Right. And The World Is Going To End On May 21, 2011. Oh wait, that passed. And nothing happened.
If I had mod points, I'd go with off-topic or troll, but since I don't I'll say this:
People who ignore the graveness of the world economy, and especially the USA's, should read up on it. You may think it does not affect you. It will. This isn't a religion or cult, it is mathematics.
probably has more to do with who's now running the office of the President.
No, Obama had nothing to do with it. I sent comments about the draft version of this document well over a year ago. Yes, it takes government this long to do something this logical and simple.
I normally wouldn't correct something like this, but this is/. so minor technicalities cannot go uncorrected. The DEA, not the FDA, determines which CSA schedule a drug is placed in.
You're right, my mistake. My point, however, is that bureaucracies can and do make law.
Technically percocet (oxycodone + acetaminophen) is on schedule II, so it doesn't seem that acetaminophen is the difference between schedule II and III.
Are you sure it's the acetaminophen that's causing the stomach problems? opiates are infamous for causing upset stomachs. also, I always thought one of acetaminophen's strengths is it won't bother your stomach like aspirin and NSAIDs.
Seriously why do we have to keep legislating everything.
When did the FDA become a legislative body? Did I miss that?
The FDA can schedule drugs, so they can decide whether or not I'll get locked in a cage for putting a particular substance in my body. I don't think the term "legislating" is too far off.
Soon after Government run healthcare they are going to tell you want you can and can't eat.
And yet in countries with publicly funded health care the government doesn't do that. It's almost as if your comment is just plain bullshit.
And yet in the US one of the main reasons for taxing tobacco and alcohol is to reimburse Medicare, so a logical conclusion is to tax "bad" food once the State is responsible for everyone's health care. Hell, trans fat is banned in some local jurisdictions so I could see banning other food substances in the future.
You can get a script for just hydrocodone or oxycodone, but doctors don't like to prescribe them because of DEA pressure. Oxycontin is oxycodone plus acetaminophen (like percocet) but is time released.
Please learn to use your brain. Or at least realise that you are talking to adults who can see through your disingenuous talking points.
If we had a budget surplus, this wouldn't be such an issue. We're charging this on the gov't VISA. Spending future taxpayer's money should be scrutinized vigorously.
'Glad to see that the US has a big surplus in the budget that we can afford to fund this stuff.'
Glad to see that Slashdot is helpfully parroting a 'story' fed to Fox News by a 'government watchdog', AKA a right-wing astroturf lobby group previously known for its heroic pro-tobacco, pro-Microsoft and anti-FOSS campaigns funded by (well, you can guess who):
A friend of mine found one on his car. He pulled it off and threw it in a field. He now owes the local police department $700. He's trying to fight it in court, but he doesn't expect to win.
Please read my quote from TFA again. Local municipalities (i.e. local government) have "prohibited drinking games". A law or resolution would need to be passed, right? Does local government not qualify as "government"?
Yes, this is a big deal. TFA says local governments are banning beer pong:
Quoting TFA:
Since 2005, other Jersey shore towns, such as Manasquan and Sea Girt, along with municipalities in other states, followed suit; some have even prohibited drinking games indoors.
Besides, even if it was only about some crappy game, why is that not a big deal? How much government imposed censorship are you willing to put up with?
Just because you type the domain name in correctly doesn't guarantee you're going to the site you intend to visit. You mention above that self-signed certs are just as good as "trusted" certs. If browsers inherently trust all CA roots (or simply don't care who the signer is), then all you would need to do to "jack" a site is poison DNS or trick the DNS registrar into allowing you to modify the DNS record.
I personally love the fact that SSL has authenticity built into it (as do most PKI implementations). There's a damn good reason for this. If I go to my bank's site and carefully type the URL in, if I get an error that the site's cert is self signed I'll know for a fact it's been jacked.
the foremost aim of an SSL cert is to encrypt the communication so 3rd parties cant eavesdrop.
Technically, the cert is used mainly for identity verification. The only time the cert itself is used for encryption is during the initial encryption key exchange.
(I would have responded earlier but had to do a side job)
No, I think the rich should pay more because they derive greater benefit from society than the poor.
I don't understand how. Rich people pay taxes which typically get redistributed to the poor (e.g. welfare, medicaid, food stamps, etc.). I guess you mean the rich got rich "off the backs of the poor"
"Class warfare" is not merely fighting back against the greed and excesses of the wealthy, one can't help but notice that hard working men and women are losing jobs, health care, and retirement to to the wealthy.
