The primary purpose of this system is to prevent identity theft, which is a rapidly growing type of crime.
Statements like this aren't worth the time it takes to make them. The government has a very rich history of "repurposing" information as it sees fit, and almost always without our knowledge or consent.
Contrary to an erroneous report on Friday by the AP, there are NO plans to begin photographing drivers in cars
No plans YET, you mean.
Mike Rosen stated that he thought this was an appropriate use of technology to combat this particular crime. He also stated that, while there are always concerns about potential future uses for these photographs, those nebulous future concerns do not lead him to oppose this technology at this time.
I view Mike Rosen as the Rush Limbaugh of the Denver airwaves. Just because he can talk, doesn't mean that he always know what he's talking ABOUT. His opinion represents just one of many potential sources, and sometimes, the s/n ratio is on the low side. If he wants a police state, fine - let him move to China. He can broadcast his radio show from there via satellite and let us all know how wonderful it is.
The ONLY fail-safe way to prevent abuses of this technology in the hands of the government is to ensure that it never gets implemented in the first place. Once the horse is out of the barn, it's out, and then there's very little that can be done about it.
<i> What I find puzzling is what rights people think these possible cameras take away</i><p><p>
Can you say, "social security number"? <p><p>
Once upon a time, this number had a very limited, well-defined use. Over the years, ongoing legislative brilliance led to its now endlessly-expanding function as common form of identification. Since this information is now easy to obtain, thereby making it easy for someone to steal your identity, our own government screwed us with this one. <p><p>
The fact that several state governments were caught with their pants down when they discovered that DMVs were selling drivers license photos to a US company developing a face recognition system, is yet another testament to the notion that ANYTHING that gets into the hands of the government, can ultimately be used against you, or in ways that you never anticipated. Are we all going to bend over and let the same thing happen again?<p><p>
Governer Owens (of Colorado) put the kibosh on this nonsense, and if he's smart, he'll do the same with this new face recognition technology. <p><p>
It's not that I think criminals ought to be able to get away with whatever it is they want to do, it's that I don't trust the government *enough* to allow it watch over my shoulder 24/7 - or in any way that allows it to in any way "track" what I'm doing AS A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. Nor should anyone.
This is notion is as superficial as all of the entities that are trying to get our attention in the first place. The most important thing we can teach kids is treat their attention with as much care as their own dignity or self-respect, because most of the time, it's about nothing more than one more attempt to get their money. What they'll often get in exchange is a sense of self that is based on a series of prefabricated, contrived distractions, rather than anything substantive. Where kids are concerned, they need to learn, overall, that the marketing engine is there to manipulate them, and nothing more.
I recommend that EVERYONE read this. Lemelson was a leach, sucking the lifeblood out of American Industry. Granted, he's no different than a large company that tries to patent anything and everything within realm of human thought, but he never put ONE PENNY into actual development.
It's amazing to think that Lemelson (or anyone one that supported him) could claim that companies were stealing ideas from him, when he ACTIVELY looked at what THEY were doing, to determine how he could create a patent that would (eventually) be used to extract money from them. What he did was tantamount to a form of legalized extortion, by using a company's own innovation against them, no less!
I agree with the poster as well. We've seen the same thing before, when IBM thought it could get away with whatever it wanted when it was king of the mainframe domain. IBM lost big time. IBM is still around, obviously, but only after some MAJOR reconstruction. This seems to be a regular corporate life cycle - get something that people will buy, become real popular, start screwing your own customers, and eventually, get kicked to the curb. Microsoft has it coming.
I personally believe that humans - in the U.S. for example, are becoming such a dependant bunch, where notion self-reliance is all but history. What does this have to do with computers? I get the impression from Katz that our ultimate objective should the ability to sit back and have computers act on our every whim, to anticipate any desire that can be met in the digital realm. He's looking at what computers should do for us, rather than what we can do with computers that we couldn't do even ten years ago. Are they perfect? No. But what is?
You claim that people are being isolated - maybe some are - but others are reaching out, finding new connections that wouldn't have been possible without the net. You also have to take into account that in some cases, the changes in the way that people have begun to interact and behave in general - maybe this is what people are trying to get away from. In this sense, the net provides the ability to interact at a safe distance, without being completely isolated.
