the easiest way around macrovision (if you want to copy a video, anyway) is to go to a yard sale or thrift store and pick up one of those old silver top-loading VCRs. use it to record. macrovision requires firmware in the recording machine in order to work, and those old top-loaders don't have it.
Never before has Jon Katz put so much stupidity in one place. Never before have I felt so strongly that certain people should be summarily kicked in the head. Much like voting, my conscience would simply not allow me to not respond.
Not voting can be as distinctly a political statement as voting.
To quote a post in a previous political article;
If you don't have the intelligence to realize that failing to vote is the stupidest form of protest ever, then please don't vote. -- Jason Earl
Nobody cares if you don't vote. If non-voters mattered they would be counted in the Gallop Polls. If you don't vote the only message you are going to send is that your opinion doesn't matter, and believe me, the political machine will hear you loud and clear.
Democracy can be much more than our current incarnation of it.
That's true, and the beauty of our political system is that we can change it. All we have to do is participate and convince enough people that our way is better. How exactly do you propose to change the system without participating in it?
The people who run politics and media have succeeded in trivializing non-voters, making them appear repugnant and irresponsible, the opposite of moral and idealistic.
Wrong, the non-voters have trivialized themselves. Stupidity should be repugnant. Responsible people, by definition, do things. Voting is doing something; not voting is doing nothing, and therefore irresponsible. If you don't like the way things are, do something about it. Participate. Vote. The easiest way to change any system is from the inside. If you aren't going to do anything then shut the hell up. You've already decided, by default, that your opinion doesn't matter to you, why should it matter to me?
People would truly count if their political system offered them real choices and options, and gave them genuine ways to participate -- if their views were actually heard.
I've got news for you, our political system is Open Source. There are plenty of genuine ways to participate, whether it's sticking a sign in your yard or manning a phone bank, organizing a benefit or rally for the candidate or cause of your choice, or even running for office yourself if you can't find someone else you can support. Just like any other open source project, the direction is determined by the people who do things. Just ask yourself this: "What would happen if everyone who felt like I do voted?"
This may explain why so many people feel it's pointless to vote. A majority of Americans, for example, have repeatedly supported abortion rights, yet their popular will is continually challenged.
A majority of Americans choose not to vote, and so their popular will continues to mean nothing. Words without action are meaningless.
What's clear is that the two major candidates manipulate a handful of issues -- abortion, the environment and the judiciary come to mind -- to promote the idea that they have substantial differences when, in fact, they have few.
Actually there is only one difference between the two major parties: Wellfare for individuals Vs. wellfare for corporations. Of course, the Green Party adds wellfare for trees to the list, Libertarians say "fuck everybody who isn't me" and Pat Buchanon says "fuck everybody who isn't a white male protestant bigot". Who says there aren't choices?
The rest isn't worth responding to since you apparently have already decided not to vote. As I said before; why should your opinion matter to me when it obviously doesn't matter to you?
I used to know a woman who had writen in "Mickey Mouse" in 15 consecutive presidential elections. If you choose not to vote those two words repeated 15 times will have more meaning than everything you have ever writen or said on the subject combined.
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
SS as we know it needs to be phased out - it does not work. I tend to side with Bush's plans for SS, or at least a derivative of those plans.
SS works just fine. It does exactly what it's supposed to do, which is make sure that good, honest people who worked hard their whole lives don't starve or freeze to death when they are no longer able to work. Bush's plan won't work because the people who need SS are the ones who couldn't afford to invest. SS provides a gauranteed return. That's why it's called Social Security. It isn't much, but it's gauranteed. Trading that for the volitility of the stock market is a very bad idea.
The thing is, the working poor (I don't give a damn about the poor who are able but unwilling to work) would have more income for things such as insurance if businesses are investing rather than saving (thereby offering jobs).
What about the poor who are unable to work? Are you aware that a certain level of unemployment is necessary for our economy to remain healthy? Without unemployment labor costs would skyrocket, and inflation right along with it. However, these able unemployed still need to eat. Desperate people comit desperate acts. That's the real reason wellfare exists.
Call it trickle-down economics if you want,...
Ah yes, I remember that from the 80's. As I recall the rich were trickling down all over the poor.
...but a Robin Hood-esque plan of taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work in my book.
The thing about Robin Hood-esqe plans is they prevent situations such as the French Revolution or any of the various Communist revolutions from happening here. Contrary to what many would have you believe, government does have a responsibility to take care of it's citizens. Under feudalism it was called Nobise Oblige (pardon my spelling if you happen to be French). History has proven that any government that ignores this responsibility gets overthrown without exception, and often violently, which I am not particularly keen on.
