So let me get this straight you been using subversion for two years but you can't be bothered with learning how to use it correctly and that's somehow subversion's problem... That's like blaming the hammer because it hit your thumb!!
Did I say that a webmail application is a "Javascript"?
No you claimed that AJAX apps, however, ARE implemented in Javascript. and have been attempting to make the case that AJAX is just javascript.
You fail to accept that javascript is just a glue that brings together the XMLHTTPRequest object with the ability to affect the DOM and CSS. All this glued together with an easy to use library and a Server-Side Framework and you have AJAX. Remove the DOM, CSS, XMLHTTPRequest, client side scripting, or the server framework and you no longer have AJAX.
Its NOT JAVASCRIPT! AJAX is what you get when you have all of those together.
This makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're saying "browsers will add more scripting languages".
Take a look at Ruby on Rails, MonoRail or any of the other AJAX enabled frameworks and you'll see almost no javascript on the developers side. These Frameworks use helpers and tags to generate the needed clientside code. The next step is for the browsers to simplify there side of the equation. Think:
<ajax type="button" update="some_css_id">
You could go start coding it up in the Firefox now. Submit it to the W3C and be the guy they talk about instead of Jesse James Garrett.
This is unlikely to happen, and even if it did, it has no bearing on the argument.
I wonder how many times that quote has been stated to the folks that have changed the way we see the world. AJAX is not javascript its a new way of dealing with an old problem. As people look at the problem through the AJAX glasses, they'll see new and better ways of doing it.
...but please try not to talk authoritively on subjects you have no clue about.
Now I've been sarcastic, but I've tried not to be rude. I've enjoyed our little discussion. But please don't insult me. Now lets discuss the subject I've no authority on, Quoting from the W3C DOM Spec:
"The goal of the DOM specification is to define a programmatic interface for XML and HTML. The DOM Level 1 specification is separated into two parts: Core and HTML. The Core DOM Level 1 section provides a low-level set of fundamental interfaces that can represent any structured document, as well as defining extended interfaces for representing an XML document."
"The Document Object Model does not define "the true inner semantics" of XML or HTML. The semantics of those languages are defined by W3C Recommendations for these languages. The DOM is a programming model designed to respect these semantics. The DOM does not have any ramifications for the way you write XML and HTML documents; any document that can be written in these languages can be represented in the DOM."
That last line pretty much somes up which of us has no authority to say what was said.
IM isn't implemented over email. P2P isn't implemented over FTP. AJAX apps, however, ARE implemented in Javascript.
By that logic its not a "web browser" its C++, Its not a "Linux Kernel" its C and its not "Your Bank Account" its Cobol!
DHTML is Javascript.
NO! Javascript is a scripting langage. Dynamic HTML is, to quote Wikipedia:...is a technique of creating interactive web sites by using a combination of the static markup language HTML, a client-side scripting language (such as JavaScript), the style definition language Cascading Style Sheets and the Document Object Model.
Javascript is just one piece of the puzzle. Notice no where it that definition do you see anything about async server communication. Javascript is providing the glue to mate the other features of DHTML with an object interface provided by the browser to communitcate with the server. This object is not javascript! Its an API exposed to javascript by the browser application.
Now when you provide a serverside framework with which that async object can communicate with and the results of that communication can be used to effect the DOM and CSS of the current web document all the while writing virtually no javascript (ie MonoRail, Ruby on Rails, Ajax.Net...) you have what can be, and is, called AJAX! Its not javascript, its a new way of looking at client/server communtication and user interface design.
And I'll go so far as to predict that within a year you will see browsers that implement ajax functionallity in a way that doesn't require javascript anywhere in the tool chain. And you'll see it because people are looking at the problem from a different perspective than they did in the past. They are looking at it in the AJAX way.
The DOM doesn't rely on XML - there's a DOM even if you're using HTML 4.0, and many do.
Once again you've got your cart before your horse (unless you cart doesn't have a horse... but it think we addressed that:-). XML is and extension of HTML, (wait a minute here... eXtendable Markup Langage... holy shit!). DOM doesn't rely on XML, XML relies on DOM. because all xml is as a standard way of constucting files that can be accessed in an OO fashion and yet be extendable with new metadata as the data structure changes. So its impossible to seperate the DOM from XML. You can have a DOM without XML, yes, but you can't have XML without a DOM. And with respect to how AJAX is effecting the DOM its done very much in the XML way even in HTML 4.
None of those examples are valid. Those are just comparisons of things that are vaguely similar, but really not related at all.
Not hardly... IM is simply and advanced email server that knows when you are connected and can tell your friends that you are connected. Its simply email with present capabilities.
P2P takes that present abliity and adds file searching. Its all still message passing and routing. I.E. Email!
Taking existing technology and combining them in unique ways to provide capabilities never before realized very often justify a new name. Like putting an engine in a horse carriage creates and Automoblie.
Now, explain to me what the difference between Javascript and AJAX is.
Ajax relies on javascript, DHTML, css and asynchrous message passing on the server side. By combining these technologies together and placing them all in an easy to use library that is cross-platform and easy to use you get something more than what you started with.
Last time I looked javascript was a clientside scripting language. The ajax libraries that I've been using and looking at combine that with a server side framework that speeds development and easies maintains.
...a lot of "AJAX" programs don't even use XML at all.
Wow thats the crux of your argument... lets see XMLHTTPRequest object, Document OBject Model, XHTML and the list goes on... XML is behind them all.
That leaves passing messages ansynchronously, and that's hardly unique - that's how most networked programs work.
Why then call it HTTP its really just Gopher, WAIS and a single channel ftp server with some HTML, which itself is just a simplified subset of SGML syntax. And Hell FTP is just a fancy TFTP which is only really UUCP, which is just a bunch of TCP packets ( I can keep going and deconstruct it further to show how its really all a fancy version of kermit, if you'd like!) . I mean really, none of its unique, that's how most networked programs work..
I write these things myself.
And I think this is the crux right here you've done this years and years ago and now some guy comes along packages it all up in an easy to use library, gives it a name and shows people that its easy to use and maintain. And your version may have done all this but no one knows cause you didn't share it or people didn't understand it. So now to look smart you have to critized the name cause its all you have left of your unique work.
How about "Javascript", since that's all it is? It's technology that already had a name and doesn't need a new one.
And why not call P2P FTP cause thats what it is... And IM is just email... And cars are really just horseless carriages...
Now speakin of horses, get off the high one you are on and move on. If you don't like ajax go ahead and call it Javascript XMLHttpRequest objects or whatever floats your large water displacing transportation vessel (Boat for those that can stand short easy to use references to new techology!).
We all know that you've been using it since dipers were nothing more that squares of cloth and only men were allowed to use computers, and you can continue living life knowing you are superior to the rest of us that call it Ajax.
Now now... don't cry.. heres a Kleenex... I mean facial tissue too dry your eyes.