Unfortunately so, the first amendment has been virtually twisted into a pretzel to protect the damndest things.
That's sure true! Just a couple of days ago, I heard something about a parent's rights being "violated" having been asked to leave a theatre because their fussing, whining little bundle of joy was distracting to...oh, say, the REST OF THE AUDIENCE. But noooooo....they have RIGHTS, damnit! Apparently it includes the right to turn a pleasant night on the town into a rather hellish experience for anyone in close proximity.
The CIA, for thinking that any kind of value this software might have will last very long, or the foreign sources who carelessly pepper their communication with direct references to what they're talking about? Think, "let's not call it 'nuclear terrorism', but 'lemon-scented furniture polish'". Let's see how well the software does then...
And if the judges have a brain in their head, that's exactly what will happen - once the RIAA demonstrates what a farce this "filtering technology" is.
This whole thing is funny. All the Napster users that expect free music are doing so for various reasons, but I've seen many complaints about the RIAA's unfair pricing/payment practices. Yet, these same people insist on slaying this dragon with the equivalent pea shooters. Everyone's so busy shooting the dragon with peas, they fail to see (or use) the arsenal of rocket launchers right at their feet. There's a word for this arsenal - BOYCOTT. Yes, it may take the cooperation of more people to get the desired results, but it CAN be effective. If the RIAA doesn't HAVE to change, why should it? It seems like the only effective solution would be to create an environment that makes this so. Otherwise, stock up on the peas - it's going to be a long ride.
I totally agree. I've used c++, and while I like both of them, PHP kicks butt when it comes to web-based projects - mainly because you don't have to deal with all of the overhead associated with a strongly-typed language. There's no reason the same level of abstraction that makes PHP easy to work with cannot be applied to other uses. I just hope the speed is there.
Not the way it is now. Can you imagine... let's say Apple invented the first computer with a GUI for the consumer market. THAT'S worth a patent, because it represents a complete paradigm shift, and based on what was currently available, it most definately qualifies as an innovation. Now, along comes Joe Wiseass, and decides, "hey...I'm going to patent the idea of drawing a little rectangle around an icon when you drag it." Not to be outdone, John Wannabesomeoneimportant has a stroke of brilliance, and decides that he's going to patent the idea of attaching a sound to an action performed by the mouse (like clicking).
So here you have all these people picking this new technology to DEATH, none of them being particularly innovative in their own right. This is exactly what's happening with internet-related patents...the breakthrough - the paradigm shift has already happened, and now everyone and their mother wants to pick it apart and patent every possible derivative. This is not innovation. If anything, I'd say that the fact that this can happen actually stifles innovation, because people aren't looking beyond what's already here.
Why was this moderated up to "insightfuL"? It's anything BUT insightful.
Theoretically, collecting DNA samples to help with crime prevention MIGHT sound like a neat idea. But as we've learned repeatedly, where government is involved, the road to hell has its name written all over it. Government has a very BAD habit of "repurposing" information as it sees fit. So, while DNA information MIGHT be used for crime prevention today, there's little that will stand in the way of this turning into a disaster like the Social Security Number. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if one day, we turned around and realized that the government was actually SELLING our DNA information, much like they've taken the liberty of selling other kinds of information. The ONLY way to keep ourselves from being victimized is prevention, and one of more fail-safe ways to accomplish this is not to provide the information (or allow it to be collected) in the first place.
Looking at it another way, the consumer may very well be getting exactly what it's willing to pay for - and THAT'S the key - if consumers are too stupid to understand what they're buying, or too lazy to look for alternatives, they get what they deserve. Any consumer willing to fork out more than $10 for a CD today, for example, IS getting what they deserve. Don't like the price or the "features"? Stop buying, and watch those big bad companies take an about face.
First, it works. Second, the price/value is way off...For the pentagon to consider such a device, they'd have add at LEAST $1k to the price - and that's for the quantity discount, mind you.
It encourages the rich to distribute their wealth charitably rather than create lazy inheritors.
There's a vast difference between encouragement and coercion. Which of these do you really think fits the role of the government when it comes to estate taxes?
