I'm sticking with my 2006 GTO with the 6.0 V8 engine. Yeah it gets lousy mileage but I figure that if I go places really, really fast then I'm not polluting for as long as all those other people.
Reminds me of the joke about the blond who got pulled over for speeding. Cops asks her why she was speeding. She says "Because I was running low on gas and need to make it to the next gas station before I run out."
OK, not really much of a joke..... but still. Your post reminded me of it.
So here's my 0.02. Rather than trying to get cars to carry enough charge to go hundreds of miles, how about just giving them enough capacity to go say fifty miles and then building inductive chargers literally embedded into the freeways. In order to charge up, you simply get onto the freeway and every hundred feet or so your capacitor can get zapped with charge at a nice high voltage.
Great, but how do you pay for the electricity you use? I guess you could add it to the toll booths for freeways, but what ever everywhere else?
These hold less energy than batteries and yet they're going to be economically feasible? Can someone please explain to me how this is going to work, because it's not making sense to me right now. It sounds like they'll either have to add so many capacitors that it becomes counter productive, or else they'll have a short range and useless for road trips. Either way it won't work.
Probably already addressed adequately by other responders, but I'll chime in.
At the moment, ultra-capacitors may be best suited for systems such as hybrids where you have a constant, low power source such as a small generator in a hybrid. The idea being that you could get good power/acceleration out of a capacitor when needed and the rest of the time is spent recharging from the motor. All without the disadvantages of batteries. Think of it as a sort of electrical flywheel.
From msft's point of view, would it make more sense to have an XP firesale?
No way. The more XP installations that remain in use, the tighter MS's hands are tied as far as progress and getting rid of legacy crap. If there continues to be a significant portion of XP users out there, develpers will continue to target it as the lowest common denominator. And thus, whatever extra features Vista offers will be neglected, making Vista seem that much less attractive than it already is. In a business setting, why would you bother upgrading to Vista if all your apps continue to run just fine on XP?
You are overlooking the simple fact that terrorists will intentionally target civilians without remorse, and as a matter of policy, the U.S. military goes to great lengths to avoid targeting civilians.
I'm sure that if the "terrorists" could effectively target the military, they would. Avoiding civilian casualties is a luxury afforded by the vast resources and technology of the US. It is not necessarily born out of some innate respect for civilians.
As a Christian, the way I see it, why can't evolution be the process that God has used (and is still using) to create the universe? The Bible says that God created the world in 7 days (rested on the 7th), but does not define what a day is. A day to an eternal diety could be billions of years.
The length of a day is actually the least of your problems when it comes to Genesis. It is the order of events that sends up the red flags. For one thing, genesis has the Earth and plants created BEFORE there was light. There's currently no valid scientific model of the universe that has planets existing before stars (light).
The Bible also does not go into details of how he created things. If I remember correctly, it simply says that he 'said let there be and there was and he saw that it was good.' Evolution could just be what happened behind the scenes.
Yeah, I'm sure plants had an easy time evolving before there was light.:-)
The Bible also refers to creating the "heavens and the earth". It seems a bit confusing there. Is "earth" the 3rd planet from the sun in this solar system in the milky way galaxy, or is "earth" simply planets? God created a firmament between "the waters", and called the firmament Heaven, and then he created land in the waters below Heaven to separate the waters into seas. To me, that sounds like he created our planet Earth, and Heaven is all of the stuff outside Earth (the universe?). So what about the waters above the firmament (Heaven)?
Who cares? Clearly the Bible is a terrible science book. Partially beause it is so imprecise but mostly because it appears to be just plain wrong.
Actually, if your goal is to convince parents to allow evolution to be taught to their children, this isn't the best point to make. How about, "The process of evolution is a highly useful theory" instead? Even if God created the world 6,000 years ago exactly as it was 6,000 years ago, and let evolutionary processes take it from there, would it really matter?
It does matter bacause, a) it isn't true and b) to think that all of current species evolved in 6,000 years would be ridiculous. Evolutionary theory depends on very long stretches of time. Fortunately, there's irrefutable evidence that the Earth is well over 6,000 years old. Humans alone have been around longer than that.
I take massive issue with just about everything you just said. Tell me, what victory is being achieved against the evil, evil United States of America, by blowing up a produce market in downtown Bahgdad? By blowing up a nightclub in Bali? It doesn't fucking "make sense", it's fucking insane.