Please check out MonoRail Framework, its part of the Castle Project... its a development framework for asp.net that allows you to use templates instead of webforms. A much easier and cleaner implementation to develop and maintain IMHO. It also has libs builtin to give you AJAX / Ruby on Rails functionality.
If thats an event for you then I suggest visting a subway station in harlem. Loud noices, constant advertising, people who talk with no regard to you being there and you always seem to stick to something. Oh and the subways alot cheaper.
Also, you've put in effort to be in a certain place at a certain time
I do that every morning its called going to work. It hardly makes it feel special!
Screen size and sound. Unless you've paid beyond a fortune, the cinema will have your home setup beaten.
The screen may be bigger, but I can sit closer to mine and not need to visit the chiropractor afterwards. As for sound quality its just not that big a deal to me... my surround sound sounds good enough to me and only cost about $1K for everything....before you already know everything there is to know about it from friends who tell you the plot.
Or you could tell your friend not to tell you cause you haven't seen it. My friends all know to ask each other if we've seen something before diving in to a discussion.
Concentration. If I'm at home, I'm at home. I know there's work to be done...
Wow, how many ulcers you been treated for? Can you only read books at a bookstore, or only eat ice cream and enjoy it at dairy queen?
Whilst I enjoy watching films at home, it simply doesn't feel anywhere near as special.
Most folks don't watch movies to feel special they watch them to be entertained. That point has me wondering... Are you a hollywood Producer???
Or you could learn that the stockmarket has a historical 11% return rate that is hardly comparible to the house advantage on a roulette wheel, or you instead offer to do one of the crap jobs thats being outsourced for $2.50 and hour and realize that the jobs are being outsourced cause no one in the US really wants to make a career out of sewing 2000 shirt seams a day, or better yet you could learn to create a personal budget and stop spending money like a mad man on your credit card so that you never have to face bankruptcy, or you could figure out that most federally funded colleges are a waste of money and do not give you a better chance of making it big. ( Remember most of the United States riches individuals either never went to college or dropped out ). Or you could see beyond the Chomsky rationalizations and see that each and everytime the US has been militarily involved in and country and its subsequent reconstruction has lead to a significant increase in its GDP and standard of living (see Philippines vs Vietnam and South vs North Korea as examples), or I guess you could protest pants!
If you're so annoyed by the other people in the theater, then do something about it...Otherwise, nothing will be done and those theaters will continue to suck.
Why is it in my interests to make theaters better? There will always one thats too cold or too hot or the fact that I must leave the movie find a manager, complain and then have the manager return and disrupt things again to address the situation.
None of this is an issue in my own house! I never said that I wasn't willing to pay for content. The issue is that the MPAA and is not willing to provide that service because they will not be able to maintain their profits. And as such the market is finding a way to provide that service. Legality and morallity have no bearing on the situation. The demand exists it will be filled by someone and as is apparent the cost of providing said service is nil.
The cost of a music has dropped to, what, $5 a month for unlimited music or less then $.99 a song on walmart.com? And its continuing down. Last I checked there is still plenty of musicians out there performing and making a living. Why is it this low, because the distributers know that if they don't charge that low people will find other ways to get what they want.
As for distribution under $1000 I'm seein news reports all over about how many copies of Star Wars that are being downloaded from the internet. I don't see anyone fronting money to distrbute it.
Do not take my work, which cost me time and money to produce, and fail to compensate me what I feel I'm owed for MY content and complain to me because it fits your desires
Why is this so difficult? No one is saying you have to work for free. Just distribute the content in the form the consumer demands. People want music over the internet instantly and as Yahoo and ITunes proves they are willing to pay for it. Its still possible to get music for free, naspster didn't disappear it just evolved. But the hassle of using the other methods is no longer worth the cost. People want Movies and TV shows instantly over the internet as well. You see dwindling profits, I see market oppertunity. You can feel what you are owed for your content all you want, the market will still decide what worth regardless of your feelings.
Yes I can. It's my content, not yours. I can offer it for whatever I want. I may not sell much of it at a certain price, but that's my right to choose, not yours.
And don't bitch when people arn't willing to pay your price. If you are not happy with the money you earn do something else or offer you content at a lower price so you sell more and then, and here is the point you are missing, make more money by getting more willing buyers. If you are still not making enough to live on then thats just too bad! Lots of movies flop, and lots of tv shows are canceled, why are you so special?
You equate producer to distributor
Theres a reason for that that you continually miss. The current producers are not getting the level of profits they once did because a new distribution method has been created and people like the new form of distribution, the issue is the the producers do not and are unwilling to use it. The problem is not consumers. Its the producers unwillingness to use the new distribution model because they will not earn as much... guess what Too Bad!
The lawn care person, the teacher, the housecleaner... you don't HAVE anything that you didn't before employing their services
The teacher example seems to apply very well to the drivel that you posted, there is certainly nothing they could take back because you clearly took nothing from them!
The reason copyright protection exists is that creating content takes work
Not sure where you are from, so it may be different for youm, but in the US copyright protection exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and has nothing to do with fair market price. There is no rights to make money from making something. When printing presses where invented scribes and monks lost their jobs. When cars where made buggie whip makers went under. And now that the internet and home theaters are here and poeple don't want to go to a theater and be stuck next to a talking couple that won't shutup while their feet are sticking to the floor. It you as a movie maker don't want to send your films directly to their homes... you can go do something else. If writting books ain't paying your bills find somethink that will. Do not complain to me and try to change my life to fit your desires.
If I don't pay the lawn guy, I'll have an overgrown lawn, if I don't pay the teacher I'll have ignorance, if I don't pay the housecleaner I'll have a dirty house. But if I care for my own lawn should I be forced to pay for the now unemployeed lawn worker? If I clean my house should I pay the housecleaner for the rights to do it the same way that he/she did it?
This is true, but by that nature, you should be paying a few thousand dollars or so for every CD you DO buy.
Why??? I have made many cd and dvds (yes with my own content) and it didn't cost me thousands of dollars. If its costing you that much to make a cd then I think you are doing something wrong.
Copying and timeshifting makes something that costs loads of money to make and market available at a much lower cost.
And here we reach the crux, You can't have it both way. Either it cost a lot and is hard to get or its easy to get and costs very little.
The RIAA and MPAA are trying to create an artifical scarcity in the market by associating a higher risk with the cheaper delivery. But their artifical scarcity is not good for the market because it mean that their goods still demand the same price while production cost are lower. The money that could be going to many new content providers in still only going to the limited few. And as such they are not promoting anything but are limiting the market instead.
since similarily arduous tasks have the same protection through physical laws
Except that physical laws do not apply here. What cost there is in copying the 1 and 0 is so spread out and marginalized as to be not existant and not is certainly no longer a burden on the producer. Yet that producers is still tring to profit from their old distribution model.