Your statement is misleading; the rich still pay taxes (more than the poor). A flat tax simply doesn't discriminate against those who are wealthy. Does not a person making $200,000 a year pay the same tax for a bar of soap that a person making $15,000 a year pays?
Your statement is not only misleading, it's self-contradicting. I know it's currently politically correct to feel sorry for the overburdened upper-class. After all, why should the top 10% have to pay 1/3 of the taxes when they only control 98% of the wealth? And what's up with all these free-loaders living below the poverty level not paying taxes? While our current tax system certainly isn't perfect, it does actually work. Here's why:
Under a flat tax (10% is the usual proposal I believe) the guy making 200k is going to pay 20k in taxes. That smarts a little, but it's not going to put him out on the street (although he may have to put off buying that new BMW for another year). The guy making 15k is going to pay 1.5k in taxes. Unfortunately, he has to choose whether that 1.5k is going to come out of his food or his rent. If you don't believe me try supporting yourself on only 15k for the next year. I've done it, and it really sucks. That's why we have a sliding scale in our tax system. A flat tax may not discriminate against the wealthy, but it certainly discriminates against the poor.
If I'm a a lower-class worker, the non-flat tax is a disincentive to working harder; I'll only end up having to pay a disproportionately larger amount in taxes.
This has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Have you ever heard anyone refuse a raise because they'd have to pay more taxes? I don't think so.
I'm not saying the system we have is perfect, just that a better one has not yet been presented. I applaud you for examining alternative proposals, but the ones you have decided to promote are very poorly thought out, as is revealed when they are put up against the lessons to be learned from history. I agree that our government is large and inefficient, but every part of it exists because there was a need for it. Social Security exists because old people were starving and freezing to death. Wellfare exists because children were starving and freezing to death. Labor laws (such as minimum wage) exist because people were working 18 hour days and still couldn't afford to buy food.Industries are regulated because their abuses became intollerable.
Face it, the government in the US exists primarily to prevent the poor from rising up and killing the rich. That's why all these social programs are necessary.
The Libertarian party was founded on some good ideas, and traces of those ideas are still there. By and large, though, Libertarianism has come to be based on a single concept: Greed.
There has to be more to life than how much I can grab for myself. If that's all yours is based on then you should pray for an early death, because your life will be very sad.
Personally, I'm voting for Gore. I disagree with him on many points, but at least he considers the options and their repercussions before he decides on a course of action.
Poor little rich people! The richest 10% of the population have to pay 1/3 of the taxes when they only control 98% of the wealth...
That's right, 10% of the population controls 98% of the wealth, and they only pay 1/3 of the taxes.
For those of you who are math impaired, that means the rest of us, who only control 2% of the wealth have to pay the remaining 2/3 of the taxes! How's that for disproportionate?
And don't even try to tell me they don't benefit from the social programs they help pay for. Social programs help relieve the desperation of the poor, and as we all know, desperate people commit desperate acts, like the French Revolution for example.
Take another look at the numbers above (feel free to verify them for yourself) and ask yourself, "who gets more screwed by the current tax laws, me or Bill Gates?"
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The people who need the help of social programs by definition can't afford to support them. If they could, they wouldn't need the help, would they?
So, if the wealthiest 10% (who in actuallity control close to 98% of the wealth) isn't going to pay for these programs, who is? Perhaps we should levy a tax on panhandling? or maybe soup kitchens? how about free medical clinics?
To say that the wealthiest of the wealthy don't benefit from social programs is asinine. Social programs keep the unwashed masses from rising up against them, and in that sense they benefit far more from these programs than the people actually recieving the aid. How is it unfair to ask the wealthiest people in the world to help pay for them?
A better question would be, how unfair is it that 98% of the wealth only pays 33% of the taxes? Take a look at that ratio again and tell me who's really getting screwed.
Your agreement says you have to sign off anything you invented while working for the company, right? Well that's it then... if they are trying to patent something you didn't invent they can't force you to sign. Any judge in their right mind would back you up on this (unfortunately these seem to be in short supply these days, so talking to a lawyer is a good idea).
Additionally, since they are a former employer I wouldn't sign anything anyway unless they are willing to pay you a consulting fee. I would suggest half to double your current annual salary depending on how you feel about your former employers. But don't guarantee anything. Make it clear that they are paying you to review their application, not buying your signature.
The way I see it, your employment contract ended with your employment. Obviously whatever NDA's you signed still apply, but that's it. You have no obligation to them anymore. Don't do anything for them for free. If you really don't want to do it, set a rediculously high fee. That way even if they try to take you to court you can say "I didn't say no, they just don't want to pay my retainer".