And just what victory is being achieved by writing them off as insane? It is that very attitude that is going to perpetuate this problem indefinitely.
You've drank the kool-aid, my friend. These terrorist are exactly that. They hate for a living, and use any excuse to justify the means.
What "kool-aid" do you think I've drunk? You think it is bad that I want to encourage some kind of understanding of the enemy?
Go ahead write them off if you want and we'll just continue the failing policies of the current US administration. Policies that cause the ranks of the "terrorists" to swell. The "war on terror" is cruel joke. Like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
Go fuck yourself. The US gets its own troops killed all the time because they maintain an ROE that trades the safety of US troops for the safety of Iraqi civilians.
They also enjoy the luxury of being able fire cruise missiles and call in air strikes from miles away. Tell me, how many US soldiers died during the initial attack on Iraq compared to the number of Iraqi civilians that died from collateral damage? Ok, maybe killing civilians wasn't the goal, but it happened. Can you just wave that away by saying "Sorry, they got in the way of the bombs meant for Hussein." I can't.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't then compare them to people whose only purpose is wholesale slaughter of civilians. Call them immoral if you want, but don't call them terrorists.
You do understand that the so-called "terrorists" chose the World Trade Center as a target for a reason, don't you? And the Pentagon. It wasn't because they contained civilians. I'm sure they could have come up with better targets if their "only purpose is wholesale slaughter of civilians." They're symbols. Symbols of what they feel they are fighting against. Personally, I'd rather get rid of the stupid term "terrorist" altogether because it trivializes the enemy and what they believe they are fighting for/against. I can't say that I sympathize with them, but I also can't say it doesn't make sense in a "the world is a fucked up place" kind of way. They're fighting against a huge military superpower. Going head to head with the US military just isn't an option. So we end up with so called "terrorism." But really, it is the same kind of stuff that any small group does when up against overwhelming odds.
Seriously, though, a distillery isn't that expensive. They're, what, a couple hundred to a couple thousand bucks for a home model? And that's assuming you don't just shell out the $.25/gallon down at the laundromat, anyway.
Hmm, and how much energy goes into distilling water?
Suddenly even 100% electrolysis efficiency doesn't seem so great.
The fact that the USA loves to criminally meddle in other states affairs is quite enough proof that US is a terrorist state.
I think the fact that the initial campaign on Baghdad was called "Shock and Awe" was a pretty big give away. I mean, isn't that exactly what terrorism is? Shock and awe? A quick, violent, show of force with plenty of collateral damage which is intended to demoralize your opponent.
War: Well funded acts of terrorism. Terrorism: Poorly funded acts of war.
This is related to something I was thinking about last night, actually...what with all the suicide bombings going on, and the number of casualties that "the terrorists" must have sustained at this point...won't they eventually start running low on personnel?
Losing 1 or 2 troops in an attack isn't that bad. I'd be more worried (if I were a terrorist) about what happens to my ranks when safe houses are blown up by cruise missiles.
Also, keep in mind that the Middle East has a huge young population. Quite the opposite of teh West. I really dont' think a suicide bomber here and a suicide bomber there is going to have any significant effect on the population.
There's a lot more that differentiates FreeBSD than its licensing. For some people/situations, that might be a priority, but it wasn't for me and I still went with FreeBSD. Same with countless other people/companies.
If you say so. I just know that I have setup my share of Linux and FreeBSD servers and quite frankly, they feel more or less like different distributions of the same OS to me. I mean, they all run the exact same software (Postfix, Apache, Lighttpd, Rails, PHP, etc) The only thing that differs (at least on the surface) are the kernel, switches to base commandline tools (which isn't much), and the packaging/ports system.By the time you load them up with ports/packages, managing them nearly is identical.
Now, maybe you can nitpick about how one kernel performs a little better under heavy load or one has better SMP support, but for the most part those differences are small compared to the similarities on a fully configured system.
Ok, I admit that it is an exaggeration to say that there is NO reason besides licensing to choose FBSD over Linux, but the reasons tend to be relatively minor.
As others have pointed out.. if you are talking about a chemical imbalance,
I hope you realize that there is no such thing as a "chemical imbalance." It is just something doctors say when they have no formal explanation (or worse, a treatment) for what is wrong.
