Re:Anything else out there?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My personal bet is that X is overly complicated.
That's kind of like betting that water is wet.:D However, "overly complicated" is unavoidable when the users want X to have the features it does, and to work (however well or poorly) on as wide a range of hardware/OS platforms as it does.
I started looking at some of the code for the X server back when I started with C. To a C-language newbie, it looked like the line printer had puked at random all over the paper. Now I have some experience with C, and it still looks almost as bad, but I can also see that the programmers did some pretty amazing work--considering the miracles they were trying to pull off, it's a wonder that any of it works, but they did a pretty damn good job.
I would say that race was a factor if Obama were a conservative republican and the map looked the same. The democrats could run anyone (white or black), and as of right now the map would probably look pretty much like this.
It seems to me that CNN's a lot more likely to take the middle ground of "We don't know" rather than make a hard and fast decision. Not only does it cover their butts if they get it wrong, but they can heighten the dramatic tension by saying "And now we're watching this very close race in Possum Kingdom, New Mexico" or some such.
Sure, and candidates talk about it all the time. It's called "muckraking" if it's about that candidate, and "the vital exercise of journalistic integrity" if it's about the opposition.
No, Fic--I was miffed at the claim itself, not projecting. The problem with the claim is that my experience leads me to believe that with Joe Schmoe Luser, IM tools are abused more often than used as tools.
Not all of us work in a development environment. Where I work, it's actually a small minority of people that are technologically adept enough to even know the difference between using IM and abusing it. OP's post may be an accurate assessment of IM tools in a group of professionals (actually, I'd hesitantly agree if that was the case), but as a broad-based comment it's inaccurate.
We're a non-profit in the American south-east--and looking at much the same situation. For us, we also deal with HIPAA laws, which is one reason I was looking at Jabber. Theoretically, we would control the server, and no out-of-house traffic would be necessary.
Have you tried using IM with other developers who are more interested in developing than goofing off?
Actually, no--I've used it in in-house support and coordination until management blocked the server domain.
...we have a forum where people can share their own experiences....
That's the classical definition of "Anecdotal evidence," Fic. Great way to share experiences and advice--not so great way to generate statistical information.
I personally want to set up an in-house Jabber server for communication within our IT department. Having posts like the GGP calling abuse "fringe cases" would be an excellent argument to make to my bosses, but they want hard facts and figures. If those can't be had, then don't go waving around claims that abuse happens only in "fringe cases," and don't go touting anecdotal evidence as anything remotely useful to support such claims.
It's sad that so many great software tools get bad reputations because there are fringe cases of abuse.
Get me percentages of business use vs. abuse before you start claiming these are "fringe cases." Claims like yours make for nice rhetorical arguments, but don't add any actual substance to the discussion.
Re:Anything else out there?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Probably the complexity of the issues involved, and the ever-expanding environmental requirements X is being written for.
This is not a (to use the passage you quote) "direct proposition to impeach"--that would be an actual "articles of impeachment," as voted on by the entire House of Representatives. Kucinich's screed would properly be called a "demand for impeachment," and it has no more authority than any other speech in Congress.
The primary purpose of the Constitution is to protect the individual's life, liberty, and private property.
I wish it were so--but it is not. The primary purpose of the US Constitution is to establish a national government for the United States. Even the Preamble makes that clear.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The US Constitution is a document that is based not in the individual, but in the community as a whole. In broad terms, it deals with the common ties that bind us together as a nation. Indeed, it is not the Constitution at all, but the Bill of Rights, that deals with the individual, enumerating those areas into which the Government shall not trammel. (A barrier that has been violated several times, as we both are aware.)
Whether the rate is 0% for some or 100% for others, the implication is that all income, first and foremost, is owned by the government.
That may be your interpretation or perception, but these things are subjective. My perception and interpretation do not agree with yours, but mine are also subjective.
When private and subjective interpretations diverge, where do we look for a more definitive answer? In matters of American law and jurisprudence, we look to first the law (the Consititution and the United States Statutes at Large for starters), then to the Courts. And so far, both the law and the courts disagree with your analysis.
No. Only the decision would lead me to the above conclusion, not the events leading up to it or the descending statement. I am not suggesting that the descent has a legal bearing, it should not. But it proves that what I'm asserting was considered then. It should be revisited over and over until the mistake by the deciding judge has been corrected.
What, you want to keep asking the question until you get an answer you like?
As has been noted before in this conversation, this was not a decision of some single judge--the approbation for the 16th amendment came not from some solitary judge, but from the legislatures of 36 of the then-48 states, with six more ratifying the amendment after the deadline.