Riddle me this: if the government stopped taxing large gifts, exactly how many seconds would it take before all executive salaries were eliminated and replaced by weekly "gifts"? 'nuff said.
Not nearly enough. The government could easily exclude payment in kind, and it would mean that if you happen to WIN something, you'd actually get to keep it. State lotteries are particularly bad. The government keeps half the money to begin with, and then taxes winnings at 50%.
Gee, I don't suppose the county uses that money to build the roads that you drive on? But what if you don't even drive that car? In that case, what the US really ought to do instead is charge $1 or 2 per gallon gasoline tax
Between the city and state taxes, it's not that far off from $1 per gallon. Aside from that, the tax doesn't make sense anyway, because vehicle owners get charged according to the current value of the car - just because the value decreases doesn't mean it's driven any less. I'm also concerned, because they used to post the amount of taxes being paid per gallon at every gasoline pump, but that information is no longer as readily available.
Americans bitch too much about taxes. We have it easy compared to most countries
I don't think it's as simple as "bitching about taxes." It's objecting to the notion that the government has to be this HUGE, wasteful, bureaucracy whose endless programs are turning us into a psuedo-socialistic state. We're turning from a nation of self-reliant individuals into a mass of dependency.
I can't do anything BUT disagree. The more "friendly" computers are expected to become, the more technology that is brought into the hands of the end consumer, the more CPU horsepower it will require. There is no shortage of ways to use the extra bandwidth. Will grandma need an Athlon 1.2 Ghz system to store her recipies? Probably not. But when she whips out that new word processor that is completely voice-driven - with real-time recognition - it's a whole new ball game.
Re:Welcome to the world of one-cent software?
on
Taxing Free Software
·
· Score: 1
The solution to this (from the government's perspective) would be rather simple: The item in question will be taxed based either the value of equivalent software, or on the purchase price, whichever is greater.
governments only collect tax when you earn or spend money.
Governments, if they're allowed to get away with it, will tax whatever they damn well please. In the U.S., there are all kinds of taxes that people could challenge as arguably unjustifiable - the infamous "death" tax for example. When someone dies, everything in their estate has already been paid for, taxes included, and yet the government feels that it is entitled to siphon off a rather significant percentage - not because anything was bought or sold, but only because the property was passed from one owner's hands to another.
Then there's the gift tax - if a car manufacturer decides it wants to simply GIVE you a car, free and clear, the transaction still requires that you pay taxes on the value of the car - even though you paid nothing for it.
And let's not forget the vehicle ownership tax - my car is paid off, yet every year, I still have to pay the county clerk a sum of money based on the assessed value of my car.
Then there's the issue of government protecting its own interest, rather than its responsibility to its constituents. We had a campaign locally here this election that would have reduced the revenue collected by the state by only 1%, through the reduction or elimination of certain taxes - the vehicle ownership tax being one of them. It was fought with a massive advertising campaign, replete with cries of "look at all the services that will be cut if this initiative passes!" - which was utter nonsense. Needless to say, it didn't pass, mostly I suspect, out of fear. This points out an interesting paradigm with respect to people, government, and taxes - taxes are used to "fund" government interests. Once these get started in the form of various wasteful government programs, the affected interest groups have something to lose if the tax gets repealed. Once this happens, it's almost impossible to change. The solution? Since any increase in funds to the government will invariably be used against you, a more prudent approach might be to see that these increases never happen in the first place.
One of the problems right now is that linux is not exactly a newbies cup of tea.
This is certainly true. I'm no newbie, but I've spent upwards of two days dorking around with upgrading php, apache, mysql, and openssl. I could have probably used the respective RPMs, but even configuring and compiling, though I suspect these will never be fodder for "newbies," could be a lot less troublesome.
And quite frankly, when all the Fed has to do is pay them off like they did with the telcos, they ONLY way @Home will remain intact is if they have a sense of dignity that favors integrity more than money.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once
But once it gets started, maybe it happens fast. I just heard about an ordinance being considered by a the city council of a Colorado suburb that would have inspectors driving around looking for "safety" violations (detached gutters, junk in the yard, etc). The residents didn't seem to mind this as much as the fact that if the inspector had reason to suspect that such violations existed on the inside, they could very well end up inspecting the inside of the home as well. Their reasoning: "to protect the property values and the safety of residents." If someone doesn't lose their seat for this, something is seriously wrong.