Prehaps you should look at the correct report http://secunia.com/product/1438/ which shows 33% of Vulnerabilities are UNPATCHED and another 33% that you have to properly configure a workaround to fix... so ya I'd rather use the one that has all those patches that fix 86% of the issues.
See so theres more to securing your box than turning off one tool, you have to know how to look up the issues which you can do easly on Apache's site right here: http://httpd.apache.org/bug_report.html and its linked right off the front pages of the web servers site.
Then theres Microsoft's site for iis who's security link, links to this wonderful page http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/prodtec h/IIS.mspx. But whats that all you see is this message: "We're sorry, but there is no Microsoft.com Web page that matches your entry."
Yup that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over!
Except that the RIAA didn't contact the authorities, they contacted their Dept Collection Agency to EXTORT money from the accused. It is not the the ??AA's interest to put this case in criminal court. If they do and lose then they have established a precident which must be overcome on every trial after that one. Instead they threaten to sue you if you don't pay up. The difference is that in criminal court you get some level of councel for free. In Civil Court you are granted no such plesantries. It matters not if you are a pirate, you lose money either way.
Quite frankly, I don't understand why general/. population is so pro-copyright infringement when it comes to media, but god-forbid someone infringes on GPL and all hell breaks loose.
It has nothing to do with infringement, the market does not want to bear the outragous prices that the Record Industry wishes to maintain. And as is quite obvious it does not have to.
This has nothing to do with "Congress" saving a business model.
Yes it does. Their business model is based on "First Sale Doctrine" and that model is moot in a digital world where the cost of reproduction is esentially zero. And so they are attempting to create new laws in congress so that they can sustain their business model. I believe Robert Heinlein put it best:
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.
The copyright owners own the content, period, and get to decide how it's used, by whom, and under what conditions, whether you like it or not.
Wrong! Try reading the Constitution sometime. Once a work is published it is by its very nature a public work. They government grants the origiator a limited time copyright and with it come certain restictions and allowances. The inablity to resell or otherwise use the work in personal ways is beyond the scope of the granted copyright. These technologies are attempts to add restrictions to these works so that they become the sole distributor and "Second Sale" and personal use become impossible.
They don't have to encrypt the music. Apple is well within its rights to sell the music in the ways it sees fit on its own service.
Yes they are, and I am well within my rights under the constitution to place that music on phonogragh, tape, eight track, cd and any and all music playing devices I own.
Additionally, this argument is worthless, because even if it was encrypted, you'd be on the side of arguing that it's ok to break the encryption.
If GM sold cars with that only accepted gas from GM gas pumps and I removed their gas tap and replaced it with a standard gas tap, would I be breaking the law?
If you don't believe in copyright, licenses, or "trade secrets"
This isn't about doing away with copyrights and licenses completely. Its about returning to what copyright laws original intent was "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" and not to line the pockets of the middle men over and over again.
Oh, I forgot, those things only apply to the things you want it to, not corporate interests.
Please read the eighth section of the first article of the constitution I don't see anything in there about corporate interests. What I do see is the promoting of scientific progress and useful arts which are clearly public interests.
Wrong, its only as bleeding edge as you make it./etc/portage/package.mask is your friend here.
high-level support options
None?
Ya the windows guys I work with try this excuse all the time with me, but if you can't read you shouldn't be doing what your doing. Sitting on hold for two hours is not support. I can find most resolutions on the forums in under two minutes. Of course if its that critical you should be running a dual server setup with failover so that you have a backup when things go wrong and they you have time to fix them. Besides you can take all the money your saving from not having expensive support contracts and buy that second server:-)
security
Standard. Maybe a bit above due to easy, high customizablity.
Most security issues are caused by bad configs and failure to deal with security updates in a timely manner. Understand your software, watch the security lists for issues, and have a test server to install updates on for testing before loading on a production server.
rapid updates
No. Bleeding edge is not equivalent to rapid. apt-get upgrade apache is rapid - it takes 15s on a fast system. emerge apache isn't rapid. It takes half a hour.
Below standard. All typical manual administration by editing standard config files. No centralized "managers".
Very few if any distros have a centralized manager thats worth the cost of the keyboard you access them with. If you are working on many boxes setup the same you need something like CFEngine and a copy of Automating Unix and Linux Administration
But hey what do I know I just admin 27 gentoo linux boxes:-)
Lilliput 7" touchscreens are only $279 at www.mp3car.com. Prefect for and undercabinet mounting. Combine that with a mini-itx board and you have a great kiosk or mp3 car player.
I suggest you take a look at this site Operation Self Defense that is collecting published news stories of individuals who have used a firearm to defend themselves. You may be quite surprised by the number of stories present and the fact that they are only from the last SIX months. And as stated that's the number of published stories, there are and estimated average of 100,000 to 2.5 million Defensive Gun uses in the US every year as sited by 13 different studies and lets not forget the latest study by the National Academy of Sciences. Compare that to the Brady Campaign's claim of an average of 30,000 deaths a year in the US that involved a firearm and that over 50% of those are suicides and only 3% are considered accidental leaving less than 15,000 deaths a year. Even using the lowest estimates there are almost 7 times the number of people saved from injury or death than killed by firearms every year and only 1 in seven of those defensive uses results in the defender actually firing the gun!
So, please, before making such statements as you have you should review the data and understand that beliefs are completely irrational and unfounded. Instead you should look into taking a firearms training course and learning to defend yourself so that if, God forbid, you should ever be faced with such an occurrence you are capable of defending your life and the lives of those around you instead of being a victim at the hands of those that wish to cause you harm.
I second that and also recommend In Code which brings you up to speed with the mathmatics behind cryptography in an excellent and easy to understand manner.
I understand if you must move on. I hold no I'll will toward you. I apologize if any of my sarcasm offended you and I did enjoy this discussion.
First off, an analogy to illustrate the flaws in your logic....
Except you analogy does not actually represent the situation being discussed. To do that we must say that I can show that the last three times I washed my car that it rained the next day. You are trying to say that since I washed my car today it will not rain tomorrow even though the forecast predicts a very high percentage chance that it will and there are dark clouds overhead.
You are trying to claim that the tax cuts caused the down turn in the economy. Except that not what the data shows. The first of the tax cut were implemented after the stock market crash. More were implemented after the 9/11 attacks further amplified the slowdown. You refuse to acknowledge any current data that shows that the economy is once again picking up steam. Because if you do that shoots your argument right out the window!
why haven't they resulted in the same effect?
They have! The economy is improving! The Fed is raising the prime! If you could prove me wrong here your argument may have merit, but you've not addressed that. You state that the down turn is not what my model shows except that my model does show a downturn at the same point. So you claim that this down turn is much bigger, but yet won't accept that a stock market crash, the destruction of Billions of dollars in property, the unprecedented stoppage of all air movement of goods for three days could possibly account for the larger downturn. The whole time telling me I have no proof while you ignore every supporting fact I show you, and you can show me nothing that supports your explanation of the data but the data itself.
