Yes, reducing taxes not only increases federal tax revenue, but it increases the standard of living for the poorest among us, as well as the number of jobs, etc. etc.
There is no reason that current spending levels should be maintained-- half the budget is spent on things that make people's lives WORSE, not better.
The best tax proposal I've seen lately is the Fair Tax. You can see it at www.fairtax.org.
It doesn't reduce government spending, but it does replace the current taxation system... as someone who spends very little money (I have lived at the poverty level, though I wasn't impoverished) I'd beenefit greatly from the Fair Tax, but so would anyone who was poor.... whats more it puts the taxation on the people who actually tie money up in objects, rather than reinvest it in jobs, etc.
Total tax revenue doubled under the Reagan administration, not just income taxes. But since they all go into the same pot and get spent willy nilly, its the same money.
In the end it is Larry's money and he is free to do with it what he will.
Ah, so at least you recognize human rights even if you think they shouldn't exist?
IF you recognize this, wtf are you whining about kids in east africa?
Along these lines of it being "important for us to take care of each other" are you willing to train with weapons and go topple the brutal dictatorships that lead to kids starving in east africa (or wherever?)
Cause if you aren't willing to take up arms yourself and put your body in the line of fire, all your complaining about how someone else uses the money is just complaining that they don't pour their money down the toilet.
And, furthermore, you miss the fact that larry did more to eradicate poverty in the process of accumulating that supposed $700M than the entire Clinton administration with trillions in federal spending.
Well, except for one thing. The oil in question isn't being "Acquired by imperialism". It was bought many years ago by free consent.
At least in Saudi Arabia, and I'm pretty sure in Iraq and Iran, in the early 1900s american comapanies signed agreements with those countries to co-develop their oil resources. They had oil but no money to develop them. We had the money to drill and export. They split profits.
This worked great for awhile, the countries standard of living went up, the americans made money and everyone was happy.
Then, the Saudis (and the other countries as well) executed imperialism by nationalizing the oil fields.
They broke their agreement.
The americans, being wimps, did not go to war with them then.
Therefore, anything we do to insure the flow of oil is justified-- that oil was stolen from us in the first place.
Like most all free enterprise, US businesses raise the standard of living in the regions they do business, and like most cases where liberals accuse us of "economic imperialism" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one-- imperialism is by force, all economics are done by free consent)-- the person who actually devestated the region is the brutal dictator who came to power there.
Or do you think people shouldn't be held to the contracts they agree to and benefit from?
But I agree with you completely on the passive sniffing. Maybe even a passive metal detector.
I'm glad you just compared going thru airport security with walking into a den of thieves.
I certainly don't consider them to be anything better than mobsters myself.
So, to correct your correction: "The Federal Air Marshals pick you up at gunpoint and force you into the worst part of town with your laptop, you start walking home, you get mugged. Who's fault is it?"
You're getting sick of repeating this but you just won't get it thru your thick head.
Airports are not privately owned.
Your ticket doesn't give up your fourth amendments rights.
Since you don't have the choice NOT to consent, your 4th ammendment rights are being violated.
IF the airports were privately owned, and the security checkpoint was run by a private company, what you say would be true. You seem to think it is.
But you are wrong. They are not, they are the federal government, and the feds have to follow the constitution.
Until you can decide to get on a plane without being searched, your 4th amendment rights are being violated whenever they search you. You seem to think that if the airline didn't mind you could get on the plane without being searched--- that you are consenting as part of your contract with the airline-- but YOU ARE WRONG. Airlines want their pilots to be able to get to the planes without being searched, but the FEDS SEARCH THEM ANYWAY. IF what you say is true, then the airlines could send their personnel thru.
Being searched is NOT a condition of flying because the airlines make it one (the disclaimer you keep talking about doesn't even say that. It says they reserve the right to search you-- which THEY Do, not the feds, THEM. The checkpoint is not the airline searching you. Sheesh.)..... being searched is a federal rule, and it violates the 4th ammendment.
I'm getting sick and tired of arguing with stupid sheep who just want to give up the constitution because they don't really believe in human rights at all. Fine. You be a sheep, just stop trying to tell me I don't have the rights guaranteed there.
The reason a lawyer will not take the case is not because it isn't a right, but because idiots like you have so much sway that human rights are not defensible in this country anymore. The feds have made themselves above the law... and one day, probably very soon, you are going to live to regret that fact. And painfully.
