Recent Updates RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • mazsa 21:05 on January 1, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    States: let them prey on atoms but not on bits! 

     

     

    Our bits — including our intangible goods and services — should be managed independently from states.

    Possibly states are the appropriate political units for organising and managing our atoms — including our tangible goods and services. But definitely not for organising and managing our bits — an embarrassing effort of a new cartel of all the states of the globe was launched at the very end of the last year.

    While we are inclined to acknowledge the right of the individual states to tax anything they can lay their hands on (that is, tangible atoms), we deny the right of their cartel to tax anything else (that is, intangible bits).

     

    Extending political framework

    The speed of travel and communication diverged more than a century ago.

    Since then, at least in theory, a new space has evolved: “communication space”. Borderless and real-time at global level, communication space is principally different from “travelling space” where we are limited by our physical body and slow motion.

    With the rapid development of the internet at the end of the last century, communication space and travelling space levelled out.

    In the meantime, our political system was becoming based on, and locked in, the partition of “travelling space” (the dry land of the planet) into distinct states.

    We suggest that we should extend the logic of the present political system, the partition one step further, adding distinct space (the communication space) to distinct states as well.

    It is our endeavour to constitute political units, spatially and functionally independent of states, operating in the communication space (internet) as their infrastructure, and make them work.

    The original function of these new political units should be to manage bits — as opposed to atoms that would continue to be managed by states.

     

    Respecting achievements

    States are right in that intellectual achievements should be rewarded, creativity must pay off in the long term. Whether or not a public issue at all, rewarding need not be the task of states: it should be dealt with directly in the jurisdictions operating in the communication space, through a public process. Dealing with the issue of bits should be our task. States may prey on tangibles, we need to achieve better management of intangibles.

    We understand states’ insistence on regarding bits as “intellectual property”: unless bits are intellectual property, trading in bits can not be taxed.

    However, it would be unjust to blame states simply for seeking their own solutions: if there are no other players around, why would they not try to colonize our favourite place, the internet? And if they are unable to do it by themselves, they will do so by establishing a cartel.

     

    Breaking down harmful tax cartels

    We aware that the global cartel of states monopolizes taxation. Every kind of taxation, including the taxation of intangible goods and services. By the end of last year, all disobedient states gave up resistance.

    We do not know whether the organized monopolization of taxation implies the transformation of the international political system into an integrated political unit called “the global state”. But we believe in competition markets as opposed to freely monopolizable markets. And we believe in tax competition (labelled “harmful tax practices” by states) as well.

    We believe that the global tax cartel of states extended to intangible goods and services would be harmful.

    Consequently, we must consider it to be our responsibility to break down this proposed cartel.

     

    Working on common strategy

    The strategic points are:

    1. Helping to constitute our own companies for the management of intangible goods and services, run on the jurisdictions of our new political units on the communication space, in return for tax — somewhere around the cost of PayPal. We should make our infrastructure to be able to manage distinct jurisdictions and taxation: hard wired laws, secure p2p communication, e-cash, etc.. We should foster tax competition: break down both harmful tax cartels and double taxation by any other political unit.

    2. We need to offer average users a kind of user experience as Apple provides, and we need to keep this system open to advanced users, like Linux.

    3. We should begin to feel allegiance towards our new, freely chosen political units run on the communication space. We should attract allegiance like the states do we happen to born into. We should know that we have an ethical basis for taking part in tax competition, proud of what we do, and defend ourselves in case of attacks. States may not be nice to us when we break down their cartel.

     

    Future

    As we, the first internet generations of planet Earth, grow up, we shall take control of this place. That is sure as death and taxes.

    We are how we are together. We are our states. We are our companies. We supply and demand our own products and ideals. Our responsibility is how we organize ourselves.

    I think states and companies operating according to their jurisdiction are not willing, and what is more, not even able to meet all the basic needs which originate from our very personship. States may be sufficient for our atoms, yet neither necessary nor sufficient for our bits, spirits and communities.

    We need a vivid net of political units operating in the communication space, able to help find the right place of states in our lives. Evolution will show which of the new political units will survive.

    We seek to make The United Persons one of them.

