Using that analogy, I feel like the question isn't whether the data is currently held on foreign soil, but whether it has ever been on US soil.

Of course, if the data is the subject of a domestic court case then it almost certainly was transmitted to or through a domestic system.

I understand what you're getting at, but I can't think of a single case that adding or increasing a tax has led to more demand (when accounting for other factors such as lowering supply). Your example of gasoline tax is good for showing that percentage of price isn't the only way, but at the same time it is still derived (based on the volume sold). I don't pay the same tax on 1 gallon as I do on 20 gallons. LIkewise, if ice cream were taxed per ounce, more ice cream would have more tax.

I suppose that's not to say it's impossible to have a flat dollar amount tax no matter the amount you purchase, which would lead to the result you mentioned earlier (people would tend to buy as much of the expensive stuff as possible, instead of less of the cheap stuff). This same model is why retailers often have buy-1-get-1 half off sales. They might get the profit off the first item and sell the second at cost, which is better than the customer not buying anything at all. (And it's also better than making things 25% off, which is the same result on 2 items but the customer has the option to buy 1 item resulting in half the profit.)

But coming from a tax? I doubt that would be popular with either consumers or the government. I don't know... I'll credit you that it's an interesting thought experiment at the least.

Well that's one way to rewrite the story. Why don't we just go ahead and say he driving an electric chair?

Not nearly as weird as what you said. Since when is sales tax generally applied as a dollar amount? Why would we be paying a flat $10 per item? That makes no sense at all. That would mean a 10 cent piece of gum would cost 100x more, while a car might cost 0.05% more.

Practically all general sales tax is a percentage. A tax like this would be applied as a percentage, say 300% (and I remind you, this is completely unreasonable). That means that a $3 ice cream would cost $12 with tax, and a $6 ice cream would cost $24 with tax. So no, the better item wouldn't suddenly do better in the market. (Quite the contrary, the market would be racing for the bottom trying to sell crappy $0.25 ice cream so it would be $1 with tax, hoping to increase demand to the point that sales would again be profitable.)

Ice cream, being nondurable, is not a good candidate as a Veblen good. The same applies for most foods.

"What is intelligence?"

"What is intelligent behavior?"

I'm absolutely positive that if you went up to the cashier and said "I would like to pay 3x as much in order to enjoy it more," he would be glad to oblige.

So, why don't you?

Why is it that you will only pay more if everyone pays more? If you truly believe what you are saying, what does how much I pay have to do with it?

This reminds me of buffet vs. a la carte expenses, just applied to insurance. If eating ice cream were to cost $0.50 extra each time (or I were to "save" 50 cents when I didn't eat ice cream), I might be more conscious about that cost and decide to not eat any than if that cost were figured in and distributed among all users buffet-style.

This may result in a healthier population, I would imagine. But given percentage profit caps due to the ACA (at least in the US), I suspect that profits would go down as a result. So, the plan backfires.

Combined with the negativity associated with charging a "tax" on eating tasty food, I doubt this really goes anywhere.

Oblig xkcd.

When the instruments are gone (somehow), the pilot would certainly rather have windows than not. It provides a very good chance of survivability where no windows means practically no chance.

I'm not getting on a plane that has no backup plan.

There are numerous ways a view screen could be disabled (object smashed it, software error, etc.) even though the plane is perfectly fit for flying otherwise.

I was under the impression that anesthesia doesn't work like a painkiller. It only reduces consciousness. The patient receives painkillers prior to the anesthesia wearing off in order to manage pain after becoming conscious. Since this would only take place of anesthesia, it would still be reasonable to provide painkillers before waking the patient up.

You're right, it probably isn't the ultimate solution. Perhaps someone should also be in charge of such a mailing list and double-check anything that comes through.

True, but at least there are corporate policies in place at most companies to manage such a situation.

Want to keep your job and not be subject to criminal prosecution? Don't share any emails with trade secrets or other private info.

Besides, since we are talking about better systems, let's go ahead and make it more difficult to accidentally send mail to mailing lists. "This message will be sent to 'GS Employees', a mailing list with 32,912 users. Are you sure?"

All of this was good and I highly agree that this kind of thing would be beneficial to all kinds of messaging protocols including email.

What? This doesn't make sense one bit. I can email practically any email address on the planet.

*facepalm* I'm not talking about me.

I'm talking about the billions of other email users around the globe who don't understand what PGP means or TLS or SMTP or anything that isn't the Send button. I'm talking about users who, like this guy, make very simple and understandable mistakes that could put many people and their possessions at risk.