"Nah, this only works if you have a monopoly lock-in."
Maybe. But it is PRACTICED any time a company wants to beat a competitor to market OR to catch up to a competitor in that market.
"Sure, you're also kind of locked in if you just spent $20,000 on a software package you don't wanna throw away but that's full of bugs."
That's it. If you can sell it, it doesn't matter how buggy it is. That way you get MORE MONEY for "maintenance plans" and "support contracts" and "upgrade insurance".
"Still, this will destroy your reputation and do you no good in the end."
A bad rep and a product on the market will always beat a good rep and no product. There's this thing called "emotional investment" that happens a lot in this field. People get their own self-worth confused with the vendor or product and so they will stick with that vendor or product.
"The golden rule of business is to make your customers goals your own goals, because long-lasting relationships are essential to your own long-term success."
The other golden rules are that quarterly earnings matter and if your competition loses, you win.
"I sure haven't, but if everyone has to pay the taxes, then everyone is going to raise the price of the houses, to cover some or all of their loss."
Okay, let me go over some BASICS. Capital gains is paid when you cash out an investment.
If you sell your house (an investment) and you roll the money over into another house (the same type of investment) within 12 months, you do NOT pay any capital gains taxes on it.
That is how the tax system works right now.
If you do NOT roll it into a new house, then you pay the capital gains taxes.
So, since most people selling their homes are going to be purchasing another home, they will not raise the price to cover taxes that they will not be paying.
Instead of arguing from your hypothetical "market" fantasy, why don't you learn how the current tax system works?
I also believe the war was over control of the oil.
But if the politicians and such had been honest with themselves (and the US people), most people would have realized the two obvious problems there.
#1. Iraq is too far away, with too many potential enemies, who are too committed to their own goals for us to ever control it. We can kill them, but we cannot rule them. We've already shown this in Afghanistan.
#2. If we're willing to trade US troop's lives for oil, then it's time we got off the oil addiction. It may be hard and it may be expensive, but it will completely remove the "threat" of someone denying us oil. And because of #1, there will always be that threat.
"I love the fact that Linux has the flexibility of having multiple flavors but I really think that making the flavors incompatible is a roadblock for wide acceptance."
Check out the GPL.
While there are MINOR differences in the DEFAULT installations of the various distributions, there is NOTHING that makes them "incompatible" with each other.
Sure, one might (by default) install ext2, another ext3, another ReiserFS, but that doesn't mean that you can't run all of the above on any distribution.
It might take a kernel recompile in the worst cases.
For all the hype and claims about Linux "incompatibilities", I have yet to see any package that was not installable on any other distribution. Nor do I believe that there ever will be one.
"I've been using personal computers at home and at work since the early 1980's."
Same here. Still am. NetAdmin with about 300 users and 30 servers.
"Of all the computers I've used in that time, I shut off every one on a daily basis and have never had a failure of any kind."
Most of the workstations get rebooted each evening. It's easier that way.
Also, we lease the workstations so none of the hardware is over 3 years old. All of it Compaq and HP.
I see about 6 hard drive failures 6 power supply failures a year on deployed equipment. I also see a few DOA motherboards / hard drives / power supplies every year.
Monitors? We have about 5% failure rate at the end of 3 years with the CRT models (we're moving to the LCD ones).
"However, I've had a few servers that stay on all the time lose a hard disk after a restart due to power failures, or other infrequent power downs."
We've only recently started with the 1U models with ATA drives. So far, only 2 failures. On the SCSI models, we've had 5 failures total in the last 4 years (and 2 power supplies go bad).
That's because I had to move it a few months ago. Everything is current except the latest kernel.
Now I just KNOW I'll see posts from Windows users talking about their "uptime" and so on. But too many of the Windows patches require reboots. Here are the scenarios:
#1. Unpatched Windows box with high uptime.
#2. Patched Windows box with low uptime.
#3. User who does not understand uptime.
Knowing how to break in can help you secure it.
on
Steel Bolt Hacking
·
· Score: 1
The credit card trick is easy to defeat. Just make sure the door opens to the inside and unscrew (just a bit) the screws holding the striker plate to the door frame.
Once you know how MOST people will try to break in, it's easy to defeat them. But first you have to learn their tricks.:)
"No, the BULK of the tax cut should go to the BULK of the taxpayer and if that means I pay $200 less and bill gates pays $50K less than that means I have an incentive to get that rich."
What you're saying is that if there is a graduated tax system (as we have now), then you personally do not have any incentive to earn more wealth.
Too bad for you. It seems to work rather well for most other people.
Here are some simple example numbers for you to show the flaws in your logic.
$100,000 income, taxed at 25% $75,000 left.
$1,000,000 income, taxed at 50% $500,000 left.
Now unless IN YOUR WORLD, $500,000 is LESS than $75,000 or you have some personal problem with making $500,000 after taxes, I don't see where you lose your incentive to earn more if it is taxed at a higher rate.
"If capital gains taxes are up, people can't afford as expensive of a house, so they buy a cheaper one, also known as investing less."
Capital gains taxes do NOT stop you from buying a more expensive house.
They just tax the money from the SALE of that house.
"The average person might not understand why, but the loans may be more expensive because of increased forclosure possibility or some such, and will cause them to buy a cheaper house or do less investing for retirement."