    We wish to live in a world where we constitute our own alternative online political units,
    - worthy of our love and loyalty,
    - that help manage our bits if and when required, on Earth or among the planets of the solar system when this time will come, and
    - able and willing to pacify any attacking entity.

    What do you feel is the true political unit of your choice?

    How can you help us all to constitute it?

    Internet, January 1, 2010

     

  • mazsa 19:31 on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament’s demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens’ legitimate demands. Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens’ lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this mascarade.

    Kader Arif, rapporteur for ACTA in the European Parliament
     

  • mazsa 22:02 on January 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    A gram of circumvention is worth a metric ton of lobbying.

    Charles Johnson
     

  • mazsa 08:49 on January 21, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , ,   

    “Quantum physics enables perfectly secure cloud computing: Researchers have succeeded in combining the power of quantum computing with the security of quantum cryptography and have shown that perfectly secure cloud computing can be achieved using the principles of quantum mechanics. They have performed an experimental demonstration of quantum computation in which the input, the data processing, and the output remain unknown to the quantum computer.
    [...] current trend of cloud computing: central remote servers are used to store and process data – everything is done in the “cloud.” The obvious challenge is to make globalized computing safe and ensure that users’ data stays private.
    The latest research, to appear in Science, reveals that quantum computers can provide an answer to that challenge. “Quantum physics solves one of the key challenges in distributed computing. It can preserve data privacy when users interact with remote computing centers [...]
    The scientists in the Vienna research group have demonstrated the concept of “blind quantum computing” in an experiment: they performed the first known quantum computation during which the user’s data stayed perfectly encrypted. The experimental demonstration uses photons, or “light particles” to encode the data. Photonic systems are well-suited to the task because quantum computation operations can be performed on them, and they can be transmitted over long distances.
    The process works in the following manner. The user prepares qubits – the fundamental units of quantum computers – in a state known only to himself and sends these qubits to the quantum computer. The quantum computer entangles the qubits according to a standard scheme. The actual computation is measurement-based: the processing of quantum information is implemented by simple measurements on qubits. The user tailors measurement instructions to the particular state of each qubit and sends them to the quantum server. Finally, the results of the computation are sent back to the user who can interpret and utilize the results of the computation. Even if the quantum computer or an eavesdropper tries to read the qubits, they gain no useful information, without knowing the initial state; they are “blind.”" http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/uov-qpe011612.php

    Publication: “Demonstration of Blind Quantum Computing” Stefanie Barz, Elham Kashefi, Anne Broadbent, Joseph Fitzsimons, Anton Zeilinger, Philip Walther. DOI: 10.1126/science.1214707

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1381

     

  • mazsa 19:03 on January 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    [...] USA is increasing its commitment to drone warfare without regard for the risks these weapons pose to our security and moral standing in the world. Drone technology is spreading rapidly, with dozens of countries and even nonstate actors such as Hezbollah now developing or purchasing these systems. Military planners are developing autonomous drones that could make their own decisions on when to unleash lethal force. If other nations follow our example as they often do, we will soon face the prospect of a world in which terror can rain down from the sky at any moment without warning. There is no long-term benefit to the United States in the unchecked proliferation of drone weapons or in the absence of agreed standards for limiting their use. [...]

    The United States should work through the United Nations to convene an international conference for developing legal standards on the use of unmanned weapons. The goal should be to ensure that any military use of these systems complies fully with the laws of war, including international humanitarian law and human rights law. This would enhance our moral standing and strengthen U.S. and international security.

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/01/09/david-cortright/license-to-kill

     

  • mazsa 23:37 on January 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ,   

    Hey Europe: sorry about my PM + The Unconstitutional Constitution 

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/the-unconstitutional-constitution/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/world/europe/rare-opposition-protests-in-hungary.html

     

  • mazsa 14:00 on December 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Why We Are In Political Gridlock: The Private Sector Is Dying http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/21/why-we-are-in-political-gridlock-the-private-sector-is-dying/

     

  • mazsa 13:59 on December 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Fukuyama on the absent left:

    [...] It has been several decades since anyone on the left has been
    able to articulate, first, a coherent analysis of what happens to the
    structure of advanced societies as they undergo economic change and,
    second, a realistic agenda that has any hope of protecting a
    middle-class society.

