(for example, new highways might need to be built, implying large capital outlays)--and that cpi numbers may be understating overall inflation or ignore inflation in goods and services important to states (eg., large concrete or asphalt orders, prices of jails or schools or highways
But these things are by and large paid for either by county or by issuance of bonds. Unless states are doing something really stupid and borrowing essentially adjustable rate mortgages, capital costs for things like roads should be fairly fixed.
And, as far as materials go, there was a big runup in asphalt and concrete a few years ago as the Chinese were buying all the concrete and rising petrol prices killed asphalt, but since commodities cratered, these prices too have declined.
But what's really troubling is that you are utterly guessing at reasons why taxes should go up, when you do not have and I do not have a comparative budget to see what these outlays actually are. You have all these "plausible" sounding assumptions and they are only that, assumptions...
Roads, police stations and schools aren't instantly built like in SimCity. So they have to spend money as if the population is larger than is it currently is because it will soon catch up.
Roads and their expansion are usually financed through bonds issued by the state and paid for with tolls. Police stations and schools are paid for by county and city, not the state.
What you say isn't plausible. The only answer that is plausible, and no one wants to touch, is that Medicaid expenses for these states probably are going through the roof.
And then you reply with crazy tax theories. How is that relevant? Do you think the state of Arizona has any constitutional authority to tax IP?
Article X, dude, its not so crazy. Besides, we both know that any reasonable sounding way for a thing to be taxed, means, sooner or later, it will be taxed. How would you tax IP? Well, if you are a copyright holder licensing goods in a state, you could pay taxes on the assessed value of the IP. For every license of IP you granted, you would have to pay a tax. Taxes for holders of free software could be assessed based on a statistical sampling, or the state could examine packets of downloads going into the state. If you didn't pay the IP tax, then your IP would be held up for auction in that state.
Taken together that's over half the state costs right there. So if a typical family of 2 parents with 3 children moves to your state, the state gains the revenue of 2 additional tax payers, but incurs the cost of 3 more kids to educate.
That's interesting speculation, but there's no facts to support that. All you have is defensive rationalization... "well maybe there's some theory that I can use to explain an increase spending.. but no facts."
Suck it up, pay your fair share or move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.
How about liberals pay their fair share, before raising my taxes?
I proposed a tax on intellectual property...
If you want to suck it up, why don't we start with IP holders. Every copyright holder, book publisher, everyone, should pay a property tax on that IP, or it goes up for public auction.
You forgot about inflation. The difference between 8% and 5.8% (pop. growth rate) is only 2.2%, which is below [federalreserve.gov] the rate of inflation. Thus, per-capita inflation-adjusted government spending in Arizona has actually fallen in recent years according to your own numbers.
Then, if that is the case, then why the need to raise the rates, if per capita spending has fallen, as you say?
Kinda makes for a tough argument on increasing tax rates, if per capita costs are lower, don't you think?
Why the heck are you complaining? New Jersey with a population of 8.6 - 9.1 million (depending on your estimate source for 2008-2009) has a budget of $91.5 BILLION for 2009.
New Jersey is a mess, I agree. I live in Delaware. We balanced our budget with a modest tax increase on cigarettes and a legalization of sports betting. The state still spends too much but its not as out of control as either New Jersey, California, or Arizona is. Delaware is, so far, a pretty good state for practical and moderate politics.
It's also not unreasonable that in this day and age as we ask for more from our governments that spending would grow. Setting up government websites and putting massive amounts of information online costs money, and that's just one example of a new expenditure. And it's not a bad one, websites have greatly increased access to government information.
There's nothing terribly wrong with government spending growing at roughly the same percentage of GDP and population growth. What I take exception with is the increase in the share of GDP of government spending and with it the demand for higher taxes.
Here, in Canada, smaller governments (provincial and local) charge taxes too but it doesn't come close to their expenditures.
It's different in most states in the USA, where schools and police and firefighting, all the basic services, are usually funded by property taxes and at the county level. Water and sewer is also a county or even a city thing..
Really, what the states in the USA do, from a financial perspective, are 1) Medicaid and other social insurance programs, 2) Highways, and that's about it. I would be more than willing to bet that even highway budgets and other capital maintenance projects are being held flat or even cut as medical expenses spiral out of control.
I'll be glad to. Get me a site with actual detailed figures.
Better yet, tell me exactly what you were planning to cut, since you seem so intimately familiar with exactly how much it should cost to accomplish the necessary, life-improving functions of government.
