I had a QLogic Fast! SCSI ISA card from 1993 until recently. I ran my old SCSI scanner (from 1997) off of it. Worked great in Windows 9x and Linux. Never gave me a bit of trouble. (Unlike the POS ISA PnP card that came with the scanner.)
Unfortunately, it isn't supported in Windows 2000, so I had to pull it for a PCI alternative.
I have an old keyboard from a Zeos 486. This is my second Zeos keyboard. My first I broke. Fortunately, I was able to find a second, even though the 'A' key can be a bit quirky. I've got the AT->PS/2 connector. Best keyboard ever made.
Sorry, I had to. But seriously, there is something very wrong with the world where Russia warns their programmers that it is not safe to come to the United States for fear of U.S. law (Free Dimitri anyone?)
Parts of the DMCA are blatantly unconstitutional. However, the only people with the legal resources to fight it are those who benefit from the law.
You're writing to Hillary? As if Hillary Clinton (or Chuck Schumer or any other Senator) gives a damn about you. You know who my Senator is? Fritz Hollings. You think HE gives a rodent's behind what I think about the DMCA? Hell No!
Sorry, but unless we can get enough money to pay enough lawyers to get this all the way to the Supreme Court and have it overturned, then we cannot win. Period.
Now that Microsoft has won the Browser War, they see no need to improve their product because they have so little competition.
In other news:
Scientists have determined that water is indeed wet. NASA has concluded that the sky is blue.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Re:A few software fashions that are doing too well
on
Software Fashion
·
· Score: 1
Even if you don't use any of the OO aspects of C++ or templates, it is still a large improvement over C.// style comments (although this was added to the ISO/ANSI C99 standards for C) const instead of #define constants inline instead of #define macros improved structure handling. considerably more typesafe more control over casting (, ) pass-by-reference variables new/delete instead of malloc/free
The first time I saw Hungarian notation, I didn't know what it was. I wondered why anyone would name variables svStrVar or have type HWND. My initial reaction was that it looked like it was written in Hungarian or something. (Not that I know Hungarian...)
I laughed rather hard when I found out what the name of that notation was.
I'll also note that the truly rich have many ways to shelter their income from taxation, whereas those of us who are quite productive, but not exactly "rich" are hitting the top tax brackets without the benefits of the tax shelters used by the likes of The Donald, and good old Arianna "What Party Am I This Month" Huffington, pays virtually zero income tax to Sacramento OR Washington (Sorry about the FreeRepublic link: it's the best one Google found on the topic. ..)
My income tax plan:
First $20,000 is tax free. $40,000 for married couples. Each dependent (child) is an additional $5,000 before taxes kick in.
All income after that is taxed at 15%. No loopholes, no exceptions.
Eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit. You should have to pay taxes to get a tax refund.
You can adjust the numbers as needed, but that would be a simple and fair tax code. The rich would pay their fair share, no more, no less. The poor would not pay anything.
I'll also note that the truly rich have many ways to shelter their income from taxation, whereas those of us who are quite productive, but not exactly "rich" are hitting the top tax brackets without the benefits of the tax shelters used by the likes of The Donald, and good old Arianna "What Party Am I This Month" Huffington, pays virtually zero income tax to Sacramento OR Washington (Sorry about the FreeRepublic link: it's the best one Google found on the topic. ..)
My income tax plan:
First $20,000 is tax free. $40,000 for married couples. Each dependent (child) is an additional $5,000 before taxes kick in.
All income after that is taxed at 15%. No loopholes, no exceptions.
Eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit. You should have to pay taxes to get a tax refund.
You can adjust the numbers as needed, but that would be a simple and fair tax code. The rich would pay their fair share, no more, no less. The poor would not pay anything.
And one more: Kill the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). It's a nice acronym for welfare. Just because the EITC helps the poor does not mean that it's a good tax program.
If you want to be nice to the poor, you can eliminate the sales taxes on non-prepared food.
I believe the wealthy should pay their fair share - no more, no less.
For income tax, a low flat tax with few loopholes would be best. The first $20,000 ($40,000 for married households) would be tax free. Add $5,000 to the tax free limit for each dependent.
Everything after that would be taxed at %15.
Cut the payroll tax rate, but eliminate the payroll tax cap. Mulitmillion dollar CEO's could save Social Security and/or give everyone else a tax cut. (Or you could eliminate the payroll tax altogether. Fine by me.)