    The main trends in left-wing thought in the last two generations have
    been, frankly, disastrous as either conceptual frameworks or tools for
    mobilization. Marxism died many years ago, and the few old believers
    still around are ready for nursing homes. The academic left replaced
    it with postmodernism, multiculturalism, feminism, critical theory,
    and a host of other fragmented intellectual trends that are more
    cultural than economic in focus. Postmodernism begins with a denial of
    the possibility of any master narrative of history or society,
    undercutting its own authority as a voice for the majority of citizens
    who feel betrayed by their elites. Multiculturalism validates the
    victimhood of virtually every out-group. It is impossible to generate
    a mass progressive movement on the basis of such a motley coalition:
    most of the working- and lower-middle-class citizens victimized by the
    system are culturally conservative and would be embarrassed to be seen
    in the presence of allies like this.

    Whatever the theoretical justifications underlying the left’s agenda,
    its biggest problem is a lack of credibility. Over the past two
    generations, the mainstream left has followed a social democratic
    program that centers on the state provision of a variety of services,
    such as pensions, health care, and education. That model is now
    exhausted: welfare states have become big, bureaucratic, and
    inflexible; they are often captured by the very organizations that
    administer them, through public-sector unions; and, most important,
    they are fiscally unsustainable given the aging of populations
    virtually everywhere in the developed world. Thus, when existing
    social democratic parties come to power, they no longer aspire to be
    more than custodians of a welfare state that was created decades ago;
    none has a new, exciting agenda around which to rally the masses.

    AN IDEOLOGY OF THE FUTURE

    Imagine, for a moment, an obscure scribbler today in a garret
    somewhere trying to outline an ideology of the future that could
    provide a realistic path toward a world with healthy middle-class
    societies and robust democracies. What would that ideology look like?

    [...] the agenda it put forward to protect middle-class life could not
    simply rely on the existing mechanisms of the welfare state. The
    ideology would need to somehow redesign the public sector, freeing it
    from its dependence on existing stakeholders and using new,
    technology-empowered approaches to delivering services. It would have
    to argue forthrightly for more redistribution and present a realistic
    route to ending interest groups’ domination of politics. [...]

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136782/francis-fukuyama/the-future-of-history

     

  • mazsa 13:48 on December 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    The Strong Free Will Theorem

    [...] our theorem asserts that if experimenters have a certain freedom, then particles have exactly the same kind of freedom. Indeed, it is natural to suppose that this latter freedom is the ultimate explanation of our own.
    [...] It may well be true that classically stochastic processes such as tossing a (true) coin do not help in explaining free will, but [...] adding randomness also does not explain the quantum mechanical effects described in our theorem. It is precisely the “semi-free” nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows that something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here.
    Although the FWT [Free Will Theorem] suggests to us that determinism is not a viable option, it nevertheless enables us to agree with Einstein that “God does not play dice with the Universe.” In the present state of knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities to understand the connection between the free decisions of particles and humans, but the free will of neither of these is accounted for by mere randomness.
    [...] determinism may formally be shown to be consistent, there is no longer any evidence that supports it, in view of the fact that classical physics has been superseded by quantum mechanics, a non-deterministic theory. The import of the free will theorem is that it is not only current quantum theory, but the world itself that is non-deterministic, so that no future theory can return us to a clockwork universe.

    http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

    Cf. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Math_Trek__Do_subatomic_particles_have_free_will%3F

     

  • mazsa 11:56 on December 6, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    “And yet, even though useful quantum computers might still be decades away, many of their payoffs are already arriving. For example, the mere possibility of quantum computers has all but overthrown a conception of the universe that scientists like Stephen Wolfram have championed. That conception holds that, as in the “Matrix” movies, the universe itself is basically a giant computer, twiddling an array of 1’s and 0’s in essentially the same way any desktop PC does.

