Great, I don't feel like paying for lung care treatment for habitual smokers. Or people involved in car accidents to get any medical treatment. I mean, obviously I support their ability to get treatment I just don't want my taxes to pay for it. "
Let's say I'm 18 years old and a 2 pack a day smoker (I'm not and I'm not). A pack of cigarettes costs about $4 (this varies). Over half of that is taxes. Let's say I smoke for 30 years before I need medical assistance for my life-threatening lung cancer.
30 * 365 * 2 * $2 = $43800 (in today's dollars). Is this enough to treat me? I don't really know, I'm not a doctor;0 . But I'm guessing that it doesn't really matter one iota, because:
Many people smoke and quit without ever incurring smoking related health costs
Many people smoke for years and die in car accidents, die fighting for their country, or die in some other non-smoking related way
Many smokers die abruptly of heart related illnesses or otherwise don't use anywhere near $43000 in healt expenses
The money smokers pay for their habits is not used directly to pay for smoking related illnesses. Most of this money goes into general funds at the federal, state, and local level. This is a sin tax - pure and simple. The taxes get approved because smokers are addicts and will put up with it, and smokers are a frowned upon (but sizeable) minority.
Most smokers are covered by some insurance plans. Many of those plans have higher premiums for smokers, so they pay again for their addiction/habit.
In summary, you pay very little, and probably nothing for smoking related health care costs. So quit your whining, beottch
"BTW - NOBODY is arguing that starving people should not eat, however I think that role should fall to the CITIZENS of the country/state/city instead of the GOVERNMENT"
GOVERNMENT is how CITIZENS decide to ensure people don't starve while also ensuring everyone pays their share. A completely voluntary welfare system would fail.
"Federal bureaucracies are notoriously inefficient.... Would it not be better to have more local control over such programs?"
This inefficiency may be true, but at least you know that all people have the same opportunity for welfare throughout the land. If you relegated the welfare programs to a lower level of government, you open yourself up to many problems the net effect of which would be to reduce or eliminate welfare in entirety and to construct a system where class warfare would prosper.
Let me demonstrate: a small geographical area that can control its own taxation and welfare policies relative to other adjacent geographical areas would have a strong tendency to smaller taxation and welfare programs when compared to other areas with lower average wealth per resident. Say residents of county A are more wealthy than residents of count B on average. When it comes to voting, electing represenatatives, etc., the electorate in county A is apt to decide on lower taxes and reduced benefits than those voters in county B. County A people now keep more of their wealth, but poor people in County A have less welfare to rely on when needed. County A becomes incrementally more attractive to wealthy members of county B, and poor people find that they can't afford to live in count A, so they move to count B. This is positive feedback system with no non-violent recourse. As county A becomes more wealthy, the voters their are less likely to approve tax-funded welfare programs that fund welfare for poor people who increasingly are moving to County B. In county B, you have an increasing population of welfare recipients. Those who work and make a living tend to leave. Those who can't or won't stay and are joined by like-circumstanced people who depend on a system funded on dwindling tax revenues.
For any sufficiently small areas, each capable of self-determination for taxes and welfare, this feedback system will establish itself. True, the much played "altruism" card will be played by your libertarian or republican: it is true that many wealthy people will give generously (some even in the absence of tax breaks), but this does not negate this segregating effect, and those same altruists often don't want to see the poverty in their backyard. So Mrs. Gates sends some much needed donations to the residents of county B, but county A is still effectively an aristocratic self-determining political unit.
Further problems are introduced when corrupt officials in a mixed geographic area propose to break said area (a large county for example) down socioeconomic lines resulting in two or more areas pressured into ever widening stratification.
With larger areas such as states, this pressure may not be enough to overcome the inertia present in the difficulty in moving. However, you can bet that if Rhode Islanders are richer than Connecticuters, their respective proposed welfare plans will reflect this disparity. The disparity will increase with time.
Now this may or may not bother your staunch libertarian, but the right to wealth will be forgotten when legions of poor take it upon themselves to correct the disparity with their own hands. This will be the genesis of class warfare, or at the very least, increased crime and an increased police state to keep it in check.
Personally, I strive for high wealth, but I also realize that ensuring that no one starves (welfare doesn't have to be comfortable, though) is a good use of my money. On a national scale.