I must be blind, then. I don't know anyone who has lost any of that to the wealthy.
1% of the richest people in the U.S.A. own more than the total ownings of 90% of the people at the other side of the scale.
You keep mentioning that. I don't know if it's true or not since you're not providing a citation. Even if so, I'm not compelled to start taking things away from the wealthy just because I'm jealous they have more than me.
Since we're not citing any references, I had heard in the past that the top 10% (probably more) of the wealthiest pay the majority of taxes.
Most americans, by number of people, not by adjusted average, got no tax cut.
Maybe because a good deal of americans pay very little tax in the first place. I pay what feels like an awful lot of taxes, and I am by no means rich. In fact, I live check-to-check. I benefited a bit from the tax cut...it was at least noticeable. However, I don't mind tax cuts going to the "rich" because they are typically the ones who employ people and own businesses and keep our economy going. I am a wage earner (probably a peon slave in your definition of things), but I have a great deal of respect for entrepreneurs who risk their own capital to create wealth for themselves and others. They should be rewarded. They should be rich. I don't understand why you are so bent on penalizing their success.
The "rich" saw their taxes capped *AND* pay a lesser percentage on capital gains and investment income than the poor pay on earned income.
Okay, I call complete bullshit on this. The poor DO NOT PAY TAXES ON EARNED INCOME. Unless your definition of poor is outside what I consider poor. Also, you've said capital gains and investment income is taxes at a lower percentage. Could you enlighten me into what that percentage is, respectively? And how are taxes capped? You mean the tax brackets? What, do you think they should cap out at 100%?
I'm glad we don't live in your socialist utopia. Sounds like the USSR or China to me.
If that *isn't* a class war, what is?
You just said class warfare is from the rich feeding on the poor. I'm saying the poor have a class war going on with the rich. It goes both ways.
Anyhow, back on topic, I sure am glad the SCOTUS verified what us libertarians have been saying for years, americans have an individual right to be armed. Today is a day to be celebrated. That's one thing we can agree on.
The "farmers" would probably end up paying less in taxes. You would value the land as a working asset, like a truck or a computer, not as "real estate" which is speculative.
I don't know about that. You said tax on assets. I didn't know you were planning on setting up special brackets for special classes (farmers, in this instance). The farmers I mentioned have millions in assets (both machinery and land), but live as lower class people because they simply don't have much liquid cash. I know small business owners in the same category, so I don't agree with what you think is "fair".
Can we just sum this up that you think "rich" people should pay more because they can? It's a common class warfare thing the poor and middle classes say and think. Granted I'm a member of the lower middle class, I just don't hold that sentiment (jealousy?) against upper class people. I think everyone, regardless of class, should pay the same percentage of whatever category we want to tax. That's all. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong, just different opinions.
You still have to pax taxes on INCOME. If Gates sells his stock, that's INCOME. There are loopholes and tax shelters (which are *not* fair) he could use to defer or evade taxation on a portion of it, but to say he wouldn't pay a dime is BS.
A flax tax on "wealth" would be detrimental to farmers I know. I'd hardly call them "rich" even though they may have a lot of assets.
No, not fair. Maybe a consumption tax would be fair, but my point wasn't about being fair - it was about your class warfare statement.
I was referring to income tax rates which are progressive. The poor pay a lesser tax rate (if any) than the rich. This is where I think class warfare comes in. I often hear that "rich" can afford higher taxes so we should squeeze them harder. That's poor and middle class warfare against the rich.
I hate our tax code and would much rather see a flat tax that favors no one.
Ummm, how does "I'm not picky about the license" equate to GPL only?
Also, he's looking to save money. There are lots of apps/games/"edutainment" for Linux that could save the library money and commercial license hassles, not to mention the "Windows Tax". While there are more titles available for Windows, I wouldn't discount the idea that decent options exist for a free (both kinds) OS./x
Slashdot Mirror
Right. And The World Is Going To End On May 21, 2011. Oh wait, that passed. And nothing happened.
If I had mod points, I'd go with off-topic or troll, but since I don't I'll say this:
People who ignore the graveness of the world economy, and especially the USA's, should read up on it. You may think it does not affect you. It will. This isn't a religion or cult, it is mathematics.
Based on the way Oracle is treating OpenSolaris, Java, and existing Sun customers, I wouldn't touch their kernel.
probably has more to do with who's now running the office of the President.