No, the loans would not be more expensive. Borrowing the money to buy the house has nothing to do with the tax rate at time of sale.
Why would there be an increased foreclosure possibility?
"The effect of those higher taxes will be represented somehow. Maybe some will even choose to rent instead."
The effect of those higher taxes WOULD be represented BUT NOT BY ANY CHANGES IN 90% OF THE POPULATION.
"I said, hypothetically, that everyone in the country benefits. Isn't benefit help?"
Yes, but that still doesn't answer my question "How does that help the average person".
"Let's say the taxes go from 100% to 50%, wouldn't that benefit everyone?"
You start with an absurd situation that does not exist. Therefore, any conclusion you draw is based upon an absurdity and is irrelevant.
"Again, hypothetically, if a flat tax is beneficial to everyone, why not do it?"
You need to get away from the "hypothetically". If, hypothetically, killing everyone at age 30 is beneficial, why not do it?
"Just the fact that some people benefit more than others hardly seems like a reason to prevent anyone at all from benefitting."
Incorrect. Under every system, SOMEONE benefits. My point is that the system should be structured so that 90% of the population benefits the most.
"Gee I dunno then, I guess there no point in doing somthing if it don't benifit me TODAY after going to a job is so stupid if I have wait till later for my paycheck."
No, you have a job today because if you did NOT then you would be broke later. You need the job to make the money to pay for food/shelter/clothing/debts.
But that doesn't apply to Linux and the LSB.
Today, Linux works. Tomorrow, Linux will work. Next month, Linux will work. Next year, Linux will work.
So what is the incentive TODAY for someone to change a WORKING SYSTEM to make it easier for the ISV's to port their software to it?
Personally, I don't believe the ISV's will do so. If they haven't ported to Red Hat yet, what's stopping them? That's the largest corporate distribution.
"Or maybe we could just have a tax system where you get taxed exactly enough to leave you with the same amount of money as everyone else?"
That is also absurd.
And I notice that you completely skipped over graduated taxes or flat rate taxes. Why?
"It's a fact that when you tax investments more, people invest less."
Incorrect.
The largest investment that 90% of the US population will make is buying a home. Even if the capital gains taxes on this is raised, those people will NOT stop buying homes.
"My point is that there's a balance. You don't want taxes to be 100%, and you don't want them to be 0%."
Great, you advocate a balance between two absurd situations. And that is "insightful"?
"Time and time again, tax rates are reduced and tax revenue is increased."
Check the current economic stats. Taxes are down, but tax revenue is NOT up.
"You accounted for none of these factors, so your implication that taxes should not be reduced in some brackets carries no weight at all."
You have given two absurd situations (0% taxes and 100% taxes) AND you are mistaken about the investments of 90% of the US citizens AND you are wrong about lower taxes equating to higher tax revenue. I don't believe you are qualified to say what has weight and what does not.
"Your post contains one other major logical flaw. If everone in the country benefits from a tax decrease (hypothetically), does it matter at all if the wealth disparity increases? Only to those who prefer to kill the neighbor's cow (so to speak)."
Yes it does matter. This country needs a strong middle-class to drive the economy. It is possible to give a token "cut" to the middle class while giving the majority of the cut to the rich.
How does that help the average person?
Rather, the BULK of the tax cuts should go to the BULK of the population.
Someone saving $1 million because of a tax cut will NOT spend it the same as 1,000 people saving $1,000 because of a tax cut.
To drive the economy, give the money to those who are most likely to spend all of it over the widest possible selection of goods and services.
"The benifit for the home user is that he has a larger selection of software he might want to use available."
No he does not. That won't happen until AFTER the ISV's write the software.
What is his incentive TODAY?
"The benifit for the open source developer is MORE people see his work and he gets more kudo's and he has an easier time getting his work to work without tracking down all the different ways it can break on the various distro's and having to fix THAT rather than write what he wants."
That sound more like the closed source ISV's. They are the ones looking at getting their software to work with fewer changes.
And so forth.
What is the incentive for Joe or a developer or a distribution to support the LSB today? Without the additional software available yet?
"Guys don't give me this crap about companies feeding off the work of Open source. These companies have worked hard on their closed source applications and want to be able to port their software as binaries to Linux. This is a good thing."
I'm not going to argue whether those ISV's are "feeding off" of anyone or not. That's not the point.
If everyone adopted the LSB tomorrow, it would be a good thing for those ISV's.
But what is the incentive for anyone who is NOT one of those ISV's to adopt it?
"This standard will help create a symboitic relationship between commercial developers and the linux platform."
Yes, the ISV's will benefit. But what about the other Open Source developers? What's in it for them?
What about the current users? what's in it for them?
What about Red Hat? Why would this be better than forming their own partnerships with those same ISV's?
"The average joe does not want access to the source, all they care about is compatibility and interoperability of software."
That may be so. But what is the incentive for whatever distribution Joe is running to conform to the LSB? Particularly when it is quickly outdated?
You write a message somebody@hiscompany.com and mark it From: me@mycompany.com
You send message from your ISP's mail server.
When somebody's mail server gets it, it will look up the SPF address for mycompany.com (that's whom the message claims it is from). If mycompany.com's SPF record does NOT reference the ISP's servers, the message will be assumed to have failed the SPF test.
