That sounds like you are a tax evader to me! Or worse yet, a terrorist!
I have no doubt in my mind that there have been several explorations of this very thing. Whether it will come to pass in the next 20 or 30 years, I am not sure.
From the point of view of the government, they have the right to tax any and all transactions between people. They just don't have the tech to enforce it.
Once they can get it together, I think there will be a push to cut down on these 'tax loopholes', which is their favorite language to get people to support getting taxed more.
"A government forced to cover all it's citizens however can't just arbitrary cover healthy citizens bills and not unhealthy citizens, they'd have to do something indirect to effect your behavior to reduce their expenses, like put a 10 cent tax on greasy burgers to make people eat something cheaper and healthier."
Or make large sodas illegal! That's just crazy! It's a good thing we can trust that government won't ever be able to do stuff like that...
Also, you don't HAVE to buy insurance (yet).
Don't get me wrong - I think insurance companies are right behind banks when it comes to bad entities. But both of them are far, far behind the govt. because they take the others' money and look the other way and enable them.
In other words, don't make a false dichotomy of having to like either the govt or the big insurance companies - I don't trust any of 'em.
is starting to get a little annoying. What would be the cost to mine and return an oz of gold from an asteroid?
I have no idea, but my hunch is, a lot. Even after they've been doing it for 20 years.
Somehow I'm not too worried about it blowing the bottom off the gold market. Of course I don't own any gold, but even if I did I wouldn't be too worried about it.
Then again, maybe they'll bring it back 1000 tons at a time. And I'd be able to get that solid gold toilet.
I don't understand this idea that because something is 'hard' (like saying no) or because you really need a job, there needs to be a law protecting you.
Total nonsense. You need to protect yourself. Period.
If you really want the job, then you are making a judgement call that your private stuff is a decent trade for employment. And many people might make that decision happily. In that case, good for them.
I would tell them, 'sorry, can't do that.' And if they didn't hire me because of it, then that's fine - I don't want to work there anyway. No one owes me a job on my own terms.
I'm not saying companies that pull this crap are scummy - they obviously are.
I have a feeling Amazon's point of view is along the lines of "If we let this guy get money, it will encourage people to game the system"
Also, "If he sues we can bog him down in legal crap for 10 years"
Amazon should just see what his rate of sales had been before and offer him some amount based what expected sales would have been during that time. Plus a little.
It's not companies regulating themselves that people want.
It's the Markets (i.e. people, who comprise the markets) that should be regulating the companies.
If you notice, it's indeed the government that's being used against the customer in this case (e.g. laws in place that punish him for no reason)
In reality, the company should be completely liable for any and all bad things that happen from this horrible 'security'. No limits. That is how a market regulates itself - not by passing laws, but punishing a company if they are shitty, instead of using laws to shield themselves.
A business guy who is way more involved with these things said it "seemed almost certain" from the turn of events that the only reason Netflix would have for splitting it's business in half was to sell it - specifically to Amazon.
Due to some bumbling, stock price fell to half and the buyer backed out.
Whether true or not, it's an interesting explanation, to be sure.
Regardless, they have a crap-load of competition on the horizon, so they better figure out something fast.
what you are failing to understand is that there is lots and lots of good content that doesn't come from "big content"
Not to mention the cost of producing content has dropped dramatically over the last decade - just look at how good some homemade youtube videos are.
This is one case where the competition is crazy, and there are insane numbers of competitors. Based on that alone, The current high price model can't last forever. All they can do is prolong it a few years, but eventually it will come crashing down.
Increased numbers of cord cutters will facilitate this process. As the current young generation becomes adults, they will know instinctively how overpriced some of the content costs them. The current models will not survive that.
I think the problem with the Disney movies is the standard 'Disney Vault' bullshit - they pull movies out for 10 years or more at a time, and don't allow sales OR rentals of any of them. Sometimes they let them go onto tv...
On the post: Data Mining Exec Pays For Burgers In Cash To Keep His Insurance Company From Knowing His Bad Diet Habits
Re: ...as long as there's that "cash hole"...
I have no doubt in my mind that there have been several explorations of this very thing. Whether it will come to pass in the next 20 or 30 years, I am not sure.
From the point of view of the government, they have the right to tax any and all transactions between people. They just don't have the tech to enforce it.
Once they can get it together, I think there will be a push to cut down on these 'tax loopholes', which is their favorite language to get people to support getting taxed more.
On the post: Data Mining Exec Pays For Burgers In Cash To Keep His Insurance Company From Knowing His Bad Diet Habits
Re:
Or make large sodas illegal! That's just crazy! It's a good thing we can trust that government won't ever be able to do stuff like that...
Also, you don't HAVE to buy insurance (yet).
Don't get me wrong - I think insurance companies are right behind banks when it comes to bad entities. But both of them are far, far behind the govt. because they take the others' money and look the other way and enable them.
In other words, don't make a false dichotomy of having to like either the govt or the big insurance companies - I don't trust any of 'em.
On the post: DailyDirt: Unobtainium Will Save Us!
