I'm no fan of taxes, especially income tax, but still see it as a means to an end. I pay taxes, Microsoft should too. If I don't pay taxes, I can go to jail. Microsoft gets a free pass due to loopholes and tax shelters. This needs to end.
Big business wants a small weak government in general
You REALLY need to supply some reference for that, because it's the opposite of everything I ever see.
a government where they can control the regulations
Yes, this *is* what they want, which by definition means a larger government: more regulation, more people to enforce the regulations, more rules, more profit protectionism, etc., etc. It's also the opposite of wanting a "small weak government".
They also want to control how government educates the kids (witness Bill Gates and his "Common Core"). They want wage slaves trained to perform the menial tasks that robots can't do. And focused "job skills". What would be anathema to them is a government that promotes the general idea that everyone can have (or be) their OWN business, and offer their wares or skills to multiple other businesses or enterprises. That is the way of the future, and the way for people to control their own destiny.
There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
You forgot an important recent one: beer. The US, despite being completely banned from the entire industry for over a decade, is now the premier manufacturer of high quality beer. Germany lost it's status years ago, and even Belgium has taken to buying up old, lousy beer companies like Anheuser-Busch and even watering down the beer from that bottom-tier producer.
Sure, that's not much of an export for the US, but neither is "high-speed pizza delivery", but at least our best-in-the-world beer has that potential.
I never understood conservative opposition to unions. In particular, wage slave, blue collar conservatives. Unions are an effectively privatized way to achieve wealth redistribution.
Well you answered your own question right there. Conservative's opposition is based on observing the practice of today's labor unions, which redistribute wealth from their hard-earned hourly wage to the wealthy unions. It's bad enough having your labor exploited by a corporation. Most people don't want their labor exploited by a corporation and a labor union.
Big government is evil, but not all government is evil.
Sure it is. But, as many have pointed out, including the founders of the US Constitution, it's a necessary evil. That was the point of establishing one with "supremacy", but putting it in chains (a.k.a., a Constitution).
But more importantly, people who are flat out against a large and powerful federal government can be completely for the same at a state and local level where the public has more power to control it.
Well, maybe not large and powerful, but with more authority for its specific sphere of influence. Because smaller groups can more easily agree on things to cooperate on. Family > Neighborhood > Community > County > State > Federal.
One way to fix the problem is to go to war and kill off the extra men.
Or, they could just adapt some aspects of ancient Greek culture. The Chinese leaders are pretty good and implementing cultural revolutions, after all.
Chile is often held up as being one of the more libertarian governments. As such it seems logical that it would often appear to be a federation of businesses.
Some people are always claiming libertarian governments would mean big businesses would run everything. But if that were true, you have to wonder why big businesses never support libertarian ideas, but prefer big government instead.
Yep, I would consider this a bargain. According to TFS:
In a survey, 98% of consumers said they wouldn't be willing to pay that much for the ability to browse without advertisements.
Obviously those folks are not considering all the concomitant pollution of the Internet as a whole that results from entire advertisement funding model. SEO poisoning (and attempts), click bait, adware, slow loading pages and pop-ups and all the rest. Sure, you can mitigate some of that with things like adblock and noscript and putting the Flash plug-in into "Always ask" mode, but that just escalates the war for eyeball revenue, browser hijacking adware, and all those copycat domain registrations put up just to get ad revenue from URL typos.
I think the whole ad supported model is doomed to implode anyway. The ads don't work, and right now Google and Facebook are actually considered high-value stocks on nothing but the ability to sell ads. Eventually the advertisers will wise up, and it will all crash. It's happening to newspapers right now. And that's moved to TV and the Internet because that's where the eyeballs are. But who actually spends money based on those ads they see? Are companies really getting the value they think they buying them? What happens when they find out they've been wasting their marketing budgets on it?
"I still want the desktop," Torvalds said as the audience erupted into boisterous applause.
Torvalds doesn't see the desktop as being a kernel problem at this point either, but rather one about infrastructure. While not ready to declare a 'Year of the Linux Desktop' he does expect that to happen — one day."
Link to Original Source
I looked on the company's website, and it appears to list no royalty schedule, unlike MPEG LA and MP3Licensing (Fraunhofer/Technicolor).
Well those guys are involved in "standard" organizations, so their patents have to have a schedule so they qualify as RAND patents.
There are still some gems out there. You should check out Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak's No Agenda Show.
Better to call it a webcast, i.e. episodic publication of audio files on the Internet.
Podcast is just Apples branding of the webcast for its iPod, and it came later.
This patent troll claimed *podcasts* infringed on its patent, as they came later
This is all completely wrong. First, Personal Audio is not technically "troll" - it didn't buy patents to troll, it actually developed the (somewhat obvious) technologies. Paul Logan is a real inventor that has brought real products to market.
Second, there is no patent for "podcasting" at all. The Personal Audio patents are about distribution and organizing of episodic content. Yes, they had a real product that did that, until Apple incorporated the same techniques into iTunes.
Paul Logan's Slashdot interview might be a little instructive for those that have only heard Adam Corolla's inflammatory fundraising scheme.
Logan: Well, I could answer this question by arguing that I did try to build a product. That I spent $1.6 million of my own money trying to realize our vision of a custom listening experience that ended up, at the end of the day, being implemented in the form of a cassette tape product, and not the digital player system we envisioned and patented.
When I left MicroTouch to start Personal Audio in 1996, we employed 500 people making touch screens in Massachusetts. Without those patents, we would never have gotten the company off the ground.
Personal Audio has been trying to assert patents they claim cover podcasting
This is completely false. The patents don't cover podcasting per se, rather they cover methods for displaying and indexing podcast directories for distribution, the way they are organized in, for instance, the iTunes store. You can podcast all you want, distribute your podcasts and do everything else with them without Personal Audio making a claim, unless you put them into an iTunes store-like directory.
Not saying that it's a whole lot better, but this patent is easily avoidable, and the description is just disinformation.