    Quantum computing has challenged that vision by showing that if “the universe is a computer,” then even at a hard-nosed theoretical level, it’s a vastly more powerful kind of computer than any yet constructed by humankind. Indeed, the only ways to evade that conclusion seem even crazier than quantum computing itself: One would have to overturn quantum mechanics, or else find a fast way to simulate quantum mechanics using today’s computers.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/science/scott-aaronson-quantum-computing-promises-new-insights.html?_r=1&ref=science&pagewanted=all

    “Carson Chow Says:
    Comment #2 December 5th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
    Nice article but I am confused about this paragraph:

    “For example, the mere possibility of quantum computers has all but overthrown a conception of the universe that scientists like Stephen Wolfram have championed. That conception holds that, as in the “Matrix” movies, the universe itself is basically a giant computer, twiddling an array of 1’s and 0’s in essentially the same way any desktop PC does.”

    A quantum universe or a classical universe are both computable aren’t they? It’s just that the quantum universe is exponentially “bigger”. In principle, you could have a classical computer just chug away painfully slowly and simulate the quantum universe, no? There is nothing in the “Matrix” universe that says the computation must be efficient is there? There are still just a countable number of possible quantum universes right?”

    “Scott Says:
    Comment #5 December 5th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
    Carson #2: Yes, as the tagline of my blog says, quantum computers can be simulated classically but with exponential slowdown.

    What we learn from quantum computing is that, if both quantum mechanics and the prevailing conjectures in complexity theory are valid, then the physical universe can’t be feasibly simulated by a computer that “twiddles an array of 1’s and 0’s in essentially the same way any desktop PC does.”

    (That last clause was meant to indicate that I was talking about efficient simulation by conventional computers — i.e., the Extended Church-Turing Thesis, or what Wikipedia calls the Feasibility Thesis. I wish I knew how to put the point more clearly within the constraints of this article, since you’re right that it might be misinterpreted!)

    For what it’s worth, Stephen Wolfram, Ed Fredkin, and other believers in “digital physics,” have been very explicit in saying that they think the universe is a classical cellular automaton—basically, a three-dimensional array of pixels—and that their view would preclude exponential speedups from quantum computation. (Wolfram believes that quantum mechanics is wrong, whereas Fredkin believes that quantum mechanics can be efficiently simulated classically.) So, these viewpoints would indeed be ruled out under the assumptions I mentioned above.

    A last remark: the Matrix movies aren’t very clear about what type of computer is being used, other than that it’s powered by human bodies! But since they never mention anything about quantum computing, and since the simulation clearly isn’t astronomically slow, it seems reasonable to assume that Keanu Reeves was trapped in some sort of classical simulation. So maybe he could’ve caused the simulation to crash by building a quantum computer and trying to run Shor’s factoring algorithm! For the version where Keanu is trapped in a quantum computation, we might need to wait for the followup trilogy, “The Unitary Matrix” (har, har).”

    “Jiav Says:
    Comment #8 December 6th, 2011 at 12:59 am
    Nice essay Scott, but how could we know our simulation is not astronomically slow?

    I’m curious to see if Greg Egan will comment this one :) ”

    http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=871

    Cf. http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/if-the-answer-is-42-what-is-the-question

     

  • mazsa 11:11 on November 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Live streaming + animations on Curiosity Mars rover & launch

    Curiosity Rover Animation:

    Nuclear Mars Rover:

    11 Amazing Things NASA’s Huge Mars Rover Can Do: http://www.space.com/13689-nasa-amazing-mars-rover-curiosity-science.html

     

  • mazsa 10:59 on November 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    John Stuart Mill, 1879: Socialism http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38138

     

  • mazsa 18:36 on November 21, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    “The proposed General Anti-Avoidance Rule [UK] [...] attacks arrangements with one or more of these qualities:

    (a) arrangements that would result in receipts being taken into account for tax purposes which are significantly less than the true economic income, profit or gain;

    (b) arrangements that would result in deductions being taken into account for tax purposes which are significantly greater than the true economic cost or loss;

    (c) arrangements that includes a transaction at a value significantly different from market value, or otherwise on non-commercial terms;

    (d) arrangements, or any element of it, inconsistent with the legal duties of the parties to it;

    (e) arrangements including a person, a transaction, a document or significant terms in a document, which would not be included if the arrangement were not designed to achieve an abusive tax result;

    (f) arrangements that omit a person, a transaction, a document or significant terms in a document, which would not be omitted if the arrangement were not designed to achieve an abusive tax result; and