No, Obama had nothing to do with it. I sent comments about the draft version of this document well over a year ago. Yes, it takes government this long to do something this logical and simple.
I normally wouldn't correct something like this, but this is /. so minor technicalities cannot go uncorrected. The DEA, not the FDA, determines which CSA schedule a drug is placed in.
You're right, my mistake. My point, however, is that bureaucracies can and do make law.
Technically percocet (oxycodone + acetaminophen) is on schedule II, so it doesn't seem that acetaminophen is the difference between schedule II and III.
Are you sure it's the acetaminophen that's causing the stomach problems? opiates are infamous for causing upset stomachs. also, I always thought one of acetaminophen's strengths is it won't bother your stomach like aspirin and NSAIDs.
Do not welcome our nannystate overlords.
Seriously why do we have to keep legislating everything.
When did the FDA become a legislative body? Did I miss that?
The FDA can schedule drugs, so they can decide whether or not I'll get locked in a cage for putting a particular substance in my body. I don't think the term "legislating" is too far off.
Soon after Government run healthcare they are going to tell you want you can and can't eat.
And yet in countries with publicly funded health care the government doesn't do that. It's almost as if your comment is just plain bullshit.
And yet in the US one of the main reasons for taxing tobacco and alcohol is to reimburse Medicare, so a logical conclusion is to tax "bad" food once the State is responsible for everyone's health care. Hell, trans fat is banned in some local jurisdictions so I could see banning other food substances in the future.
You can get a script for just hydrocodone or oxycodone, but doctors don't like to prescribe them because of DEA pressure. Oxycontin is oxycodone plus acetaminophen (like percocet) but is time released.
Please learn to use your brain. Or at least realise that you are talking to adults who can see through your disingenuous talking points.
If we had a budget surplus, this wouldn't be such an issue. We're charging this on the gov't VISA. Spending future taxpayer's money should be scrutinized vigorously.
'Glad to see that the US has a big surplus in the budget that we can afford to fund this stuff.'
Glad to see that Slashdot is helpfully parroting a 'story' fed to Fox News by a 'government watchdog', AKA a right-wing astroturf lobby group previously known for its heroic pro-tobacco, pro-Microsoft and anti-FOSS campaigns funded by (well, you can guess who):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Against_Government_Waste
Still, who cares about politically motivated attacks on public health research, provided we can make Knob Jokes?
Glad to see a perfect example of an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Being privatised or not has no bearing on whether you have to pay for it.
Sure it does. I have a gun held to my head (taxes) to subsidize Amtrak customers' fares. If Amtrak were private I would not.
The problem with fully privatised systems is that they have a de-facto monopoly due to the barriers to entry.
But gov't systems do not?
And it's funny how you say private companies are always better when they're all failing.
They're all failing? Are you really being serious? Do you live on this planet?
DR is Disaster Recovery
HA is High Availability
Just out of curiosity, if I lived in your neighborhood and went completely "off the grid", would I still be taxed for the electricity infrastructure?
A friend of mine found one on his car. He pulled it off and threw it in a field. He now owes the local police department $700. He's trying to fight it in court, but he doesn't expect to win.
Please read my quote from TFA again. Local municipalities (i.e. local government) have "prohibited drinking games". A law or resolution would need to be passed, right? Does local government not qualify as "government"?
Yes, this is a big deal. TFA says local governments are banning beer pong:
Quoting TFA:
Since 2005, other Jersey shore towns, such as Manasquan and Sea Girt, along with municipalities in other states, followed suit; some have even prohibited drinking games indoors.
Besides, even if it was only about some crappy game, why is that not a big deal? How much government imposed censorship are you willing to put up with?
Just because you type the domain name in correctly doesn't guarantee you're going to the site you intend to visit. You mention above that self-signed certs are just as good as "trusted" certs. If browsers inherently trust all CA roots (or simply don't care who the signer is), then all you would need to do to "jack" a site is poison DNS or trick the DNS registrar into allowing you to modify the DNS record.
I personally love the fact that SSL has authenticity built into it (as do most PKI implementations). There's a damn good reason for this. If I go to my bank's site and carefully type the URL in, if I get an error that the site's cert is self signed I'll know for a fact it's been jacked.
the foremost aim of an SSL cert is to encrypt the communication so 3rd parties cant eavesdrop.
Technically, the cert is used mainly for identity verification. The only time the cert itself is used for encryption is during the initial encryption key exchange.
(I would have responded earlier but had to do a side job)
No, I think the rich should pay more because they derive greater benefit from society than the poor.