There is far more to my response than can fit on the thread--indeed, more factual error, interpretive idiosyncrasy, and downright confusing statements than I've seen in a long time. However, we have already wandered far from the thread topic, and while we both can certainly afford to be tagged as "off-topic," we are holding our discussion in a very poor venue. I invite you to continue this discussion in either my journal or yours, or on whatever neutral venue you may choose. Or if you wish to drop the discussion, I also respect that.
But that's the problem. It can't mean direct, unapportioned to the individual.
A purely honest question: why not?
When we speak of "direct, unapportioned, graduated, individual taxes," we see that the Constitution (as amended) authorizes it. Reading the record of the formation and debate of the amendment clearly indicates that a direct, unapportioned, and graduated tax was precisely what was intended. Reading the court cases of the people who argue to the contrary clearly demonstrate that is precisely what was intended.
And this is why I am so vehemently opposed to arguments such as yours: they are based not in fact, not in law, not in truth, but solely and simply in the assertion that "I reject it, therefore it is not so." Please understand that I do not oppose you--I firmly and fully believe that you developed or adopted the arguments that you use in good faith, and that you sincerely and honestly believe them to be accurate. But no matter your sincerity and honesty, you have been deceived (as have so many before you) that black is white.
That is why trial by jury is at the heart of our system of government (not just the heart of our system of justice).
The same document that guarantees the right to trial by jury also allows for trial by bench, should the party being accused request such. If one rejects judicial hearings that do not involve a jury, then one perforce rejects the very document that authorizes them.
Inertia, I am quite aware that you find the tax codes repugnant. I'm not fond of them myself, I will gladly admit. But I am also aware that if I reject the tax codes, then I must also reject the Constitution, because that is the legal basis for those codes. I cannot reject the Constitution, therefore I cannot reject the tax codes.
Can you read? No, I'm not trolling, that's a serious question.
If so, that would mean the income tax would be an exception if the 16th Amendment authorized direct unapportionment....
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. (Emphasis added)
Try actually reading the text. Yes, the Congress authorizes direct, unapportioned taxes. This was to overturn Pollock, and to revert the previous restriction that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
It was proposed and ratified--which means it's legal.
I make a distinction between lawful tax and unlawful tax.
And that is your first mistake. A tax cannot be "repugnant" to the Constitution save in the fabled Land of Hyperbole. It can be contrary to the constitution (the income Tax is not, but that does not keep people from arguing that it is so), but can only be repugnant to people.
You don't like US tax codes? Fine--no one ever said you have to like them. But the US tax codes are legal--first enumerated in Art. I, Sec 8, Part 1 of the Constitution, expanded by the 16th amendment to allow Congress to levy income taxes without regard to apportionment or enumeration. Both the Constitution and the 16th amendment have been ratified by the several states. Income tax has been repeatedly upheld in court challenges (including a rejection of the objection that you made based on your mis-reading of Stanton, ruled as "frivolous"), and the courts have universally accepted that it's legal.
Now comes the plaintiff, Inertia, who pleads that every single ratifying state legislature, and every single judge, that has ruled on this is wrong? Bullshit. The fact that you disagree with me does not automatically mean that I'm wrong. It does mean that one of us is wrong--but in this case, it looks like the Congress, the state legislatures, and the courts verify that my analysis is correct.
The dispute only exists in your mind, inertia. Your "argument" against taxes seems to be as follows (taken chronologically from your posts).
* "Taxes are immoral as they are taken by threat of force." You fail to recognize that the laws that prevent the mob from coming in and stealing you blind and killing you are also based on a "threat of force." Are those laws, therefore, also immoral?
* "Taxes are unconstitutional, therefore unlawful." To support this argument, you cite the Communist Manifesto (as if that had any bearing whatsoever); and improperly cite Stanton v. Baltic, using an argument that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts--you can start with Parker v. Commissioner.
* "You're misquoting scripture." I didn't have the heart to tell you, but I never quoted it. I cited two passages and extrapolated from them. One cannot be accused of "misquoting" something that one has not quoted.
* "'Handwaving' is all that's required to refute your argument." If that's the only response that you have, then I suppose you're persuaded that you're correct. It is a pity that US law does not agree with your persuasion.
Inertia, your "arguments," such as they are, are based on false information--information that I presume you heard from another and accepted in good faith, but imformation that is false nonetheless. I've advised you to do some basic research by reading the entire judgement in Stanton--you have asserted that you don't have to. So be it.
The statement I've put in my bio says it all--arguing that black is white (as you do) is unproductive. But I can also see that arguing that you're wrong--no matter that the entirety of evidence, law, precedence, and basic facts are on my side--is also unproductive.
I would strongly advise you to never--ever--use the arguments you have used here in court if you ever decide to not pay your taxes. Over and above the basic penalties for non-payment, there can be additional penalties for frivolous arguments in court.