Don't tax capital gains. Capital gains are pure economic growth, and you do not want to discourage that. Just because mostly wealthy people pay them does not mean that it is a good tax.
Eliminate the death tax, and the don't tax dividends twice. That money has already been taxed. Once again, just because mostly wealthy people pay them does not mean that it is a good tax.
You can adjust the rates and dollar amounts as needed. My point is that how you tax is as much, if not more important that how much you tax.
Kentucky is not releasing 600 prisoners because they feel generous.
I am not from Kentucky, but I'm willing to bet that Kentucky is releasing prisoners as opposed to cutting pork is because pork gets you votes, while actually running the state properly does not.
What you present is a false dichotomy. Your argument presents a choice between the modern semi-socialist goverment and anarchy.
There is something in between: Limited Government. It is a Government that keeps the country safe, protects your property rights, protects you from crime and yes, even promotes the general welfare of its population.
However, the problem comes when too much Government becomes not something that promotes the general welfare of the population, but becomes overbearing and discourages economic achievement. Welfare discourages people from getting a job. After all, you could do nothing and get a reasonable percentage of what you could make at a entry level job. High progressive taxes discourage people from making more money, as the harder one works, the less reward one reaps from that work. We've been fighting the "War on Poverty" since the 1960's. Now we have third generation welfare families.
I resent the "Compassionate Catholic" remark, even though it was not directed at me. Just because people oppose GOVERNMENT solutions to poverty does not mean that they are not charitable and they do not help those less fortunate than themselves. They just prefer private solutions as opposed to Goverment solutions as they tend to be more effective and not as impersonal. Those who favor Big Government do not necessarily help the poor, while those who oppose it are not necessarily against the poor.
You are someone who does not understand economics.
True, the wealthy benefited most from the Bush tax cuts. And yes, the rich don't piss away every extra dollar they make.
So what do they do with it? They invest it. They have their money make more money. Investment finances economic growth.
Say I want to start a small business. I go to the bank and ask for a loan. Since plenty of people have invested their money at this bank, the bank has plenty of money to loan me. I start my business. I create new jobs. I make money. I pay off my loan with the interest. The bank makes money and the investors make money. Since everyone pays taxes on the money they make, the Government wins too. Everyone wins in this scenerio.
The reason the first round of Bush tax cuts didn't do much was that they were the wrong kind of cut. They gave most Americans $300-$600 to spend. This did not encourage investment and did not create new jobs. It just moved some inventory.
The second round of Bush's tax cuts seem to have done the job. All economic indicators for the last quarter are up. The stock market is approaching 10,000 again. By the time the 2004 election rolls around, the recession will be long gone.
If the states didn't spend all the damn money on pork projects, scholarship programs and other spending initiatives, then they wouldn't be in this predicament.
Second of all, your math makes no sense. If the feds cut taxes and the states raise them, then it's a wash.
And by the way, no one has to hike taxes. In fact, hiking taxes is one of the worst things you can do. The drop in revenue at the state level was not caused by tax cuts, it was caused by a decrease in economic productivity. Higher taxes decrease economic productivity. Likewise, cutting taxes, specifically capital gains taxes and income taxes, increases economic productivity. This increased productivity leads to people making more money which means they pay more in taxes. It's called the Laffer Curve, which you might remember Ben Stein talk about in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
As for Bush not being a conservative, you are right. He is a Big Government Republican, like his father before him. (Fortunately, this one has the good sense not to raise taxes like his father did)
I think more people are libertarians than you'd realize from the success of the official Libertarian Party.
In South Carolina, a very libertarian minded Republican congressman, Mark Sanford ran for Governor as a Republican. He defeated the top picks of the Religious Right and the state Republican Machine to win the primaries, then defeated the incumbent Democratic governor in the general election. He was just conservative enough on social issues to get the support of the social conservatives in this state, but otherwise, his stances on the issues were rather libertarian. The Libertarian Party didn't even run anyone against him.
The future of the Republican Party is with the more libertarian wing of the party, not the old guard of the GOP establishment. (The Bush/Dole/Ford/Nixon big Government part of the party)
On social issues, all they have to do is be mainstream and let the far left in the Democratic Party shoot themselves in the foot on their extreme positions. They don't need to let Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson run the show.
Not on capital gains. Capital gains are gains from economic growth. If you want to encourage investment and growth, the capital gains tax should be as low as possible (ideally 0%). The lower the tax, the greater chance the average return on investment will be positive. Just because for the most part only the wealthy pay cap gains taxes does not mean that it is a good tax.