    (g) arrangements that include the location of an asset or a transaction, or of the place of residence of a person, which would not be so located if the arrangement were not designed to achieve an abusive tax result.” http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/11/21/making-aggressive-tax-avoidance-illegal-what-a-new-gaar-might-do/

     

  • mazsa 09:35 on November 20, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    The colonization of outer space is key to the survival of humankind. It will be difficult for the world’s inhabitants to avoid disaster in the next hundred years. We are entering an increasingly dangerous period of our history. Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill. But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain lurking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space. This is why I favour “personed” space flight and encourage further study into how to make space colonization possible.

    Stephen Hawking
     

  • mazsa 15:29 on November 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    “tribal communities are the default system of human social nature. Humanity evolved that way for millennia after exiting the hunter-gatherer band stage of social life. Many of the planet’s diverse societies have since moved on toward becoming modern states, but not all of them have. And even for those that have, the shadowy emotional residues of the distant past remain; we never lose anything in evolution, but instead add new developments to older ones. That is Fox’s central idea and the theme running through The Tribal Imagination.

    It is also a truth, Fox believes, that we ignore at our peril as we go stumbling about in far-away strange places where tribes rule with an authority denied the more-or-less absent state. The pride and latent violence of groups of mutually suspicious kindred must be the starting point, Fox says, for anyone venturing into this political landscape. Such men and women are not the free individual citizens of a recognized territorial jurisdiction; nor are they people with clearly defined and defensible legal rights with respect to the state, whether in Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan.

    This truth, he says, sheds a harsh light on instances when “our leaders make claims about human nature and the natural state of human society as justifications for political action, armed intervention included.” These leaders, more often than not, suggests Fox, simply refuse to understand the essentially tribal nature of the lands they hope to remake. They are reluctant to grasp that

    there is no ‘Iraqi People’. The phrase should be banned as misleading and purely rhetorical. . . . What is not understood is that Iraq, like the other countries of the region, still stands at a level of social evolution where the family, clan, tribe and sect command major allegiance. The idea of the individual autonomous voter, necessary and commonplace in our own systems, is relatively foreign.

    Numerous unforeseen events during the Iraq occupation have illustrated the priority of tribal authority. When men came out and stole copper wire connecting hospitals to the electricity grid, indignant U.S. soldiers tried to make the thieves see that their actions would hurt “the Iraqi people.” True to form, the thieves responded just as Aouda had a hundred years before: Who were these “Iraqi people”, they wanted to know, whose claims outranked those of their own needy relatives? The thieving clansmen felt no responsibility for some mythical collectivity called “the people” that, as far as they knew, did not include them and that, in any case, foreigners had invented without their approval. In contrast, they were absolutely bound by customary law to help their kin” http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=990

     

  • mazsa 07:13 on November 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    How litigation only spurred on P2P file sharing: “[...] the US Supreme Court in Grokster created a brand new legal doctrine, called inducement, that did not rely on either knowledge or control. That rule was aimed at capturing “bad actors” – those P2P providers who aimed to profit from their users’ infringement and whose nefarious intent was demonstrated by “smoking guns” in their marketing and other communications. But the inducement law failed to appreciate some of the other differences that make the software world special and thus led directly to the explosion in the number of P2P technologies. In understanding why, three other physical world assumptions come into play.

    One is that it is expensive to create distribution technologies that are capable of vast amounts of infringement. Of course in the physical world, the creation of such technologies, like printing presses, photocopiers, and VCRs required large investment. Research and development, mass-manufacturing, marketing and delivery all require massive amounts of cash. Thus, the law came to assume that the creation of such technologies was expensive.

    That led directly to the next assumption – that distribution technologies are developed for profit. After all, nobody would be investing those massive sums without some prospect of a return.

    Finally comes the fourth assumption: that rational developers of distribution technologies won’t share their secrets with consumers or competitors. Since they needed to recoup those massive investments, they had no interest at all in giving them away.

    All of these assumptions certainly can hold up in the software development context. For example, those behind Kazaa spent a lot on its development, squeezed out the maximum possible profit and kept its source code a closely guarded secret. By creating a law that focused on profits, business models and marketing, the Supreme Court succeeded in shaking out Kazaa and its ilk from the market.