So the ISP's SPF record will not be checked.
#2. -----
Spammer sends a message from an open relay in China claiming to be from hotgirlz@hotmail.com.
Your server receives it and checks the SPF for hotmail.com. Since the hotmail servers will NOT reference the open relay, the message will fail the SPF test.
Rather than specify apt or rpm or whatever, why not specify the FUNCTIONALITY that is required and let each package tool handle that however it deems best.
Focus on including the required information in the package itself. That makes cross-platform easier.
First off, you have to make sure your new standard SOLVES AN EXISTING PROBLEM and does so without creating new problems.
The LSB doesn't solve any problems for the Open Source developers (they're restricted to outdated libraries).
Nor does it solve any problems for the current users.
But it needs both of those camps to adopt it so that the commercial ISV's can write to it.
But that is not in the best interest of the various commercial distributions (Red Hat, SuSE, etc). Their best interest is to form partnerships with those same ISV's by offering those ISV's incentives to certify for their distribution (sharing the porting costs, the support costs, marketing costs, etc).
#1. No, it would not look up your ISP's SPF record. It would look up the SPF record of the domain you claimed to be sending from. If that SPF record included the mail servers from your ISP, it would be fine.
#2. What happens when the SPF record does not exist or does not match is entirely up to the implementation.
Example: SpamAssassin I can set the rule to add 20 (or any other number) if the SPF doesn't match.
I can set the rule to add 1 (or any other number) if there is not SPF.
It all depends upon which system you use to check the SPF and what the capabilities of that system are.
"Today the mad scientist can't have a doomsday
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
device. Tomorrow it's the mad grad student."
Professer Farnsworth
Certain COSMETIC "features".
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Same muzzle velocity, same barrel length, same everything that is important...
But no flash suppressor. Big whoop dee doo! Like I need a flash suppressor.
As for the clip ruling. You just count your shots. When you have one left (in the chamber) you drop the old clip and slot a new one. With a bit of practice, you can do this in under 2 seconds.
Also, the larger capacity clips are still legal (just as you've pointed out with the weapons themselves). But private citizens are only allowed to own ones from before the "ban".
The only thing(s) this "ban" did was:
#1. Jack up the prices on the weapons and clips
#2. Give everyone who didn't read it a warm fuzzy false sense of security and accomplishment.
"These are the FACTS not recognition phrases - FACTS. The quotes listed here and in the parents posts have never been called into question. 4 seperate facts supporting an opinion is not "thin on facts.""
Whatever. I read it and it seemed that way to me. I used it as I saw it in the experiment and the experiment was a success.
"Ok that is a quote from The Boston Globe, April 24, 1971."
The experiment is a continuing success. You are STILL attempting to phrase this in terms of whether Kerry lied or he did not.
This is about Pavlov and dogs and bells. Not about whether Kerry lied or did not.
"On Nov. 6, 1971 Kerry states he "gave back six, seven..." of his medals. This is the first public statement on the question."
Again, Pavlov, dogs and bells. Not about Kerry. Yet you are STILL unable to see that. Which, once again, shows how incredibly accurate my initial analysis and experiment was. Despite being repeatedly informed that this is not about Kerry, you KEEP POSTING ABOUT KERRY.
"Ok, flash forward to 1984..."
You see, by this time I am convinced that NOTHING I can post will EVER convince you that this is not about Kerry. You are unable to intellectually process my posts. You have become the herd animal.
"Ok, now on to 1996..."
And now I believe that I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt EXACTLY the type of behaviour I had previously mentioned. Once the recognition phrase evokes the conditioned response the subject will continue with the conditioned response despite all attempts at reason. The subject not only does not KNOW that his responses are conditioned, the subject is INCAPABLE of understanding such.
Even when it is clearly and consisely stated to him.
"Now this year he states,..."
Again, the subject responds and actually BELIEVES himself to be thinking and reasoning. Yet the response has NOTHING to do with the previous stimulus and EVERYTHING to do with the initial recognition phrase.
"So the quotes from this year..."
As a dog will drool once conditioned to the bell, so too, these people.
"Myself, and daveschroeder..."
The group recognition phrases. Seen here in action.
"You could also consider..."
And again.
"Verify that they actually..."
Still...
"Enjoy the last word."
I shall. Although I do not believe you will understand it or be able to change your behaviour.
Simply put, you have submitted a post which has nothing to do with the previous posts by myself and Ohreally. You do even ATTEMPT to refute the references to Pavlov or conditioned responses.
You are UNABLE to READ and PROCESS any NEW INFORMATION once your trigger phrases have been triggered.
Your entire post was filled with references to the trigger phrases that you initially responded to. Your ENTIRE post. NONE of it addressed the points I had made. NONE of it. Despite the fact that my posts have been completely non-political.
Now, to extrapolate this to political discussions as a whole in the USofA.....
There are a certain group of people who simply react and post their own pre-conditioned spiels REGARDLESS of whether they are appropriate or not.
These same people are incapable of processing any NEW INFORMATION. They simply cannot do it.
Therefore, it is useless to "discuss" anything (politics in particular) with them because NOTHING you can say will ever get through their mental filters. You either agree with them (friend recognition phrases) or you just don't understand the FACTS (enemy recognition phrases).