I posted the data right there.
Where?? Please show me the 2004 and 2005 data!!!
All you've done is pile on the rationalizations for why your predicted outcome did not materialize.
No I have shown you why the downturn was so massive and that the tax cuts have turned that trend around. You lack the understanding how when the tax cuts were phased in during that time and the time that it takes for those changes to take effect. I've never claimed it was in instantaneous effect, but you only want to look at the data from then not the data from now. You claim that the predicted trend from that data is downward. But thats just not holding true and you are refusing to deal with that.
In science, this shows that your original theory is incorrect.
In science you are stopped work on the experiment yesterday halfway through and claiming the the data does not match a fully completed experiment. And in the process ignoring the data it produced today that is completely in line with previously seen results.
This isn't about "need", this is about whether cutting taxes increases revenue.
Wow first you tell me I'm over simplifying and have a limited understanding of Keynesian economic theory, and now your telling me that need does not play a part in this... Who's fantasy are we dealing with now?
Raising taxes increases revenue (Clinton).
Wrong as previously shown it caused a decrease in revenue returned vs. leaving tax rates where they were.
Why is that difficult for you to understand? Your prediction did NOT materialize.
Because you refuse to deal with any more current data that shows they are materializing. I show you a 20 year result and you ask why that same result has not occured in two years. And then refuse to accept current data that shows they have had an effect. You refuse to see that the economy is improving, which is step two to the process (step one being the cuts themselves). Until step one has caused step two, step two can not cause step three (increased revenue). If we look at the historical data we see that if we cut taxes we can stimulate the economy to a higher level and when we do that we will realize higher returns on the tax rate.
Since you are obviously having trouble with this we'll go back to the beginning and site the data along the way.
The original argument from: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 44380
"Could it be that when you cut taxes the amount of money moving in economy increases and therefor the government income actually increases. And before you spout off how theres no evidence to support that please review the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 [irs.gov] which clearly shows that government income doubled in during the 80's and the Reagan Tax cuts."
To which you replied: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&thresho ld=-1&commentsort=3&tid=226&mode=thread&cid=104447 27
So by your "data", the government income DECREASED when Bush cut taxes. How is that possible when you say that cutting taxes INCREASES the government's income?
Maybe the situation is not as simplistic as you portray?
The second line is especially important as it is your point, yet you continually simplify your own argument as we progress to suit your needs.
And so I respond ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 46242 )pointing out within the data the same trend of a decrease in revenue when the tax cuts are first phased in. I may have made and over estimation of you intelligence at this point by assuming that you know that both the Reagan and Bush tax cut were not all phased in at one time, but over the course of several years. (At this time less than half of the Bush tax cuts are in place! ) but in both cases we see a downturn in government revenue, The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue and the reports I showed you in later post predict the same upswing in revenue.
Moving alone...
And here ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 47308 ) we see your first attempt to ignore any other data than what you want to look at.
So, your statement that cutting taxes increases government income is STILL shown to be incorrect from data in 2002 and 2003.
Your only attempt to counter this is:
2000 - 2,096,916,925 2003 - 1,952,929,045 difference = -143,987,880 With NO jump up.
Your right there's no jump up, because theres no where to jump to. Theres no data.
You once again demonstrate you inability to understand the argument. Tax cuts stimulate the economy and a stimulated economy generates more revenue. You attempt to place the cart before the horse by stating that the economy went down so the tax cuts did not work, but if the economy was not slowing there'd be no need for the tax cut. You have no evidence that the economy is continuing downward. Where as I've provided you with evidence that its increasing.
You then state: An attack in 2001 should NOT mean that 2003 is worse than 2000.
You've yet to provide anything to support this statement. On the other hand I've provided you with two reports as well as stock market data that contradict this statement.
Continuing on to ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 50791 )
You state: I am taking the data that YOU provided and showing that the governmental income DROPPED after Bush's tax cuts.
To which we return to the data and look to see the same drop when the Reagan cuts were being phased in. Once again you cut taxes to stimulate a slowing economy, thats the argument. If the economy does not need stimulation theres no point in cutting taxes! The data you so love shows that the economy was slowing. Taxes are cut and low and behold the economy is now on the rebound. Your entire argument rests on the fact that the economy will continue to decline! Yet you can provide no proof that this is occurring today!
This is fun, I really love the way you say one thing then negate it a few lines later.
Again, you have NOT provided any substantiation for that claim. None.
Yes I have the fact that you choose to ignore it is not my problem.
It is nothing more than a fantasy you've constructed to account for the failings of your model.
Who's the one with the fantasy, I'd say its the one that fails to provide any evidence to back up their claim. You site data and say that it means something, but yet you provide no proof of this meaning other than the data itself.
I have provided you with reports and analysis that supports my claim. You've provided NOTHING!
There is NO evidence that the attack on the WTC three years caused the economic problems we're having now
When I pointed out it did NOT show that same effect during Bush's years YOU are the one that claimed it wasn't accurate.
Please show me where I stated that the data was not accurate?
Ummm, again, it was the data YOU presented. Did you forget that? Hmmm? Did you?:)
Nope the data is there, but I have also provided analysis and reports to give that data context and meaning.
Maybe this is hard for you because you are so use to doing it, but do you understand that you are accusing me of exactly what your are doing? You accuse me of having a fantasy and no proof when it is you that has no proof.
Please I'm begging you to proved me with something, anything that supports your interpretation of the data...
Slashdot Mirror
So let me get this straight you been using subversion for two years but you can't be bothered with learning how to use it correctly and that's somehow subversion's problem... That's like blaming the hammer because it hit your thumb!!
/path/to/newrepos /path/to/oldrepos | svnadmin load /path/to/newrepos
d min.html
d min.maint.html#svn.reposadmin.maint.cleanup
Wanna try the fsfs backend:
#svnadmin create --fs-type fsfs
#svnadmin dump
Ya that took me all of five minutes to find here:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.reposa
You should also take a good long hard read of this section:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.reposa
It'll help you with your clean up issues from the first post.
Did I say that a webmail application is a "Javascript"?
...but please try not to talk authoritively on subjects you have no clue about.
No you claimed that AJAX apps, however, ARE implemented in Javascript. and have been attempting to make the case that AJAX is just javascript.
You fail to accept that javascript is just a glue that brings together the XMLHTTPRequest object with the ability to affect the DOM and CSS. All this glued together with an easy to use library and a Server-Side Framework and you have AJAX. Remove the DOM, CSS, XMLHTTPRequest, client side scripting, or the server framework and you no longer have AJAX.
Its NOT JAVASCRIPT! AJAX is what you get when you have all of those together.
This makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're saying "browsers will add more scripting languages".