The user, his interest piqued, will wonder what he's missing
Or perhaps another way to look at it..."will wonder what is being kept from him." I realize this might be nothing more than a semantic tussle, but I honestly believe that both have very different connotations. Missing something isn't anywhere near as serious as not being allowed to see it because someone else has removed your ability do draw your own conclusions.
I'm not prepared to completely discount the usefulness of censorware, because for one, the younger you are, the less likely you are to have the perspective necessary to make informed decisions. Just the same, I don't think censorware is the panacea that a growing number of people think it is - especially when its use is being dictated by public policy (government).
I make twice as much as you. I should pay twice as much in taxes as you do.
NO, NO, NO. This whole argument that says "wealthier people have more to lose, and so should pay more," is outright extortion. Here's the deal: wealthier people make more, but they also spend more. When this money is spent, where does it go? To many companies that employ other people! Someone working in an auto factory might be whining that they're not being paid enough, but were it not for the people that could afford to buy the cars they produce, they'd be making NOTHING. BUPKUS. NADA. ZILCH. I don't agree that anyone should settle for less than they could be EARNING in a position like this, but this is between the company, its employees, and the market in general.
In fact, I could make the same argument in FAVOR of the wealthy - because the wealthy provide more of the economic backbone, they should if nothing else, pay only an EQUAL percentage of their income as anyone else. If someone wants to make more money, the world is their oyster in the U.S. - the only REAL obstacle might be their inability to make sound, educated decisions - but whose problem is that?
A BIG part of the problem, as I see it, is that we, as a society, have become a dependent bunch of WIMPS. We elect presidents today not based on how much they can improve the INFRASTRUCTURE that allows us to do for ourselves (which, in practical terms, means LESS government), but based on how many benefits they will give us each individually (that are paid for with someone ELSE'S money). We are a society enslaved to ourselves, and it's pathetic.
The next time you drive through a nice housing development, know that some of these homes could belong to people making FAR LESS than others living in the same place. Through the wonders of Section VIII housing subsidies, we now have a situation where I, because of my income, might be paying far more (read, "market rate") for the very same reward (home ownership), than someone else, because of THEIR income. Is THIS fair? What ever happened to working FOR the American Dream, as opposed to having it handed to you? If taxation is steering us toward this kind of outright socialism, I'm wholly in favor of reducing the tax burden as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Statements like this aren't worth the time it takes to make them. The government has a very rich history of "repurposing" information as it sees fit, and almost always without our knowledge or consent.
Contrary to an erroneous report on Friday by the AP, there are NO plans to begin photographing drivers in cars
No plans YET, you mean.
Mike Rosen stated that he thought this was an appropriate use of technology to combat this particular crime. He also stated that, while there are always concerns about potential future uses for these photographs, those nebulous future concerns do not lead him to oppose this technology at this time.
I view Mike Rosen as the Rush Limbaugh of the Denver airwaves. Just because he can talk, doesn't mean that he always know what he's talking ABOUT. His opinion represents just one of many potential sources, and sometimes, the s/n ratio is on the low side. If he wants a police state, fine - let him move to China. He can broadcast his radio show from there via satellite and let us all know how wonderful it is.
The ONLY fail-safe way to prevent abuses of this technology in the hands of the government is to ensure that it never gets implemented in the first place. Once the horse is out of the barn, it's out, and then there's very little that can be done about it.
<i> What I find puzzling is what rights people think these possible cameras take away</i><p><p>
Can you say, "social security number"? <p><p>
Once upon a time, this number had a very limited, well-defined use. Over the years, ongoing legislative brilliance led to its now endlessly-expanding function as common form of identification. Since this information is now easy to obtain, thereby making it easy for someone to steal your identity, our own government screwed us with this one. <p><p>
The fact that several state governments were caught with their pants down when they discovered that DMVs were selling drivers license photos to a US company developing a face recognition system, is yet another testament to the notion that ANYTHING that gets into the hands of the government, can ultimately be used against you, or in ways that you never anticipated. Are we all going to bend over and let the same thing happen again?<p><p>
Governer Owens (of Colorado) put the kibosh on this nonsense, and if he's smart, he'll do the same with this new face recognition technology. <p><p>
It's not that I think criminals ought to be able to get away with whatever it is they want to do, it's that I don't trust the government *enough* to allow it watch over my shoulder 24/7 - or in any way that allows it to in any way "track" what I'm doing AS A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. Nor should anyone.
