Something I've thought for a long time. Perhaps software giant RedHat could be persuaded to set up a match-escrow account for folks who would be willing to donate bucks for such a thing.
I'm sick of seeing algorithms and useful-but-unpatentable ideas being patented and people who used them _first_ being harassed/harangued/sued for having done so.
Why should Theo go along? The domain name is _his_. He registered it _first_, and it belongs to _him_. I don't know Theo other than having asked a question or two of him on an OBSD tech channel, but there are those who have spoken more with him that have a very high opinion of him.
Certainly, Theo is in the right. Certainly, he should be able to demand whatever he wants for the domain name, should he even choose to relinquish it at all, which is and should ever be his right.
I personally would be very pissed off if a lawyer contacted me regarding a domain name I registered instead of a CEO of a company that wanted to use it. I might have sold the thing to them reasonably if the guy in charge had simply had enough balls to ask. As it is, a lawyer making a request like that of me will find only a huge list of demands and high-priced goodies in order for me to give something like that up.
Rock on, Theo. Don't let the fuggers drag you down.
I agree with the idea of a consumption-based tax, exempting things like staple food items. This would allow me to save money as I saw fit, and invest money where I wanted it invested. Woe be to me if I spend money, for I will be taxed, but then that was my _choice_.
The VAT, though, is a different can of worms. A system where value added is ascertained at each step of production of a saleable good (flour mill pays VAT for wheat, since the farmer added value by harvesting; baker pays VAT for flour since the mill added value to the wheat by grinding it, etc.) is, IMNSHO, questionable at best. Why not tax based on the price of the loaf of bread when it's sold? The sale of the loaf of bread benefits everyone from the farmer to the consumer, and it's cheaper without the value-add steps racking up dollars for the government.
The tax rate would likely be higher at sale, but that would be offset by the lower base-price of the goods. In a system where things like staple foods are exempted, a VAT tax will still raise prices on those who can least afford it.
Ayn Rand is dead. She cannot be proud, nor can she disapprove of what I believe.
The reason I haven't left, as I have stated before, is because I have not yet collected enough money to do so. A plane ticket is but one piece of the puzzle. I could do that in a month.
I have debt to take care of before I would be free to leave (the government frowns on skipping the country without having paid student loans, ya know?), and I would have to pay money to ship such belongings as I would require to my country of destination. I would have to pay a fee to get a passport, get a visa to live and work in another country, and any number of other levels of red tape.
No, it's quite a lot more difficult than simply boarding a plane, but I suspect you knew that.
I would far rather see no taxes on e-commerce, and to let Smith's "Invisible Hand" guide the market than to allow taxes and get the "Invisible Foot" of government into the picture.
Because it is _illegal_ to grow in the U.S. because of its relationship to Marijuana. I won't get into a drug-philosophy argument here, but that's the facts.
Yes, there are many things much worse than pot available to everyone every day. That's not the issue.
Some regulations are reasonable. It just happens that that particular one is _not_.
Indeed. In fact, we're one of the most highly taxed societies in the world. I'd much rather move to a country that takes 50% of my income but is _honest_ about it, and doesn't require more of me than that.
To put all this tripe in perspective, God only wants 10%.
In that case, then, many blacks should not have to pay taxes at all. But, they were born here and as such have "consented" to pay the taxes.
Your line of reasoning is utter bull.
The reason I don't live somewhere else is because I've not yet collected enough money to move somewhere else. I can't do that because the government has coerced me to give about 50% (figuring in sales taxes, municipal/state/etc. taxes, licensing fees for various things, etc.) of my money to them.
I could make my own way very well, and help a lot of people to make their way by providing me goods and services, for which I would trade them money, if I had more money to spend on things _I_ choose.
Umm... 15% _just for Social Security_. That's on top of the 33% or so I pay for income tax, and whatever the percentage is for Medicare. We don't get what we pay for down here, and adding socialized medicine to that (and a new layer of taxes to fund it) would be one way to make it worse.