The house I grew up in is so far out of town that we only got real electricity, a phone line we didn't string ourselves, and pavement within walking distance in the last 5 years. Hell, we didn't even have a phone til I was 7. I searched far and wide for info about satalite broadband and couldn't find any info at all. Of course, now I have an apartment downtown and I'm hooked up with DSL. Once HDSL becomes a reality they'll be able to serve most people within 50 miles of a central office, and according to a friend of mine at Pacific Bell that's happening soon. I think this is a case of too little too late.
...just that your source had to be able to compile on it. That's an important distinction.
When I took c++ the instructor told us we could use any compiler we wanted to. The school only offered M$VC++ and Borland C++ on the lab machines, but we were welcome to use whatever we could get our hands on. Of course, he didn't have a TA and he didn't grade us by running our program. We had to hand in hardcopies of our source. He also had a godlike knowledge of c/c++ and had seemingly memorized the standard libraries included with many and various compilers (as in "Yes that will work, but only under M$VC++. To run it in Borland you'll have to change MFoo() to Bfoo(), or you could use SFoo1() with SFoo2() and it will compile under both of those and under Unix as well.").
I wouldn't execpt that level of knopwledge from most instructors (although maybe we should...) and I especially wouldn't expect it from a TA. Just write it in whatever environment you want, save it as a standard text file, and make sure it will compile under whatever they want you to use. Porting is a valuable skill that you will need when you get into the "real world" anyway.
My experience has been that windows will correctly detect and identify my hardware, and on the rare occasion that it doesn't have drivers it will have default drivers that work well enough until I get around to downloading the real drivers. That only happens with my most bleeding edge harware, however. Everything else has drivers included either in Windows or on an easy to use floppy or CD, or if the manufacturer no longer exists the default drivers will probably cover it. In the last 3 years of running bleeding edge (or as close as my finances/wife would allow) frankenboxes the only significant driver problem I've had was with nVidia's detonator 1.0 drivers, and that was fixed within a week.
Contrast with Linux, which doesn't properly detect my video card, nor does it have drivers (not even default ones)that work on it, so I can't run a GUI. No big deal, I grew up with DOS, so command lines don't scare me. What really bugs me is that Linux locks up every time it tries to detect my DMA controller, and the only sollution I've been able to find is to recompile the kernel so it predends the card doesn't exist, leaving me with one drive that I can't access. The manufacturer has released beta Linux drivers, but they don't work with my distro, even after I recompiled them from the source.
Sure, with Wondows you don't know (generally) what's behind the GUI and that's annoying, but you don't have to. Any idiot can install Windows. Linux, on the other hand, is only easy if you know it. Even the man pages assume that you already know everything and simply need to be reminded of your options. Before anyone accuses me of bias, I want to say that I really want Linux to work for me. I really dislike MS, but I find myself coming back to their products time and again because they work.
I agree with almost every argument for Linux, except that it's easy to install. It's not, and if you think it is try talking a newbie through a Linux install over the phone. And yes, I've done that with Wndows. More than once, in fact. On Frankenboxen and prebuilt systems new and old. That's the true test of ease, not whether a hacker can get it to work on all his/her boxen.
I have no problem going out and finding what I'm looking for and downloading it, my problem is that I don't know *nix and I can't find anything that's newbieized enough for my skill level. All the Mans, etc. that I've been able to find assume (incorrectly in my case) that I already know how to do the basic stuff like start and exit the program. I've had a little help and I've managed to puzzle a few things out on my own, but I haven't the slightest clue how to update to XFree86 4.0 (or higher) which I need to get X running on my video card.
I know that for almost everything I do there is a superior option available on Linux (the one exception is games, but I do my part to help change that by buying Linux versions even though I can't use them), my problem is not with Linux or the software available for it. My problem is with the documantation and manuals which assume I already know how to use the software. As I said before, even the NHF's I've found assume a level of knowledge beyond mine.
This has turned into more of a rant than I intended it to be. Basically what I want to say is if you're writing man's or other documentation, write it for the guy like me who doesn't know what he's doing. Provide examples. It's really not difficult to do that, and it would be a major step towards acceptance of Linux on the desktop. Just imagine what we could accomplish if Linux was easier to use than Windows!
I realize that most likely they are aiming at the appliance market, but they could certainly go for the cheap pc market as well. Not to long ago I picked up a barebones kit from Fry's to build up for my mom (who finally decided to upgrade from her 1928 Underwood) and it came with a Linux CD and Wordperfect Office. So, why couldn't it come with AOL too? If it runs AOL it must be easy, right?
Seriously though, I think cheap pc's are an excellent way for Linux to break into the market. It certainly has a price advantage over windows, and there's no reason one couldn't provide a complete internet ready Linux box for $500. So what if it's AOL, anyone who's buying at that level probably won't know the difference, and if they do they probably bought it to hack up for some personal project, in which case they'd most likely format the drive anyway. As for the former, maybe their kids will grow up and know the difference, not just between AOL and the internet, but between M$ and a stable operating system.