Take a look at Ruby on Rails, MonoRail or any of the other AJAX enabled frameworks and you'll see almost no javascript on the developers side. These Frameworks use helpers and tags to generate the needed clientside code. The next step is for the browsers to simplify there side of the equation. Think:
<ajax type="button" update="some_css_id">
You could go start coding it up in the Firefox now. Submit it to the W3C and be the guy they talk about instead of Jesse James Garrett.
This is unlikely to happen, and even if it did, it has no bearing on the argument.
I wonder how many times that quote has been stated to the folks that have changed the way we see the world. AJAX is not javascript its a new way of dealing with an old problem. As people look at the problem through the AJAX glasses, they'll see new and better ways of doing it.
Now I've been sarcastic, but I've tried not to be rude. I've enjoyed our little discussion. But please don't insult me. Now lets discuss the subject I've no authority on, Quoting from the W3C DOM Spec:
"The goal of the DOM specification is to define a programmatic interface for XML and HTML. The DOM Level 1 specification is separated into two parts: Core and HTML. The Core DOM Level 1 section provides a low-level set of fundamental interfaces that can represent any structured document, as well as defining extended interfaces for representing an XML document."
"The Document Object Model does not define "the true inner semantics" of XML or HTML. The semantics of those languages are defined by W3C Recommendations for these languages. The DOM is a programming model designed to respect these semantics. The DOM does not have any ramifications for the way you write XML and HTML documents; any document that can be written in these languages can be represented in the DOM."
That last line pretty much somes up which of us has no authority to say what was said.
IM isn't implemented over email. P2P isn't implemented over FTP. AJAX apps, however, ARE implemented in Javascript.
...is a technique of creating interactive web sites by using a combination of the static markup language HTML, a client-side scripting language (such as JavaScript), the style definition language Cascading Style Sheets and the Document Object Model.
:-). XML is and extension of HTML, (wait a minute here... eXtendable Markup Langage... holy shit!). DOM doesn't rely on XML, XML relies on DOM. because all xml is as a standard way of constucting files that can be accessed in an OO fashion and yet be extendable with new metadata as the data structure changes. So its impossible to seperate the DOM from XML. You can have a DOM without XML, yes, but you can't have XML without a DOM. And with respect to how AJAX is effecting the DOM its done very much in the XML way even in HTML 4.
By that logic its not a "web browser" its C++, Its not a "Linux Kernel" its C and its not "Your Bank Account" its Cobol!
DHTML is Javascript.
NO! Javascript is a scripting langage. Dynamic HTML is, to quote Wikipedia:
Javascript is just one piece of the puzzle. Notice no where it that definition do you see anything about async server communication. Javascript is providing the glue to mate the other features of DHTML with an object interface provided by the browser to communitcate with the server. This object is not javascript! Its an API exposed to javascript by the browser application.
Now when you provide a serverside framework with which that async object can communicate with and the results of that communication can be used to effect the DOM and CSS of the current web document all the while writing virtually no javascript (ie MonoRail, Ruby on Rails, Ajax.Net...) you have what can be, and is, called AJAX! Its not javascript, its a new way of looking at client/server communtication and user interface design.
And I'll go so far as to predict that within a year you will see browsers that implement ajax functionallity in a way that doesn't require javascript anywhere in the tool chain. And you'll see it because people are looking at the problem from a different perspective than they did in the past. They are looking at it in the AJAX way.
The DOM doesn't rely on XML - there's a DOM even if you're using HTML 4.0, and many do.
Once again you've got your cart before your horse (unless you cart doesn't have a horse... but it think we addressed that
None of those examples are valid. Those are just comparisons of things that are vaguely similar, but really not related at all.
...a lot of "AJAX" programs don't even use XML at all.
Not hardly... IM is simply and advanced email server that knows when you are connected and can tell your friends that you are connected. Its simply email with present capabilities.
P2P takes that present abliity and adds file searching. Its all still message passing and routing. I.E. Email!
Taking existing technology and combining them in unique ways to provide capabilities never before realized very often justify a new name. Like putting an engine in a horse carriage creates and Automoblie.
Now, explain to me what the difference between Javascript and AJAX is.
Ajax relies on javascript, DHTML, css and asynchrous message passing on the server side. By combining these technologies together and placing them all in an easy to use library that is cross-platform and easy to use you get something more than what you started with.
Last time I looked javascript was a clientside scripting language. The ajax libraries that I've been using and looking at combine that with a server side framework that speeds development and easies maintains.
Wow thats the crux of your argument... lets see XMLHTTPRequest object, Document OBject Model, XHTML and the list goes on... XML is behind them all.
That leaves passing messages ansynchronously, and that's hardly unique - that's how most networked programs work.
Why then call it HTTP its really just Gopher, WAIS and a single channel ftp server with some HTML, which itself is just a simplified subset of SGML syntax. And Hell FTP is just a fancy TFTP which is only really UUCP, which is just a bunch of TCP packets ( I can keep going and deconstruct it further to show how its really all a fancy version of kermit, if you'd like!) . I mean really, none of its unique, that's how most networked programs work. .
I write these things myself.
And I think this is the crux right here you've done this years and years ago and now some guy comes along packages it all up in an easy to use library, gives it a name and shows people that its easy to use and maintain. And your version may have done all this but no one knows cause you didn't share it or people didn't understand it. So now to look smart you have to critized the name cause its all you have left of your unique work.
How about "Javascript", since that's all it is?
It's technology that already had a name and doesn't need a new one.
And why not call P2P FTP cause thats what it is...
And IM is just email...
And cars are really just horseless carriages...
Now speakin of horses, get off the high one you are on and move on.
If you don't like ajax go ahead and call it Javascript XMLHttpRequest objects or whatever floats your large water displacing transportation vessel (Boat for those that can stand short easy to use references to new techology!).
We all know that you've been using it since dipers were nothing more that squares of cloth and only men were allowed to use computers, and you can continue living life knowing you are superior to the rest of us that call it Ajax.
Now now... don't cry.. heres a Kleenex... I mean facial tissue too dry your eyes.
I'm sorry, and I'm sure this is beating a dead horse, but Superman, Batman, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, et als. are not SCIENCE FICTION.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
Please check out MonoRail Framework, its part of the Castle Project... its a development framework for asp.net that allows you to use templates instead of webforms. A much easier and cleaner implementation to develop and maintain IMHO. It also has libs builtin to give you AJAX / Ruby on Rails functionality.
It's an event
...before you already know everything there is to know about it from friends who tell you the plot.
If thats an event for you then I suggest visting a subway station in harlem. Loud noices, constant advertising, people who talk with no regard to you being there and you always seem to stick to something. Oh and the subways alot cheaper.
Also, you've put in effort to be in a certain place at a certain time
I do that every morning its called going to work. It hardly makes it feel special!
Screen size and sound. Unless you've paid beyond a fortune, the cinema will have your home setup beaten.
