While I completely agree that the voters CAN be more powerful than the lobbyists I think that there are forces that ensure they don't become more powerful. I'm not talking about nefarious, behind the scenes actors that are doing this either. I'm just saying that the divisiveness of our current political situation ensures that it will be very hard to get anyone out of office that cares more about lobbyists and large campaign donations than representing their constituents.
This is one topic that I continue to disagree with Mike. We don't need more skilled workers from overseas to be allowed into the country, we need to develop our own skilled workers and right now we're not doing that. A quick fix like allowing in foreign skilled workers quickly becomes THE fix and nothing will be done about the true root problem which is better educational programs for American children and workers that are out of jobs now. I continue to see a great deal of graduate and PhD programs discriminate against American students in favor of foreign students because of the influx of money they get for those students and I continue to see fully qualified American workers have their jobs shipped overseas.
As for Mike's absolute statement:
"It often seems like the arguments against it are a mix of just under the surface racism with a healthy dose of ignorance about economics."
If Mike is implying that he's the only one that understands economics then to quote Ice Cube - "You better check yo self before you wreck yo self."
Economics is far from an absolute science and the various schools of economics rarely agree on any so I'm sure there's just as much evidence that the arguments against this has just as much researched evidence as the arguments for, it's just the interpretation of the data that is different. Too often we see people interpreting the data to fit their assumptions rather that reporting on what the actual data says.
No, renouncing citizenship to avoid taxes IS NOT a legitimate concern that should be addressed. Other than this instance, how many times have you heard of someone renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying taxes? Congress should not be wasting time on legislation that MIGHT affect a handful of people per year. They have 330 million+ other people to worry about.
And yes, if the OP wasn't saying it then I am - Casey only sponsored this to get a sound bite/news clip and he doesn't give a rat's ass about someone renouncing their citizenship to avoid taxes.
PS - He didn't "flee" the country. He hasn't lived here for a while.
He was replying in a game related forum so of course he's going to make his statements game related. If he is/was an Internet entrepreneur then I'm sure he has other Internet related concerns and if he was in the appropriate forum would address those to the appropriate audience.
Comedy Central needs Stewart more than Stewart needs Comedy Central. He has always said what he feels he needs to say on any issue. I'm sure he will have something ready and possibly even decide to devote more time to this issue after he reads up on it.
I know that many people that follow this site think of startups as only being tech companies but really startups are any new company. If I'm in the IT world and I think I can do a better job consulting than PWC or IBM then I can open a firm and start trying my luck. If I'm as good as I think I am then I can start hiring and the business grows. Same goes if I'm an auto mechanic or farmer or almost any other profession. As much as I agree that we need technological innovation and firms to produce new tech, it's not the only sector in which we need startups.
"Generally speaking, a sales tax is supposed to cover the public infrastructure that a retailer uses -- e.g., the streets and clean downtown area that make it easy for customers to come to the store. But with the internet, the retailers aren't really getting the benefit of all of that, so why should they be taxed for it? You can argue that they still get some of the benefits in the roads/infrastructure used to deliver the goods, but that seems like a much more limited benefit."
Roads and infrastructure is a much more limited benefit? Without the roads and infrastructure there would be no delivery system for the online retailers. In the area I live in, I only see a few B&M tractor trailer deliveries a week to stores like Target, Wal-Mart and Best Buy. But I see 5 or 6 Fedex, UPS, and USPS trucks driving around my neighborhood every day. So just on that basis alone I'd say that the online retailers are using a lot more of the infrastructure than a B&M retailer. No Best Buy trailer has pulled up at my house but it would be kind of interesting if one did.
I'd rather see a local tax on Fedex, UPS, etc. whose vehicles actually use the roads and infrastructure. Then those companies would increase their shipping costs which the internet retailers would pass on to their customers. There are already different shipping costs for different parts of the country (depending on who you're using and what you're sending) but I bet there wouldn't be as many different zones as there are taxing localities. I'm sure the shipping companies would bundle large chucks of area together to come up with an average shipping cost that would cover the local taxes for those areas.
It has an android app and can be controlled via the web.
The Nest engineers only seemed to have focused on the appearance of the thermostat, not the actual mechanics of the the thermostat because it still uses the same old, energy-inefficient method of turning off and on your furnace. Their "learning" thermostat won't save you anymore money than any other programmable thermostat. It will just save you the programming time.
getting the equation backwards? Wouldn't you want to make sure to keep your current subscribers happy? You might say that since they are getting the print version they don't need access to the website but there are several reasons why they might.
I don't think that people buy the journals in order to support the peer-review process.
Moreover, people aren't buying these journals. Universities and research institutions are, but, as was pointed out in the article, some places that are doing great research on their own can't afford the prices that the publishing companies want to charge.
Finally, how in the world do you get that these journals are "already an express of the CwF+RtB model?" Journals are, for the most part, a way to ensure tenure more than a way to disseminate information. Peer-reviewed journals are a joke.
...I think you are using being a little melodramatic here. I'm talking about this line - "That this creates tremendous chilling effects on free speech is just one of the many problems this causes."
I don't think that EU law being somewhat vague or that 3rd parties being held liable creates a "TREMENDOUS" chilling effect on free speech. As you often say, show me the proof. Not anecdotal proof, but show me where EU authors, artists, bloggers, etc. are coming out to say that they are now afraid to speak their minds.
I know that TD is basically a place for you to speak your mind but now that you do have a large readership, I would hope that you would either make sure you can back up any comment made or tone down the rhetoric. I think it would have been better to say that the ambiguity in EU law could cause an impact to free speech in the EU. Google should be commended in fighting in court and hopefully the ruling will clarify at least some of the ambiguity in the EU laws.
It's not but the media, for the most part it seems, feels no need to be responsible anymore. It seems they are more worried about making their advertisers happy and being seen as a source of entertainment rather than factual reporting. Not every media outlet and not all the time but definitely a great deal of them for a great deal of the time.
"Yet again, I'm left noticing the similarities between the US government's reaction to Wikileaks and the entertainment industry's reaction to file sharing. Each move that it made, including going legal, backfired in a big, bad way. It's really quite stunning to watch the US government make the same mistakes."
Haven't you pointed out time and again that I lot of the top people in the Justice Department came from Hollywood? If so then I would expect them to act the same way in DC that they did in Hollywood.
Just because an authority has rules doesn't make breaking them ILLEGAL. I don't see how this person can be charged with anything. Who is he being charged by? If it's the Authority then they have no power to charge anyone with anything. If it's the city or county then what law are they using as the basis of the charge?