...then this is probably the wrong place to bitch about it. I doubt that any of @Home's policy makers read/., so I say call up their customer service department and let them know exactly how you feel about it. Popular demand can be an incredibly powerful force.
I wouldn't be so sure. I've always been a proponent of the government having as little info about me as possible, but now that I'm a father I find myself calling up the sheriff's office to get my daughter fingerprinted. If it's marketed as a way to protect kids I think you'd be surprised at how many people will go for it.
On the other hand, I think this company needs to do some more research. The chip does include a wireless transmitter, does it not? And electromagnetic radiation (such as radio signals) have been shown to contribute to cancer, hasn't it? I think this company is leaving itself open to a lot of lawsuits, as the government would be if it forces these to be implanted in criminals, let alone average citizens.
I think people were expecting some kind of miracle to happen when Quake 3 was released for Linux, but that's unrealistic. I bought the tin box edition, along SuSE 6.3, when it first came out. I'd really rather be using Linux than Windows, but 8 months later I still can't get X to work, and forget about Quake. Granted, a lot of that is my own fault for having bleeding edge hardware, but the fact remains that Linux isn't ready for mainstream gaming. I think it's on the verge, and I'm certainly going to keep trying, but I think there's plenty of other people who will give up and probably be like the guy I work with who's constantly warning people away from Linux because "It only works on 2 year old hardware".
When I was standing in line with SuSE and a Linux book the guy behind me asked how long I'd been using Linux. I told him I hadn't but I wanted to try it out. He said that he'd helped dozens of people set up Linux and every one of them had given up after a month or 2 and went back to windows and predicted I would do the same. Now that I've managed to prove him wrong I wonder if it never occured to him that they needed more help than that.
I still use windows for almost everything, but only because I haven't been able to make Linux do anything useful yet. The main thing I've learned is that the Linux community is not as supportive of new users as it would like to believe. I know, RTFM, but FM generally doesn't make any sense. Even the rare NHF's I've found aren't newbie-ized enough, sorely lacking in examples or other truely useful information.
If Linux users want the best games ported to Linux there has to be support, and I don't just mean sketchy OpenGL drivers.
One of the best projects I ever worked on in school was in my high school electronics class. We had to build an AM radio. the class was split into 2 teams, and each team was divided into departments (design, assembly, troubleshooting, etc. I was put in management, but I'm not bitter:).
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to come up with an equivalent project to suit these needs. Having 2 teams definately increases the interest level merely by introducing the element of competition. Besides programming, it would also teach the value of working in a team, especially if it's something that no one person could accomplish in the alloted time.
I agree, caffiene is the fruit of the devil. Sometimes I find it necessary (more often now that there's a baby in my life), but it won't help you solve a problem. It alters your body chemistry in much the same way that adrenaline does. The fight or flight adrenaline response does very specific things to your body and mind for very specific reasons. It limits the blood flow to the brain, causing a sensation of clarity which comes from a narrowing of options, in the general sense: defend yourself or run away. Smoking actually has a similar effect, even though it seems to be soothing due to the effects of satisfying the physical addiction. Almost any addictive substance can work this way, from caffiene and nicotien to speed and heroin.
What I've found is most helpful is to have a physical hobby. I chose blacksmithing, but I'm sure racketball or hiking would work just fine. Basically just something that's as different from coding as possible.
If you are totally focused on one thing you will burn out. I learned that the hard way when I was paying for school by tutoring math. As an engineering major that meant I was doing math up to 15 hours a day. I loved it and I was good at it, but come summer I was happy to find a contruction job, something where I didn't have to think if I didn't want to.
Remeber that your brain is part of your body, and the whole system requires balance if it is to function properly.
I think that's a great idea, but possibly for the wrong reason. How about boycotting them because of their general abuse of fans, artists, and resellers? (and alternate distribution models too, of course. I'm not saying it's a bad reason, just maybe not the best one.)
I don't think it would actually work though. Most likely the RIAA would just point at the numbers and blame it on filesharing. I think class action law suits would be a more effective solution (although I loathe litigation). Fans could sue for them for price gouging, and artists could sue for defrauding them of their creations. As much as I hate lawyers, I think this would make the world a better place.
The problem with the MPAA is that they own the rights to Bladerunner, Dune, and all the other movies I would like to be able to watch at 1024x768 on my monitor (or on my micromirror projector, when I can afford one). Since I've been working for a company that builds high end professional digital video equipment, I'm afraid I've become a bit of a snob when it comes to video quality. Where can I legally get the movies I want to watch in a high quality digital format if not from the MPAA?