I said that by boarding an airplane, you waive your fourth amendment right and it is therefore perfectly legal for airport security personnel to search you.
You have made this claim many times, but you have given us no reason to believe it.
How is walking to the gate giving up your fourth amendment rights? Nowhere are you saying "yes you can search me"....
When you have a gun pointed at you it is not consent. When you cannot go around the security checkpoint without a gun being pointed at you, it is not consent. you have not waived your rights.
Your rights have been impeded.
By your argument, there is no possible situation where the fourth amendment applies-- whenever the feds decide to search you, you have given up your rights by doing whatever it was you were doing when they searched you.
This isn't high school stuff, its logic. Any human should understand it.
I understand now. Your complaint is that you oppose human rights, not sailing.
The ironic thing is that people like yourself who think that the rich owe them something, when you suceed, what you create is rampant starvation, civil war, and illiteracy.
Better to let Larry reinvest the money-- hell that $700Million will do more to fight poverty than the same $700M spent by the feds on schools.
Cutting taxes increases tax revenue becuase the money that would otherwise be wasted by the government is invested, and that capital allows growth in the economy and job creation. Said job creation not only increases average wages but also increases the income to the federal government in income taxes at the lower level.
It sounds like you've been buying the anti-rich conspiracy theories of liberals... unfortunately they don't fit the real world economic model.
What possible way do you become liable for someone elses mismanagmeent?
Because a guy with a gun makes you hand over your laptop, you're liable?
Therefore, by your logic, every person who is mugged is liable because they "volunteered" to give the mugger their money-- the gun doesn't matter, huh?
Sheesh.
Its like a nation full of people saying "I wet the bed, I have no rights, screw me over, I like it."
Where are the strong competent people who demanded the bill of rights while their brothers scoffed saying "no government would ever do these things, the bill of rights is redundant".
BZZT. Sorry, the security people have NEVER (as long has I've been flying- 15 years) been owned and run by the airlines.
They have always been federally forced and the airlines forced to pay for it without any choice of who gets hired or not (so the airlines can't ensure that decent reasonable people who won't abuse their employees are hired.)
Now its even worse- they are all federal employees.
.an airport is a private (not open to the general public) place.
BZZZT Wrong.
Every airport I've been to has been a public place, owned by a municipality. Not a company.
There are no private airports that land 737s and larger in the US, AFAIK. All private airports are small airports for non-jet aircraft.
Furthermore, if the airport WAS private property,the fourth amendment would apply and the feds wouldn't even be allowed on the airports property... but even if the airport consented, that doesn't mean you have to consent. So searching you at a private airport without your consent would still be a violation of your fourth amendment rights.
You're not thinking very clearly. If you were right, then you could choose to go to the gate without going thru the security.
You could choose to just say no to the unwarranted search.
Of course, if you did that, you'd be hauled in and questioned by the FBI.
In no way are you waiving your rights to go thru the security-- being forced to go thru the security checkpoint *AS A COURSE OF YOUR DAILY BUSINESS* without probably cause is a flat out violation of the fourth amendment.
IF it were a private company and those were the terms of your agreement with them, then you would be right.
But the federal government does not have the right to interfere with your business with the airline in this way.
IT is violating the fourth amendment.
Hell, the second amendment gives you the right to carry a gun into a court room, in a federal building.
The reason they get away with dismantling the bill of rights is so many wimps want the bill of rights dismantled and say nothing when they do.
The fourth amendment applies because there is no probable cause simply by taking a plane.
It doesn't matter that you choose to buy a ticket-- hell, the fourth amendment is enforcing that you not only have the right to buy a ticket, but to fly without being searched.
Yes, it would be really nice to have the Bill of Rights back.
But since the stated party positions of both the Democrat and Republican parties flat out oppose the bill of rights, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I don't see how "we must search you because you might have a weapon" was ever valid, let alone when the constitution was written and people DID walk around with weapons.
Hell, having a weapon isn't even probable cause. When did we become such a nation of bedwetters that someone owning a gun makes us scared?
"The nation that disarms itself will fall to the first thug who comes by." That thug may very well be a politician who siezes control of the army.
We shouldn't be arguing about whether pilots can have guns, we should be requesting that every trained person with a concealed carry license be carrying when they board the plane.
You want to stop thugs, disarming yourself is not exactly a bright idea.
That's the great thing about the federal government-- they have ultimate authority with no responsibility.