I agree with many principles of libertarianism(especially the emphasis on personal liberty), so it frustrates me to see some of its proponents take it to such extremes. If you think the free-market economy is a "perfect system" - like the non-existent "perfect gas" in physics, you are seriously deluded.
We use 240 frame per second infrared cameras to track bats in the flight room. They're expensive....
I happen to have an excess stock of high quality bats, and I could probably let them go for a pretty good rate assuming you buy the lot of them. I hate to think you're getting a raw deal on your bats after spending all that money on your camera. Contact me if you're interested.
You're right - that doesn't make any sense at all. Or maybe the martians were so blindingly stupid that every switch or other manipulator had to have an impression of their hand so they would know what it was for. In fact, they must have been stoooopid - they are extinct after all.
Well, I may not have made that clear, but I underand your point. I know that I can only upgrade an existing MS OS (on their approved list) with that upgrade CD, which is why I mentioned the fact that I also have (non-upgrade) licences for Windows 3.1 and Windows 1.0.
This is a very good question. I've certainly done that in the past. I've had the need for a windows machine a couple time over the past serveral years, and in those cases, I used an extremely old copy of windows 3 that came with an old 486 that has since been retired and an "upgrade" version of windows that I bought to install on hardware I bought naked.
Of course, the last 4 machines I've bought have been naked, though in every case I've installed linux and/or *bsd* on them. If I had a need for a windows machine now, I would just use that old upgrade version of windows 98 and those win3.1 floppies to to do the reinstall. If the floppies were corrupt, I would even consider pirating a copy, not because I think pirating is right, but because since I am the legal owner of 1 copy of windows 98 (as well as windows 3.1 and windows 1.0).
Of course, MS would rather have you purchase a new copy of their alleged-OS every time you get a new computer, or better still, everytime you upgrade any hardware in an existing system. With the state of licensing laws being what they are, I would not be surprised if moving software from one machine to another might be legally forbidden by shrink-wrap licenses.
They can make it illegal, but they can't make it wrong
If I see one more goddamn locust driving while talking on the cell phone, I'm going to go ballistic. I don't have a problem with insects driving in general, but when you try to get one to drive properly while talking on the phone, all bets are off. They switch lanes unpredictably, can't maintain a constant speed, drive in the fast lane while going way too slow, and have no awareness of the world around them. Hell, you could have a south west brown bat driving a motorcycle right next to one of these cell-phone-talking-locusts and the bug wouldn't have any idea. Can't we pass a law or something?
Funny thing is, the moderation as of right now reads Score 2, Redundant. First post is on topic and it get's a redundant vote, sweet jeebus, what is slashdot moderation coming to?
I have one of these PC-on-a-card things at work
that came with my Ultra 5, but I've never used since I have a pretty decent NT box sitting next to the Sun machine. What I'd like to do, is take the PC-on-a card thing home and see if I can't get it to run in a normal linux-based PC, run linux on it, and see if I can't make the kernel take advantage of it.
No - when running multiple monitors with xinerama, +/- only change the resolution on the monitor where the mouse happens to be. This appears to be the case when using a dual head card like the G400, or when using multiple video cards
That's why Apple has 1 mouse button--to make it easier for a user.
Yep, those 2 and 3 button mice are so intimidating - my god, what do these users you speak of do when they have to deal the ~100 keys (used in combinations) on the keyboard, piss all over themselves and drool like babies?
Any advantage gained by the reduced complexity of having only 1 mouse button is completely lost after a few weeks of using the computer. After that, you're left with a device without any possibility of giving the user finer control of his computer. How is less control an innovation? The only innovation is by the marketing department that gets some short-term publicity and the possibility of selling a few more computers to novices who might make a decision based on this illusory advantage
Try this - look at your alarm clock. How many buttons? Mine has about 8, several of which function differently when pushed in combination or when held down versus just pressed. I can literally operate this thing in my sleep. Look at your microwave oven - how many buttons? Mine has about 16. I've never looked at the instruction manual. The point is that a well designed interface should be intuitive, but not at the expense of taking away control and functionality for your non-novice user. This can be done with a 1 button, a 2-button, or even a 3-button mouse, IMO.
We're only novices with new devices for about 10 minutes. People are very good at learning new things, and once they know them - lack of functionality will be an irritation for the rest of their dealings with that device.