There aren't any. In fact, there are no sites at all that offer comparisons at all. That's your government for you. I could pull a series of historical annual reports for any public corporation and get comparisons but no such animal exists for government.
Therefor, you have absolutely no proof that the sudden increase in spending over the last 8 years, or even the last 4, are necessary, life improving, or life saving.
According to your own link, population/inflation is up by 5.8% annually; raising spending by 8% annually isn't out of line.
Yes it is, inline would be 5.8% annual increases. If anything, the increase in population should yield a net increase in revenues, so that you wouldn't have to raise the rates.
So, which of these is some "feel-good program that doesn't work?" Were you hoping to stop educating children, quit subsidizing seniors' health care, cut off community colleges, understaff your jails...?
The population went up by 20% in 8 years. The state budget doubled. So, please, tell me, what is about "feeding starving kids" that costs so much. Let's do some basic math. If the state has one starving million kids, that's still $2500 a piece in groceries more in 2008 than in 2000. It's ridiculous.
So, which of these is some "feel-good program that doesn't work?" Were you hoping to stop educating children, quit subsidizing seniors' health care, cut off community colleges, understaff your jails...?
Once again, what about those programs that worked in 2000, at 2000 levels happened that they suddenly need to have DOUBLE their money? Bottom line is, the state of Arizona is getting looted by crooks, charging ever more money, and the most the ridiculous parties can do is hold citizens hostage.
Keep in mind we haven't even yet talked about roads, highway maintenance, animal control, police, fire departments, water, and I suppose state parks. 9% will only go so far.
What were you planning to cut?
Have the same services as in 2000. Hell, have the same services as in 2004, and thus balance the budget. Please, once again, tell me what is so goddamned important in the 4 years that costs 10 billion dollars.
But just keep spouting the only idea you republicans have left...
And your idea is, what, just raise the rates on people. Face it, this is entirely a manufactured crisis. All you have are excuses... do you mean to tell me that Arizona is spending 27 billion a year more on roads in 2008 than it was in 2000? Come on, that's just not the case. It's 8 years of passing benefits and programs the state cannot afford.
The reality is that increasing populations force increases in emergency room spending, building hospitals, schools, fire departments, police departments, light rail, other mass transit, and of course 1/3rd of the state is national park while another 1/3rd is reservation.
Yes, but the vast majority of those things that you speak of are either county or private responsibilities, not state. Emergency rooms, hospitals - that's the private sector. Schools and police, that's local districts.
The issue here is that they need to raise taxes to support their own weight but the conservative party in this state is too stupid to realize it and the other half have no spine to push for what is needed so you end up in a stalemate resulting in even more stupid decision making.
Population growth does not account for doubling the budget. This is inexcusable. There's no need for a state's budget to ever escalate past GDP growth. There's a natural limiter there. The fact of the matter, state governments are utterly corrupt, looting the treasury, and the people, and now they are crying for more taxes. It's theft, is what it is.
Seriously, I mean, people that do what he does just wreck the world for everyone else through unmitigated greed. Claiming the output of a program? For what? So he can try and figure out ways to charge people for 2+2=4? Just, what a jackass.... I seriously, everytime I read about Wolfram, the guy is more and more of a dick all the time. I'll piss on his grave, for sure, when he finally kicks off.
Gov't spending is up 8% annually. Where the hell is the money going? Why do you want to raise taxes to double their current levels when people's paychecks have not gone up. Cut services... the state spending is out of control.
The State of Arizona's budget for 2009 is $55 billion dollars. The shortfall is about a couple of billion. If all the state did was to adopt the budget from 2006, which was 42.7 billion dollars, me thinks the state would be in the black and by a pretty penny.
In 2009 the State Budget is $55 billion dollars. In 2000, the State Budget was less than half of that. Did our wages double from 2000 to 2009? If not, then why the hell did spending? Every state that is in red ink could easily avert its fiscal crisis if all it did was revert to a 2004 budget... We're not even talking 4 years ago...
There's constitutional restrictions on what they can touch (direct voter mandates cannot be cut)
This is an excuse. There is just a lack of political will to really make hard choices.
We could easily feed the world if the industrial nations wouldn't insist on their daily hamburgers and steaks.
If some jackass in India or China can take my job by bidding below me, they can starve. At least while I'm unemployed I can hit the dollar menu and enjoy a tasty hamburger because we Americans have enough land to feed ourselves. If they can't overseas, well, its not my problem. They take my job, I take their food. Screw them.