So, not only do we get LESS security in airports now that they are bringing in their DMV level idiots to handle everyone's stuff, but we have no recourse when they drop your laptop.
I've had mine dropped by a dipthong in Tulsa Oklahoma. I got upset and he got irate at me that I could be upset that he dropped my laptop! I almost decked him. If he'd said, "I'm sorry! It slipped, is it ok?" I would have not cared, but instead he was telling me to hurry up as I bent down to pick up my laptop.
Anyway, I would go after the airport. If you have damage go to the manager of the airport and take it up with them . Airports, despite being oppressed by the feds, are generally a business, even if they too are a local municipalities business. So, their guy is likely to be at least a bit concerned about market forces and try to make it right.
This is only going to get worse. After all, it was the federal government that was responsible for the poor security that lead to 9/11, and their response has been to totally take over airport security (Rather than just meddling to make it useless). The correct response would be to let each airline be responsible for its OWN security-- nobody has an interest in keeping their multimillion dollar planes intact while still providing customer service like an airline. Furthermore, with them responsible for security on their flights if something DID happen they would be facing a lawsuit-- and so they have motivation to provide good security.
With the federal government, their only motivation is power and re-electability. so if they can make noise like they are doing something bout it, and the country is mollified and at the same time get more power over us (hoe long until these weapons searches become drug searches as well?) then they are happy. And so many of you are bedwetting liberals and christian conservatives that you love the government and want it to take over your lives completely... so we have the feds--responsible for the initial failure on 9/11-- taking over the area that could prevent it. And nobody is holding them accountable.
As long as you don't hold your government accountable, you get what you deserve.
The horror stories are regular-- there's the guy who had his yacht seized by the coast guard because one of their dogs barked *once* during a boarding. They seized the yacht, tore it apart, couldn't find anything. So they decided that the fiberglass hull must be made out of cocaine (which is inane- the process would be more expensive than the value of the cocaine.) And thus they drilled 80,000 holes in the hull looking for cocaine. They didn't find anything. They boat was ruined, the guy sued, he appealed all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled that he didn't have a case.
Cause you can't sue the federal government.
You call this a democracy? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. Stop putting up with this incompetence and poor management. And to think- you're paying %50 of your income in total taxes* for the privilege!
If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.
* Some bedwetting liberal always complains about this number pointing out that the highest tax bracket is "only" (yeah, they'd love it to be more) %35. Well, lets assume you're paying some average of %25 in federal taxes. On top of that you have %16 social security (your half and your employers half-- you don't think he doesn't make *you* earn his half of that cost do you?) another %14 for medicaide, another %8 for all the money you spend in local sales taxes (assuming %8 local sales tax, that you spend most of your money locally and pay taxes, and that you only invest a small amount of your money at the long term, netting a tax of %10 on that, rather than %25 for short term investing).... that leaves %63 of your income going to taxes. And I've not even counted car tab fees, property taxes, state or local income taxes!, GASOLINE taxes which are almost %50, etc. etc. So, saying %50 of your money goes to taxes is being generous.
Well, there's one thing you might try: instead of sharing the drive between two machines over firewire, share the *machines* over firewire.
Since you seem to be working with video, its no surprise that ethernet isn't working (over smb). And the file format issues are going to always be suspect (in my mind) even if both machines officially supported the same format.
So, what I would try to do is network the machines using firewire and Firewire IP, and then share the drive using whatever protocol works from the Mac to the Linux box.
The big wrinkle of course is whether both support firewire IP. I'm not even sure the Mac does, and IU suspect Linux doesn't yet, but I could be wrong. It seems to be a pretty new standard.
Please explain to me why wealth needs to be spread evenly, and I should be allowed to sit at home and not work and expect my fair share of the wealth?
The I'll point out the mathematical problems with this, and maybe you'll see that those who are wealthy earned their money and those who are poor either haven't had a chance to earn it yet, or choose not to.
Some people choose to live in a sailboat travelling around the world on less than $5,000 a year in income.... they are "poor" and below the poverty line, but they have chosen that life and I say they have a right to it.
The liberal idea that the rich somehow stole the money they have is just bitterness at sitting on your ass and wasting your productive years.
Take responsibility for your own situation.
When I meet someone who's hard on their luck, my instinct is to help.
When I meet a mugger who wants my money by force, I either defend it or tell them to go to hell.