Again, these people will NEVER accept ANY viewpoint that differs from their's because they are INCAPABLE of processing any NEW INFORMATION.
This thread is the best example of that process that I have ever seen. There is absolutely NOTHING I can post that will ever convince bonkedproducer that I am discussing Pavlov and not Kerry. Nothing.
"And what about the people who DON'T choose their distribution for any particular reason?"
Everyone chooses a distribution for some reason. You may not agree with the reason, but that's how it is.
"Let's say they bought one of those Wal-Mart PCs? Did they know about the limitations?"
That would be Linspire now (Lindows at one time). Strange, I don't know that Linspire has any of the flaws you were claiming. Your hypothetical constructs break down when you try to apply real-world facts to them.
"Let's say I want to try Linux, so I download some random distribution, get used to it, and prefer it over wasting time getting adjusted to another one?"
Again with they hypothetical situations. #1. You found a rare distribution of Linux with the problems you are complaining about. #2. You downloaded it. #3. You managed to get it installed on your machine. #4. It is so good that you don't want to move to any of the more main-stream distributions.
"Down the road I find that the package choices are somewhat limited -- let's call this distribution, oh, I don't know, Slackware: a major distribution with limited package choices compared to other major distributions."
Slackware has thousands of apps. Slackware is what I started on.
"Those are two SPECIFIC, highly possibly cases. They are not negligible."
No, those are HYPOTHETICAL cases. A SPECIFIC example would be WHAT package that Slackware didn't have and WHAT feature of Slackware you needed that caused you to choose Slackware over a distribution that did have that package.
"Look, I'm not saying that EVERY SINGLE piece of software must run on EVERY SINGLE distribution, but with enough standard behavior between distributions, Linux as a whole should at least be able to achieve the same level of binary compatibility that the various Windows operating systems have today."
Yes, you are saying that. Otherwise, what about the people who want to run those packages that you're excluding?
"I don't get how Open Source zealots can on the one hand demand the world adhere to standards and on the other hand demand that distributions each have their own incompatible standards. It boggles the mind."
What "incompatible standards"? As others have pointed out, apt runs on Red Hat and others.
"We already have multiple repositories, correct?"
I didn't use the word "repository". You don't know the difference between naming a package and a repository.
"There's no need for ONE central repository, just pick packages off of any repository serving compatible packages -- this could be Debian's repository, Redhat's, Mandrake's, etc."
Sounds a lot like the situation today. You remember, the situation you were crying about?
"All I think is necessary is that the packages use the same package format and that the packages install files in a location that is consistent across the majority of distributions (this would be achieved through a standard filesystem hierarchy)."
That still wouldn't mean the packages would work. It's easy enough to accomplish that with alien right now.
"Sure, the kernel-level stuff might be an issue, but a large amount of software isn't going to be affected by that."
So, the solution to your "problem" introduces NEW PROBLEMS that you don't think need to be solved. Nice. Real nice.
"I'm not saying that every distribution should use the exact same packages but that any particular package should be able to install a piece of software and have it run, for the most part, on any compatible distribution."
That is the situation today. "compatible distribution" being "Red Hat" or "Debian" or "SuSE". You just have to stay within your distribution.
"What's so improbable about all that?"
The way you keep changing what you consider the "problem" to be.
Initially, it was about being able to install any software on any machine.
When the problems with that were made clear to you, you de
I read the article and notice that it was thin on facts, but rich in recogniation phrases. Which led me to believe that daveschroder was one of the peole with conditioned political responses. So, in order to test that... I asked daveschroder if he could quote the specific example from the link he posted.
daveschroder went on about poker chips.
I asked daveschroder if he could quote the specific example from the link he posted.
daveschroder posted the entire article.
I posted that daveschroder had problems sorting through the recognition phrases to find the facts.
You hop in.
Same pattern. You STILL do not see that it isn't about the content of that article NOR is it about whether Kerry lied or not.
This is all about conditioned responses and the people who's brains cannot move beyond them. The herd animals....
"Should I just claim that you are a herd animal incapable of creating your own thoughts and opinions since you just jumped in the discussion to defend whatever point you claim you saw Khasim making? I would say that stance is just as valid as the one you just made against me."
You can CLAIM that, but without EVIDENCE it would just be you crying.
In order to provide supporting EVIDENCE for your claim, you'd have to show where he was providing conditioned responses to trigger phrases in a thread that was obviously NOT about the content of the trigger phrases.
And if you read my posts, you will find that I have never questioned whether Kerry lied or did not. That would have invalidated the experiment.
I asked him to quote the lie from the material he had linked.
Go ahead, read back through this thread. Maybe you can learn to rise above the herd.
Slashdot Mirror
"Nah, this only works if you have a monopoly lock-in."
Maybe. But it is PRACTICED any time a company wants to beat a competitor to market OR to catch up to a competitor in that market.
"Sure, you're also kind of locked in if you just spent $20,000 on a software package you don't wanna throw away but that's full of bugs."
That's it. If you can sell it, it doesn't matter how buggy it is. That way you get MORE MONEY for "maintenance plans" and "support contracts" and "upgrade insurance".
"Still, this will destroy your reputation and do you no good in the end."