No...spoken like someone who's recovered from depression. A big problem with being depressed is that you can't see a way out, you lose hope, and get even more depressed. If someone who's depressed sees a way out, they can have hope, which further improves their ability to recover. There are a lot of self-perpetuating cycles involved in depression.
Define 'a way out.' As far as I know there's really no definite way out of depression. It is one of those things that just comes and (hopefully) goes for no apparent reason. That is what is so frustrating about it. There's no apparent rhyme or reason for it.
not sure about freeBSD, but I know openssh came from openBSD. The reputed security there and throughout the rest of the OS can provide great peace of mind to those of us who are paranoid. if my memory serves correctly it was generally more lightweight from a default install than a linux distro would be, I know openBSD is still a very minimal install because I've used it more recently. I overcome the default loaded crap on most linux distros by using arch linux myself. does any one know how much of the network stack optimization that was done in the last major release of openBSD has been ported into linux yet?--
Last I checked, OpenBSD suffered some serious problems under heavy load. And I don't really see why it is so important to have a very minimal base install unless you're putting it on an embedded device. Any time I install a FreeBSD box I have to jam pack it full of ports before it is useful... so what's the point?
As for security... my problems with security have typically been bad passwords, exploitable PHP apps... the sort of things that would have happened on just about any *nix. Again, they pretty much all the run the same software by the time they're setup to do anything useful.
Web serving and mail filtering, here. But it's nothing I couldn't use Linux for. It is all the same software, really. Honestly, the only reason I don't use LInux is because FreeBSD is what was here when I got here and I figured I should at least take the time to learn it. Also, if it ain't broke...
Look at FOSS, look at the huge savings in real work everyone in every sort of business can get with free or dang close to it computer tools now. It was a transition stage, we are at the nearly totally free place now. Look at computer hardware, how tech advances are dropping prices down so much that if you are content enough with just a few years old stuff, it's free, right from the dumpster, still functional and useful, and within a couple of years now you *will* be seeing the proverbial "hundred dollars in a blisterpack" laptop hanging on the shelf at the checkout lines as an impulse buy. It's coming, eventually that will be ten bucks. Heck, it's only been a decade since I have been buying LED flashlights, what used to cost 60 bucks is now three bucks! Getting closer to "free", and that is another one of his points, when things get so cheap, like with the transitor, from dollars apiece to tiny fractions of a penny apiece, you can almost think of them as "free" and use in in that context.. lather, rinse repeat across the entire economy, all based on knowledge sharing (not keeping it locked up), working hard and not being greedy and *tech advances*.
But our standards keep rising. Few satisfied with 3, 4, or 10 year old tech. If you really want to live simply and cheaply, you can do it now. Youd don't have to wait. It just won't be at the level of luxury and convenience as everyone else. There won't be a time in forseable future where the current state of the art is essentially free. New technology is always going to cost a lot of money and use a lot of resources to make.
We can't do it all at once, but the long term trends are clear, we no longer have to work 16 hours a day down to the mines both ways uphill in the snow just to have a bowl of gruel and a potato.
Sadly, I a lot of people still have to do that.
We have a lot more "free" time now.
Do we have more free time? Most people I know are constantly running around doing errands and working more than 8 hours a day. A lot of families simply can't make ends meet unless both parents work.. and THEN they have to worry about day care which takes a huge chunk out of the second income. I won't deny that we live more comfortably than people used to, but the idea that technology alone is going to usher in some kind of utopia is just a Myth. It is a a lie told to you so that you'll keep your head down and not realize that technology just creates more work. Sure, you can get that work done faster, but there's more and more of it.
Free works *when it is applied at the correct technological point in time*, as a segue to the next advance, then the next one, and the next one. That's the key, the state of tech advance, the timing in the business climate, and the application thereof.
Sites like/., or their peers, will eventually compete and start paying quarterly dividends to the posters who add 99% of the value to the site with their free posts. This model is coming and coming fast.
WEll, getting paid to provide content via comments, photos, etc is different than being paid just for reading/looking at it. I think the "consumers" will continue to pay either directly or indirectly through advertising. But I agree that there might be some room for contributers to et paid.
Right. What's the problem with that? If the store makes it too difficult for you to do what you want with the product you purchase, they should expect people to shop elsewhere.