You are the latter, you are not talking about people who are hard on their luck and how we should try to help them. You are talking about the forced redistribution of wealth at gunpoint.
Which makes you, morally, no better than the average mugger on this point.
As they do have obituaries regularly. People are lost at sea all the time. Some are merely injured, but it is easy to be in life threatening situations.
You say "splash" as if the water is warm. Where I sail, inside of 15 minutes unprotected in the water you are looking at serious consequences and possible death.
When you've been in a small boat in 50 MPH winds and 5-10 foot seas, then you can come tell me its nothing like rock climbing.
Well, Milton Friedman's son certainly agrees with me, as I've talked to him. I can' say for sure about Milton Friedman, but given that I am repeating what he proved to the world, I can say with pretty high confidence that he does.t
Keynes was the source of the poverty you are trying to eradicate. Yes, pretty much all economists have agreed with Friedman in latter years--- sure they disagree on minor points-- but capitalism is not in doubt.
I note that you have failed to cite an economist that agrees with your position, Marx does not count.
OK, Marx does count- anyone can call themselves an economist, but he's been completely discredited. Yet he *does* agree with you.
Sorry, its not my responsiblirty, nor is there bandwidth here to educate you in economics.
But you should go take some courses if you really care about this subject.
I find it interesting that you can say things that are flat out wrong, and known to be wrong by everyone with a basic economics understanding, without providing any reason or evidence to support them.
But when I point out that this is wrong, you demand proof.
You engage in a wholesale denial of reality-- look at india which has eliminated more poverty in the last 20 years than the US ever has, in terms of number of people-- and insist that I prove to you that the world exists.
And on top of that you try to insult me-- as if it wasn't patently obvious that you don't have a reasoned response, you have to try and get a dig in there to prove it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, reducing taxes not only increases federal tax revenue, but it increases the standard of living for the poorest among us, as well as the number of jobs, etc. etc.
There is no reason that current spending levels should be maintained-- half the budget is spent on things that make people's lives WORSE, not better.
The best tax proposal I've seen lately is the Fair Tax. You can see it at www.fairtax.org.
It doesn't reduce government spending, but it does replace the current taxation system... as someone who spends very little money (I have lived at the poverty level, though I wasn't impoverished) I'd beenefit greatly from the Fair Tax, but so would anyone who was poor.... whats more it puts the taxation on the people who actually tie money up in objects, rather than reinvest it in jobs, etc.
Total tax revenue doubled under the Reagan administration, not just income taxes. But since they all go into the same pot and get spent willy nilly, its the same money.
In the end it is Larry's money and he is free to do with it what he will.
Ah, so at least you recognize human rights even if you think they shouldn't exist?
IF you recognize this, wtf are you whining about kids in east africa?
Along these lines of it being "important for us to take care of each other" are you willing to train with weapons and go topple the brutal dictatorships that lead to kids starving in east africa (or wherever?)
Cause if you aren't willing to take up arms yourself and put your body in the line of fire, all your complaining about how someone else uses the money is just complaining that they don't pour their money down the toilet.
And, furthermore, you miss the fact that larry did more to eradicate poverty in the process of accumulating that supposed $700M than the entire Clinton administration with trillions in federal spending.
Well, except for one thing. The oil in question isn't being "Acquired by imperialism". It was bought many years ago by free consent.
At least in Saudi Arabia, and I'm pretty sure in Iraq and Iran, in the early 1900s american comapanies signed agreements with those countries to co-develop their oil resources. They had oil but no money to develop them. We had the money to drill and export. They split profits.
This worked great for awhile, the countries standard of living went up, the americans made money and everyone was happy.
Then, the Saudis (and the other countries as well) executed imperialism by nationalizing the oil fields.
They broke their agreement.
The americans, being wimps, did not go to war with them then.
Therefore, anything we do to insure the flow of oil is justified-- that oil was stolen from us in the first place.
Like most all free enterprise, US businesses raise the standard of living in the regions they do business, and like most cases where liberals accuse us of "economic imperialism" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one-- imperialism is by force, all economics are done by free consent)-- the person who actually devestated the region is the brutal dictator who came to power there.
Or do you think people shouldn't be held to the contracts they agree to and benefit from?
But I agree with you completely on the passive sniffing. Maybe even a passive metal detector.
I'm glad you just compared going thru airport security with walking into a den of thieves.
I certainly don't consider them to be anything better than mobsters myself.