The real problem with the MPAA is that they have forgotten the lesson they had to learn with VHS, that the only way to prevent piracy is to provide the product at a reasonable price. Nothing is 100% of course, but how many people will pirate a movie they can buy for $10-20?
First of all, nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean. Nuclear waste is extremely hazardous and very difficult and expensive to store (that's right, i said store. Just because you throw it away doesn't mean it goes away). It's only cheap because the Department of Energy subsidizes it. Check out the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) Web Site for more info. There are plenty of other technologies (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, etc) that are far better. Right idea, wrong tech.
Second, the infrastructure for rail is fairly expensive also. That's why it costs about the same to go somewhere by air as it does to go by rail. Most towns don't have rail stations, so how would those large items be transported to, say, the town i live in (only 30 miles from the nearest rail line)? That's why most hauling is done by truck.
Third, a lot of people don't live in major metropolitan areas, and thus don't have access to viable mass transit. (People unfortunate enough to live in LA have the worst of both worlds.) I would be happy to use public transportation, but there may as well not be any where I live. The 5 minute drive to work takes about an hour on the bus, and costs about double what it costs me for the gas. If I miss the bus, no problem... it'll come back around in an hour and a half or so, which is not acceptable on the three nights a week that i have to rush home and take care of my daughter when my wife goes to work. Never mind the half mile walk between my place of employment and the nearest bus stop. I don't mind the walk, I just don't have time for it. I live to far away to walk to work, and a bike (if I had one) would really only be an option about 4 months out of the year.
Now that I think about it, there's kind a a vicious cycle going on here: The public transportation in my town is useless, so nobody uses it, so it never get's improved because nobody uses it. Hmmm...
Anyway, my last point is that the conditions are so different now than they were 200 years ago that there really isn't any analogy. Basically, there isn't enough space on this planet for us to go back to that lifestyle. Besides, it was a hard life and most people didn't really survive very well, or for very long. There are a lot of very good reasons why 98% of the US population chooses not to live that life.
I'm all for a cleaner, better way of getting to the places I need to be, but it has to work. It has to be cheap, easy, fast, and convenient. Frankly, alternative fuel vehicles are as close as most of us will be able to get for a long time. If I could afford it I'd go get one tomorrow.
As a matter of fact, I've even read it. Have you ever heard of the Dhamapada? Or the Bhagavad Ghita? How about the Analects of Confuscious? All excellent religious texts dealling with many of the same issues. In case you haven't heard, the Bible isn't the only answer available, in fact it isn't even the most prefered. Science is not about mocking God, it's about trying to find the truth.
And speaking of truth, here's some for you to chew on: Jesus didn't believe in an immortal soul. How do I know? Because Jesus was a jew, and the soul is a greek concept introduced into christianity by Paul, who if i remember correctly never even met Jesus. Perhpaps you should learn something about your religion before you go around preaching it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not voting can be as distinctly a political statement as voting.
To quote a post in a previous political article;
If you don't have the intelligence to realize that failing to vote is the stupidest form of protest ever, then please don't vote. -- Jason Earl
Nobody cares if you don't vote. If non-voters mattered they would be counted in the Gallop Polls. If you don't vote the only message you are going to send is that your opinion doesn't matter, and believe me, the political machine will hear you loud and clear.
Democracy can be much more than our current incarnation of it.
That's true, and the beauty of our political system is that we can change it. All we have to do is participate and convince enough people that our way is better. How exactly do you propose to change the system without participating in it?
The people who run politics and media have succeeded in trivializing non-voters, making them appear repugnant and irresponsible, the opposite of moral and idealistic.
Wrong, the non-voters have trivialized themselves. Stupidity should be repugnant. Responsible people, by definition, do things. Voting is doing something; not voting is doing nothing, and therefore irresponsible. If you don't like the way things are, do something about it. Participate. Vote. The easiest way to change any system is from the inside. If you aren't going to do anything then shut the hell up. You've already decided, by default, that your opinion doesn't matter to you, why should it matter to me?
People would truly count if their political system offered them real choices and options, and gave them genuine ways to participate -- if their views were actually heard.
I've got news for you, our political system is Open Source. There are plenty of genuine ways to participate, whether it's sticking a sign in your yard or manning a phone bank, organizing a benefit or rally for the candidate or cause of your choice, or even running for office yourself if you can't find someone else you can support. Just like any other open source project, the direction is determined by the people who do things. Just ask yourself this: "What would happen if everyone who felt like I do voted?"
This may explain why so many people feel it's pointless to vote. A majority of Americans, for example, have repeatedly supported abortion rights, yet their popular will is continually challenged.
A majority of Americans choose not to vote, and so their popular will continues to mean nothing. Words without action are meaningless.