> Some of the biggest "capitalists" got their money by inheriting it, and then investing that (which has little to do > with talent and nothing to do with hard work, but I guess you could put it under "luck.")
And' what's wrong with that? If I were rich, I'd certainly want to leave my wealth to my kids when I die. I'd teach them to be responsible with money while I was alive by making them _work_ to get their own.
So what, though, if my kids get a lot of money from me? Do they spend it? Do they help the economy by doing so? Why can't _my_ talent/hard work extend to them?
Death and taxes. Two things you can count on, bundled in a new, comprehensive package. Bah.
> 6 years ago Al Gore bragged that he'd grown, and sold tobacco when he was trying to get the votes of tobacco > farmers. Today he does his best to put those farmers out of work.
If the government in all its auspices is so hot and bothered to put tobacco farmers out of business, as apparently they are (even though there has been a warning on those damn little packs for twenty-odd years that says, "Hey, moron, smoking will rot your friggin' lungs and turn your children's heads into turnips."), then I must ask what the tobacco farmers are to do when tobacco is made illegal.
I have a suggestion, but more on that in a moment.
There is also great concern that our forests are being logged into oblivion and that the paper industry, among others, is killing trees to make more paper for the wasteful public.
My suggestion addresses this topic, as well.
Cotton producers must use tons of chemical fertilizers to bring in their crops, thereby polluting our streams, rivers, and groundwater with chemicals that wouldn't otherwise be there.
Surprise, surprise, I can address this, too.
In a completely non-computer-related branch of discussion, I'd suggest letting tobacco farmers and cotton farmers grow hemp (not marijuana, the high-THC derivative of hemp).
Hemp grows everywhere naturally. It's a weed that requires very little in the way of special nutrients to grow very well. Hemp grows much taller than an average man, grows quickly, and can be grown in small spaces, and crowded rows.
Hemp paper is of finer grade than wood-pulp paper. Fabric made of hemp is comparable to that made of cotton, both in its ability to breathe and to take dyes. The best rope is made of hemp (that's what our navy uses to this day).
Breaking these farmers will serve only to put them on welfare, for which I have to pay. I'd much rather pay a cheaper price for paper goods and clothing, at my own discretion, than to be forced to pay for these farmers to stand in welfare lines.
Okay, a 3% tax on all e-commerce funneled to the county in which the buyer resides.
On the surface, that sounds plausible and even reasonable. But let's look at the other side.
What about the city in which the buyer lives? Shouldn't they be "entitled" to a share of that revenue, since the city government has more direct dealing with the consumer? It is, after all, for the most part, city coffers that have to fund police forces, maintain physical infrastructure, and the like. Why shouldn't a city get a share?
So, let's add a 2% municipal tax to that transaction.
But, now, what about the state? It's the state government that has to fund highway patrols, pay workers to maintain highways, maintain national guard armories, distribute welfare checks, keep our parks beautiful, and do all the other neat stuff a state government does. Shouldn't the buyer's state get a slice of that?
Okay, we'll add another 3% to the price of the purchase for state taxes.
But, now, what about the feds? The federal government regulates us, protects us, ensures our freedom, and does all that other good stuff. Shouldn't the feds get a piece of the pie?
So, let's add 5% to the price of the purchase for federal taxes.
We'll do this all incrementally, of course, if we let the ball start rolling in that direction. If the ball never starts rolling, it can never get to this point.
By extension, the new taxes on E-commerce could then say, "Well, what about the community in which the product is made? That community has to maintain its roads and such, and take care of its citizens, so shouldn't they get a chunk?"
Though I don't doubt the motives of Newt Gingrich, or that he is indeed an honorable man (which I do believe... I like Newt), I have to take issue with your idealization of the Republican party.