A bad rep and a product on the market will always beat a good rep and no product. There's this thing called "emotional investment" that happens a lot in this field. People get their own self-worth confused with the vendor or product and so they will stick with that vendor or product.
"The golden rule of business is to make your customers goals your own goals, because long-lasting relationships are essential to your own long-term success."
The other golden rules are that quarterly earnings matter and if your competition loses, you win.
"I sure haven't, but if everyone has to pay the taxes, then everyone is going to raise the price of the houses, to cover some or all of their loss."
Okay, let me go over some BASICS. Capital gains is paid when you cash out an investment.
If you sell your house (an investment) and you roll the money over into another house (the same type of investment) within 12 months, you do NOT pay any capital gains taxes on it.
That is how the tax system works right now.
If you do NOT roll it into a new house, then you pay the capital gains taxes.
So, since most people selling their homes are going to be purchasing another home, they will not raise the price to cover taxes that they will not be paying.
Instead of arguing from your hypothetical "market" fantasy, why don't you learn how the current tax system works?
So the seller drops the price until it matches market value.
I take it you haven't bought a house yet.
I also believe the war was over control of the oil.
But if the politicians and such had been honest with themselves (and the US people), most people would have realized the two obvious problems there.
#1. Iraq is too far away, with too many potential enemies, who are too committed to their own goals for us to ever control it. We can kill them, but we cannot rule them. We've already shown this in Afghanistan.
#2. If we're willing to trade US troop's lives for oil, then it's time we got off the oil addiction. It may be hard and it may be expensive, but it will completely remove the "threat" of someone denying us oil. And because of #1, there will always be that threat.
"I love the fact that Linux has the flexibility of having multiple flavors but I really think that making the flavors incompatible is a roadblock for wide acceptance."
Check out the GPL.
While there are MINOR differences in the DEFAULT installations of the various distributions, there is NOTHING that makes them "incompatible" with each other.
Sure, one might (by default) install ext2, another ext3, another ReiserFS, but that doesn't mean that you can't run all of the above on any distribution.
It might take a kernel recompile in the worst cases.
For all the hype and claims about Linux "incompatibilities", I have yet to see any package that was not installable on any other distribution. Nor do I believe that there ever will be one.
"I've been using personal computers at home and at work since the early 1980's."
Same here. Still am. NetAdmin with about 300 users and 30 servers.
"Of all the computers I've used in that time, I shut off every one on a daily basis and have never had a failure of any kind."
Most of the workstations get rebooted each evening. It's easier that way.
Also, we lease the workstations so none of the hardware is over 3 years old. All of it Compaq and HP.
I see about 6 hard drive failures 6 power supply failures a year on deployed equipment. I also see a few DOA motherboards / hard drives / power supplies every year.
Monitors? We have about 5% failure rate at the end of 3 years with the CRT models (we're moving to the LCD ones).
"However, I've had a few servers that stay on all the time lose a hard disk after a restart due to power failures, or other infrequent power downs."
We've only recently started with the 1U models with ATA drives. So far, only 2 failures. On the SCSI models, we've had 5 failures total in the last 4 years (and 2 power supplies go bad).
"I'm not trying to bash either side, but there are very, very few cases (IMHO) where a computer needs to be up for 99 days without a reboot."
But in those "very, very few cases", the same code is being run (basicly) as on the machines that do not need that same degree of stability.
Because the code is good enough to provide that degree of stability to those who need it, those who do not need it also benefit.
"Windows users obviously have a different expectation of "stable" from Linux users."
I've been saying this for YEARS!
A Windows user will say "uptime" and mean "time since I had a blue screen" but will NOT count the daily / weekly / whatever reboots they perform.
If Windows starts to go sluggish, they reboot. But they do NOT consider that a break in their "uptime" NOR do they consider that a crash.
# uptime
08:34:13 up 115 days, 18:12, 1 user, load average: 0.10, 0.04, 0.01
That's because I had to move it a few months ago. Everything is current except the latest kernel.
Now I just KNOW I'll see posts from Windows users talking about their "uptime" and so on. But too many of the Windows patches require reboots. Here are the scenarios:
#1. Unpatched Windows box with high uptime.
#2. Patched Windows box with low uptime.
#3. User who does not understand uptime.
The credit card trick is easy to defeat. Just make sure the door opens to the inside and unscrew (just a bit) the screws holding the striker plate to the door frame.
:)
Once you know how MOST people will try to break in, it's easy to defeat them. But first you have to learn their tricks.
Depending upon the re-write of the current tax laws ...
But, last year (I believe), the money from the sale of your home was taxable, as capital gains, if you did not buy another home within 12 months.
"There are a lot of side-effects from introducing taxes on the sale of houses. Right off the bat a few clear effects would be felt:"
The sale is already taxed.
"No, the BULK of the tax cut should go to the BULK of the taxpayer and if that means I pay $200 less and bill gates pays $50K less than that means I have an incentive to get that rich."
What you're saying is that if there is a graduated tax system (as we have now), then you personally do not have any incentive to earn more wealth.
Too bad for you. It seems to work rather well for most other people.
Here are some simple example numbers for you to show the flaws in your logic.
$100,000 income, taxed at 25%
$75,000 left.
$1,000,000 income, taxed at 50%
$500,000 left.