The screen may be bigger, but I can sit closer to mine and not need to visit the chiropractor afterwards. As for sound quality its just not that big a deal to me... my surround sound sounds good enough to me and only cost about $1K for everything.
Or you could tell your friend not to tell you cause you haven't seen it. My friends all know to ask each other if we've seen something before diving in to a discussion.
Concentration. If I'm at home, I'm at home. I know there's work to be done...
Wow, how many ulcers you been treated for? Can you only read books at a bookstore, or only eat ice cream and enjoy it at dairy queen?
Whilst I enjoy watching films at home, it simply doesn't feel anywhere near as special.
Most folks don't watch movies to feel special they watch them to be entertained. That point has me wondering... Are you a hollywood Producer???
Or you could learn that the stockmarket has a historical 11% return rate that is hardly comparible to the house advantage on a roulette wheel, or you instead offer to do one of the crap jobs thats being outsourced for $2.50 and hour and realize that the jobs are being outsourced cause no one in the US really wants to make a career out of sewing 2000 shirt seams a day, or better yet you could learn to create a personal budget and stop spending money like a mad man on your credit card so that you never have to face bankruptcy, or you could figure out that most federally funded colleges are a waste of money and do not give you a better chance of making it big. ( Remember most of the United States riches individuals either never went to college or dropped out ). Or you could see beyond the Chomsky rationalizations and see that each and everytime the US has been militarily involved in and country and its subsequent reconstruction has lead to a significant increase in its GDP and standard of living (see Philippines vs Vietnam and South vs North Korea as examples), or I guess you could protest pants!
If you're so annoyed by the other people in the theater, then do something about it...Otherwise, nothing will be done and those theaters will continue to suck.
Why is it in my interests to make theaters better? There will always one thats too cold or too hot or the fact that I must leave the movie find a manager, complain and then have the manager return and disrupt things again to address the situation.
None of this is an issue in my own house! I never said that I wasn't willing to pay for content. The issue is that the MPAA and is not willing to provide that service because they will not be able to maintain their profits. And as such the market is finding a way to provide that service. Legality and morallity have no bearing on the situation. The demand exists it will be filled by someone and as is apparent the cost of providing said service is nil.
The cost of a music has dropped to, what, $5 a month for unlimited music or less then $.99 a song on walmart.com? And its continuing down. Last I checked there is still plenty of musicians out there performing and making a living. Why is it this low, because the distributers know that if they don't charge that low people will find other ways to get what they want.
As for distribution under $1000 I'm seein news reports all over about how many copies of Star Wars that are being downloaded from the internet. I don't see anyone fronting money to distrbute it.
Do not take my work, which cost me time and money to produce, and fail to compensate me what I feel I'm owed for MY content and complain to me because it fits your desires
Why is this so difficult? No one is saying you have to work for free. Just distribute the content in the form the consumer demands. People want music over the internet instantly and as Yahoo and ITunes proves they are willing to pay for it. Its still possible to get music for free, naspster didn't disappear it just evolved. But the hassle of using the other methods is no longer worth the cost. People want Movies and TV shows instantly over the internet as well. You see dwindling profits, I see market oppertunity.
You can feel what you are owed for your content all you want, the market will still decide what worth regardless of your feelings.
Yes I can. It's my content, not yours. I can offer it for whatever I want. I may not sell much of it at a certain price, but that's my right to choose, not yours.
And don't bitch when people arn't willing to pay your price. If you are not happy with the money you earn do something else or offer you content at a lower price so you sell more and then, and here is the point you are missing, make more money by getting more willing buyers. If you are still not making enough to live on then thats just too bad! Lots of movies flop, and lots of tv shows are canceled, why are you so special?
You equate producer to distributor
Theres a reason for that that you continually miss. The current producers are not getting the level of profits they once did because a new distribution method has been created and people like the new form of distribution, the issue is the the producers do not and are unwilling to use it. The problem is not consumers. Its the producers unwillingness to use the new distribution model because they will not earn as much... guess what Too Bad!
The lawn care person, the teacher, the housecleaner... you don't HAVE anything that you didn't before employing their services
The teacher example seems to apply very well to the drivel that you posted, there is certainly nothing they could take back because you clearly took nothing from them!
The reason copyright protection exists is that creating content takes work
Not sure where you are from, so it may be different for youm, but in the US copyright protection exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and has nothing to do with fair market price. There is no rights to make money from making something. When printing presses where invented scribes and monks lost their jobs. When cars where made buggie whip makers went under. And now that the internet and home theaters are here and poeple don't want to go to a theater and be stuck next to a talking couple that won't shutup while their feet are sticking to the floor. It you as a movie maker don't want to send your films directly to their homes... you can go do something else. If writting books ain't paying your bills find somethink that will. Do not complain to me and try to change my life to fit your desires.
If I don't pay the lawn guy, I'll have an overgrown lawn, if I don't pay the teacher I'll have ignorance, if I don't pay the housecleaner I'll have a dirty house. But if I care for my own lawn should I be forced to pay for the now unemployeed lawn worker? If I clean my house should I pay the housecleaner for the rights to do it the same way that he/she did it?
This is true, but by that nature, you should be paying a few thousand dollars or so for every CD you DO buy.
Why??? I have made many cd and dvds (yes with my own content) and it didn't cost me thousands of dollars. If its costing you that much to make a cd then I think you are doing something wrong.
Copying and timeshifting makes something that costs loads of money to make and market available at a much lower cost.
And here we reach the crux, You can't have it both way. Either it cost a lot and is hard to get or its easy to get and costs very little.
The RIAA and MPAA are trying to create an artifical scarcity in the market by associating a higher risk with the cheaper delivery. But their artifical scarcity is not good for the market because it mean that their goods still demand the same price while production cost are lower. The money that could be going to many new content providers in still only going to the limited few. And as such they are not promoting anything but are limiting the market instead.
since similarily arduous tasks have the same protection through physical laws
Except that physical laws do not apply here. What cost there is in copying the 1 and 0 is so spread out and marginalized as to be not existant and not is certainly no longer a burden on the producer. Yet that producers is still tring to profit from their old distribution model.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake, its good to know that any service running in Kernel Space with Admin privileges is secure!
I must have been distracted while I was trying to find microsoft's iis security page that explains how to fix that issue.
Prehaps you should look at the correct report http://secunia.com/product/1438/ which shows 33% of Vulnerabilities are UNPATCHED and another 33% that you have to properly configure a workaround to fix... so ya I'd rather use the one that has all those patches that fix 86% of the issues.
c h/IIS.mspx. But whats that all you see is this message: "We're sorry, but there is no Microsoft.com Web page that matches your entry."
See so theres more to securing your box than turning off one tool, you have to know how to look up the issues which you can do easly on Apache's site right here: http://httpd.apache.org/bug_report.html and its linked right off the front pages of the web servers site.