The Republicans have proven themselves as ineffective as the Democrats in dealing with the issues that need to be addressed. In '94, I had a lot of hope that things would start turning around, that there would be some real reform in our system because we had a Republican congress. Now I'm convinced that the only real fix for the problem is to "throw _ALL_ the bums out".
Republicans are gas-bags, for the most part, tall on political rhetoric (which is, in part, right-minded), but short on political will, and just as money-driven as any damn Democrat, for whom they regularly bend over.
> Do we *REALLY* want to give ecommerce an inherent tax advantage over local brick and mortar stores, and if > so, why?
How about we cut taxes on locally-sold goods, too, to even out the disparity?
Why isn't e-commerce taxed? Well, I don't necessarily want to pay the same tax rate for something I buy as, say, someone in a high-tax place like NY, but that's the only place product XYZ is available. Now, XYZ Widget Corp. would love to sell me their widgets, but because it would cost extra money to a) pay NY state taxes on the purchase, b) pay MO state taxes on the purchase (don't think that wouldn't happen... it's government, and they're out to screw you and me), I might be able to do something else.
E-commerce is not taxed for the same reason as interstate commerce is not taxed. It would be a friggin' nightmare to do so and keep all of the tax codes for all of the various municipalities, counties, states, and all the other rubbish in sync.
Besides which, taxing commerce in that sense is just plain stupid. The ripple effect of my purchase of XYZ widgets in NY will help the XYZ widget company to pay its employees, which will then help local car dealerships and grocery stores and such to pay their employees, which will then help to pay fast food stores employees' wages, etc.
At all these steps, where a wage is paid, the government already pulls an exorbitant amount of money from income tax, social security, medicare, and the like.
Why should there be any tax at all? Or, if there is to be a sales tax of some kind, why is there an income tax?
I get severely and sorely pissed off every two weeks when I see my check stub and that yet another third (and then some, after Medicare, Social Insecurity, etc.) has been taken away from me without my consent.
I can do better investing 15% of my income than the government can dream about. I could have one _HELL_ of a retirement savings if I weren't coerced into giving that money to the government every time.
It serves no purpose berating the government for a correct decision, true. However, unless there is eternal vigilance, such a law will be passed. The government is _NOT_ your friend, it's _NOT_ here to help you, it's _NOT_ benevolent.
Stay on your guards, ladies and gentlemen, for surely some left-wing weirdo (I've actually talked to some who think indoctrination camps for kids, government schools where the parents ship the kids away to be educated, were a just and decent thing... wtf is that?) will try this again.
With all the gun-maker law suits, the tobacco law suits, and all the other Really Stupid [tm] things happening in these last few years, I want to move somewhere else.
That would be nice, as DU has a few nice features that could blend very well into a Linux setup. The most important thing for Compaq to do, though, and the thing that will help them to compete with Merced, is to work with Cygnus to get their compiler technology for Alphas into the hands of developers. DEC's compilers kick much in the way of ass on the Alpha platform, and the GNU compilers can't reasonably compete (except on cost, where I will always favor a GNU compiler over a $3K/yr. DEC C++ license, thank you very much).
IMNSHO, Compaq/Digital will _HAVE_ to make their compilers available reasonably if they ever want to see Alpha take off. I'd spend $200 or so for a C/C++ compiler suite from Digital for an alpha, but I'd also like that compiler suite to be able to target, say, OpenBSD/Alpha.
Slashdot Mirror
Something I've thought for a long time. Perhaps software giant RedHat could be persuaded to set up a match-escrow account for folks who would be willing to donate bucks for such a thing.
I'm sick of seeing algorithms and useful-but-unpatentable ideas being patented and people who used them _first_ being harassed/harangued/sued for having done so.
I'll donate.
Where's the fund?
--C
Why should Theo go along? The domain name is _his_. He registered it _first_, and it belongs to _him_. I don't know Theo other than having asked a question or two of him on an OBSD tech channel, but there are those who have spoken more with him that have a very high opinion of him.