What's clear is that the two major candidates manipulate a handful of issues -- abortion, the environment and the judiciary come to mind -- to promote the idea that they have substantial differences when, in fact, they have few.
Actually there is only one difference between the two major parties: Wellfare for individuals Vs. wellfare for corporations. Of course, the Green Party adds wellfare for trees to the list, Libertarians say "fuck everybody who isn't me" and Pat Buchanon says "fuck everybody who isn't a white male protestant bigot". Who says there aren't choices?
The rest isn't worth responding to since you apparently have already decided not to vote. As I said before; why should your opinion matter to me when it obviously doesn't matter to you?
I used to know a woman who had writen in "Mickey Mouse" in 15 consecutive presidential elections. If you choose not to vote those two words repeated 15 times will have more meaning than everything you have ever writen or said on the subject combined.
SS works just fine. It does exactly what it's supposed to do, which is make sure that good, honest people who worked hard their whole lives don't starve or freeze to death when they are no longer able to work. Bush's plan won't work because the people who need SS are the ones who couldn't afford to invest. SS provides a gauranteed return. That's why it's called Social Security. It isn't much, but it's gauranteed. Trading that for the volitility of the stock market is a very bad idea.
The thing is, the working poor (I don't give a damn about the poor who are able but unwilling to work) would have more income for things such as insurance if businesses are investing rather than saving (thereby offering jobs).
What about the poor who are unable to work? Are you aware that a certain level of unemployment is necessary for our economy to remain healthy? Without unemployment labor costs would skyrocket, and inflation right along with it. However, these able unemployed still need to eat. Desperate people comit desperate acts. That's the real reason wellfare exists.
Call it trickle-down economics if you want,...
Ah yes, I remember that from the 80's. As I recall the rich were trickling down all over the poor.
The thing about Robin Hood-esqe plans is they prevent situations such as the French Revolution or any of the various Communist revolutions from happening here. Contrary to what many would have you believe, government does have a responsibility to take care of it's citizens. Under feudalism it was called Nobise Oblige (pardon my spelling if you happen to be French). History has proven that any government that ignores this responsibility gets overthrown without exception, and often violently, which I am not particularly keen on.
Your statement is misleading; the rich still pay taxes (more than the poor). A flat tax simply doesn't discriminate against those who are wealthy. Does not a person making $200,000 a year pay the same tax for a bar of soap that a person making $15,000 a year pays?
Your statement is not only misleading, it's self-contradicting. I know it's currently politically correct to feel sorry for the overburdened upper-class. After all, why should the top 10% have to pay 1/3 of the taxes when they only control 98% of the wealth? And what's up with all these free-loaders living below the poverty level not paying taxes? While our current tax system certainly isn't perfect, it does actually work. Here's why:
Under a flat tax (10% is the usual proposal I believe) the guy making 200k is going to pay 20k in taxes. That smarts a little, but it's not going to put him out on the street (although he may have to put off buying that new BMW for another year). The guy making 15k is going to pay 1.5k in taxes. Unfortunately, he has to choose whether that 1.5k is going to come out of his food or his rent. If you don't believe me try supporting yourself on only 15k for the next year. I've done it, and it really sucks. That's why we have a sliding scale in our tax system. A flat tax may not discriminate against the wealthy, but it certainly discriminates against the poor.
If I'm a a lower-class worker, the non-flat tax is a disincentive to working harder; I'll only end up having to pay a disproportionately larger amount in taxes.
This has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Have you ever heard anyone refuse a raise because they'd have to pay more taxes? I don't think so.
I'm not saying the system we have is perfect, just that a better one has not yet been presented. I applaud you for examining alternative proposals, but the ones you have decided to promote are very poorly thought out, as is revealed when they are put up against the lessons to be learned from history. I agree that our government is large and inefficient, but every part of it exists because there was a need for it. Social Security exists because old people were starving and freezing to death. Wellfare exists because children were starving and freezing to death. Labor laws (such as minimum wage) exist because people were working 18 hour days and still couldn't afford to buy food.Industries are regulated because their abuses became intollerable.
Face it, the government in the US exists primarily to prevent the poor from rising up and killing the rich. That's why all these social programs are necessary.
The Libertarian party was founded on some good ideas, and traces of those ideas are still there. By and large, though, Libertarianism has come to be based on a single concept: Greed.
There has to be more to life than how much I can grab for myself. If that's all yours is based on then you should pray for an early death, because your life will be very sad.
Personally, I'm voting for Gore. I disagree with him on many points, but at least he considers the options and their repercussions before he decides on a course of action.
That's right, 10% of the population controls 98% of the wealth, and they only pay 1/3 of the taxes.
For those of you who are math impaired, that means the rest of us, who only control 2% of the wealth have to pay the remaining 2/3 of the taxes! How's that for disproportionate?