This is notion is as superficial as all of the entities that are trying to get our attention in the first place. The most important thing we can teach kids is treat their attention with as much care as their own dignity or self-respect, because most of the time, it's about nothing more than one more attempt to get their money. What they'll often get in exchange is a sense of self that is based on a series of prefabricated, contrived distractions, rather than anything substantive. Where kids are concerned, they need to learn, overall, that the marketing engine is there to manipulate them, and nothing more.
It's amazing to think that Lemelson (or anyone one that supported him) could claim that companies were stealing ideas from him, when he ACTIVELY looked at what THEY were doing, to determine how he could create a patent that would (eventually) be used to extract money from them. What he did was tantamount to a form of legalized extortion, by using a company's own innovation against them, no less!
What a mess this guy was.
I agree with the poster as well. We've seen the same thing before, when IBM thought it could get away with whatever it wanted when it was king of the mainframe domain. IBM lost big time. IBM is still around, obviously, but only after some MAJOR reconstruction. This seems to be a regular corporate life cycle - get something that people will buy, become real popular, start screwing your own customers, and eventually, get kicked to the curb. Microsoft has it coming.
I personally believe that humans - in the U.S. for example, are becoming such a dependant bunch, where notion self-reliance is all but history. What does this have to do with computers? I get the impression from Katz that our ultimate objective should the ability to sit back and have computers act on our every whim, to anticipate any desire that can be met in the digital realm. He's looking at what computers should do for us, rather than what we can do with computers that we couldn't do even ten years ago. Are they perfect? No. But what is?
You claim that people are being isolated - maybe some are - but others are reaching out, finding new connections that wouldn't have been possible without the net. You also have to take into account that in some cases, the changes in the way that people have begun to interact and behave in general - maybe this is what people are trying to get away from. In this sense, the net provides the ability to interact at a safe distance, without being completely isolated.
Hehe...someone else knows the secret of living AT or BELOW your means. It DEFINITELY has its advantages.
That's sure true! Just a couple of days ago, I heard something about a parent's rights being "violated" having been asked to leave a theatre because their fussing, whining little bundle of joy was distracting to...oh, say, the REST OF THE AUDIENCE. But noooooo....they have RIGHTS, damnit! Apparently it includes the right to turn a pleasant night on the town into a rather hellish experience for anyone in close proximity.
The CIA, for thinking that any kind of value this software might have will last very long, or the foreign sources who carelessly pepper their communication with direct references to what they're talking about? Think, "let's not call it 'nuclear terrorism', but 'lemon-scented furniture polish'". Let's see how well the software does then...
And if the judges have a brain in their head, that's exactly what will happen - once the RIAA demonstrates what a farce this "filtering technology" is.
This whole thing is funny. All the Napster users that expect free music are doing so for various reasons, but I've seen many complaints about the RIAA's unfair pricing/payment practices. Yet, these same people insist on slaying this dragon with the equivalent pea shooters. Everyone's so busy shooting the dragon with peas, they fail to see (or use) the arsenal of rocket launchers right at their feet. There's a word for this arsenal - BOYCOTT. Yes, it may take the cooperation of more people to get the desired results, but it CAN be effective. If the RIAA doesn't HAVE to change, why should it? It seems like the only effective solution would be to create an environment that makes this so. Otherwise, stock up on the peas - it's going to be a long ride.
I totally agree. I've used c++, and while I like both of them, PHP kicks butt when it comes to web-based projects - mainly because you don't have to deal with all of the overhead associated with a strongly-typed language. There's no reason the same level of abstraction that makes PHP easy to work with cannot be applied to other uses. I just hope the speed is there.