I don't understand how. Rich people pay taxes which typically get redistributed to the poor (e.g. welfare, medicaid, food stamps, etc.). I guess you mean the rich got rich "off the backs of the poor""Class warfare" is not merely fighting back against the greed and excesses of the wealthy, one can't help but notice that hard working men and women are losing jobs, health care, and retirement to to the wealthy.
I must be blind, then. I don't know anyone who has lost any of that to the wealthy.1% of the richest people in the U.S.A. own more than the total ownings of 90% of the people at the other side of the scale.
You keep mentioning that. I don't know if it's true or not since you're not providing a citation. Even if so, I'm not compelled to start taking things away from the wealthy just because I'm jealous they have more than me.Since we're not citing any references, I had heard in the past that the top 10% (probably more) of the wealthiest pay the majority of taxes.
Most americans, by number of people, not by adjusted average, got no tax cut.
Maybe because a good deal of americans pay very little tax in the first place.I pay what feels like an awful lot of taxes, and I am by no means rich. In fact, I live check-to-check. I benefited a bit from the tax cut...it was at least noticeable. However, I don't mind tax cuts going to the "rich" because they are typically the ones who employ people and own businesses and keep our economy going. I am a wage earner (probably a peon slave in your definition of things), but I have a great deal of respect for entrepreneurs who risk their own capital to create wealth for themselves and others. They should be rewarded. They should be rich. I don't understand why you are so bent on penalizing their success.
The "rich" saw their taxes capped *AND* pay a lesser percentage on capital gains and investment income than the poor pay on earned income.
Okay, I call complete bullshit on this. The poor DO NOT PAY TAXES ON EARNED INCOME. Unless your definition of poor is outside what I consider poor. Also, you've said capital gains and investment income is taxes at a lower percentage. Could you enlighten me into what that percentage is, respectively? And how are taxes capped? You mean the tax brackets? What, do you think they should cap out at 100%?I'm glad we don't live in your socialist utopia. Sounds like the USSR or China to me.
If that *isn't* a class war, what is?
You just said class warfare is from the rich feeding on the poor. I'm saying the poor have a class war going on with the rich. It goes both ways.Anyhow, back on topic, I sure am glad the SCOTUS verified what us libertarians have been saying for years, americans have an individual right to be armed. Today is a day to be celebrated. That's one thing we can agree on.
The "farmers" would probably end up paying less in taxes. You would value the land as a working asset, like a truck or a computer, not as "real estate" which is speculative.
I don't know about that. You said tax on assets. I didn't know you were planning on setting up special brackets for special classes (farmers, in this instance). The farmers I mentioned have millions in assets (both machinery and land), but live as lower class people because they simply don't have much liquid cash. I know small business owners in the same category, so I don't agree with what you think is "fair".Can we just sum this up that you think "rich" people should pay more because they can? It's a common class warfare thing the poor and middle classes say and think. Granted I'm a member of the lower middle class, I just don't hold that sentiment (jealousy?) against upper class people. I think everyone, regardless of class, should pay the same percentage of whatever category we want to tax. That's all. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong, just different opinions.
You still have to pax taxes on INCOME. If Gates sells his stock, that's INCOME. There are loopholes and tax shelters (which are *not* fair) he could use to defer or evade taxation on a portion of it, but to say he wouldn't pay a dime is BS.
A flax tax on "wealth" would be detrimental to farmers I know. I'd hardly call them "rich" even though they may have a lot of assets.
No, not fair. Maybe a consumption tax would be fair, but my point wasn't about being fair - it was about your class warfare statement.
(granted this is way OT to the OP)
I was referring to income tax rates which are progressive. The poor pay a lesser tax rate (if any) than the rich. This is where I think class warfare comes in. I often hear that "rich" can afford higher taxes so we should squeeze them harder. That's poor and middle class warfare against the rich.
I hate our tax code and would much rather see a flat tax that favors no one.
I believe that taxes should be levied on "wealth" not "income." Everything else is just class warfare against the poor and middle class.
And taxation rates based on wealth does not pit one class against another?Ummm, how does "I'm not picky about the license" equate to GPL only?
/x
Also, he's looking to save money. There are lots of apps/games/"edutainment" for Linux that could save the library money and commercial license hassles, not to mention the "Windows Tax". While there are more titles available for Windows, I wouldn't discount the idea that decent options exist for a free (both kinds) OS.
OP has root servers confused with TLD servers. The root servers should rarely need to be queried.