Income taxes are preferable to cap gains. They should be progressive, but not so much as to punish economic achievement in the top brackets.
Consumption taxes are probably the best taxes as far as doing the least economic damage. Of these, luxury taxes are the best as they hit those who can afford it the hardest and taxes on food and gasoline the worst because they hit everybody equally hard regardless of income.
State budget shortfalls are due to their own mismanagement.
During the late 1990's, budget surpluses were a way of life. The states, of course, spent the money like it was water, mostly on "bread and circuses" pork spending that would be popular at home and get them re-elected, but not what the state needed.
When the economy went into recession after the dot-bomb, 9/11, and Enron, these states had massive budget shortfalls. Those who voted to increase spending (mostly Democrats) blamed Bush for the problems they themselves created.
MIT students don't know Java. I'm guessing that Java is not part of the standard curriculum
Java is more difficult to learn on the fly than ASP.Net or PHP.
The question is not why Java is so difficult, but why senior level comp. sci. students chose such a complicated solution when a simpler one would have worked. (Java/JSP + Linux + Oracle???)
If you want some more robust error handling, use Java.
Java is NOT designed for hackers, it's designed for industry. It can be slow, bloated, and awkward at times, but it is very powerful and cross platform.
The PNAC needed some large reason to forge the plan for Pax Americana - global leadership by the USA. The warning flags for the 9/11/01 attacks were ignored/squelched and with the attacks Bush had a reason for PNAC planning to be brought to fruition.
On 9/11/01: Rumsfeld (and I believe Wolfowitz as well) was in the Pentagon. First Lady Laura Bush was on Capitol Hill, believed to be the target of the fourth plane. Barbara Olsen, wife of federal prosecutor Ted Olsen, was on Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.
If the adminstration knew that 9/11 was going to happen, certainly these important people would have been out of harm's way.
FUD for the populace and crushing dissent/sedition. Seen any massive riots lately? Maybe it is apathy, maybe it is not wanted to be labeled a seditious terrorist.
Did you SEE the Democratic primary debate? Do you read Slashdot? I think dissent is alive, well, and safe in this country.
Quit watching so many Oliver Stone movies and start using your brain.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, the new PCI SCSI (also from QLogic) card dates from 1994 according to the copyright date on the card.
I had a QLogic Fast! SCSI ISA card from 1993 until recently. I ran my old SCSI scanner (from 1997) off of it. Worked great in Windows 9x and Linux. Never gave me a bit of trouble. (Unlike the POS ISA PnP card that came with the scanner.)
Unfortunately, it isn't supported in Windows 2000, so I had to pull it for a PCI alternative.
I have an old keyboard from a Zeos 486. This is my second Zeos keyboard. My first I broke. Fortunately, I was able to find a second, even though the 'A' key can be a bit quirky. I've got the AT->PS/2 connector. Best keyboard ever made.
In Soviet Russia - Autorun disables YOU!
Sorry, I had to. But seriously, there is something very wrong with the world where Russia warns their programmers that it is not safe to come to the United States for fear of U.S. law (Free Dimitri anyone?)
Parts of the DMCA are blatantly unconstitutional. However, the only people with the legal resources to fight it are those who benefit from the law.
You're writing to Hillary? As if Hillary Clinton (or Chuck Schumer or any other Senator) gives a damn about you. You know who my Senator is? Fritz Hollings. You think HE gives a rodent's behind what I think about the DMCA? Hell No!
Sorry, but unless we can get enough money to pay enough lawyers to get this all the way to the Supreme Court and have it overturned, then we cannot win. Period.
Now that Microsoft has won the Browser War, they see no need to improve their product because they have so little competition.
In other news:
Scientists have determined that water is indeed wet.
NASA has concluded that the sky is blue.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Even if you don't use any of the OO aspects of C++ or templates, it is still a large improvement over C. // style comments (although this was added to the
ISO/ANSI C99 standards for C)
const instead of #define constants
inline instead of #define macros
improved structure handling.
considerably more typesafe
more control over casting (, )
pass-by-reference variables
new/delete instead of malloc/free
And C++ is at least 95% as efficient as C.
True story:
The first time I saw Hungarian notation, I didn't know what it was. I wondered why anyone would name variables svStrVar or have type HWND. My initial reaction was that it looked like it was written in Hungarian or something. (Not that I know Hungarian...)