Now unless IN YOUR WORLD, $500,000 is LESS than $75,000 or you have some personal problem with making $500,000 after taxes, I don't see where you lose your incentive to earn more if it is taxed at a higher rate.
"If capital gains taxes are up, people can't afford as expensive of a house, so they buy a cheaper one, also known as investing less."
Capital gains taxes do NOT stop you from buying a more expensive house.
They just tax the money from the SALE of that house.
"The average person might not understand why, but the loans may be more expensive because of increased forclosure possibility or some such, and will cause them to buy a cheaper house or do less investing for retirement."
No, the loans would not be more expensive. Borrowing the money to buy the house has nothing to do with the tax rate at time of sale.
Why would there be an increased foreclosure possibility?
"The effect of those higher taxes will be represented somehow. Maybe some will even choose to rent instead."
The effect of those higher taxes WOULD be represented BUT NOT BY ANY CHANGES IN 90% OF THE POPULATION.
"I said, hypothetically, that everyone in the country benefits. Isn't benefit help?"
Yes, but that still doesn't answer my question "How does that help the average person".
"Let's say the taxes go from 100% to 50%, wouldn't that benefit everyone?"
You start with an absurd situation that does not exist. Therefore, any conclusion you draw is based upon an absurdity and is irrelevant.
"Again, hypothetically, if a flat tax is beneficial to everyone, why not do it?"
You need to get away from the "hypothetically". If, hypothetically, killing everyone at age 30 is beneficial, why not do it?
"Just the fact that some people benefit more than others hardly seems like a reason to prevent anyone at all from benefitting."
Incorrect. Under every system, SOMEONE benefits. My point is that the system should be structured so that 90% of the population benefits the most.
"Gee I dunno then, I guess there no point in doing somthing if it don't benifit me TODAY after going to a job is so stupid if I have wait till later for my paycheck."
No, you have a job today because if you did NOT then you would be broke later. You need the job to make the money to pay for food/shelter/clothing/debts.
But that doesn't apply to Linux and the LSB.
Today, Linux works. Tomorrow, Linux will work. Next month, Linux will work. Next year, Linux will work.
So what is the incentive TODAY for someone to change a WORKING SYSTEM to make it easier for the ISV's to port their software to it?
Personally, I don't believe the ISV's will do so. If they haven't ported to Red Hat yet, what's stopping them? That's the largest corporate distribution.
"How about we make the taxes 100%?"
That is absurd.
"Or maybe we could just have a tax system where you get taxed exactly enough to leave you with the same amount of money as everyone else?"
That is also absurd.
And I notice that you completely skipped over graduated taxes or flat rate taxes. Why?
"It's a fact that when you tax investments more, people invest less."
Incorrect.
The largest investment that 90% of the US population will make is buying a home. Even if the capital gains taxes on this is raised, those people will NOT stop buying homes.
"My point is that there's a balance. You don't want taxes to be 100%, and you don't want them to be 0%."
Great, you advocate a balance between two absurd situations. And that is "insightful"?
"Time and time again, tax rates are reduced and tax revenue is increased."
Check the current economic stats. Taxes are down, but tax revenue is NOT up.
"You accounted for none of these factors, so your implication that taxes should not be reduced in some brackets carries no weight at all."
You have given two absurd situations (0% taxes and 100% taxes) AND you are mistaken about the investments of 90% of the US citizens AND you are wrong about lower taxes equating to higher tax revenue. I don't believe you are qualified to say what has weight and what does not.
"Your post contains one other major logical flaw. If everone in the country benefits from a tax decrease (hypothetically), does it matter at all if the wealth disparity increases? Only to those who prefer to kill the neighbor's cow (so to speak)."
Yes it does matter. This country needs a strong middle-class to drive the economy. It is possible to give a token "cut" to the middle class while giving the majority of the cut to the rich.
How does that help the average person?
Rather, the BULK of the tax cuts should go to the BULK of the population.
Someone saving $1 million because of a tax cut will NOT spend it the same as 1,000 people saving $1,000 because of a tax cut.
To drive the economy, give the money to those who are most likely to spend all of it over the widest possible selection of goods and services.
"The benifit for the home user is that he has a larger selection of software he might want to use available."
No he does not. That won't happen until AFTER the ISV's write the software.
What is his incentive TODAY?
"The benifit for the open source developer is MORE people see his work and he gets more kudo's and he has an easier time getting his work to work without tracking down all the different ways it can break on the various distro's and having to fix THAT rather than write what he wants."
That sound more like the closed source ISV's. They are the ones looking at getting their software to work with fewer changes.
And so forth.
What is the incentive for Joe or a developer or a distribution to support the LSB today? Without the additional software available yet?
"Guys don't give me this crap about companies feeding off the work of Open source. These companies have worked hard on their closed source applications and want to be able to port their software as binaries to Linux. This is a good thing."
I'm not going to argue whether those ISV's are "feeding off" of anyone or not. That's not the point.
If everyone adopted the LSB tomorrow, it would be a good thing for those ISV's.
But what is the incentive for anyone who is NOT one of those ISV's to adopt it?
"This standard will help create a symboitic relationship between commercial developers and the linux platform."
Yes, the ISV's will benefit. But what about the other Open Source developers? What's in it for them?
What about the current users? what's in it for them?