Not the way it is now. Can you imagine ... let's say Apple invented the first computer with a GUI for the consumer market. THAT'S worth a patent, because it represents a complete paradigm shift, and based on what was currently available, it most definately qualifies as an innovation. Now, along comes Joe Wiseass, and decides, "hey...I'm going to patent the idea of drawing a little rectangle around an icon when you drag it." Not to be outdone, John Wannabesomeoneimportant has a stroke of brilliance, and decides that he's going to patent the idea of attaching a sound to an action performed by the mouse (like clicking).
So here you have all these people picking this new technology to DEATH, none of them being particularly innovative in their own right. This is exactly what's happening with internet-related patents...the breakthrough - the paradigm shift has already happened, and now everyone and their mother wants to pick it apart and patent every possible derivative. This is not innovation. If anything, I'd say that the fact that this can happen actually stifles innovation, because people aren't looking beyond what's already here.
Theoretically, collecting DNA samples to help with crime prevention MIGHT sound like a neat idea. But as we've learned repeatedly, where government is involved, the road to hell has its name written all over it. Government has a very BAD habit of "repurposing" information as it sees fit. So, while DNA information MIGHT be used for crime prevention today, there's little that will stand in the way of this turning into a disaster like the Social Security Number. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if one day, we turned around and realized that the government was actually SELLING our DNA information, much like they've taken the liberty of selling other kinds of information. The ONLY way to keep ourselves from being victimized is prevention, and one of more fail-safe ways to accomplish this is not to provide the information (or allow it to be collected) in the first place.
Looking at it another way, the consumer may very well be getting exactly what it's willing to pay for - and THAT'S the key - if consumers are too stupid to understand what they're buying, or too lazy to look for alternatives, they get what they deserve. Any consumer willing to fork out more than $10 for a CD today, for example, IS getting what they deserve. Don't like the price or the "features"? Stop buying, and watch those big bad companies take an about face.
First, it works. Second, the price/value is way off...For the pentagon to consider such a device, they'd have add at LEAST $1k to the price - and that's for the quantity discount, mind you.
There's a vast difference between encouragement and coercion. Which of these do you really think fits the role of the government when it comes to estate taxes?
Riddle me this: if the government stopped taxing large gifts, exactly how many seconds would it take before all executive salaries were eliminated and replaced by weekly "gifts"? 'nuff said.
Not nearly enough. The government could easily exclude payment in kind, and it would mean that if you happen to WIN something, you'd actually get to keep it. State lotteries are particularly bad. The government keeps half the money to begin with, and then taxes winnings at 50%.
Gee, I don't suppose the county uses that money to build the roads that you drive on? But what if you don't even drive that car? In that case, what the US really ought to do instead is charge $1 or 2 per gallon gasoline tax
Between the city and state taxes, it's not that far off from $1 per gallon. Aside from that, the tax doesn't make sense anyway, because vehicle owners get charged according to the current value of the car - just because the value decreases doesn't mean it's driven any less. I'm also concerned, because they used to post the amount of taxes being paid per gallon at every gasoline pump, but that information is no longer as readily available.
Americans bitch too much about taxes. We have it easy compared to most countries
I don't think it's as simple as "bitching about taxes." It's objecting to the notion that the government has to be this HUGE, wasteful, bureaucracy whose endless programs are turning us into a psuedo-socialistic state. We're turning from a nation of self-reliant individuals into a mass of dependency.
I can't do anything BUT disagree. The more "friendly" computers are expected to become, the more technology that is brought into the hands of the end consumer, the more CPU horsepower it will require. There is no shortage of ways to use the extra bandwidth. Will grandma need an Athlon 1.2 Ghz system to store her recipies? Probably not. But when she whips out that new word processor that is completely voice-driven - with real-time recognition - it's a whole new ball game.
The solution to this (from the government's perspective) would be rather simple: The item in question will be taxed based either the value of equivalent software, or on the purchase price, whichever is greater.
Governments, if they're allowed to get away with it, will tax whatever they damn well please. In the U.S., there are all kinds of taxes that people could challenge as arguably unjustifiable - the infamous "death" tax for example. When someone dies, everything in their estate has already been paid for, taxes included, and yet the government feels that it is entitled to siphon off a rather significant percentage - not because anything was bought or sold, but only because the property was passed from one owner's hands to another.
