X just to see a cute Easter egg.
If you are so inclined, you can follow the instructions yourself below the video if you have the matching OS.
The pure potential is awesome. If, however they are uptight about letting people develop non-open-source games for this it will fail, hard.
The original owner of this code is id who released it GPL so you can't use it for closed source for free.
You can buy that engine from id software for a nominal fee like everyone else ;)
How long would it take to repair if a few lines were cut, and the manhole cover was rigged so that the person opening would set off a pipe bomb or grenade? O.k. What kinda of union hassles/strikes would happen if that happened once, twice, or a half dozen times?
As opposed to putting a bomb on a bus or the subway?
Anyone who wants to hurt another human can and will. There is no real good way to stop that except to hide in a cave.
Actually, I remember that History Channel about that guy who goes underground of cities and they did a Washington, DC episode and the sewer system security was pretty strict. I think most manhole covers in DC are locked down and electronically monitored.
That Microsoft is trying to specify test parameters is very good thing.
Wouldn't they be interesting in finding out what might happen to paying customers when they buy the product and try to upgrade?