Certainly, Theo is in the right. Certainly, he should be able to demand whatever he wants for the domain name, should he even choose to relinquish it at all, which is and should ever be his right.
I personally would be very pissed off if a lawyer contacted me regarding a domain name I registered instead of a CEO of a company that wanted to use it. I might have sold the thing to them reasonably if the guy in charge had simply had enough balls to ask. As it is, a lawyer making a request like that of me will find only a huge list of demands and high-priced goodies in order for me to give something like that up.
Rock on, Theo. Don't let the fuggers drag you down.
--Corey
should be fairly simple to write, if you can't find sources, or alias a bash builtin with the correct switches.
--C
Or organized crime...
I agree with the idea of a consumption-based tax, exempting things like staple food items. This would allow me to save money as I saw fit, and invest money where I wanted it invested. Woe be to me if I spend money, for I will be taxed, but then that was my _choice_.
The VAT, though, is a different can of worms. A system where value added is ascertained at each step of production of a saleable good (flour mill pays VAT for wheat, since the farmer added value by harvesting; baker pays VAT for flour since the mill added value to the wheat by grinding it, etc.) is, IMNSHO, questionable at best. Why not tax based on the price of the loaf of bread when it's sold? The sale of the loaf of bread benefits everyone from the farmer to the consumer, and it's cheaper without the value-add steps racking up dollars for the government.
The tax rate would likely be higher at sale, but that would be offset by the lower base-price of the goods. In a system where things like staple foods are exempted, a VAT tax will still raise prices on those who can least afford it.
--Corey
Ayn Rand is dead. She cannot be proud, nor can she disapprove of what I believe.
The reason I haven't left, as I have stated before, is because I have not yet collected enough money to do so. A plane ticket is but one piece of the puzzle. I could do that in a month.
I have debt to take care of before I would be free to leave (the government frowns on skipping the country without having paid student loans, ya know?), and I would have to pay money to ship such belongings as I would require to my country of destination. I would have to pay a fee to get a passport, get a visa to live and work in another country, and any number of other levels of red tape.
No, it's quite a lot more difficult than simply boarding a plane, but I suspect you knew that.
--C
I would far rather see no taxes on e-commerce, and to let Smith's "Invisible Hand" guide the market than to allow taxes and get the "Invisible Foot" of government into the picture.
--C
Because it is _illegal_ to grow in the U.S. because of its relationship to Marijuana. I won't get into a drug-philosophy argument here, but that's the facts.
Yes, there are many things much worse than pot available to everyone every day. That's not the issue.
Some regulations are reasonable. It just happens that that particular one is _not_.
--C
Indeed. In fact, we're one of the most highly taxed societies in the world. I'd much rather move to a country that takes 50% of my income but is _honest_ about it, and doesn't require more of me than that.
To put all this tripe in perspective, God only wants 10%.
--C
In that case, then, many blacks should not have to pay taxes at all. But, they were born here and as such have "consented" to pay the taxes.
Your line of reasoning is utter bull.
The reason I don't live somewhere else is because I've not yet collected enough money to move somewhere else. I can't do that because the government has coerced me to give about 50% (figuring in sales taxes, municipal/state/etc. taxes, licensing fees for various things, etc.) of my money to them.
I could make my own way very well, and help a lot of people to make their way by providing me goods and services, for which I would trade them money, if I had more money to spend on things _I_ choose.
--C
Umm... 15% _just for Social Security_. That's on top of the 33% or so I pay for income tax, and whatever the percentage is for Medicare. We don't get what we pay for down here, and adding socialized medicine to that (and a new layer of taxes to fund it) would be one way to make it worse.
--C
> Some of the biggest "capitalists" got their money by inheriting it, and then investing that (which has little to do
> with talent and nothing to do with hard work, but I guess you could put it under "luck.")
And' what's wrong with that? If I were rich, I'd certainly want to leave my wealth to my kids when I die. I'd teach them to be responsible with money while I was alive by making them _work_ to get their own.