A hacker's apartment in London was invaded by a gang of unknowns. Nothing was stolen, but his computer was smashed, his books urinated on, and the victim suffered a broken leg, torn elbow tendon, and a few cracked ribs after reportedly being waterboarded in his own kitchen.
Just as an example: I, and many others, think that employer-based health care has been a disaster for small business; I would much rather pay individual income tax into a government trust fund (which have an excellent track record, in spite of the misinformation) and have a healthy society along with freeing up giant bags of money for other purposes. I really can't see how that would make a liberal anti-small-business. It is time for the Republican party's claim on small business to end. The Chamber doesn't speak for me.
I don't think that's "liberal" at all and I could agree with the merits on this actually. I am putting together a small business and I would rather not have to be responsible for the health of my people. All it does is make me think about stuff that I'd prefer not to think about it. I don't understand why single payer is not on the table for health care reform.
I would say that your freeing up of giant bags of money is probably a red herring. National health insurance is going to mean higher taxes and its going to be more expensive, unless health care itself is rationed. Frankly, there is a case to be made that government should ration health care, rather than a private insurer, simply because the government is democratic and the employee generally has no choice of insurer anyway.
I have never even considered going after a "conservative" industry, as I don't even know what that would be.
That's admirable but there are, unfortunately, a lot of liberals that do go after what they consider to be conservative industries. How often do we hear Democrats talk about "Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Energy, Big Auto, etc"? Putting the media on the table as target through the undermining of copyright and IP, or the taxation of it, is way to educate conservatives into having a more tit for tat response. If Sean Penn or Chris Martin or Michael Moore want to rail on about those industries that he feels are Republican, then certainly we should remind these people that their industries can be targeted too. It's a terrible way run a country, for sure, but conservatives are not the guys that wrote Rules for Radicals, although, certainly I would bet that our leaders pretty much follow the book just as much as the lefties who came up with it did.
It seems that as of late, there has been a lot of public controversy around various FOSS projects and the people that run them. There's disputes between key players followed up, all too frequently, with giant personal missives about how this or that person isn't going to work on this project anymore because somebody else is too mean to them. There's guys disappearing, flame wars, all sorts of very public problems with projects. One wonders if FOSS is becoming too much of a soap opera and less of a collaborative development model. These aren't unimportant projects either. The GCC compiler, X Windows system and its underpinnings, the kernel, and certainly file systems, all have had some very famous and public spats between various egos.
The one thing that money does, when developers actually get paid for their work, is that it forces people to put aside their differences. When there's no cash on the table, there's no logical reason for someone to take a pounding personally due to a personality conflict. But, when there is cash, people can accept quite a bit of abuse and still produce something. While personal glory is nice to have, its not nearly so nice as a check. But, in FOSS, if you take away that personal glory, there's really no incentive at all. You almost have to wonder if, personality driven politics will continue to undermine FOSS, and how much personality FOSS can stand before the whole brand is so polluted by public conflict that one would almost prefer to just write somebody a check just to avoid the soap opera.
Yes, yes you need to buy a new sound card. if you want to cry about it, complain to Creative.
Just out of curiosity, what do you really need out of a Creative sound card that you can't get out of the resident sound on a PC? I would think a quadcore PC these days could mix a mountain of channels in software...
You've got to be kidding. Was that just a gut feeling? Have you ever heard a Republican say anything of the sort?
There are those of us Republicans, and we are certainly a minority, for sure, that think we need to go beyond the Reagan revolution and define policy in terms of our values as relevant towards today, and not just have policy for the sake of being like it was 1980.
Politically, the immediate problem is bringing Reagan Democrats back and the answer to me is to move to the center on trade and drop the hostility to unions. But, another issue that comes up is IP.
Actually a lot of Republicans I've talked to tend to see things more my way. In the very least, the idea of either taxing IP or deregulating it to screw liberals has some appeal. I got a good chunk of hits from the old freeper when I posted an essay advocating that intellectual property be taxed to balance the economy away from liberal industries and also pay for liberal spending programs. http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/taxingliberalsfairly.aspx Check it out if you like...
Slashdot Mirror
(for example, new highways might need to be built, implying large capital outlays)--and that cpi numbers may be understating overall inflation or ignore inflation in goods and services important to states (eg., large concrete or asphalt orders, prices of jails or schools or highways
But these things are by and large paid for either by county or by issuance of bonds. Unless states are doing something really stupid and borrowing essentially adjustable rate mortgages, capital costs for things like roads should be fairly fixed.