    But the Court failed to appreciate that none of these things are actually necessary to the creation of P2P file sharing software. [...]” http://www.itnews.com.au/News/279763,how-litigation-only-spurred-on-p2p-file-sharing.aspx

     

  • mazsa 17:45 on November 8, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , OECD, ,   

    Cartelizing Taxes: Understanding OECD’s Campaign Against ‘Harmful Tax Competition’:

    Formed in 1961 to promote global economic and social well-being, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has become the collective voice of rich countries on international tax issues. After an initial focus on improving commerce through addressing double taxation issues, the organization shifted to a focus on restricting tax competition and increasing automatic exchanges of tax information. In this paper we analyze the reasons for this shift in policy focus. After describing the history of the OECD’s work on taxation, we examine the OECD’s project against “harmful tax competition” as it has played out since its launch in the 1990s. We analyze the mechanisms behind the project from a public choice perspective. While typical economic models portray tax competition as a prisoner’s dilemma between governments, a more powerful perspective is of the incentives of politicians and bureaucrats. We conclude that the project against tax competition is an example of the interplay between the interests of politicians and international bureaucrats, which illustrates the role international organizations play in competition among interest groups. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1950627

    Cf. Joining the Chorus for Tax Cooperation:

    [...] But international organizations aren’t the only ones that are destroying jobs and economic opportunity in the name of tax fairness. The U.S. Treasury and Internal Revenue Service are considering regulations that could cost Americans millions of jobs. One of the regulations being developed stems from the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which was passed by Congress in 2010. FATCA would impose a 30 percent tax on the investment in the United States of any foreign financial institution, including a bank, if it had any unreported U.S. citizen or green card holder contributing to the pool of money invested. Furthermore, the foreign financial institution’s officers could be subject to civil and criminal charges for making such an investment. In an era of common dual citizenships, it is impossible for a foreign financial institution to know for certain whether any of its clients is a U.S. taxpayer (i.e., citizen, green card holder, etc.). Thus, foreign financial institutions in Switzerland, Taiwan and elsewhere are pulling their investments out of the United States right at the time when the U.S. needs all of the job-creating foreign investment it can get.

    Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, and the other economic-know-nothings who proposed these measures claim — without any basis in fact — that the United States is losing $100 billion annually because of foreign account tax avoidance or evasion. Private foreign investment in the U.S. is about $14 trillion. So $100 billion is less than 1 percent of the private foreign investment, yet the mental midgets in Congress and the administration are willing to risk trillions of dollars in job-creating foreign investment in exchange for a phony $100 billion. Well over 10 million American jobs are at risk because of this foolishness.

    It gets worse. The Treasury and IRS have yet to do a cost-benefit study of FATCA, but final regulations are being developed. In the private sector, executives who so failed at their fiduciary responsibilities would be fired, perhaps fined or even sent to jail. But members of Congress and the executive branch are most unlikely to pay any penalty for risking perhaps 20 to 40 jobs for each job they might, theoretically, save. By the way, many of the senators and congressmen who brought you FATCA are the same ones who want to continue to fund the OECD. Mr. President, if you really care about jobs in the way you say you do, why are you not calling for the repeal of FATCA and reining in Mr. Levin, his colleagues and your own Treasury secretary, who are in the process of endangering far more existing jobs than any of your questionable jobs proposals could possibly create? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13832

     

  • mazsa 21:30 on October 24, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    I just got everything perfect in my life, and then I went and messed it all up by having a baby. [...] I compare the process to becoming a vampire, your old self dies in a sad and painful way, but then you come out the other side with immortality, super strength and a taste for human blood.