I laughed rather hard when I found out what the name of that notation was.
My income tax plan:
First $20,000 is tax free. $40,000 for married couples. Each dependent (child) is an additional $5,000 before taxes kick in.
All income after that is taxed at 15%. No loopholes, no exceptions.
Eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit. You should have to pay taxes to get a tax refund.
You can adjust the numbers as needed, but that would be a simple and fair tax code. The rich would pay their fair share, no more, no less. The poor would not pay anything.
Ignore my first post on this.
My income tax plan: First $20,000 is tax free. $40,000 for married couples. Each dependent (child) is an additional $5,000 before taxes kick in. All income after that is taxed at 15%. No loopholes, no exceptions. Eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit. You should have to pay taxes to get a tax refund. You can adjust the numbers as needed, but that would be a simple and fair tax code. The rich would pay their fair share, no more, no less. The poor would not pay anything.
And one more: Kill the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). It's a nice acronym for welfare. Just because the EITC helps the poor does not mean that it's a good tax program.
If you want to be nice to the poor, you can eliminate the sales taxes on non-prepared food.
I believe the wealthy should pay their fair share - no more, no less.
For income tax, a low flat tax with few loopholes would be best. The first $20,000 ($40,000 for married households) would be tax free. Add $5,000 to the tax free limit for each dependent.
Everything after that would be taxed at %15.
Cut the payroll tax rate, but eliminate the payroll tax cap. Mulitmillion dollar CEO's could save Social Security and/or give everyone else a tax cut. (Or you could eliminate the payroll tax altogether. Fine by me.)
Don't tax capital gains. Capital gains are pure economic growth, and you do not want to discourage that. Just because mostly wealthy people pay them does not mean that it is a good tax.
Eliminate the death tax, and the don't tax dividends twice. That money has already been taxed. Once again, just because mostly wealthy people pay them does not mean that it is a good tax.
You can adjust the rates and dollar amounts as needed. My point is that how you tax is as much, if not more important that how much you tax.
I am not from Kentucky, but I'm willing to bet that Kentucky is releasing prisoners as opposed to cutting pork is because pork gets you votes, while actually running the state properly does not.
I would quit work altogether and collect welfare. It is what I have paid for. I have earned it. I deserve to benefit from it.
Well, you do get to do that when you turn 65. Hopefully.
What you present is a false dichotomy. Your argument presents a choice between the modern semi-socialist goverment and anarchy.
There is something in between: Limited Government. It is a Government that keeps the country safe, protects your property rights, protects you from crime and yes, even promotes the general welfare of its population.
However, the problem comes when too much Government becomes not something that promotes the general welfare of the population, but becomes overbearing and discourages economic achievement. Welfare discourages people from getting a job. After all, you could do nothing and get a reasonable percentage of what you could make at a entry level job. High progressive taxes discourage people from making more money, as the harder one works, the less reward one reaps from that work. We've been fighting the "War on Poverty" since the 1960's. Now we have third generation welfare families.
I resent the "Compassionate Catholic" remark, even though it was not directed at me. Just because people oppose GOVERNMENT solutions to poverty does not mean that they are not charitable and they do not help those less fortunate than themselves. They just prefer private solutions as opposed to Goverment solutions as they tend to be more effective and not as impersonal. Those who favor Big Government do not necessarily help the poor, while those who oppose it are not necessarily against the poor.
Hell, we'll secede again. This time it will work, dammit!
What state are you from?
I know that I see a LOT more services from my state and local tax money than from my Federal tax money. And I live in a relatively poor state.
You are someone who does not understand economics.
True, the wealthy benefited most from the Bush tax cuts. And yes, the rich don't piss away every extra dollar they make.
So what do they do with it? They invest it. They have their money make more money. Investment finances economic growth.
Say I want to start a small business. I go to the bank and ask for a loan. Since plenty of people have invested their money at this bank, the bank has plenty of money to loan me. I start my business. I create new jobs. I make money. I pay off my loan with the interest. The bank makes money and the investors make money. Since everyone pays taxes on the money they make, the Government wins too. Everyone wins in this scenerio.
The reason the first round of Bush tax cuts didn't do much was that they were the wrong kind of cut. They gave most Americans $300-$600 to spend. This did not encourage investment and did not create new jobs. It just moved some inventory.
The second round of Bush's tax cuts seem to have done the job. All economic indicators for the last quarter are up. The stock market is approaching 10,000 again. By the time the 2004 election rolls around, the recession will be long gone.