The problem is people aren't accepting that and moving on. They're continuing to buy tracks from iTunes (giving business to the very store whose restrictions they despise) and then insisting Hymn glasses be allowed to exist.
They should be allowed to exist. That's the point. There's nothing (theoretically) wrong with Hymn glasses. Going back to the analogy, I can't imagine any court outlawing the use of glasses to pour coke from a chained can. But somehow everything changes when the product is digital.
There is no happy solution for either site. Corporations will keep trying to limit how people use their products and people will continue to fight that so long as the product is valuable enough to make the effort. At LEAST they're buying the music legally. I don't really understand what more Apple or the labels can expect.
That's a programmer problem, not a language problem. It's just as easy to write understandable, maintainable code in PHP. PHP gets a bad reputation because it's so accessible to newbies, who write bad code. But in the hands of an experienced programmer, it's no different than any other language.
Frameworks help a lot. The problem with PHP is that everyone ends up writing their own quirky framework. But even then, PHP as a language is somewhat unexpressive with an object model that feels bolted on as an afterthought.
You should take a look at Zend's PHP framework. There are a lot of other ones out there too.
But ultimately it is still boring ol' PHP with a zillion inconsistently named and implemented functions in a flat namespace.
This is very true. However, Smarty is supposed to remove presentation from the programmers.
Which is kind of ironic because wasn't PHP designed to *combine* presentation and programming? That's the only case in which I'd use PHP, at least. Why would I use a language that was designed primarily as a templating language for anything else?
For building web apps? Facebook might disagree with you.The people who start the PHP/.NET/Java flamewars somehow almost always forget that PHP is a language solely designed for building web sites,
I would say that it is good for building web *sites* but not so much web *apps*. PHP is fine if all you need is a little dynamic content here and there, but for applications it falls short, IMO. PHP is a bland, unexpressive language with a bunch of modern features such as OO bolted on as an afterthought.
whereas Java and the.Net framework are not. Java and.Net can build web sites, but if you're going to compare them, you need to compare them on that level.
So we should just ignore the fact that PHP is all but useless for anything but serving up web pages? Reality is that many web applications also have significant backend functionally. Starting with PHP might be a handicap in that case.
Oh well, not really interested in a PHP flamewar. Suffice it to say that ever since I've discovered Ruby and Python, I don't want to touch another line PHP code again. I don't care if you do dress it up in some MVC framework, it still looks like a turd to me.
Something I find funny about PHP is that someone actually wrote a templating language for it (Smarty). I thought PHP WAS a templating language!
The point is, income limitation (whether it is personally imposed or imposed by the government) is not a good idea for the individual or society in the long run. All of society is better off when people are continually bettering their own financial position and, at the same time, setting aside a reasonable amount of their own income voluntarily to charity.
Well, i don't know who you've been talking to who advocates putting a hard cap on income, but I can say with confidence that it isn't a general Democratic principal. Sure, Democrats might advocate taxing the rich more, but I've never heard of an income cap before. People with money tend to be very good (or hiring someone who is very good) at hiding money and finding loopholes in tax law. So if for no other reason, we need to tax the rich more just to offset the their ability to avoid taxes. And don't try to tell me that the rich wouldn't try to avoid taxes if they were flat. Greed knows no bounds.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of the joke about the blond who got pulled over for speeding. Cops asks her why she was speeding. She says "Because I was running low on gas and need to make it to the next gas station before I run out."
OK, not really much of a joke..... but still. Your post reminded me of it.
-matthew
Great, but how do you pay for the electricity you use? I guess you could add it to the toll booths for freeways, but what ever everywhere else?
Probably already addressed adequately by other responders, but I'll chime in.
At the moment, ultra-capacitors may be best suited for systems such as hybrids where you have a constant, low power source such as a small generator in a hybrid. The idea being that you could get good power/acceleration out of a capacitor when needed and the rest of the time is spent recharging from the motor. All without the disadvantages of batteries. Think of it as a sort of electrical flywheel.
-matthew
No way. The more XP installations that remain in use, the tighter MS's hands are tied as far as progress and getting rid of legacy crap. If there continues to be a significant portion of XP users out there, develpers will continue to target it as the lowest common denominator. And thus, whatever extra features Vista offers will be neglected, making Vista seem that much less attractive than it already is. In a business setting, why would you bother upgrading to Vista if all your apps continue to run just fine on XP?