Slashdot Mirror
That's kind of like betting that water is wet. :D However, "overly complicated" is unavoidable when the users want X to have the features it does, and to work (however well or poorly) on as wide a range of hardware/OS platforms as it does.
I started looking at some of the code for the X server back when I started with C. To a C-language newbie, it looked like the line printer had puked at random all over the paper. Now I have some experience with C, and it still looks almost as bad, but I can also see that the programmers did some pretty amazing work--considering the miracles they were trying to pull off, it's a wonder that any of it works, but they did a pretty damn good job.
Irony was the point.
It would ... but do you keep sailing a sinking ship, or try to build a new one?
Does that mean the V1@GR@ I got from that nice on-line pharmacy was fake? O.O
Agreed. X needs to fork--have half the team maintain the current implementation, the other half do a start-from-scratch coding marathon.
I would say that race was a factor if Obama were a conservative republican and the map looked the same. The democrats could run anyone (white or black), and as of right now the map would probably look pretty much like this.
It seems to me that CNN's a lot more likely to take the middle ground of "We don't know" rather than make a hard and fast decision. Not only does it cover their butts if they get it wrong, but they can heighten the dramatic tension by saying "And now we're watching this very close race in Possum Kingdom, New Mexico" or some such.
Sure, and candidates talk about it all the time. It's called "muckraking" if it's about that candidate, and "the vital exercise of journalistic integrity" if it's about the opposition.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html
You must be new here.
No, Fic--I was miffed at the claim itself, not projecting. The problem with the claim is that my experience leads me to believe that with Joe Schmoe Luser, IM tools are abused more often than used as tools.
Not all of us work in a development environment. Where I work, it's actually a small minority of people that are technologically adept enough to even know the difference between using IM and abusing it. OP's post may be an accurate assessment of IM tools in a group of professionals (actually, I'd hesitantly agree if that was the case), but as a broad-based comment it's inaccurate.
We're a non-profit in the American south-east--and looking at much the same situation. For us, we also deal with HIPAA laws, which is one reason I was looking at Jabber. Theoretically, we would control the server, and no out-of-house traffic would be necessary.
Actually, no--I've used it in in-house support and coordination until management blocked the server domain.
...we have a forum where people can share their own experiences....That's the classical definition of "Anecdotal evidence," Fic. Great way to share experiences and advice--not so great way to generate statistical information.
I personally want to set up an in-house Jabber server for communication within our IT department. Having posts like the GGP calling abuse "fringe cases" would be an excellent argument to make to my bosses, but they want hard facts and figures. If those can't be had, then don't go waving around claims that abuse happens only in "fringe cases," and don't go touting anecdotal evidence as anything remotely useful to support such claims.
Get me percentages of business use vs. abuse before you start claiming these are "fringe cases." Claims like yours make for nice rhetorical arguments, but don't add any actual substance to the discussion.
Probably the complexity of the issues involved, and the ever-expanding environmental requirements X is being written for.
Don't blaspheme, AC. Microsoft is Teh Evil (TM).
This is not a (to use the passage you quote) "direct proposition to impeach"--that would be an actual "articles of impeachment," as voted on by the entire House of Representatives. Kucinich's screed would properly be called a "demand for impeachment," and it has no more authority than any other speech in Congress.
I wish it were so--but it is not. The primary purpose of the US Constitution is to establish a national government for the United States. Even the Preamble makes that clear.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.The US Constitution is a document that is based not in the individual, but in the community as a whole. In broad terms, it deals with the common ties that bind us together as a nation. Indeed, it is not the Constitution at all, but the Bill of Rights, that deals with the individual, enumerating those areas into which the Government shall not trammel. (A barrier that has been violated several times, as we both are aware.)
Whether the rate is 0% for some or 100% for others, the implication is that all income, first and foremost, is owned by the government.That may be your interpretation or perception, but these things are subjective. My perception and interpretation do not agree with yours, but mine are also subjective.
When private and subjective interpretations diverge, where do we look for a more definitive answer? In matters of American law and jurisprudence, we look to first the law (the Consititution and the United States Statutes at Large for starters), then to the Courts. And so far, both the law and the courts disagree with your analysis.
No. Only the decision would lead me to the above conclusion, not the events leading up to it or the descending statement. I am not suggesting that the descent has a legal bearing, it should not. But it proves that what I'm asserting was considered then. It should be revisited over and over until the mistake by the deciding judge has been corrected.What, you want to keep asking the question until you get an answer you like?
As has been noted before in this conversation, this was not a decision of some single judge--the approbation for the 16th amendment came not from some solitary judge, but from the legislatures of 36 of the then-48 states, with six more ratifying the amendment after the deadline.