So what, though, if my kids get a lot of money from me? Do they spend it? Do they help the economy by doing so? Why can't _my_ talent/hard work extend to them?
Death and taxes. Two things you can count on, bundled in a new, comprehensive package. Bah.
--C
> 6 years ago Al Gore bragged that he'd grown, and sold tobacco when he was trying to get the votes of tobacco
> farmers. Today he does his best to put those farmers out of work.
If the government in all its auspices is so hot and bothered to put tobacco farmers out of business, as apparently they are (even though there has been a warning on those damn little packs for twenty-odd years that says, "Hey, moron, smoking will rot your friggin' lungs and turn your children's heads into turnips."), then I must ask what the tobacco farmers are to do when tobacco is made illegal.
I have a suggestion, but more on that in a moment.
There is also great concern that our forests are being logged into oblivion and that the paper industry, among others, is killing trees to make more paper for the wasteful public.
My suggestion addresses this topic, as well.
Cotton producers must use tons of chemical fertilizers to bring in their crops, thereby polluting our streams, rivers, and groundwater with chemicals that wouldn't otherwise be there.
Surprise, surprise, I can address this, too.
In a completely non-computer-related branch of discussion, I'd suggest letting tobacco farmers and cotton farmers grow hemp (not marijuana, the high-THC derivative of hemp).
Hemp grows everywhere naturally. It's a weed that requires very little in the way of special nutrients to grow very well. Hemp grows much taller than an average man, grows quickly, and can be grown in small spaces, and crowded rows.
Hemp paper is of finer grade than wood-pulp paper. Fabric made of hemp is comparable to that made of cotton, both in its ability to breathe and to take dyes. The best rope is made of hemp (that's what our navy uses to this day).
Breaking these farmers will serve only to put them on welfare, for which I have to pay. I'd much rather pay a cheaper price for paper goods and clothing, at my own discretion, than to be forced to pay for these farmers to stand in welfare lines.
--C
Okay, a 3% tax on all e-commerce funneled to the county in which the buyer resides.
On the surface, that sounds plausible and even reasonable. But let's look at the other side.
What about the city in which the buyer lives? Shouldn't they be "entitled" to a share of that revenue, since the city government has more direct dealing with the consumer? It is, after all, for the most part, city coffers that have to fund police forces, maintain physical infrastructure, and the like. Why shouldn't a city get a share?
So, let's add a 2% municipal tax to that transaction.
But, now, what about the state? It's the state government that has to fund highway patrols, pay workers to maintain highways, maintain national guard armories, distribute welfare checks, keep our parks beautiful, and do all the other neat stuff a state government does. Shouldn't the buyer's state get a slice of that?
Okay, we'll add another 3% to the price of the purchase for state taxes.
But, now, what about the feds? The federal government regulates us, protects us, ensures our freedom, and does all that other good stuff. Shouldn't the feds get a piece of the pie?
So, let's add 5% to the price of the purchase for federal taxes.
We'll do this all incrementally, of course, if we let the ball start rolling in that direction. If the ball never starts rolling, it can never get to this point.
By extension, the new taxes on E-commerce could then say, "Well, what about the community in which the product is made? That community has to maintain its roads and such, and take care of its citizens, so shouldn't they get a chunk?"
Don't let it happen.
--C
Excuse me if your post was meant in jest.
Though I don't doubt the motives of Newt Gingrich, or that he is indeed an honorable man (which I do believe... I like Newt), I have to take issue with your idealization of the Republican party.
The Republicans have proven themselves as ineffective as the Democrats in dealing with the issues that need to be addressed. In '94, I had a lot of hope that things would start turning around, that there would be some real reform in our system because we had a Republican congress. Now I'm convinced that the only real fix for the problem is to "throw _ALL_ the bums out".