-matthew
From what I understand, you sign away a lot more than your right to free speech when you join the military. This is nothing new.
-matthew
I'm sure that if the "terrorists" could effectively target the military, they would. Avoiding civilian casualties is a luxury afforded by the vast resources and technology of the US. It is not necessarily born out of some innate respect for civilians.
The length of a day is actually the least of your problems when it comes to Genesis. It is the order of events that sends up the red flags. For one thing, genesis has the Earth and plants created BEFORE there was light. There's currently no valid scientific model of the universe that has planets existing before stars (light).
Yeah, I'm sure plants had an easy time evolving before there was light.
Who cares? Clearly the Bible is a terrible science book. Partially beause it is so imprecise but mostly because it appears to be just plain wrong.
-matthew
It does matter bacause, a) it isn't true and b) to think that all of current species evolved in 6,000 years would be ridiculous.
Evolutionary theory depends on very long stretches of time. Fortunately, there's irrefutable evidence that the Earth is well over 6,000 years old. Humans alone have been around longer than that.
And just what victory is being achieved by writing them off as insane? It is that very attitude that is going to perpetuate this problem indefinitely.
What "kool-aid" do you think I've drunk? You think it is bad that I want to encourage some kind of understanding of the enemy?
Go ahead write them off if you want and we'll just continue the failing policies of the current US administration. Policies that cause the ranks of the "terrorists" to swell. The "war on terror" is cruel joke. Like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
-matthew
They also enjoy the luxury of being able fire cruise missiles and call in air strikes from miles away. Tell me, how many US soldiers died during the initial attack on Iraq compared to the number of Iraqi civilians that died from collateral damage? Ok, maybe killing civilians wasn't the goal, but it happened. Can you just wave that away by saying "Sorry, they got in the way of the bombs meant for Hussein." I can't.
You do understand that the so-called "terrorists" chose the World Trade Center as a target for a reason, don't you? And the Pentagon. It wasn't because they contained civilians. I'm sure they could have come up with better targets if their "only purpose is wholesale slaughter of civilians." They're symbols. Symbols of what they feel they are fighting against. Personally, I'd rather get rid of the stupid term "terrorist" altogether because it trivializes the enemy and what they believe they are fighting for/against. I can't say that I sympathize with them, but I also can't say it doesn't make sense in a "the world is a fucked up place" kind of way. They're fighting against a huge military superpower. Going head to head with the US military just isn't an option. So we end up with so called "terrorism." But really, it is the same kind of stuff that any small group does when up against overwhelming odds.
Hmm, and how much energy goes into distilling water?
Suddenly even 100% electrolysis efficiency doesn't seem so great.
I think the fact that the initial campaign on Baghdad was called "Shock and Awe" was a pretty big give away. I mean, isn't that exactly what terrorism is? Shock and awe? A quick, violent, show of force with plenty of collateral damage which is intended to demoralize your opponent.
War: Well funded acts of terrorism.
Terrorism: Poorly funded acts of war.
Losing 1 or 2 troops in an attack isn't that bad. I'd be more worried (if I were a terrorist) about what happens to my ranks when safe houses are blown up by cruise missiles.
Also, keep in mind that the Middle East has a huge young population. Quite the opposite of teh West. I really dont' think a suicide bomber here and a suicide bomber there is going to have any significant effect on the population.
-matthew
If you say so. I just know that I have setup my share of Linux and FreeBSD servers and quite frankly, they feel more or less like different distributions of the same OS to me. I mean, they all run the exact same software (Postfix, Apache, Lighttpd, Rails, PHP, etc) The only thing that differs (at least on the surface) are the kernel, switches to base commandline tools (which isn't much), and the packaging/ports system.By the time you load them up with ports/packages, managing them nearly is identical.
Now, maybe you can nitpick about how one kernel performs a little better under heavy load or one has better SMP support, but for the most part those differences are small compared to the similarities on a fully configured system.
Ok, I admit that it is an exaggeration to say that there is NO reason besides licensing to choose FBSD over Linux, but the reasons tend to be relatively minor.
-matthew
I hope you realize that there is no such thing as a "chemical imbalance." It is just something doctors say when they have no formal explanation (or worse, a treatment) for what is wrong.