And, as far as materials go, there was a big runup in asphalt and concrete a few years ago as the Chinese were buying all the concrete and rising petrol prices killed asphalt, but since commodities cratered, these prices too have declined.
But what's really troubling is that you are utterly guessing at reasons why taxes should go up, when you do not have and I do not have a comparative budget to see what these outlays actually are. You have all these "plausible" sounding assumptions and they are only that, assumptions...
Roads, police stations and schools aren't instantly built like in SimCity. So they have to spend money as if the population is larger than is it currently is because it will soon catch up.
Roads and their expansion are usually financed through bonds issued by the state and paid for with tolls. Police stations and schools are paid for by county and city, not the state.
What you say isn't plausible. The only answer that is plausible, and no one wants to touch, is that Medicaid expenses for these states probably are going through the roof.
And then you reply with crazy tax theories. How is that relevant? Do you think the state of Arizona has any constitutional authority to tax IP?
Article X, dude, its not so crazy. Besides, we both know that any reasonable sounding way for a thing to be taxed, means, sooner or later, it will be taxed. How would you tax IP? Well, if you are a copyright holder licensing goods in a state, you could pay taxes on the assessed value of the IP. For every license of IP you granted, you would have to pay a tax. Taxes for holders of free software could be assessed based on a statistical sampling, or the state could examine packets of downloads going into the state. If you didn't pay the IP tax, then your IP would be held up for auction in that state.
Taken together that's over half the state costs right there. So if a typical family of 2 parents with 3 children moves to your state, the state gains the revenue of 2 additional tax payers, but incurs the cost of 3 more kids to educate.
That's interesting speculation, but there's no facts to support that. All you have is defensive rationalization... "well maybe there's some theory that I can use to explain an increase spending.. but no facts."
Suck it up, pay your fair share or move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.
How about liberals pay their fair share, before raising my taxes?
I proposed a tax on intellectual property...
If you want to suck it up, why don't we start with IP holders. Every copyright holder, book publisher, everyone, should pay a property tax on that IP, or it goes up for public auction.
http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/taxingliberalsfairly.aspx
You forgot about inflation. The difference between 8% and 5.8% (pop. growth rate) is only 2.2%, which is below [federalreserve.gov] the rate of inflation. Thus, per-capita inflation-adjusted government spending in Arizona has actually fallen in recent years according to your own numbers.
Then, if that is the case, then why the need to raise the rates, if per capita spending has fallen, as you say?
Kinda makes for a tough argument on increasing tax rates, if per capita costs are lower, don't you think?
Why the heck are you complaining? New Jersey with a population of 8.6 - 9.1 million (depending on your estimate source for 2008-2009) has a budget of $91.5 BILLION for 2009.
New Jersey is a mess, I agree. I live in Delaware. We balanced our budget with a modest tax increase on cigarettes and a legalization of sports betting. The state still spends too much but its not as out of control as either New Jersey, California, or Arizona is. Delaware is, so far, a pretty good state for practical and moderate politics.
It's also not unreasonable that in this day and age as we ask for more from our governments that spending would grow. Setting up government websites and putting massive amounts of information online costs money, and that's just one example of a new expenditure. And it's not a bad one, websites have greatly increased access to government information.
There's nothing terribly wrong with government spending growing at roughly the same percentage of GDP and population growth. What I take exception with is the increase in the share of GDP of government spending and with it the demand for higher taxes.
Here, in Canada, smaller governments (provincial and local) charge taxes too but it doesn't come close to their expenditures.
It's different in most states in the USA, where schools and police and firefighting, all the basic services, are usually funded by property taxes and at the county level. Water and sewer is also a county or even a city thing..
Really, what the states in the USA do, from a financial perspective, are 1) Medicaid and other social insurance programs, 2) Highways, and that's about it. I would be more than willing to bet that even highway budgets and other capital maintenance projects are being held flat or even cut as medical expenses spiral out of control.
I'll be glad to. Get me a site with actual detailed figures.
Better yet, tell me exactly what you were planning to cut, since you seem so intimately familiar with exactly how much it should cost to accomplish the necessary, life-improving functions of government.
There aren't any. In fact, there are no sites at all that offer comparisons at all. That's your government for you. I could pull a series of historical annual reports for any public corporation and get comparisons but no such animal exists for government.
Therefor, you have absolutely no proof that the sudden increase in spending over the last 8 years, or even the last 4, are necessary, life improving, or life saving.
According to your own link, population/inflation is up by 5.8% annually; raising spending by 8% annually isn't out of line.