    Jonathan Coulton
     

  • mazsa 19:56 on October 20, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    US today released environmental and health nanotech strategy http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_ehs_research_strategy.pdf Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

     

  • mazsa 03:31 on October 20, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Revealed: the capitalist network that runs the world http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html & http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

     

  • mazsa 03:22 on October 20, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    “Libertarianism presents itself as a simple, clear, and principled view. It appears to provide a moral basis, in the value of individual liberty, for a specific political program of limited government and low taxes. The moral significance of liberty seems obvious even to those who believe it is not the only thing that matters. But the claim of the libertarian political program to be founded on this value is illusory. Three lines of thought lead to conclusions that might be seen as libertarian. But none of these shows that respect for the value of individual liberty should lead one to support the political program of low taxes and limited government that libertarians are supposed to favor. [...]” http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.5/ndf_t_m_scanlon_libertarianism_liberty.php

     

  • mazsa 07:59 on October 19, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    The end of the Space Age – Inner space is useful. Outer space is history http://www.economist.com/node/18897425

    An Elegy for the Age of Space http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/08/elegy-for-age-of-space.html

    Why Not Space? http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/why-not-space/ Cf. http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/2258237/space-is-not-the-place-says-professor

     

  • mazsa 22:05 on October 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    :) “Of the more than 80,000 chemicals used in the U.S., only 300 or so have ever undergone health and safety testing. In fact, only five chemicals have ever been restricted or banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But now some 10,000 agricultural and industrial chemicals—as well as food additives—will be screened for toxicity for the first time, with the help of a rapid-fire testing robot. [...]” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=robot-allows-high-speed-chemical-testing

     

  • mazsa 12:13 on October 14, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Self-replication of information-bearing nanoscale patterns:”DNA molecules provide what is probably the most iconic example of self-replication—the ability of a system to replicate, or make copies of, itself. In living cells the process is mediated by enzymes and occurs autonomously, with the number of replicas increasing exponentially over time without the need for external manipulation. Self-replication has also been implemented with synthetic systems, including RNA enzymes designed to undergo self-sustained exponential amplification. An exciting next step would be to use self-replication in materials fabrication, which requires robust and general systems capable of copying and amplifying functional materials or structures. Here we report a first development in this direction, using DNA tile motifs that can recognize and bind complementary tiles in a pre-programmed fashion. We first design tile motifs so they form a seven-tile seed sequence; then use the seeds to instruct the formation of a first generation of complementary seven-tile daughter sequences; and finally use the daughters to instruct the formation of seven-tile granddaughter sequences that are identical to the initial seed sequences. Considering that DNA is a functional material that can organize itself and other molecules into useful structures, our findings raise the tantalizing prospect that we may one day be able to realize self-replicating materials with various patterns or useful functions.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7368/full/nature10500.html

    Cf.: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111012132651.htm

     

  • mazsa 22:00 on October 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Finland, ,   

    Mission for Finland – IN 2030 FINLAND WILL BE THE PROBLEM-SOLVER OF THE WORLD http://www.nation-branding.info/downloads/mission-for-finland-branding-report.pdf

     

  • mazsa 21:53 on October 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    http://longbets.org The arena for accountable predictions

     

  • mazsa 20:13 on October 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Artifacts and Natural Kinds: Children’s Judgments About Whether Objects Are Owned “People’s behavior in relation to objects depends on whether they are owned. But how do people judge whether objects are owned? We propose that people expect human-made objects (artifacts) to be more likely to be owned than naturally occurring objects (natural kinds), and we examine the development of these expectations in young children. Experiment 1 found that when shown pictures of familiar kinds of objects, 3-year-olds expected artifacts to be owned and inanimate natural kinds to be non-owned. In Experiments 2A and 2B, 3– 6-year-olds likewise had different expectations about the ownership of unfamiliar artifacts and natural kinds. Children at all ages viewed unfamiliar natural kinds as non-owned, but children younger than 6 years of age only endorsed artifacts as owned at chance rates. In Experiment 3, children saw the same pictures but were also told whether objects were human-made. With this information provided, even 3-year-olds viewed unfamiliar artifacts as owned. Finally, in Experiment 4, 4- and 5-year-olds chose unfamiliar artifacts over natural kinds when judging which object in a pair belongs to a person, but not when judging which the person prefers. These experiments provide first evidence about how children judge whether objects are owned. In contrast to claims that children think about natural kinds as being similar to artifacts, the current findings reveal that children have differing expectations about whether they are owned.” http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/dev-ofp-neary.pdf doi: 10.1037/a0025661

     

  • mazsa 14:50 on October 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Facebook, ,   

    Europe versus Facebook’s 22 complaints:

    1. Pokes.
    Pokes are kept even after the user “removes” them.

    2. Shadow Profiles.
    Facebook is collecting data about people without their knowledge. This information is used to substitute existing profiles and to create profiles of non-users.