And don't even try to tell me they don't benefit from the social programs they help pay for. Social programs help relieve the desperation of the poor, and as we all know, desperate people commit desperate acts, like the French Revolution for example.
Take another look at the numbers above (feel free to verify them for yourself) and ask yourself, "who gets more screwed by the current tax laws, me or Bill Gates?"
So, if the wealthiest 10% (who in actuallity control close to 98% of the wealth) isn't going to pay for these programs, who is? Perhaps we should levy a tax on panhandling? or maybe soup kitchens? how about free medical clinics?
To say that the wealthiest of the wealthy don't benefit from social programs is asinine. Social programs keep the unwashed masses from rising up against them, and in that sense they benefit far more from these programs than the people actually recieving the aid. How is it unfair to ask the wealthiest people in the world to help pay for them?
A better question would be, how unfair is it that 98% of the wealth only pays 33% of the taxes? Take a look at that ratio again and tell me who's really getting screwed.
Additionally, since they are a former employer I wouldn't sign anything anyway unless they are willing to pay you a consulting fee. I would suggest half to double your current annual salary depending on how you feel about your former employers. But don't guarantee anything. Make it clear that they are paying you to review their application, not buying your signature.
The way I see it, your employment contract ended with your employment. Obviously whatever NDA's you signed still apply, but that's it. You have no obligation to them anymore. Don't do anything for them for free. If you really don't want to do it, set a rediculously high fee. That way even if they try to take you to court you can say "I didn't say no, they just don't want to pay my retainer".
When I took c++ the instructor told us we could use any compiler we wanted to. The school only offered M$VC++ and Borland C++ on the lab machines, but we were welcome to use whatever we could get our hands on. Of course, he didn't have a TA and he didn't grade us by running our program. We had to hand in hardcopies of our source. He also had a godlike knowledge of c/c++ and had seemingly memorized the standard libraries included with many and various compilers (as in "Yes that will work, but only under M$VC++. To run it in Borland you'll have to change MFoo() to Bfoo(), or you could use SFoo1() with SFoo2() and it will compile under both of those and under Unix as well.").
I wouldn't execpt that level of knopwledge from most instructors (although maybe we should...) and I especially wouldn't expect it from a TA. Just write it in whatever environment you want, save it as a standard text file, and make sure it will compile under whatever they want you to use. Porting is a valuable skill that you will need when you get into the "real world" anyway.
Contrast with Linux, which doesn't properly detect my video card, nor does it have drivers (not even default ones)that work on it, so I can't run a GUI. No big deal, I grew up with DOS, so command lines don't scare me. What really bugs me is that Linux locks up every time it tries to detect my DMA controller, and the only sollution I've been able to find is to recompile the kernel so it predends the card doesn't exist, leaving me with one drive that I can't access. The manufacturer has released beta Linux drivers, but they don't work with my distro, even after I recompiled them from the source.
Sure, with Wondows you don't know (generally) what's behind the GUI and that's annoying, but you don't have to. Any idiot can install Windows. Linux, on the other hand, is only easy if you know it. Even the man pages assume that you already know everything and simply need to be reminded of your options. Before anyone accuses me of bias, I want to say that I really want Linux to work for me. I really dislike MS, but I find myself coming back to their products time and again because they work.
I agree with almost every argument for Linux, except that it's easy to install. It's not, and if you think it is try talking a newbie through a Linux install over the phone. And yes, I've done that with Wndows. More than once, in fact. On Frankenboxen and prebuilt systems new and old. That's the true test of ease, not whether a hacker can get it to work on all his/her boxen.
I know that for almost everything I do there is a superior option available on Linux (the one exception is games, but I do my part to help change that by buying Linux versions even though I can't use them), my problem is not with Linux or the software available for it. My problem is with the documantation and manuals which assume I already know how to use the software. As I said before, even the NHF's I've found assume a level of knowledge beyond mine.
This has turned into more of a rant than I intended it to be. Basically what I want to say is if you're writing man's or other documentation, write it for the guy like me who doesn't know what he's doing. Provide examples. It's really not difficult to do that, and it would be a major step towards acceptance of Linux on the desktop. Just imagine what we could accomplish if Linux was easier to use than Windows!
Seriously though, I think cheap pc's are an excellent way for Linux to break into the market. It certainly has a price advantage over windows, and there's no reason one couldn't provide a complete internet ready Linux box for $500. So what if it's AOL, anyone who's buying at that level probably won't know the difference, and if they do they probably bought it to hack up for some personal project, in which case they'd most likely format the drive anyway. As for the former, maybe their kids will grow up and know the difference, not just between AOL and the internet, but between M$ and a stable operating system.