There is far more to my response than can fit on the thread--indeed, more factual error, interpretive idiosyncrasy, and downright confusing statements than I've seen in a long time. However, we have already wandered far from the thread topic, and while we both can certainly afford to be tagged as "off-topic," we are holding our discussion in a very poor venue. I invite you to continue this discussion in either my journal or yours, or on whatever neutral venue you may choose. Or if you wish to drop the discussion, I also respect that.
Can even Chuck Norris kick the trolls out of /.?
A purely honest question: why not?
When we speak of "direct, unapportioned, graduated, individual taxes," we see that the Constitution (as amended) authorizes it. Reading the record of the formation and debate of the amendment clearly indicates that a direct, unapportioned, and graduated tax was precisely what was intended. Reading the court cases of the people who argue to the contrary clearly demonstrate that is precisely what was intended.
And this is why I am so vehemently opposed to arguments such as yours: they are based not in fact, not in law, not in truth, but solely and simply in the assertion that "I reject it, therefore it is not so." Please understand that I do not oppose you--I firmly and fully believe that you developed or adopted the arguments that you use in good faith, and that you sincerely and honestly believe them to be accurate. But no matter your sincerity and honesty, you have been deceived (as have so many before you) that black is white.
That is why trial by jury is at the heart of our system of government (not just the heart of our system of justice).The same document that guarantees the right to trial by jury also allows for trial by bench, should the party being accused request such. If one rejects judicial hearings that do not involve a jury, then one perforce rejects the very document that authorizes them.
Inertia, I am quite aware that you find the tax codes repugnant. I'm not fond of them myself, I will gladly admit. But I am also aware that if I reject the tax codes, then I must also reject the Constitution, because that is the legal basis for those codes. I cannot reject the Constitution, therefore I cannot reject the tax codes.
%s/the Congress authorizes/the 16th Amendment authorizes
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. (Emphasis added)
Try actually reading the text. Yes, the Congress authorizes direct, unapportioned taxes. This was to overturn Pollock, and to revert the previous restriction that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
It was proposed and ratified--which means it's legal.
And that is your first mistake. A tax cannot be "repugnant" to the Constitution save in the fabled Land of Hyperbole. It can be contrary to the constitution (the income Tax is not, but that does not keep people from arguing that it is so), but can only be repugnant to people.
You don't like US tax codes? Fine--no one ever said you have to like them. But the US tax codes are legal--first enumerated in Art. I, Sec 8, Part 1 of the Constitution, expanded by the 16th amendment to allow Congress to levy income taxes without regard to apportionment or enumeration. Both the Constitution and the 16th amendment have been ratified by the several states. Income tax has been repeatedly upheld in court challenges (including a rejection of the objection that you made based on your mis-reading of Stanton, ruled as "frivolous"), and the courts have universally accepted that it's legal.
Now comes the plaintiff, Inertia, who pleads that every single ratifying state legislature, and every single judge, that has ruled on this is wrong? Bullshit. The fact that you disagree with me does not automatically mean that I'm wrong. It does mean that one of us is wrong--but in this case, it looks like the Congress, the state legislatures, and the courts verify that my analysis is correct.
The defense rests.
If your wiki is leaking, you probably need to see a doctor.
Badda-bump!
The dispute only exists in your mind, inertia. Your "argument" against taxes seems to be as follows (taken chronologically from your posts).
* "Taxes are immoral as they are taken by threat of force." You fail to recognize that the laws that prevent the mob from coming in and stealing you blind and killing you are also based on a "threat of force." Are those laws, therefore, also immoral?
* "Taxes are unconstitutional, therefore unlawful." To support this argument, you cite the Communist Manifesto (as if that had any bearing whatsoever); and improperly cite Stanton v. Baltic, using an argument that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts--you can start with Parker v. Commissioner.
* "You're misquoting scripture." I didn't have the heart to tell you, but I never quoted it. I cited two passages and extrapolated from them. One cannot be accused of "misquoting" something that one has not quoted.
* "'Handwaving' is all that's required to refute your argument." If that's the only response that you have, then I suppose you're persuaded that you're correct. It is a pity that US law does not agree with your persuasion.
Inertia, your "arguments," such as they are, are based on false information--information that I presume you heard from another and accepted in good faith, but imformation that is false nonetheless. I've advised you to do some basic research by reading the entire judgement in Stanton--you have asserted that you don't have to. So be it.
The statement I've put in my bio says it all--arguing that black is white (as you do) is unproductive. But I can also see that arguing that you're wrong--no matter that the entirety of evidence, law, precedence, and basic facts are on my side--is also unproductive.
I would strongly advise you to never--ever--use the arguments you have used here in court if you ever decide to not pay your taxes. Over and above the basic penalties for non-payment, there can be additional penalties for frivolous arguments in court.