Good, intuitive interface design is a problem and I'm not saying that work can't be done here. But the answer is no more building 1-button mice than it is building 1 key keyboards.
Congratulations, you are the proud new owner of a $1500 computer, something with which you will spend many hours, but we had the foresight to build the interface such that for the entire time you own it, you will be treated like you just pulled it out of the box
IANALNDIPOOTVAAIRMAIBIHNBHFLOABSTMOWAGGOS (I Am Not A Lawyer, Nor Do I Play One On TV, And Although I Realize My Attitude Is Biggoted, I Have Nothing But Hatred For Lawyers Of All Breeds, So Take My Opinion With A Giant Grain Of Salt)
How is this a major news item? Ebay has 12 million users, but one slippery Chicago Man causes them so much trouble, disrupts their service so much for the other 11,999,999 users, and is so crafty at evading their internal banishment that CNN sees fit to report on it?
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say I'm 18 years old and a 2 pack a day smoker (I'm not and I'm not). A pack of cigarettes costs about $4 (this varies). Over half of that is taxes. Let's say I smoke for 30 years before I need medical assistance for my life-threatening lung cancer.
30 * 365 * 2 * $2 = $43800 (in today's dollars). Is this enough to treat me? I don't really know, I'm not a doctor ;0 . But I'm guessing that it doesn't really matter one iota, because:
- Many people smoke and quit without ever incurring smoking related health costs
- Many people smoke for years and die in car accidents, die fighting for their country, or die in some other non-smoking related way
- Many smokers die abruptly of heart related illnesses or otherwise don't use anywhere near $43000 in healt expenses
- The money smokers pay for their habits is not used directly to pay for smoking related illnesses. Most of this money goes into general funds at the federal, state, and local level. This is a sin tax - pure and simple. The taxes get approved because smokers are addicts and will put up with it, and smokers are a frowned upon (but sizeable) minority.
- Most smokers are covered by some insurance plans. Many of those plans have higher premiums for smokers, so they pay again for their addiction/habit.
In summary, you pay very little, and probably nothing for smoking related health care costs. So quit your whining, beottchH-dog, over and out!
GOVERNMENT is how CITIZENS decide to ensure people don't starve while also ensuring everyone pays their share. A completely voluntary welfare system would fail.
This inefficiency may be true, but at least you know that all people have the same opportunity for welfare throughout the land. If you relegated the welfare programs to a lower level of government, you open yourself up to many problems the net effect of which would be to reduce or eliminate welfare in entirety and to construct a system where class warfare would prosper.
Let me demonstrate: a small geographical area that can control its own taxation and welfare policies relative to other adjacent geographical areas would have a strong tendency to smaller taxation and welfare programs when compared to other areas with lower average wealth per resident. Say residents of county A are more wealthy than residents of count B on average. When it comes to voting, electing represenatatives, etc., the electorate in county A is apt to decide on lower taxes and reduced benefits than those voters in county B. County A people now keep more of their wealth, but poor people in County A have less welfare to rely on when needed. County A becomes incrementally more attractive to wealthy members of county B, and poor people find that they can't afford to live in count A, so they move to count B. This is positive feedback system with no non-violent recourse. As county A becomes more wealthy, the voters their are less likely to approve tax-funded welfare programs that fund welfare for poor people who increasingly are moving to County B. In county B, you have an increasing population of welfare recipients. Those who work and make a living tend to leave. Those who can't or won't stay and are joined by like-circumstanced people who depend on a system funded on dwindling tax revenues.
For any sufficiently small areas, each capable of self-determination for taxes and welfare, this feedback system will establish itself. True, the much played "altruism" card will be played by your libertarian or republican: it is true that many wealthy people will give generously (some even in the absence of tax breaks), but this does not negate this segregating effect, and those same altruists often don't want to see the poverty in their backyard. So Mrs. Gates sends some much needed donations to the residents of county B, but county A is still effectively an aristocratic self-determining political unit.
Further problems are introduced when corrupt officials in a mixed geographic area propose to break said area (a large county for example) down socioeconomic lines resulting in two or more areas pressured into ever widening stratification.