Then theres Microsoft's site for iis who's security link, links to this wonderful page http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/prodte
Yup that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over!
Except that the RIAA didn't contact the authorities, they contacted their Dept Collection Agency to EXTORT money from the accused. It is not the the ??AA's interest to put this case in criminal court. If they do and lose then they have established a precident which must be overcome on every trial after that one. Instead they threaten to sue you if you don't pay up. The difference is that in criminal court you get some level of councel for free. In Civil Court you are granted no such plesantries. It matters not if you are a pirate, you lose money either way.
/. population is so pro-copyright infringement when it comes to media, but god-forbid someone infringes on GPL and all hell breaks loose.
Quite frankly, I don't understand why general
It has nothing to do with infringement, the market does not want to bear the outragous prices that the Record Industry wishes to maintain. And as is quite obvious it does not have to.
True Launch Bar is a great quick launch replacement with menus and many plugins.
True X-Mouse Gizmo Gives you X-windows like cut and paste in windows. a bit buggy IMO. I use a macro enabled mouse now for the same functions.
AutoHotKey Script Windows GUI, just plain Great!
Stardock friends at work use some of their tools. Looks like you can redefine just about anything with their toolset.
This has nothing to do with "Congress" saving a business model.
Yes it does. Their business model is based on "First Sale Doctrine" and that model is moot in a digital world where the cost of reproduction is esentially zero. And so they are attempting to create new laws in congress so that they can sustain their business model. I believe Robert Heinlein put it best:
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.
The copyright owners own the content, period, and get to decide how it's used, by whom, and under what conditions, whether you like it or not.
Wrong! Try reading the Constitution sometime. Once a work is published it is by its very nature a public work. They government grants the origiator a limited time copyright and with it come certain restictions and allowances. The inablity to resell or otherwise use the work in personal ways is beyond the scope of the granted copyright. These technologies are attempts to add restrictions to these works so that they become the sole distributor and "Second Sale" and personal use become impossible.
They don't have to encrypt the music. Apple is well within its rights to sell the music in the ways it sees fit on its own service.
Yes they are, and I am well within my rights under the constitution to place that music on phonogragh, tape, eight track, cd and any and all music playing devices I own.
Additionally, this argument is worthless, because even if it was encrypted, you'd be on the side of arguing that it's ok to break the encryption.
If GM sold cars with that only accepted gas from GM gas pumps and I removed their gas tap and replaced it with a standard gas tap, would I be breaking the law?
If you don't believe in copyright, licenses, or "trade secrets"
This isn't about doing away with copyrights and licenses completely. Its about returning to what copyright laws original intent was "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" and not to line the pockets of the middle men over and over again.
Oh, I forgot, those things only apply to the things you want it to, not corporate interests.
Please read the eighth section of the first article of the constitution I don't see anything in there about corporate interests. What I do see is the promoting of scientific progress and useful arts which are clearly public interests.
stability
/etc/portage/package.mask is your friend here.
:-)
:-)
Below standard. Bleeding Edge, often beta.
Wrong, its only as bleeding edge as you make it.
high-level support options
None?
Ya the windows guys I work with try this excuse all the time with me, but if you can't read you shouldn't be doing what your doing. Sitting on hold for two hours is not support. I can find most resolutions on the forums in under two minutes. Of course if its that critical you should be running a dual server setup with failover so that you have a backup when things go wrong and they you have time to fix them. Besides you can take all the money your saving from not having expensive support contracts and buy that second server
security
Standard. Maybe a bit above due to easy, high customizablity.
Most security issues are caused by bad configs and failure to deal with security updates in a timely manner. Understand your software, watch the security lists for issues, and have a test server to install updates on for testing before loading on a production server.
rapid updates
No. Bleeding edge is not equivalent to rapid.
apt-get upgrade apache is rapid - it takes 15s on a fast system.
emerge apache isn't rapid. It takes half a hour.
Create a build host
HOWTO Download Cache for LAN-Http-Replicator
HOWTO Distcc server on Windows
Using a shared portage via NFS
Share Directories Using SHFS (cause NFS doesn't have the most secure history)
and ease of administration?
Below standard. All typical manual administration by editing standard config files. No centralized "managers".
Very few if any distros have a centralized manager thats worth the cost of the keyboard you access them with. If you are working on many boxes setup the same you need something like CFEngine and a copy of Automating Unix and Linux Administration
But hey what do I know I just admin 27 gentoo linux boxes
Lilliput 7" touchscreens are only $279 at www.mp3car.com. Prefect for and undercabinet mounting. Combine that with a mini-itx board and you have a great kiosk or mp3 car player.
Other links of interest:
Linux Touch Screen HOWTO
EPIA HOWTO
Gentoo EPIA HOWTO
Nehemiah Hardware Entropy Generator
VIA PadLock support for Linux
I suggest you take a look at this site Operation Self Defense that is collecting published news stories of individuals who have used a firearm to defend themselves. You may be quite surprised by the number of stories present and the fact that they are only from the last SIX months. And as stated that's the number of published stories, there are and estimated average of 100,000 to 2.5 million Defensive Gun uses in the US every year as sited by 13 different studies and lets not forget the latest study by the National Academy of Sciences. Compare that to the Brady Campaign's claim of an average of 30,000 deaths a year in the US that involved a firearm and that over 50% of those are suicides and only 3% are considered accidental leaving less than 15,000 deaths a year. Even using the lowest estimates there are almost 7 times the number of people saved from injury or death than killed by firearms every year and only 1 in seven of those defensive uses results in the defender actually firing the gun!
So, please, before making such statements as you have you should review the data and understand that beliefs are completely irrational and unfounded. Instead you should look into taking a firearms training course and learning to defend yourself so that if, God forbid, you should ever be faced with such an occurrence you are capable of defending your life and the lives of those around you instead of being a victim at the hands of those that wish to cause you harm.
I just started reading
The Music of the Primes : Searching to Solve the Greatest Mystery in Mathematics
which covers also covers the Riemann Hypothesis.
Other books I've read in the genre include:
The Golden Ratio : The Story of PHI, the World's Most Astonishing Number
In Code: A Mathematical Journey
Fermat's Enigma : The Epic Quest to Solve the World's Greatest Mathematical Problem
Euclid's Window : The Story of Geometry from Parallel Lines to Hyperspace
Haven't Read this one yet but I own it:
Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
Check out this speech by Michael Crichton on the subject. www.crichton-official.com
I second that and also recommend In Code which brings you up to speed with the mathmatics behind cryptography in an excellent and easy to understand manner.
I understand if you must move on. I hold no I'll will toward you. I apologize if any of my sarcasm offended you and I did enjoy this discussion.
First off, an analogy to illustrate the flaws in your logic....