Yes it is, inline would be 5.8% annual increases. If anything, the increase in population should yield a net increase in revenues, so that you wouldn't have to raise the rates.
So, which of these is some "feel-good program that doesn't work?" Were you hoping to stop educating children, quit subsidizing seniors' health care, cut off community colleges, understaff your jails...?
The population went up by 20% in 8 years. The state budget doubled. So, please, tell me, what is about "feeding starving kids" that costs so much. Let's do some basic math. If the state has one starving million kids, that's still $2500 a piece in groceries more in 2008 than in 2000. It's ridiculous.
So, which of these is some "feel-good program that doesn't work?" Were you hoping to stop educating children, quit subsidizing seniors' health care, cut off community colleges, understaff your jails...?
Once again, what about those programs that worked in 2000, at 2000 levels happened that they suddenly need to have DOUBLE their money? Bottom line is, the state of Arizona is getting looted by crooks, charging ever more money, and the most the ridiculous parties can do is hold citizens hostage.
Keep in mind we haven't even yet talked about roads, highway maintenance, animal control, police, fire departments, water, and I suppose state parks. 9% will only go so far.
What were you planning to cut?
Have the same services as in 2000. Hell, have the same services as in 2004, and thus balance the budget. Please, once again, tell me what is so goddamned important in the 4 years that costs 10 billion dollars.
But just keep spouting the only idea you republicans have left...
And your idea is, what, just raise the rates on people. Face it, this is entirely a manufactured crisis. All you have are excuses... do you mean to tell me that Arizona is spending 27 billion a year more on roads in 2008 than it was in 2000? Come on, that's just not the case. It's 8 years of passing benefits and programs the state cannot afford.
The reality is that increasing populations force increases in emergency room spending, building hospitals, schools, fire departments, police departments, light rail, other mass transit, and of course 1/3rd of the state is national park while another 1/3rd is reservation.
Yes, but the vast majority of those things that you speak of are either county or private responsibilities, not state. Emergency rooms, hospitals - that's the private sector. Schools and police, that's local districts.
I hope he never dies. I don't want to see copyright carried over into the afterlife. If he does die, we would have to kill NYCL to chase him down.
Boy, you got a point there, so I guess I have to hope he lives forever and then I'll just piss on him!
The issue here is that they need to raise taxes to support their own weight but the conservative party in this state is too stupid to realize it and the other half have no spine to push for what is needed so you end up in a stalemate resulting in even more stupid decision making.
Population growth does not account for doubling the budget. This is inexcusable. There's no need for a state's budget to ever escalate past GDP growth. There's a natural limiter there. The fact of the matter, state governments are utterly corrupt, looting the treasury, and the people, and now they are crying for more taxes. It's theft, is what it is.
Seriously, I mean, people that do what he does just wreck the world for everyone else through unmitigated greed. Claiming the output of a program? For what? So he can try and figure out ways to charge people for 2+2=4? Just, what a jackass.... I seriously, everytime I read about Wolfram, the guy is more and more of a dick all the time. I'll piss on his grave, for sure, when he finally kicks off.
Parent has a point. This would not have happened if the government was allowed the necessary finances it needed from the people
Why should the government be entitled an 8% raise per year when the people do not get the same? The state doubled its budget in 9 years... why?
There's a difference between patriotism and theft.
Look at the budget for the State of Arizona...for 2000, it was 27 billion, for 2009, it is 55 billion...
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget
Gov't spending is up 8% annually. Where the hell is the money going? Why do you want to raise taxes to double their current levels when people's paychecks have not gone up. Cut services... the state spending is out of control.
The State of Arizona's budget for 2009 is $55 billion dollars. The shortfall is about a couple of billion. If all the state did was to adopt the budget from 2006, which was 42.7 billion dollars, me thinks the state would be in the black and by a pretty penny.
You don't live in Arizona do you? They've already cut everything they can.
I doubt this. Have a look at Wikipedia
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget
In 2009 the State Budget is $55 billion dollars. In 2000, the State Budget was less than half of that. Did our wages double from 2000 to 2009? If not, then why the hell did spending? Every state that is in red ink could easily avert its fiscal crisis if all it did was revert to a 2004 budget... We're not even talking 4 years ago...
There's constitutional restrictions on what they can touch (direct voter mandates cannot be cut)
This is an excuse. There is just a lack of political will to really make hard choices.
Change the State Constitution.
We could easily feed the world if the industrial nations wouldn't insist on their daily hamburgers and steaks.