Republicans are gas-bags, for the most part, tall on political rhetoric (which is, in part, right-minded), but short on political will, and just as money-driven as any damn Democrat, for whom they regularly bend over.
Gah... where's my ticket out?
--C
> Do we *REALLY* want to give ecommerce an inherent tax advantage over local brick and mortar stores, and if
> so, why?
How about we cut taxes on locally-sold goods, too, to even out the disparity?
Why isn't e-commerce taxed? Well, I don't necessarily want to pay the same tax rate for something I buy as, say, someone in a high-tax place like NY, but that's the only place product XYZ is available. Now, XYZ Widget Corp. would love to sell me their widgets, but because it would cost extra money to a) pay NY state taxes on the purchase, b) pay MO state taxes on the purchase (don't think that wouldn't happen... it's government, and they're out to screw you and me), I might be able to do something else.
E-commerce is not taxed for the same reason as interstate commerce is not taxed. It would be a friggin' nightmare to do so and keep all of the tax codes for all of the various municipalities, counties, states, and all the other rubbish in sync.
Besides which, taxing commerce in that sense is just plain stupid. The ripple effect of my purchase of XYZ widgets in NY will help the XYZ widget company to pay its employees, which will then help local car dealerships and grocery stores and such to pay their employees, which will then help to pay fast food stores employees' wages, etc.
At all these steps, where a wage is paid, the government already pulls an exorbitant amount of money from income tax, social security, medicare, and the like.
Why should there be any tax at all? Or, if there is to be a sales tax of some kind, why is there an income tax?
--C
... is all I can say to that.
I get severely and sorely pissed off every two weeks when I see my check stub and that yet another third (and then some, after Medicare, Social Insecurity, etc.) has been taken away from me without my consent.
I can do better investing 15% of my income than the government can dream about. I could have one _HELL_ of a retirement savings if I weren't coerced into giving that money to the government every time.
Friggin' Democrats and their Republican lapdogs.
Where's my gun?
--C
It serves no purpose berating the government for a correct decision, true. However, unless there is eternal vigilance, such a law will be passed. The government is _NOT_ your friend, it's _NOT_ here to help you, it's _NOT_ benevolent.
Stay on your guards, ladies and gentlemen, for surely some left-wing weirdo (I've actually talked to some who think indoctrination camps for kids, government schools where the parents ship the kids away to be educated, were a just and decent thing... wtf is that?) will try this again.
With all the gun-maker law suits, the tobacco law suits, and all the other Really Stupid [tm] things happening in these last few years, I want to move somewhere else.
--C
That would be nice, as DU has a few nice features that could blend very well into a Linux setup. The most important thing for Compaq to do, though, and the thing that will help them to compete with Merced, is to work with Cygnus to get their compiler technology for Alphas into the hands of developers. DEC's compilers kick much in the way of ass on the Alpha platform, and the GNU compilers can't reasonably compete (except on cost, where I will always favor a GNU compiler over a $3K/yr. DEC C++ license, thank you very much).
IMNSHO, Compaq/Digital will _HAVE_ to make their compilers available reasonably if they ever want to see Alpha take off. I'd spend $200 or so for a C/C++ compiler suite from Digital for an alpha, but I'd also like that compiler suite to be able to target, say, OpenBSD/Alpha.
--Corey
Security by secrecy is a red herring. Look to OpenBSD for a _very_ secure, free OS for multiple architectures.
--C
Mmm... and then we could try to take over the world.
--c
So pick up Harmony and fix the whole mess. Or don't, and shut up.
Yes, it is _just_that_easy_. You have the source, so go out there and use it!
--C
Then fix it. Pick up the Harmony project and just f**king fix the problem.
End of story.
--C
They've bound and gagged RMS and stuffed him in the handiest closet at OSI headquarters.
--C
I am he of whom you speak. I will make Big Business [tm] see the One True Light of Open Source Reason or KILL THEM in trying.
You may all kiss my ring.
Thank you,
--Corey