With larger areas such as states, this pressure may not be enough to overcome the inertia present in the difficulty in moving. However, you can bet that if Rhode Islanders are richer than Connecticuters, their respective proposed welfare plans will reflect this disparity. The disparity will increase with time.
Now this may or may not bother your staunch libertarian, but the right to wealth will be forgotten when legions of poor take it upon themselves to correct the disparity with their own hands. This will be the genesis of class warfare, or at the very least, increased crime and an increased police state to keep it in check.
Personally, I strive for high wealth, but I also realize that ensuring that no one starves (welfare doesn't have to be comfortable, though) is a good use of my money. On a national scale.
I agree with many principles of libertarianism(especially the emphasis on personal liberty), so it frustrates me to see some of its proponents take it to such extremes. If you think the free-market economy is a "perfect system" - like the non-existent "perfect gas" in physics, you are seriously deluded.
What is your favorite internet porn site?
How many mp3's have you downloaded from napster?
I happen to have an excess stock of high quality bats, and I could probably let them go for a pretty good rate assuming you buy the lot of them. I hate to think you're getting a raw deal on your bats after spending all that money on your camera. Contact me if you're interested.
God how I hate martians.
Why do you think that is?
This is a very good question. I've certainly done that in the past. I've had the need for a windows machine a couple time over the past serveral years, and in those cases, I used an extremely old copy of windows 3 that came with an old 486 that has since been retired and an "upgrade" version of windows that I bought to install on hardware I bought naked.
Of course, the last 4 machines I've bought have been naked, though in every case I've installed linux and/or *bsd* on them. If I had a need for a windows machine now, I would just use that old upgrade version of windows 98 and those win3.1 floppies to to do the reinstall. If the floppies were corrupt, I would even consider pirating a copy, not because I think pirating is right, but because since I am the legal owner of 1 copy of windows 98 (as well as windows 3.1 and windows 1.0).
Of course, MS would rather have you purchase a new copy of their alleged-OS every time you get a new computer, or better still, everytime you upgrade any hardware in an existing system. With the state of licensing laws being what they are, I would not be surprised if moving software from one machine to another might be legally forbidden by shrink-wrap licenses.
They can make it illegal, but they can't make it wrong
Further proof that the incidence of crack abuse among slashdot moderators is on the rise
What do you think, sirs?
An Orgasm?
HTH
ymmv
I couldn't get more than 7 either - even when stretching netscape across 2 monitors.
hope that helps
As I am a scientist at NASA, I can tell you the ISS is approximately 42 kilometers wide. I guess NASA still hasn't mastered the metric system.
Yep, those 2 and 3 button mice are so intimidating - my god, what do these users you speak of do when they have to deal the ~100 keys (used in combinations) on the keyboard, piss all over themselves and drool like babies?
Any advantage gained by the reduced complexity of having only 1 mouse button is completely lost after a few weeks of using the computer. After that, you're left with a device without any possibility of giving the user finer control of his computer. How is less control an innovation? The only innovation is by the marketing department that gets some short-term publicity and the possibility of selling a few more computers to novices who might make a decision based on this illusory advantage
Try this - look at your alarm clock. How many buttons? Mine has about 8, several of which function differently when pushed in combination or when held down versus just pressed. I can literally operate this thing in my sleep. Look at your microwave oven - how many buttons? Mine has about 16. I've never looked at the instruction manual. The point is that a well designed interface should be intuitive, but not at the expense of taking away control and functionality for your non-novice user. This can be done with a 1 button, a 2-button, or even a 3-button mouse, IMO.
We're only novices with new devices for about 10 minutes. People are very good at learning new things, and once they know them - lack of functionality will be an irritation for the rest of their dealings with that device.
Good, intuitive interface design is a problem and I'm not saying that work can't be done here. But the answer is no more building 1-button mice than it is building 1 key keyboards.
Congratulations, you are the proud new owner of a $1500 computer, something with which you will spend many hours, but we had the foresight to build the interface such that for the entire time you own it, you will be treated like you just pulled it out of the box
How is this a major news item? Ebay has 12 million users, but one slippery Chicago Man causes them so much trouble, disrupts their service so much for the other 11,999,999 users, and is so crafty at evading their internal banishment that CNN sees fit to report on it?
Naw, this is just a publicity stunt for Ebay.
Sick of 12? Try 13!