The gold thing
I have no idea, but my hunch is, a lot. Even after they've been doing it for 20 years.
Somehow I'm not too worried about it blowing the bottom off the gold market. Of course I don't own any gold, but even if I did I wouldn't be too worried about it.
Then again, maybe they'll bring it back 1000 tons at a time. And I'd be able to get that solid gold toilet.
Either way, the future looks cool.
On the post: Should We Outlaw Employers From Asking For Social Networking Logins?
Re: It's absurd.
Why not? No seriously, why not?
There's no way you can honestly show me how someone going in for an interview HAS to take the job if they are offered it.
It may suck if they don't. It may make their life harder, having to look for a new one. But this idea that it's "not an option" is bullshit.
On the post: Should We Outlaw Employers From Asking For Social Networking Logins?
Re: Employers abusing current events
I don't understand this idea that because something is 'hard' (like saying no) or because you really need a job, there needs to be a law protecting you.
Total nonsense. You need to protect yourself. Period.
If you really want the job, then you are making a judgement call that your private stuff is a decent trade for employment. And many people might make that decision happily. In that case, good for them.
I would tell them, 'sorry, can't do that.' And if they didn't hire me because of it, then that's fine - I don't want to work there anyway. No one owes me a job on my own terms.
I'm not saying companies that pull this crap are scummy - they obviously are.
On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against eBay Because Of The Way Its Auctions Work
Re:
However, as the basic premise can take many forms, I feel there's plenty of value in calling attention to the different forms.
The more times one is exposed to all the variations in an idea, the easier it is to spot them on one's own.
On the post: OpenDNS Tells Congress Not To Create The Great Firewall Of America
Re:
On the post: Despite Publisher Apprehension, Good Old Games Proves A Market For Old DRM-Free Games Exists
Re: Re: Re: Good to see
It's the service of removing the DRM and making it work with a new OS so I don't have to think about anything other than playing.
That is worth $3, easy.
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
How hard is it to fool their algorithm?
Also, "If he sues we can bog him down in legal crap for 10 years"
Amazon should just see what his rate of sales had been before and offer him some amount based what expected sales would have been during that time. Plus a little.
On the post: What's The Most Expensive WiFi You've Seen?
Re:
I remember when this was funny.
On the post: TSA Decides Terrorists Must Be Driving; Partners With Tenn. Law Enforcement To Randomly Search Vehicles
I see something suspicious...
Who can I report that to?
On the post: TSA Decides Terrorists Must Be Driving; Partners With Tenn. Law Enforcement To Randomly Search Vehicles
Re:
You: I don't consent to your search!
Them: Only people who have something to hide say that! Now we have probable cause!
Although in court they just say you were "acting suspicious"
On the post: Company Thanks Guy Who Alerted Them To Big Security Flaw By Sending The Cops... And The Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the Markets (i.e. people, who comprise the markets) that should be regulating the companies.
If you notice, it's indeed the government that's being used against the customer in this case (e.g. laws in place that punish him for no reason)
In reality, the company should be completely liable for any and all bad things that happen from this horrible 'security'. No limits. That is how a market regulates itself - not by passing laws, but punishing a company if they are shitty, instead of using laws to shield themselves.
On the post: US Postal Service Sends Postage Due Bill To Guy Who Put Block Party Invites Into Neighbors' Mailboxes
Re: Re: Re: Who owns mailboxes?
I don't see why you couldn't put up a UPS box, but who knows - maybe the papers have to pay a licensing fee or some other such nonsense.
I'd like to see someone put up a no-mail box, and then cause a stink when the usps puts somethin in it..
On the post: Netflix Kills Qwikster Before It Has A Chance To Live
buyout fall-through?
Due to some bumbling, stock price fell to half and the buyer backed out.
Whether true or not, it's an interesting explanation, to be sure.
Regardless, they have a crap-load of competition on the horizon, so they better figure out something fast.
On the post: Time Warner Cable CEO Remains In Denial About Cord Cutting
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention the cost of producing content has dropped dramatically over the last decade - just look at how good some homemade youtube videos are.
This is one case where the competition is crazy, and there are insane numbers of competitors. Based on that alone, The current high price model can't last forever. All they can do is prolong it a few years, but eventually it will come crashing down.
Increased numbers of cord cutters will facilitate this process. As the current young generation becomes adults, they will know instinctively how overpriced some of the content costs them. The current models will not survive that.
On the post: Crazy Coincidence, Plagiarism, Or An Obvious Idea For An Electric Car Ad?
Re: maybe they read the same small-town paper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg
On the post: Massive Exodus From Netflix Over Fee Increase
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous
On the post: Indie Game Developer Posts Game on Pirate Bay, Sees Positive Results
Not piracy
But of course, if you just replace 'piracy' with 'free copies' your post is still perfectly valid.
On the post: Canadian Pharmacies React To US Gov't Taking $500 Million From Google Over Their Ads
Re:
They allowed the pharm companies to jack up prices above market value; so of course people found a way to circumvent it.
Now we name that a 'loophole' so we can demonize it, then create a few more laws to 'close' it.
Rinse, repeat.