Define 'a way out.' As far as I know there's really no definite way out of depression. It is one of those things that just comes and (hopefully) goes for no apparent reason. That is what is so frustrating about it. There's no apparent rhyme or reason for it.
Last I checked, OpenBSD suffered some serious problems under heavy load. And I don't really see why it is so important to have a very minimal base install unless you're putting it on an embedded device. Any time I install a FreeBSD box I have to jam pack it full of ports before it is useful... so what's the point?
As for security... my problems with security have typically been bad passwords, exploitable PHP apps... the sort of things that would have happened on just about any *nix. Again, they pretty much all the run the same software by the time they're setup to do anything useful.
You probably wouldn't unless you were one of those people who gets all excited about the difference between GPL an BSD licensing.
Web serving and mail filtering, here. But it's nothing I couldn't use Linux for. It is all the same software, really. Honestly, the only reason I don't use LInux is because FreeBSD is what was here when I got here and I figured I should at least take the time to learn it. Also, if it ain't broke...
-matthew
But our standards keep rising. Few satisfied with 3, 4, or 10 year old tech. If you really want to live simply and cheaply, you can do it now. Youd don't have to wait. It just won't be at the level of luxury and convenience as everyone else. There won't be a time in forseable future where the current state of the art is essentially free. New technology is always going to cost a lot of money and use a lot of resources to make.
Sadly, I a lot of people still have to do that.
Do we have more free time? Most people I know are constantly running around doing errands and working more than 8 hours a day. A lot of families simply can't make ends meet unless both parents work.. and THEN they have to worry about day care which takes a huge chunk out of the second income. I won't deny that we live more comfortably than people used to, but the idea that technology alone is going to usher in some kind of utopia is just a Myth. It is a a lie told to you so that you'll keep your head down and not realize that technology just creates more work. Sure, you can get that work done faster, but there's more and more of it.
Gibberish.
WEll, getting paid to provide content via comments, photos, etc is different than being paid just for reading/looking at it. I think the "consumers" will continue to pay either directly or indirectly through advertising. But I agree that there might be some room for contributers to et paid.
Just may $0.02...
No, seriously, i want my $0.02 for this comment.
They should be allowed to exist. That's the point. There's nothing (theoretically) wrong with Hymn glasses. Going back to the analogy, I can't imagine any court outlawing the use of glasses to pour coke from a chained can. But somehow everything changes when the product is digital.
There is no happy solution for either site. Corporations will keep trying to limit how people use their products and people will continue to fight that so long as the product is valuable enough to make the effort. At LEAST they're buying the music legally. I don't really understand what more Apple or the labels can expect.
-matthew
Frameworks help a lot. The problem with PHP is that everyone ends up writing their own quirky framework. But even then, PHP as a language is somewhat unexpressive with an object model that feels bolted on as an afterthought.
But ultimately it is still boring ol' PHP with a zillion inconsistently named and implemented functions in a flat namespace.
Which is kind of ironic because wasn't PHP designed to *combine* presentation and programming? That's the only case in which I'd use PHP, at least. Why would I use a language that was designed primarily as a templating language for anything else?
-matthew
I would say that it is good for building web *sites* but not so much web *apps*. PHP is fine if all you need is a little dynamic content here and there, but for applications it falls short, IMO. PHP is a bland, unexpressive language with a bunch of modern features such as OO bolted on as an afterthought.
So we should just ignore the fact that PHP is all but useless for anything but serving up web pages? Reality is that many web applications also have significant backend functionally. Starting with PHP might be a handicap in that case.
Oh well, not really interested in a PHP flamewar. Suffice it to say that ever since I've discovered Ruby and Python, I don't want to touch another line PHP code again. I don't care if you do dress it up in some MVC framework, it still looks like a turd to me.
Something I find funny about PHP is that someone actually wrote a templating language for it (Smarty). I thought PHP WAS a templating language!
-matthew
Well, i don't know who you've been talking to who advocates putting a hard cap on income, but I can say with confidence that it isn't a general Democratic principal. Sure, Democrats might advocate taxing the rich more, but I've never heard of an income cap before. People with money tend to be very good (or hiring someone who is very good) at hiding money and finding loopholes in tax law. So if for no other reason, we need to tax the rich more just to offset the their ability to avoid taxes. And don't try to tell me that the rich wouldn't try to avoid taxes if they were flat. Greed knows no bounds.