Yes, I think great disparity in wealth tends to be a good indicator of pre-revolution. Will have to wait and see whether it's correlation or causation.
I think I was misinterpreting the right to work a well paid job, if so I apologise.
In the contract between employer and employee there is a disparity of resources so the employee generally needs protection. As such I agree that part of the government's role is to ensure that wages are fair, hours are reasonable etc - but not necessarily to provide those jobs, only to provide the circumstances that the private sector is able to create the jobs.
You seem to claim that the rich somehow aren't paying their way, despite acknowledging that the top 5% pay more than the bottom 95%???
Why does the proportion of wealth controlled have anything to do with the "fair" proportion of the tax burden?
As people's weath increase (ie they earn money) they are taxed on that increase - through income tax, capital gains tax and even inheritance tax. Once they have the wealth, it has already been taxed. Why is it fair for the government to then come back and ask to tax those funds again?
Also, you should realise that the bottom 95% are not paying their own way in life, they are being subsidised by the top 5%. Despite the top 5% contributing over 50% of government tax income by your own acknowledgement, they will use far less than 50% of government expenditure. Therefore the lower 95% gets the advantage of a cheaper police force etc than if half the bill wasn't being paid for them.
Since when do people have a *right* to a well paying job?
It is not the government's place to provide jobs, or even ensure everyone has one and that it is well pais. It is the private sector's place to do that - the government is there to provide governance in how that is run.
Granted it is best for the country, and therefore a goal of the government, for unemployment to be low and for as few people as possible to be below the poverty line - but that in no way translates into a right to a well paid job.
I guess that they're supposed to be some sort of American version of ... the riots in London, but, honestly -- like many of these things in the US -- they strike me as people protesting for the sake of protesting.
Protesting for the sake of protesting? Sounds exactly like the riots in London (and other English cities). A lot of the people here were rioting for the sake of it - a chance to have some fun and nick a TV without facing the consequences. No higher motives there.
On the proposal to use passport numbers to prove your age - is he really suggesting giving private companies access to the government's passport database? And in fact giving private companies access to *every* government's passport database?
I think the real problem is going to be when he realises his darling daughter is drinking and smoking by the time she's 14.
Using a country's name to refer to the country's government or policies is common. For example, when the news says "The UK is bombing targets in Libya" I doubt anyone thinks all 60 million of us are out there with explosives (well, except you - so let me assure you we're not).
Also sometimes the name of the capital city is used similarly - diplomatic stories often talk about "the view from Washington" and they're not referring to the Potomac.
Depends whether the guy sent his DMCA at the same time as the request not to pass it on. If he did, then presumably the clock is running for Google to take down the material. If Google waits too long to see if he will retract the DMCA notice they could run into trouble.
Turns into a game of chicken - will the photographer back out and retract his notice before google gets concerned about liability and does the take down and forwards the notice on.
I'm guessing there's no way google will run the risk and will send anything they've got on to chilling effects well before things get dangerous for them.
I thought the US had a habit of not ratifying treaties in any case? Or at least adding a caveat to say that if there is a conflict between the US constitution and a treaty then they can ignore the treaty.
And the constitution seems to get some rather varied readings ...
For example, does the right to bear arms extend to land mines and cluster bombs?
Reminds me of the quote attributed to Alexander Tytler:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
Although I guess in this case it's not so much an violent collapse into dictatorship but a slow sidestepping of the democratic process due to:
- the desire for lobbyists to have to swing fewer people in order to vote themselves largess
- the desire for leaders to have more power (and what presidential candidate doesn't have a degree of megalomania)
After all, if I understand it correctly Executive Agreements should only include items that the president has power over, such as foreign policy. However foreign policy arguably includes defining the national interest - and defining the national interest seems an incredibly broad brush.
Things that could be in the national interest, according to the president and/or presidential lobbyists:
- stronger IP laws
- weaker military contractor laws
- president to be succeeded by eldest son
I assumed he was talking about the $ amount rather than the percentage. If a hardback is $15, but the eBook is $5 then you'd need three times the royalty rate on an eBook sale to get the same income per copy. In fact you'd need less than three times, since economics states he should sell more copies at $5 than at $15.
Of course the difference in the royalty rates above is way more than three times so there shouldn't be a problem there - until eBooks come further down in price, or royalty rates change.
[There shouldn't be a space at the end, but I can't seem to get rid of it. The code should end "200"]
You can then change the text on the webpage. I think you'll then have to do the same but with 'false' and 'off' in order to turn off edit mode so that you can click on a submit button.
Just remember to take a screenshot or something of the terms you're agreeing to (or the blank page ;)) and say goodbye to all those annoying clauses!
Caveat: IANAL. I can't comment on how enforceable your amended terms are (or how enforceable the original terms were either come to that)
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nonsense
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nonsense
In the contract between employer and employee there is a disparity of resources so the employee generally needs protection. As such I agree that part of the government's role is to ensure that wages are fair, hours are reasonable etc - but not necessarily to provide those jobs, only to provide the circumstances that the private sector is able to create the jobs.