On the other hand, I think this company needs to do some more research. The chip does include a wireless transmitter, does it not? And electromagnetic radiation (such as radio signals) have been shown to contribute to cancer, hasn't it? I think this company is leaving itself open to a lot of lawsuits, as the government would be if it forces these to be implanted in criminals, let alone average citizens.
Never underestimate the power of a greedy lawyer.
When I was standing in line with SuSE and a Linux book the guy behind me asked how long I'd been using Linux. I told him I hadn't but I wanted to try it out. He said that he'd helped dozens of people set up Linux and every one of them had given up after a month or 2 and went back to windows and predicted I would do the same. Now that I've managed to prove him wrong I wonder if it never occured to him that they needed more help than that.
I still use windows for almost everything, but only because I haven't been able to make Linux do anything useful yet. The main thing I've learned is that the Linux community is not as supportive of new users as it would like to believe. I know, RTFM, but FM generally doesn't make any sense. Even the rare NHF's I've found aren't newbie-ized enough, sorely lacking in examples or other truely useful information.
If Linux users want the best games ported to Linux there has to be support, and I don't just mean sketchy OpenGL drivers.
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to come up with an equivalent project to suit these needs. Having 2 teams definately increases the interest level merely by introducing the element of competition. Besides programming, it would also teach the value of working in a team, especially if it's something that no one person could accomplish in the alloted time.
What I've found is most helpful is to have a physical hobby. I chose blacksmithing, but I'm sure racketball or hiking would work just fine. Basically just something that's as different from coding as possible.
If you are totally focused on one thing you will burn out. I learned that the hard way when I was paying for school by tutoring math. As an engineering major that meant I was doing math up to 15 hours a day. I loved it and I was good at it, but come summer I was happy to find a contruction job, something where I didn't have to think if I didn't want to.
Remeber that your brain is part of your body, and the whole system requires balance if it is to function properly.
I don't think it would actually work though. Most likely the RIAA would just point at the numbers and blame it on filesharing. I think class action law suits would be a more effective solution (although I loathe litigation). Fans could sue for them for price gouging, and artists could sue for defrauding them of their creations. As much as I hate lawyers, I think this would make the world a better place.
The problem with the MPAA is that they own the rights to Bladerunner, Dune, and all the other movies I would like to be able to watch at 1024x768 on my monitor (or on my micromirror projector, when I can afford one). Since I've been working for a company that builds high end professional digital video equipment, I'm afraid I've become a bit of a snob when it comes to video quality. Where can I legally get the movies I want to watch in a high quality digital format if not from the MPAA?
The real problem with the MPAA is that they have forgotten the lesson they had to learn with VHS, that the only way to prevent piracy is to provide the product at a reasonable price. Nothing is 100% of course, but how many people will pirate a movie they can buy for $10-20?
Second, the infrastructure for rail is fairly expensive also. That's why it costs about the same to go somewhere by air as it does to go by rail. Most towns don't have rail stations, so how would those large items be transported to, say, the town i live in (only 30 miles from the nearest rail line)? That's why most hauling is done by truck.
Third, a lot of people don't live in major metropolitan areas, and thus don't have access to viable mass transit. (People unfortunate enough to live in LA have the worst of both worlds.) I would be happy to use public transportation, but there may as well not be any where I live. The 5 minute drive to work takes about an hour on the bus, and costs about double what it costs me for the gas. If I miss the bus, no problem... it'll come back around in an hour and a half or so, which is not acceptable on the three nights a week that i have to rush home and take care of my daughter when my wife goes to work. Never mind the half mile walk between my place of employment and the nearest bus stop. I don't mind the walk, I just don't have time for it. I live to far away to walk to work, and a bike (if I had one) would really only be an option about 4 months out of the year.
Now that I think about it, there's kind a a vicious cycle going on here: The public transportation in my town is useless, so nobody uses it, so it never get's improved because nobody uses it. Hmmm...
Anyway, my last point is that the conditions are so different now than they were 200 years ago that there really isn't any analogy. Basically, there isn't enough space on this planet for us to go back to that lifestyle. Besides, it was a hard life and most people didn't really survive very well, or for very long. There are a lot of very good reasons why 98% of the US population chooses not to live that life.
I'm all for a cleaner, better way of getting to the places I need to be, but it has to work. It has to be cheap, easy, fast, and convenient. Frankly, alternative fuel vehicles are as close as most of us will be able to get for a long time. If I could afford it I'd go get one tomorrow.
the same as our parents look to us
And speaking of truth, here's some for you to chew on: Jesus didn't believe in an immortal soul. How do I know? Because Jesus was a jew, and the soul is a greek concept introduced into christianity by Paul, who if i remember correctly never even met Jesus. Perhpaps you should learn something about your religion before you go around preaching it.