What about Red Hat? Why would this be better than forming their own partnerships with those same ISV's?
"The average joe does not want access to the source, all they care about is compatibility and interoperability of software."
That may be so. But what is the incentive for whatever distribution Joe is running to conform to the LSB? Particularly when it is quickly outdated?
#1. -------
You write a message somebody@hiscompany.com and mark it From: me@mycompany.com
You send message from your ISP's mail server.
When somebody's mail server gets it, it will look up the SPF address for mycompany.com (that's whom the message claims it is from). If mycompany.com's SPF record does NOT reference the ISP's servers, the message will be assumed to have failed the SPF test.
So the ISP's SPF record will not be checked.
#2. -----
Spammer sends a message from an open relay in China claiming to be from hotgirlz@hotmail.com.
Your server receives it and checks the SPF for hotmail.com. Since the hotmail servers will NOT reference the open relay, the message will fail the SPF test.
Rather than specify apt or rpm or whatever, why not specify the FUNCTIONALITY that is required and let each package tool handle that however it deems best.
Focus on including the required information in the package itself. That makes cross-platform easier.
First off, you have to make sure your new standard SOLVES AN EXISTING PROBLEM and does so without creating new problems.
The LSB doesn't solve any problems for the Open Source developers (they're restricted to outdated libraries).
Nor does it solve any problems for the current users.
But it needs both of those camps to adopt it so that the commercial ISV's can write to it.
But that is not in the best interest of the various commercial distributions (Red Hat, SuSE, etc). Their best interest is to form partnerships with those same ISV's by offering those ISV's incentives to certify for their distribution (sharing the porting costs, the support costs, marketing costs, etc).
#1. No, it would not look up your ISP's SPF record. It would look up the SPF record of the domain you claimed to be sending from. If that SPF record included the mail servers from your ISP, it would be fine.
#2. What happens when the SPF record does not exist or does not match is entirely up to the implementation.
Example: SpamAssassin
I can set the rule to add 20 (or any other number) if the SPF doesn't match.
I can set the rule to add 1 (or any other number) if there is not SPF.
It all depends upon which system you use to check the SPF and what the capabilities of that system are.
device. Tomorrow it's the mad grad student."
Professer Farnsworth
Same muzzle velocity, same barrel length, same everything that is important ...
But no flash suppressor. Big whoop dee doo! Like I need a flash suppressor.
As for the clip ruling. You just count your shots. When you have one left (in the chamber) you drop the old clip and slot a new one. With a bit of practice, you can do this in under 2 seconds.
Also, the larger capacity clips are still legal (just as you've pointed out with the weapons themselves). But private citizens are only allowed to own ones from before the "ban".
The only thing(s) this "ban" did was:
#1. Jack up the prices on the weapons and clips
#2. Give everyone who didn't read it a warm fuzzy false sense of security and accomplishment.
"These are the FACTS not recognition phrases - FACTS. The quotes listed here and in the parents posts have never been called into question. 4 seperate facts supporting an opinion is not "thin on facts.""
..."
..."
..."
..."
..."
..."
..."
Whatever. I read it and it seemed that way to me. I used it as I saw it in the experiment and the experiment was a success.
"Ok that is a quote from The Boston Globe, April 24, 1971."
The experiment is a continuing success. You are STILL attempting to phrase this in terms of whether Kerry lied or he did not.
This is about Pavlov and dogs and bells. Not about whether Kerry lied or did not.
"On Nov. 6, 1971 Kerry states he "gave back six, seven..." of his medals. This is the first public statement on the question."
Again, Pavlov, dogs and bells. Not about Kerry. Yet you are STILL unable to see that. Which, once again, shows how incredibly accurate my initial analysis and experiment was. Despite being repeatedly informed that this is not about Kerry, you KEEP POSTING ABOUT KERRY.
"Ok, flash forward to 1984
You see, by this time I am convinced that NOTHING I can post will EVER convince you that this is not about Kerry. You are unable to intellectually process my posts. You have become the herd animal.
"Ok, now on to 1996
And now I believe that I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt EXACTLY the type of behaviour I had previously mentioned. Once the recognition phrase evokes the conditioned response the subject will continue with the conditioned response despite all attempts at reason. The subject not only does not KNOW that his responses are conditioned, the subject is INCAPABLE of understanding such.
Even when it is clearly and consisely stated to him.
"Now this year he states,
Again, the subject responds and actually BELIEVES himself to be thinking and reasoning. Yet the response has NOTHING to do with the previous stimulus and EVERYTHING to do with the initial recognition phrase.
"So the quotes from this year
As a dog will drool once conditioned to the bell, so too, these people.
"Myself, and daveschroeder
The group recognition phrases. Seen here in action.
"You could also consider
And again.
"Verify that they actually
Still...
"Enjoy the last word."
I shall. Although I do not believe you will understand it or be able to change your behaviour.
Simply put, you have submitted a post which has nothing to do with the previous posts by myself and Ohreally. You do even ATTEMPT to refute the references to Pavlov or conditioned responses.
You are UNABLE to READ and PROCESS any NEW INFORMATION once your trigger phrases have been triggered.
Your entire post was filled with references to the trigger phrases that you initially responded to. Your ENTIRE post. NONE of it addressed the points I had made. NONE of it. Despite the fact that my posts have been completely non-political.