Except you analogy does not actually represent the situation being discussed. To do that we must say that I can show that the last three times I washed my car that it rained the next day. You are trying to say that since I washed my car today it will not rain tomorrow even though the forecast predicts a very high percentage chance that it will and there are dark clouds overhead.
You are trying to claim that the tax cuts caused the down turn in the economy. Except that not what the data shows. The first of the tax cut were implemented after the stock market crash. More were implemented after the 9/11 attacks further amplified the slowdown. You refuse to acknowledge any current data that shows that the economy is once again picking up steam. Because if you do that shoots your argument right out the window!
why haven't they resulted in the same effect?
They have! The economy is improving! The Fed is raising the prime! If you could prove me wrong here your argument may have merit, but you've not addressed that. You state that the down turn is not what my model shows except that my model does show a downturn at the same point. So you claim that this down turn is much bigger, but yet won't accept that a stock market crash, the destruction of Billions of dollars in property, the unprecedented stoppage of all air movement of goods for three days could possibly account for the larger downturn. The whole time telling me I have no proof while you ignore every supporting fact I show you, and you can show me nothing that supports your explanation of the data but the data itself.
I posted the data right there.
Where?? Please show me the 2004 and 2005 data!!!
All you've done is pile on the rationalizations for why your predicted outcome did not materialize.
No I have shown you why the downturn was so massive and that the tax cuts have turned that trend around. You lack the understanding how when the tax cuts were phased in during that time and the time that it takes for those changes to take effect. I've never claimed it was in instantaneous effect, but you only want to look at the data from then not the data from now. You claim that the predicted trend from that data is downward. But thats just not holding true and you are refusing to deal with that.
In science, this shows that your original theory is incorrect.
In science you are stopped work on the experiment yesterday halfway through and claiming the the data does not match a fully completed experiment. And in the process ignoring the data it produced today that is completely in line with previously seen results.
This isn't about "need", this is about whether cutting taxes increases revenue.
Wow first you tell me I'm over simplifying and have a limited understanding of Keynesian economic theory, and now your telling me that need does not play a part in this... Who's fantasy are we dealing with now?
Raising taxes increases revenue (Clinton).
Wrong as previously shown it caused a decrease in revenue returned vs. leaving tax rates where they were.
Why is that difficult for you to understand? Your prediction did NOT materialize.
Because you refuse to deal with any more current data that shows they are materializing. I show you a 20 year result and you ask why that same result has not occured in two years. And then refuse to accept current data that shows they have had an effect. You refuse to see that the economy is improving, which is step two to the process (step one being the cuts themselves). Until step one has caused step two, step two can not cause step three (increased revenue). If we look at the historical data we see that if we cut taxes we can stimulate the economy to a higher level and when we do that we will realize higher returns on the tax rate.
Since you are obviously having trouble with this we'll go back to the beginning and site the data along the way.
The original argument from: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 44380
"Could it be that when you cut taxes the amount of money moving in economy increases and therefor the government income actually increases. And before you spout off how theres no evidence to support that please review the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 [irs.gov] which clearly shows that government income doubled in during the 80's and the Reagan Tax cuts."
To which you replied: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&thresho ld=-1&commentsort=3&tid=226&mode=thread&cid=104447 27
So by your "data", the government income DECREASED when Bush cut taxes. How is that possible when you say that cutting taxes INCREASES the government's income?
Maybe the situation is not as simplistic as you portray?
The second line is especially important as it is your point, yet you continually simplify your own argument as we progress to suit your needs.
And so I respond ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 46242 )pointing out within the data the same trend of a decrease in revenue when the tax cuts are first phased in. I may have made and over estimation of you intelligence at this point by assuming that you know that both the Reagan and Bush tax cut were not all phased in at one time, but over the course of several years. (At this time less than half of the Bush tax cuts are in place! ) but in both cases we see a downturn in government revenue, The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue and the reports I showed you in later post predict the same upswing in revenue.
Moving alone...
And here ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 47308 ) we see your first attempt to ignore any other data than what you want to look at.
So, your statement that cutting taxes increases government income is STILL shown to be incorrect from data in 2002 and 2003.
Your only attempt to counter this is:
2000 - 2,096,916,925
2003 - 1,952,929,045
difference = -143,987,880
With NO jump up.
Your right there's no jump up, because theres no where to jump to. Theres no data.
You once again demonstrate you inability to understand the argument. Tax cuts stimulate the economy and a stimulated economy generates more revenue. You attempt to place the cart before the horse by stating that the economy went down so the tax cuts did not work, but if the economy was not slowing there'd be no need for the tax cut. You have no evidence that the economy is continuing downward. Where as I've provided you with evidence that its increasing.
You then state: An attack in 2001 should NOT mean that 2003 is worse than 2000.
You've yet to provide anything to support this statement. On the other hand I've provided you with two reports as well as stock market data that contradict this statement.
Continuing on to ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124450&cid=104 50791 )
You state: I am taking the data that YOU provided and showing that the governmental income DROPPED after Bush's tax cuts.
To which we return to the data and look to see the same drop when the Reagan cuts were being phased in. Once again you cut taxes to stimulate a slowing economy, thats the argument. If the economy does not need stimulation theres no point in cutting taxes! The data you so love shows that the economy was slowing. Taxes are cut and low and behold the economy is now on the rebound. Your entire argument rests on the fact that the economy will continue to decline! Yet you can provide no proof that this is occurring today!
You now attempt a di
This is fun, I really love the way you say one thing then negate it a few lines later.
:)
Again, you have NOT provided any substantiation for that claim. None.
Yes I have the fact that you choose to ignore it is not my problem.
It is nothing more than a fantasy you've constructed to account for the failings of your model.
Who's the one with the fantasy, I'd say its the one that fails to provide any evidence to back up their claim. You site data and say that it means something, but yet you provide no proof of this meaning other than the data itself.
I have provided you with reports and analysis that supports my claim. You've provided NOTHING!
There is NO evidence that the attack on the WTC three years caused the economic problems we're having now
Wrong here is The Economic Costs of Terrorism (JEC Study -- May 2002) which show "evidence" supporting my claims! Please provide some "evidence" supporting yours!
And since you live in a Bubble you might want to read Economic Repercussions of the Stock Market Bubble (JEC Study -- July 2003)
Or Macroeconomic Performance Since 2000 (JEC Study -- May 2004)
When I pointed out it did NOT show that same effect during Bush's years YOU are the one that claimed it wasn't accurate.
Please show me where I stated that the data was not accurate?
Ummm, again, it was the data YOU presented. Did you forget that? Hmmm? Did you?
Nope the data is there, but I have also provided analysis and reports to give that data context and meaning.
Maybe this is hard for you because you are so use to doing it, but do you understand that you are accusing me of exactly what your are doing? You accuse me of having a fantasy and no proof when it is you that has no proof.
Please I'm begging you to proved me with something, anything that supports your interpretation of the data...