So, to correct your correction: "The Federal Air Marshals pick you up at gunpoint and force you into the worst part of town with your laptop, you start walking home, you get mugged. Who's fault is it?"
You're getting sick of repeating this but you just won't get it thru your thick head.
Airports are not privately owned.
Your ticket doesn't give up your fourth amendments rights.
Since you don't have the choice NOT to consent, your 4th ammendment rights are being violated.
IF the airports were privately owned, and the security checkpoint was run by a private company, what you say would be true. You seem to think it is.
But you are wrong. They are not, they are the federal government, and the feds have to follow the constitution.
Until you can decide to get on a plane without being searched, your 4th amendment rights are being violated whenever they search you. You seem to think that if the airline didn't mind you could get on the plane without being searched--- that you are consenting as part of your contract with the airline-- but YOU ARE WRONG. Airlines want their pilots to be able to get to the planes without being searched, but the FEDS SEARCH THEM ANYWAY. IF what you say is true, then the airlines could send their personnel thru.
Being searched is NOT a condition of flying because the airlines make it one (the disclaimer you keep talking about doesn't even say that. It says they reserve the right to search you-- which THEY Do, not the feds, THEM. The checkpoint is not the airline searching you. Sheesh.)..... being searched is a federal rule, and it violates the 4th ammendment.
I'm getting sick and tired of arguing with stupid sheep who just want to give up the constitution because they don't really believe in human rights at all. Fine. You be a sheep, just stop trying to tell me I don't have the rights guaranteed there.
The reason a lawyer will not take the case is not because it isn't a right, but because idiots like you have so much sway that human rights are not defensible in this country anymore. The feds have made themselves above the law... and one day, probably very soon, you are going to live to regret that fact. And painfully.
Your "point" would make sense if you could board the commercial plane without going thru the security checkpoint.
Since attempting to do so will be met with *FORCE* you a ARE BEING FORCED.
In the car example, if you don't consent to be searched you can still drive.
The constitution is pretty clear on this. I don't see why you can't get it.
I said that by boarding an airplane, you waive your fourth amendment right and it is therefore perfectly legal for airport security personnel to search you.
You have made this claim many times, but you have given us no reason to believe it.
How is walking to the gate giving up your fourth amendment rights? Nowhere are you saying "yes you can search me"....
When you have a gun pointed at you it is not consent. When you cannot go around the security checkpoint without a gun being pointed at you, it is not consent. you have not waived your rights.
Your rights have been impeded.
By your argument, there is no possible situation where the fourth amendment applies-- whenever the feds decide to search you, you have given up your rights by doing whatever it was you were doing when they searched you.
This isn't high school stuff, its logic. Any human should understand it.
Larry ellison has done ocean racing, not just America's cup.
Hell, in the little regattas we have here we have intense dangerous experiences.
Don't let the fact that it is the Americas cup have you assume along with all the rich-hating bedwetters posting here, that Larry isn't a real sailor.
I understand now. Your complaint is that you oppose human rights, not sailing.
The ironic thing is that people like yourself who think that the rich owe them something, when you suceed, what you create is rampant starvation, civil war, and illiteracy.
Better to let Larry reinvest the money-- hell that $700Million will do more to fight poverty than the same $700M spent by the feds on schools.
The OMB.
Cutting taxes increases tax revenue becuase the money that would otherwise be wasted by the government is invested, and that capital allows growth in the economy and job creation. Said job creation not only increases average wages but also increases the income to the federal government in income taxes at the lower level.
It sounds like you've been buying the anti-rich conspiracy theories of liberals... unfortunately they don't fit the real world economic model.
What exactly is the LEGAL difference between a plane and a car?
What possible way do you become liable for someone elses mismanagmeent?
Because a guy with a gun makes you hand over your laptop, you're liable?
Therefore, by your logic, every person who is mugged is liable because they "volunteered" to give the mugger their money-- the gun doesn't matter, huh?
Sheesh.
Its like a nation full of people saying "I wet the bed, I have no rights, screw me over, I like it."
Where are the strong competent people who demanded the bill of rights while their brothers scoffed saying "no government would ever do these things, the bill of rights is redundant".
What happened to that nation?
BZZT. Sorry, the security people have NEVER (as long has I've been flying- 15 years) been owned and run by the airlines.