    3. Tagging.
    Tags are used without the specific consent of the user. Users have to “untag” themselves (opt-out).
    Info: Facebook announced changes.

    4. Synchronizing.
    Facebook is gathering personal data e.g. via its iPhone-App or the “friend finder”. This data is used by Facebook without the consent of the data subjects.

    5. Deleted Postings.
    Postings that have been deleted showed up in the set of data that was received from Facebook.

    6. Postings on other Users’ Pages.
    Users cannot see the settings under which content is distributed that they post on other’s pages.

    7. Messages.
    Messages (incl. Chat-Messages) are stored by Facebook even after the user “deleted” them. This means that all direct communication on Facebook can never be deleted.

    8. Privacy Policy and Consent.
    The privacy policy is vague, unclear and contradictory. If European and Irish standards are applied, the consent to the privacy policy is not valid.

    9. Face Recognition.
    The new face recognition feature is an inproportionate violation of the users right to privacy. Proper information and an unambiguous consent of the users is missing.

    10. Access Request.
    Access Requests have not been answered fully. Many categories of information are missing.

    11. Deleted Tags.
    Tags that were “removed” by the user, are only deactivated but saved by Facebook.
    Filed with the Irish DPC

    12. Data Security.
    In its terms, Facebook says that it does not guarantee any level of data security.
    Filed with the Irish DPC

    13. Applications.
    Applications of “friends” can access data of the user. There is no guarantee that these applications are following European privacy standards.

    14. Deleted Friends.
    All removed friends are stored by Facebook.

    15. Excessive processing of Data.
    Facebook is hosting enormous amounts of personal data and it is processing all data for its own purposes.
    It seems Facebook is a prime example of illegal “excessive processing”.

    16. Opt-Out.
    Facebook is running an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system, which is required by European law.

    17. Like Button.
    The Like Button is creating extended user data that can be used to track users all over the internet. There is no legitimate purpose for the creation of the data. Users have not consented to the use.

    18. Obligations as Processor.
    Facebook has certain obligations as a provider of a “cloud service” (e.g. not using third party data for its own purposes or only processing data when instructed to do so by the user).

    19. Picture Privacy Settings.
    The privacy settings only regulate who can see the link to a picture. The picture itself is “public” on the internet. This makes it easy to circumvent the settings.

    20. Deleted Pictures.
    Facebook is only deleting the link to pictures. The pictures are still public on the internet for a certain period of time (more than 32 hours).

    21. Groups.
    Users can be added to groups without their consent. Users may end up in groups that lead other to false impressions about a person.

    22. New Policies.
    The policies are changed very frequently, users do not get properly informed, they are not asked to consent to new policies.

    http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Complaints/complaints.html

     

  • mazsa 01:40 on October 13, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ,   

    EUDataProtectionSupervisor: No privacy without net neutrality “78. Inspection techniques based on traffic data and inspection of IP payloads, i.e. the content of communications, may reveal users’ Internet activity: websites visited and activities on those sites, use of P2P applications, files downloaded, emails sent and received, from whom, on what subject and in which terms, etc. ISPs may want to use this information to prioritise some communications, such as video on demand, over others. They may want to use it to identify viruses, or to build profiles in order to serve behavioural advertising. These actions interfere with the right to the confidentiality of communications.” http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2011/11-10-07_Net_neutrality_EN.pdf

    [Via http://www.laquadrature.net/en/no-privacy-without-net-neutrality ]

     

  • mazsa 17:07 on October 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Tax havens and the FTSE100: the full list http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/11/ftse100-subsidiaries-tax-data

     

  • mazsa 00:04 on October 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Occupy Wall Street vs Tea Party, in 3 sentences:

    [via: Cato]

     

← Older posts

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel

This site is protected with Urban Giraffe's plugin 'HTML Purified' and Edward Z. Yang's Powered by HTML Purifier. 51591 items have been purified.