Now, to extrapolate this to political discussions as a whole in the USofA.....
There are a certain group of people who simply react and post their own pre-conditioned spiels REGARDLESS of whether they are appropriate or not.
These same people are incapable of processing any NEW INFORMATION. They simply cannot do it.
Therefore, it is useless to "discuss" anything (politics in particular) with them because NOTHING you can say will ever get through their mental filters. You either agree with them (friend recognition phrases) or you just don't understand the FACTS (enemy recognition phrases).
Again, these people will NEVER accept ANY viewpoint that differs from their's because they are INCAPABLE of processing any NEW INFORMATION.
This thread is the best example of that process that I have ever seen. There is absolutely NOTHING I can post that will ever convince bonkedproducer that I am discussing Pavlov and not Kerry. Nothing.
"And what about the people who DON'T choose their distribution for any particular reason?"
Everyone chooses a distribution for some reason. You may not agree with the reason, but that's how it is.
"Let's say they bought one of those Wal-Mart PCs? Did they know about the limitations?"
That would be Linspire now (Lindows at one time). Strange, I don't know that Linspire has any of the flaws you were claiming. Your hypothetical constructs break down when you try to apply real-world facts to them.
"Let's say I want to try Linux, so I download some random distribution, get used to it, and prefer it over wasting time getting adjusted to another one?"
Again with they hypothetical situations.
#1. You found a rare distribution of Linux with the problems you are complaining about.
#2. You downloaded it.
#3. You managed to get it installed on your machine.
#4. It is so good that you don't want to move to any of the more main-stream distributions.
"Down the road I find that the package choices are somewhat limited -- let's call this distribution, oh, I don't know, Slackware: a major distribution with limited package choices compared to other major distributions."
Slackware has thousands of apps. Slackware is what I started on.
"Those are two SPECIFIC, highly possibly cases. They are not negligible."
No, those are HYPOTHETICAL cases. A SPECIFIC example would be WHAT package that Slackware didn't have and WHAT feature of Slackware you needed that caused you to choose Slackware over a distribution that did have that package.
"Look, I'm not saying that EVERY SINGLE piece of software must run on EVERY SINGLE distribution, but with enough standard behavior between distributions, Linux as a whole should at least be able to achieve the same level of binary compatibility that the various Windows operating systems have today."
Yes, you are saying that. Otherwise, what about the people who want to run those packages that you're excluding?
"I don't get how Open Source zealots can on the one hand demand the world adhere to standards and on the other hand demand that distributions each have their own incompatible standards. It boggles the mind."
What "incompatible standards"? As others have pointed out, apt runs on Red Hat and others.
"We already have multiple repositories, correct?"
I didn't use the word "repository". You don't know the difference between naming a package and a repository.
"There's no need for ONE central repository, just pick packages off of any repository serving compatible packages -- this could be Debian's repository, Redhat's, Mandrake's, etc."
Sounds a lot like the situation today. You remember, the situation you were crying about?
"All I think is necessary is that the packages use the same package format and that the packages install files in a location that is consistent across the majority of distributions (this would be achieved through a standard filesystem hierarchy)."
That still wouldn't mean the packages would work. It's easy enough to accomplish that with alien right now.
"Sure, the kernel-level stuff might be an issue, but a large amount of software isn't going to be affected by that."
So, the solution to your "problem" introduces NEW PROBLEMS that you don't think need to be solved. Nice. Real nice.
"I'm not saying that every distribution should use the exact same packages but that any particular package should be able to install a piece of software and have it run, for the most part, on any compatible distribution."
That is the situation today. "compatible distribution" being "Red Hat" or "Debian" or "SuSE". You just have to stay within your distribution.
"What's so improbable about all that?"
The way you keep changing what you consider the "problem" to be.
Initially, it was about being able to install any software on any machine.
When the problems with that were made clear to you, you de
Someone asked a question.
... I asked daveschroder if he could quote the specific example from the link he posted.
...
daveschroder posted link as a reply.
I read the article and notice that it was thin on facts, but rich in recogniation phrases. Which led me to believe that daveschroder was one of the peole with conditioned political responses. So, in order to test that
daveschroder went on about poker chips.
I asked daveschroder if he could quote the specific example from the link he posted.
daveschroder posted the entire article.
I posted that daveschroder had problems sorting through the recognition phrases to find the facts.
You hop in.
Same pattern. You STILL do not see that it isn't about the content of that article NOR is it about whether Kerry lied or not.
This is all about conditioned responses and the people who's brains cannot move beyond them. The herd animals.
"Should I just claim that you are a herd animal incapable of creating your own thoughts and opinions since you just jumped in the discussion to defend whatever point you claim you saw Khasim making? I would say that stance is just as valid as the one you just made against me."
You can CLAIM that, but without EVIDENCE it would just be you crying.
In order to provide supporting EVIDENCE for your claim, you'd have to show where he was providing conditioned responses to trigger phrases in a thread that was obviously NOT about the content of the trigger phrases.
And if you read my posts, you will find that I have never questioned whether Kerry lied or did not. That would have invalidated the experiment.
I asked him to quote the lie from the material he had linked.
Go ahead, read back through this thread. Maybe you can learn to rise above the herd.