If the states didn't spend all the damn money on pork projects, scholarship programs and other spending initiatives, then they wouldn't be in this predicament.
Second of all, your math makes no sense. If the feds cut taxes and the states raise them, then it's a wash.
And by the way, no one has to hike taxes. In fact, hiking taxes is one of the worst things you can do. The drop in revenue at the state level was not caused by tax cuts, it was caused by a decrease in economic productivity. Higher taxes decrease economic productivity. Likewise, cutting taxes, specifically capital gains taxes and income taxes, increases economic productivity. This increased productivity leads to people making more money which means they pay more in taxes. It's called the Laffer Curve, which you might remember Ben Stein talk about in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
As for Bush not being a conservative, you are right. He is a Big Government Republican, like his father before him. (Fortunately, this one has the good sense not to raise taxes like his father did)
I think more people are libertarians than you'd realize from the success of the official Libertarian Party.
In South Carolina, a very libertarian minded Republican congressman, Mark Sanford ran for Governor as a Republican. He defeated the top picks of the Religious Right and the state Republican Machine to win the primaries, then defeated the incumbent Democratic governor in the general election. He was just conservative enough on social issues to get the support of the social conservatives in this state, but otherwise, his stances on the issues were rather libertarian. The Libertarian Party didn't even run anyone against him.
The future of the Republican Party is with the more libertarian wing of the party, not the old guard of the GOP establishment. (The Bush/Dole/Ford/Nixon big Government part of the party)
On social issues, all they have to do is be mainstream and let the far left in the Democratic Party shoot themselves in the foot on their extreme positions. They don't need to let Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson run the show.
Not on capital gains. Capital gains are gains from economic growth. If you want to encourage investment and growth, the capital gains tax should be as low as possible (ideally 0%). The lower the tax, the greater chance the average return on investment will be positive. Just because for the most part only the wealthy pay cap gains taxes does not mean that it is a good tax.
Income taxes are preferable to cap gains. They should be progressive, but not so much as to punish economic achievement in the top brackets.
Consumption taxes are probably the best taxes as far as doing the least economic damage. Of these, luxury taxes are the best as they hit those who can afford it the hardest and taxes on food and gasoline the worst because they hit everybody equally hard regardless of income.
State budget shortfalls are due to their own mismanagement.
During the late 1990's, budget surpluses were a way of life. The states, of course, spent the money like it was water, mostly on "bread and circuses" pork spending that would be popular at home and get them re-elected, but not what the state needed.
When the economy went into recession after the dot-bomb, 9/11, and Enron, these states had massive budget shortfalls. Those who voted to increase spending (mostly Democrats) blamed Bush for the problems they themselves created.
MIT students don't know Java. I'm guessing that Java is not part of the standard curriculum
Java is more difficult to learn on the fly than ASP.Net or PHP.
The question is not why Java is so difficult, but why senior level comp. sci. students chose such a complicated solution when a simpler one would have worked. (Java/JSP + Linux + Oracle???)
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
If you want it quick and dirty, use ASP or PHP.
If you want some more robust error handling, use Java.
Java is NOT designed for hackers, it's designed for industry. It can be slow, bloated, and awkward at times, but it is very powerful and cross platform.
This is exteremely valuable in industry.
This bill prohibits the taxing of the access to the internet, not sales taxes on goods purchased over the internet.
A good law. I think the politicians should keep their grubby hands off internet access.
You sir, are an idiot.
The PNAC needed some large reason to forge the plan for Pax Americana - global leadership by the USA. The warning flags for the 9/11/01 attacks were ignored/squelched and with the attacks Bush had a reason for PNAC planning to be brought to fruition.
On 9/11/01:
Rumsfeld (and I believe Wolfowitz as well) was in the Pentagon.
First Lady Laura Bush was on Capitol Hill, believed to be the target of the fourth plane.
Barbara Olsen, wife of federal prosecutor Ted Olsen, was on Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.
If the adminstration knew that 9/11 was going to happen, certainly these important people would have been out of harm's way.
FUD for the populace and crushing dissent/sedition. Seen any massive riots lately? Maybe it is apathy, maybe it is not wanted to be labeled a seditious terrorist.
Did you SEE the Democratic primary debate? Do you read Slashdot? I think dissent is alive, well, and safe in this country.
Quit watching so many Oliver Stone movies and start using your brain.