Then there's the gift tax - if a car manufacturer decides it wants to simply GIVE you a car, free and clear, the transaction still requires that you pay taxes on the value of the car - even though you paid nothing for it.
And let's not forget the vehicle ownership tax - my car is paid off, yet every year, I still have to pay the county clerk a sum of money based on the assessed value of my car.
Then there's the issue of government protecting its own interest, rather than its responsibility to its constituents. We had a campaign locally here this election that would have reduced the revenue collected by the state by only 1%, through the reduction or elimination of certain taxes - the vehicle ownership tax being one of them. It was fought with a massive advertising campaign, replete with cries of "look at all the services that will be cut if this initiative passes!" - which was utter nonsense. Needless to say, it didn't pass, mostly I suspect, out of fear. This points out an interesting paradigm with respect to people, government, and taxes - taxes are used to "fund" government interests. Once these get started in the form of various wasteful government programs, the affected interest groups have something to lose if the tax gets repealed. Once this happens, it's almost impossible to change. The solution? Since any increase in funds to the government will invariably be used against you, a more prudent approach might be to see that these increases never happen in the first place.
This is certainly true. I'm no newbie, but I've spent upwards of two days dorking around with upgrading php, apache, mysql, and openssl. I could have probably used the respective RPMs, but even configuring and compiling, though I suspect these will never be fodder for "newbies," could be a lot less troublesome.
And quite frankly, when all the Fed has to do is pay them off like they did with the telcos, they ONLY way @Home will remain intact is if they have a sense of dignity that favors integrity more than money.
But once it gets started, maybe it happens fast. I just heard about an ordinance being considered by a the city council of a Colorado suburb that would have inspectors driving around looking for "safety" violations (detached gutters, junk in the yard, etc). The residents didn't seem to mind this as much as the fact that if the inspector had reason to suspect that such violations existed on the inside, they could very well end up inspecting the inside of the home as well. Their reasoning: "to protect the property values and the safety of residents." If someone doesn't lose their seat for this, something is seriously wrong.
I'm not prepared to completely discount the usefulness of censorware, because for one, the younger you are, the less likely you are to have the perspective necessary to make informed decisions. Just the same, I don't think censorware is the panacea that a growing number of people think it is - especially when its use is being dictated by public policy (government).
I make twice as much as you. I should pay twice as much in taxes as you do.
NO, NO, NO. This whole argument that says "wealthier people have more to lose, and so should pay more," is outright extortion. Here's the deal: wealthier people make more, but they also spend more. When this money is spent, where does it go? To many companies that employ other people! Someone working in an auto factory might be whining that they're not being paid enough, but were it not for the people that could afford to buy the cars they produce, they'd be making NOTHING. BUPKUS. NADA. ZILCH. I don't agree that anyone should settle for less than they could be EARNING in a position like this, but this is between the company, its employees, and the market in general.
In fact, I could make the same argument in FAVOR of the wealthy - because the wealthy provide more of the economic backbone, they should if nothing else, pay only an EQUAL percentage of their income as anyone else. If someone wants to make more money, the world is their oyster in the U.S. - the only REAL obstacle might be their inability to make sound, educated decisions - but whose problem is that?
A BIG part of the problem, as I see it, is that we, as a society, have become a dependent bunch of WIMPS. We elect presidents today not based on how much they can improve the INFRASTRUCTURE that allows us to do for ourselves (which, in practical terms, means LESS government), but based on how many benefits they will give us each individually (that are paid for with someone ELSE'S money). We are a society enslaved to ourselves, and it's pathetic.
The next time you drive through a nice housing development, know that some of these homes could belong to people making FAR LESS than others living in the same place. Through the wonders of Section VIII housing subsidies, we now have a situation where I, because of my income, might be paying far more (read, "market rate") for the very same reward (home ownership), than someone else, because of THEIR income. Is THIS fair? What ever happened to working FOR the American Dream, as opposed to having it handed to you? If taxation is steering us toward this kind of outright socialism, I'm wholly in favor of reducing the tax burden as much as possible.
How do you think the fed could continue to justify the increase in stealth surveillance (Narcivore, Eschelon) if there was, in reality, LESS crime?