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: Re: Re: nonsense
Why does the proportion of wealth controlled have anything to do with the "fair" proportion of the tax burden?
As people's weath increase (ie they earn money) they are taxed on that increase - through income tax, capital gains tax and even inheritance tax. Once they have the wealth, it has already been taxed. Why is it fair for the government to then come back and ask to tax those funds again?
Also, you should realise that the bottom 95% are not paying their own way in life, they are being subsidised by the top 5%. Despite the top 5% contributing over 50% of government tax income by your own acknowledgement, they will use far less than 50% of government expenditure. Therefore the lower 95% gets the advantage of a cheaper police force etc than if half the bill wasn't being paid for them.
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: Re: Re: nonsense
It is not the government's place to provide jobs, or even ensure everyone has one and that it is well pais. It is the private sector's place to do that - the government is there to provide governance in how that is run.
Granted it is best for the country, and therefore a goal of the government, for unemployment to be low and for as few people as possible to be below the poverty line - but that in no way translates into a right to a well paid job.
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
American version of London?
Protesting for the sake of protesting? Sounds exactly like the riots in London (and other English cities). A lot of the people here were rioting for the sake of it - a chance to have some fun and nick a TV without facing the consequences. No higher motives there.
On the post: Austin Police Planned... Then Postponed Wardriving Plans In An Attempt To Shutdown Open WiFi
I wouldn't be too quick to declare open wifi public. Last I heard the US government was trying to work that out ...
On the post: Righthaven Fails To Pay Attorneys Fees Ordered By The Court, Court Asked To Declare Righthaven In Contempt
Re: Re:
On the post: Reasonable Anger In Europe Over Ridiculous Copyright Extension
Re:
On the post: Judge: Using The Copyright System To Force People To Pay Up Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: *useful* arts?
On the post: Why Humans Love the Internet
grooming?
Thanks Nina :/
On the post: Judge: Using The Copyright System To Force People To Pay Up Is Unconstitutional
*useful* arts?
After all, to my mind, the definition of art is essentially something that has no practical use and is purely aesthetic in nature.
[And I'm guessing the answer is: lobbyists]
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
passport data
I think the real problem is going to be when he realises his darling daughter is drinking and smoking by the time she's 14.
On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Leaked State Department Cable Confirms What Everyone Already Knew: MPAA Was Behind Bogus Australian ISP Lawsuit
Re: Re:
Using a country's name to refer to the country's government or policies is common. For example, when the news says "The UK is bombing targets in Libya" I doubt anyone thinks all 60 million of us are out there with explosives (well, except you - so let me assure you we're not).
Also sometimes the name of the capital city is used similarly - diplomatic stories often talk about "the view from Washington" and they're not referring to the Potomac.
On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?
Re:
Turns into a game of chicken - will the photographer back out and retract his notice before google gets concerned about liability and does the take down and forwards the notice on.
I'm guessing there's no way google will run the risk and will send anything they've got on to chilling effects well before things get dangerous for them.
On the post: If ACTA Is Approved In The US, It May Open The Door For The President To Regularly Ignore Congress On International Agreements
Re:
And the constitution seems to get some rather varied readings ...
For example, does the right to bear arms extend to land mines and cluster bombs?
On the post: If ACTA Is Approved In The US, It May Open The Door For The President To Regularly Ignore Congress On International Agreements
Why democracies fail?
Although I guess in this case it's not so much an violent collapse into dictatorship but a slow sidestepping of the democratic process due to:
- the desire for lobbyists to have to swing fewer people in order to vote themselves largess
- the desire for leaders to have more power (and what presidential candidate doesn't have a degree of megalomania)
After all, if I understand it correctly Executive Agreements should only include items that the president has power over, such as foreign policy. However foreign policy arguably includes defining the national interest - and defining the national interest seems an incredibly broad brush.
Things that could be in the national interest, according to the president and/or presidential lobbyists:
- stronger IP laws
- weaker military contractor laws
- president to be succeeded by eldest son
On the post: Author Says eBooks Will Hurt Authors Because Of Royalty Rates
Re: I think it's obvious
Of course the difference in the royalty rates above is way more than three times so there shouldn't be a problem there - until eBooks come further down in price, or royalty rates change.
On the post: Guy Suing Google For $500 Billion, Now Suing Microsoft For The Same Amount
Just change the text before clicking submit
javascript:document.body.contentEditable%20=%20'true';%20document.designMode='on';%20void%20 0
[There shouldn't be a space at the end, but I can't seem to get rid of it. The code should end "200"]
You can then change the text on the webpage. I think you'll then have to do the same but with 'false' and 'off' in order to turn off edit mode so that you can click on a submit button.
Just remember to take a screenshot or something of the terms you're agreeing to (or the blank page ;)) and say goodbye to all those annoying clauses!
Caveat: IANAL. I can't comment on how enforceable your amended terms are (or how enforceable the original terms were either come to that)
On the post: Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display
Re: Quibble
But then art is in the eye of the beholder
Next >>