If some jackass in India or China can take my job by bidding below me, they can starve. At least while I'm unemployed I can hit the dollar menu and enjoy a tasty hamburger because we Americans have enough land to feed ourselves. If they can't overseas, well, its not my problem. They take my job, I take their food. Screw them.
"Windows 7" is the marketing name. Windows NT 6.1 or Vista 6.1 is the reality. Same old crap, but with +0.1 more bugfi
The reality would actually be Windows Server 2008 for Desktops... I think Vista was Win2k3, and Win7 is Win2k8.
A hacker's apartment in London was invaded by a gang of unknowns. Nothing was stolen, but his computer was smashed, his books urinated on, and the victim suffered a broken leg, torn elbow tendon, and a few cracked ribs after reportedly being waterboarded in his own kitchen.
Just as an example: I, and many others, think that employer-based health care has been a disaster for small business; I would much rather pay individual income tax into a government trust fund (which have an excellent track record, in spite of the misinformation) and have a healthy society along with freeing up giant bags of money for other purposes. I really can't see how that would make a liberal anti-small-business. It is time for the Republican party's claim on small business to end. The Chamber doesn't speak for me.
I don't think that's "liberal" at all and I could agree with the merits on this actually. I am putting together a small business and I would rather not have to be responsible for the health of my people. All it does is make me think about stuff that I'd prefer not to think about it.
I don't understand why single payer is not on the table for health care reform.
I would say that your freeing up of giant bags of money is probably a red herring. National health insurance is going to mean higher taxes and its going to be more expensive, unless health care itself is rationed. Frankly, there is a case to be made that government should ration health care, rather than a private insurer, simply because the government is democratic and the employee generally has no choice of insurer anyway.
I have never even considered going after a "conservative" industry, as I don't even know what that would be.
That's admirable but there are, unfortunately, a lot of liberals that do go after what they consider to be conservative industries. How often do we hear Democrats talk about "Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Energy, Big Auto, etc"? Putting the media on the table as target through the undermining of copyright and IP, or the taxation of it, is way to educate conservatives into having a more tit for tat response. If Sean Penn or Chris Martin or Michael Moore want to rail on about those industries that he feels are Republican, then certainly we should remind these people that their industries can be targeted too. It's a terrible way run a country, for sure, but conservatives are not the guys that wrote Rules for Radicals, although, certainly I would bet that our leaders pretty much follow the book just as much as the lefties who came up with it did.
It seems that as of late, there has been a lot of public controversy around various FOSS projects and the people that run them. There's disputes between key players followed up, all too frequently, with giant personal missives about how this or that person isn't going to work on this project anymore because somebody else is too mean to them. There's guys disappearing, flame wars, all sorts of very public problems with projects. One wonders if FOSS is becoming too much of a soap opera and less of a collaborative development model. These aren't unimportant projects either. The GCC compiler, X Windows system and its underpinnings, the kernel, and certainly file systems, all have had some very famous and public spats between various egos.
The one thing that money does, when developers actually get paid for their work, is that it forces people to put aside their differences. When there's no cash on the table, there's no logical reason for someone to take a pounding personally due to a personality conflict. But, when there is cash, people can accept quite a bit of abuse and still produce something. While personal glory is nice to have, its not nearly so nice as a check. But, in FOSS, if you take away that personal glory, there's really no incentive at all. You almost have to wonder if, personality driven politics will continue to undermine FOSS, and how much personality FOSS can stand before the whole brand is so polluted by public conflict that one would almost prefer to just write somebody a check just to avoid the soap opera.
Yes, yes you need to buy a new sound card. if you want to cry about it, complain to Creative.
Just out of curiosity, what do you really need out of a Creative sound card that you can't get out of the resident sound on a PC? I would think a quadcore PC these days could mix a mountain of channels in software...
You've got to be kidding. Was that just a gut feeling? Have you ever heard a Republican say anything of the sort?
There are those of us Republicans, and we are certainly a minority, for sure, that think we need to go beyond the Reagan revolution and define policy in terms of our values as relevant towards today, and not just have policy for the sake of being like it was 1980.
Politically, the immediate problem is bringing Reagan Democrats back and the answer to me is to move to the center on trade and drop the hostility to unions. But, another issue that comes up is IP.
Actually a lot of Republicans I've talked to tend to see things more my way. In the very least, the idea of either taxing IP or deregulating it to screw liberals has some appeal. I got a good chunk of hits from the old freeper when I posted an essay advocating that intellectual property be taxed to balance the economy away from liberal industries and also pay for liberal spending programs. http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/taxingliberalsfairly.aspx Check it out if you like...