They have always been federally forced and the airlines forced to pay for it without any choice of who gets hired or not (so the airlines can't ensure that decent reasonable people who won't abuse their employees are hired.)
Now its even worse- they are all federal employees.
.an airport is a private (not open to the general public) place.
,the fourth amendment would apply and the feds wouldn't even be allowed on the airports property... but even if the airport consented, that doesn't mean you have to consent. So searching you at a private airport without your consent would still be a violation of your fourth amendment rights.
BZZZT Wrong.
Every airport I've been to has been a public place, owned by a municipality. Not a company.
There are no private airports that land 737s and larger in the US, AFAIK. All private airports are small airports for non-jet aircraft.
Furthermore, if the airport WAS private property
You're not thinking very clearly. If you were right, then you could choose to go to the gate without going thru the security.
You could choose to just say no to the unwarranted search.
Of course, if you did that, you'd be hauled in and questioned by the FBI.
In no way are you waiving your rights to go thru the security-- being forced to go thru the security checkpoint *AS A COURSE OF YOUR DAILY BUSINESS* without probably cause is a flat out violation of the fourth amendment.
IF it were a private company and those were the terms of your agreement with them, then you would be right.
But the federal government does not have the right to interfere with your business with the airline in this way.
IT is violating the fourth amendment.
Hell, the second amendment gives you the right to carry a gun into a court room, in a federal building.
The reason they get away with dismantling the bill of rights is so many wimps want the bill of rights dismantled and say nothing when they do.
Now that's just plane pathetic.
The fourth amendment applies because there is no probable cause simply by taking a plane.
It doesn't matter that you choose to buy a ticket-- hell, the fourth amendment is enforcing that you not only have the right to buy a ticket, but to fly without being searched.
Yes, it would be really nice to have the Bill of Rights back.
But since the stated party positions of both the Democrat and Republican parties flat out oppose the bill of rights, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I don't see how "we must search you because you might have a weapon" was ever valid, let alone when the constitution was written and people DID walk around with weapons.
Hell, having a weapon isn't even probable cause. When did we become such a nation of bedwetters that someone owning a gun makes us scared?
"The nation that disarms itself will fall to the first thug who comes by." That thug may very well be a politician who siezes control of the army.
We shouldn't be arguing about whether pilots can have guns, we should be requesting that every trained person with a concealed carry license be carrying when they board the plane.
You want to stop thugs, disarming yourself is not exactly a bright idea.
That's the great thing about the federal government-- they have ultimate authority with no responsibility.
So, not only do we get LESS security in airports now that they are bringing in their DMV level idiots to handle everyone's stuff, but we have no recourse when they drop your laptop.
I've had mine dropped by a dipthong in Tulsa Oklahoma. I got upset and he got irate at me that I could be upset that he dropped my laptop! I almost decked him. If he'd said, "I'm sorry! It slipped, is it ok?" I would have not cared, but instead he was telling me to hurry up as I bent down to pick up my laptop.
Anyway, I would go after the airport. If you have damage go to the manager of the airport and take it up with them . Airports, despite being oppressed by the feds, are generally a business, even if they too are a local municipalities business. So, their guy is likely to be at least a bit concerned about market forces and try to make it right.
This is only going to get worse. After all, it was the federal government that was responsible for the poor security that lead to 9/11, and their response has been to totally take over airport security (Rather than just meddling to make it useless). The correct response would be to let each airline be responsible for its OWN security-- nobody has an interest in keeping their multimillion dollar planes intact while still providing customer service like an airline. Furthermore, with them responsible for security on their flights if something DID happen they would be facing a lawsuit-- and so they have motivation to provide good security.
With the federal government, their only motivation is power and re-electability. so if they can make noise like they are doing something bout it, and the country is mollified and at the same time get more power over us (hoe long until these weapons searches become drug searches as well?) then they are happy. And so many of you are bedwetting liberals and christian conservatives that you love the government and want it to take over your lives completely... so we have the feds--responsible for the initial failure on 9/11-- taking over the area that could prevent it. And nobody is holding them accountable.
As long as you don't hold your government accountable, you get what you deserve.
The horror stories are regular-- there's the guy who had his yacht seized by the coast guard because one of their dogs barked *once* during a boarding. They seized the yacht, tore it apart, couldn't find anything. So they decided that the fiberglass hull must be made out of cocaine (which is inane- the process would be more expensive than the value of the cocaine.) And thus they drilled 80,000 holes in the hull looking for cocaine. They didn't find anything. They boat was ruined, the guy sued, he appealed all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled that he didn't have a case.
Cause you can't sue the federal government.
You call this a democracy? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. Stop putting up with this incompetence and poor management. And to think- you're paying %50 of your income in total taxes* for the privilege!
If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.
* Some bedwetting liberal always complains about this number pointing out that the highest tax bracket is "only" (yeah, they'd love it to be more) %35. Well, lets assume you're paying some average of %25 in federal taxes. On top of that you have %16 social security (your half and your employers half-- you don't think he doesn't make *you* earn his half of that cost do you?) another %14 for medicaide, another %8 for all the money you spend in local sales taxes (assuming %8 local sales tax, that you spend most of your money locally and pay taxes, and that you only invest a small amount of your money at the long term, netting a tax of %10 on that, rather than %25 for short term investing).... that leaves %63 of your income going to taxes. And I've not even counted car tab fees, property taxes, state or local income taxes!, GASOLINE taxes which are almost %50, etc. etc. So, saying %50 of your money goes to taxes is being generous.
Well, there's one thing you might try: instead of sharing the drive between two machines over firewire, share the *machines* over firewire.
Since you seem to be working with video, its no surprise that ethernet isn't working (over smb). And the file format issues are going to always be suspect (in my mind) even if both machines officially supported the same format.
So, what I would try to do is network the machines using firewire and Firewire IP, and then share the drive using whatever protocol works from the Mac to the Linux box.
The big wrinkle of course is whether both support firewire IP. I'm not even sure the Mac does, and IU suspect Linux doesn't yet, but I could be wrong. It seems to be a pretty new standard.
Please explain to me why wealth needs to be spread evenly, and I should be allowed to sit at home and not work and expect my fair share of the wealth?
The I'll point out the mathematical problems with this, and maybe you'll see that those who are wealthy earned their money and those who are poor either haven't had a chance to earn it yet, or choose not to.
Some people choose to live in a sailboat travelling around the world on less than $5,000 a year in income.... they are "poor" and below the poverty line, but they have chosen that life and I say they have a right to it.
The liberal idea that the rich somehow stole the money they have is just bitterness at sitting on your ass and wasting your productive years.
Take responsibility for your own situation.
When I meet someone who's hard on their luck, my instinct is to help.
When I meet a mugger who wants my money by force, I either defend it or tell them to go to hell.
You are the latter, you are not talking about people who are hard on their luck and how we should try to help them. You are talking about the forced redistribution of wealth at gunpoint.
Which makes you, morally, no better than the average mugger on this point.
As they do have obituaries regularly. People are lost at sea all the time. Some are merely injured, but it is easy to be in life threatening situations.
You say "splash" as if the water is warm. Where I sail, inside of 15 minutes unprotected in the water you are looking at serious consequences and possible death.
When you've been in a small boat in 50 MPH winds and 5-10 foot seas, then you can come tell me its nothing like rock climbing.
Yep, and that tells you Larry Ellison is none of those things.
I'd sail with him. Given the inherent risks in sailing, that's saying something.
Well, Milton Friedman's son certainly agrees with me, as I've talked to him. I can' say for sure about Milton Friedman, but given that I am repeating what he proved to the world, I can say with pretty high confidence that he does.t
Keynes was the source of the poverty you are trying to eradicate. Yes, pretty much all economists have agreed with Friedman in latter years--- sure they disagree on minor points-- but capitalism is not in doubt.
I note that you have failed to cite an economist that agrees with your position, Marx does not count.
OK, Marx does count- anyone can call themselves an economist, but he's been completely discredited. Yet he *does* agree with you.
Sorry, its not my responsiblirty, nor is there bandwidth here to educate you in economics.
But you should go take some courses if you really care about this subject.
I find it interesting that you can say things that are flat out wrong, and known to be wrong by everyone with a basic economics understanding, without providing any reason or evidence to support them.
But when I point out that this is wrong, you demand proof.
You engage in a wholesale denial of reality-- look at india which has eliminated more poverty in the last 20 years than the US ever has, in terms of number of people-- and insist that I prove to you that the world exists.
And on top of that you try to insult me-- as if it wasn't patently obvious that you don't have a reasoned response, you have to try and get a dig in there to prove it.
Heh.
And its a symptom of dyslexia you insensitive bastard!
(Seriously, though I'm joking about the bastard part.)