Weird, Windows and Linux seem to handle pretty much any task I need handled. Not bad for a couple of clunkers.
While this may be true, not to long ago there was an article about load times. It seems the time it takes to load a particular class of program (say a word process, spreadsheet,etc) has stayed the same for the last 20 or so years. It actually takes longer to load the OS now than it did 20 years ago. Yet, look at the increase in processesing power between then and now.
Why is it that the capabilities of the machine have increased by 4 (or more) orders of magnitude, yet the software still takes as long to load and doesn't really do more except look pretty? And, no I am not talking about the high end 3D games. I am talking about the average business programs.
This may be where we differ. You see it as being broken, I see it as the nature of the beast. You said it yourself
"Like it or not, the internet has been an invention of the United States government. Its explosive growth beyond that, and the seeming "openness" of it has been an illusion created by the incredible power and flexibility of the internet as a communication system."
Basically, there are three choices: leave, create something that can run securely in an insecure network, or create a separate network. The last two may actually be the same thing.
Back before the internet was a household word there were the on-line services such as Compuserve and GEnie and later AOL. Before that, there were Bulletin Board Systems that allowed people to post messages, trade file, and if the system were powerful enough, maybe let people talk in real time.
We could turn back the clock and return to the days of dial up BBS and maybe even make a network of dial up BBSes that are connect via secure tunnels over the internet. There could even be secure connection over the internet to those BBSes.
There could be a return to the On-line services, which are both more free and more controled. After all, it is a corporate service with rules.
The geeks of the world could rise up and light the dark fiber with their own Internet... if they could pay for it. But, you would still need a central control to manage things such as name and number assignment, etc.
One thing to remember about the design of the internet, as a whole. It was designed to be functionally decentralized, but not operationally decentralized. What I mean by that is while internet is designed to be robust and route around damage, it is still designed to be run by the fewest people possible. It is part of the design parameters because the internet was designed as a secondary robust communication system incase of nuclear war.
So, basically, you are using a discussion on a technical matter whose outcome was decided by a non-U.S. body, but whose outcome may have been influenced by a "statement of principle" made by the U.S. months ago, stating the U.S. believed countries should have majority control over their own networks as a stump for your political beliefs and distain for the current U.S. government.
You had no measure, implied or otherwise. I chose mine.
I am a veteran of the U.S. Navy. I was in the first Gulf war. I saw the burning oil fields, the mines, and the Scud missles.
You mention a small subset of the population, yet do not state who they are. Who is this subset? The poor, the military, who? The poor and middle class are implied by the next line, but they are not a small subset of the population.
If you wish to discuss unambiguous results, perhaps we should talk about why the U.S. didn't disarm the populace, as happened after WWII.
If you wish to discuss national purpose and commitment, perhaps we should discuss why those opposed to the President and the war wish to abandon the commitment the U.S. government has to the people of Iraq and Afganistan and these same.
If you wish to discuss competent leadership, perhaps we should discuss why the U.S. should give overbearing weight to the opinion of countries who have lucrative oil contracts with the regime we oppose. Or maybe we should discuss how the leadership of the U.N. allowed kickbacks and bribery. We could discuss how certain quarters claim there was no right to go in to Iraq and depose Hussein, even though he was, and had been, in direct contradiction of the terms of peace set out for the first Gulf War. Or maybe we should talk about people who claim the U.S. didn't give the U.N. weapon inspectors enough time when they had more than 10 years.
I wonder if the reporting on the government were as intense during the cold was as it is now, would you still think things were "more stable". I wonder if it would be possible for a President today to have regular three way sex romps with two secretaries in the white house pool, as JFK did. If that was not known until just recently, what else was not known?
Actually, the ccTLD for the U.S. is.us. The U.S. outsourced the control of this to an external organization, but the U.S. has made rules as to who qualifies for a.us domain. If the external organization were to disregard the wishes of the government, I have no doubt that control would shift in rapid order.
Those domains you mention (.com,.net,.gov,.edu, and.org) were created by the U.S. and as such control was portioned out by the U.S. as it saw fit. I consider this a bad thing specifically because these domains had defined purposed, to whit:
.com is for commercial enterprises
.net is for net work controllers
.gov is for (U.S.) government agencies
.mil is for military systems
.edu is for educational systems
.org is for non-profit organizations
The controling agencies for a number of these have allowed "domain cross contamination" (my phrase). This is a bad thing.
Because the U.S. was first, the government claimed the bare gTLDs that I listed. At the time, the internet was solely controled by the U.S. Other countries, such as the U.K. and Australia, have domains such as.com.co and.com.au.
You can be a citizen and still be anti-U.S. Also, you may be an indicator of a recent news article.
I notice you don't explain how the U.S. is responsible for what happened. Care to say how a statement of principle from the U.S. makes the U.S. responsible for ICANN returning ccTLDs to the countries who are supposed to control them?
But, the U.S. had no say in what happened. ICANN made the ruling. ICANN relied on a "statement of principle" put out by a U.S. government agency that said countries should have a major say in what happens with their ccTLDs and how their parts of the InterNet are managed".
I am guessing you still haven't read the article and are just an anti-U.S. troll.
The only problem I see is that your rant has nothing to do with the real issue of who is the rightful controller of a country's ccTLD.
I wonder if you read the article, which throws blame on the U.S. but fails to say why the U.S. is responsible when it was ICANN that made the decision.
So, my question to you is "Who should control the country code top level domain for a country?"
You post is full of inaccuracies (or lies if it were coming from a right wing conservative republican). Perhaps you should try reading a few history books.
World War II 1939 - 1945 War on Terrorism: 2001 - Present(2005) That is 6 years for WWII and 4 years for the War on Terrorism.
The Cuban Missle Crisis occured in 1962. World ware II ended in 1945. That is an 18 year gap during which the USSR was able to develop atomic and nuclear weapons. If at the end of World War II, the United States, the U.K. and other non-Communist countries had turned on the USSR (as was wanted by MacArthur and others), there probably would not have been a Cuban Missle Crisis.
Some facts about Iraq under Saddam Hussein: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children.
In 1991, he cracked down against uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 40,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.
After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total, and more are being uncovered to this day. Also after the invasion, numerous torture centers were found in security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. Among these centers were those used by Saddam's sons to rape and murder women.
Your first question seems to be the contention in the article. The domains in question are Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs). Country Code domains are considered to represent the country it is assigned to, and it is considered the "property" of the country and the government of said country.
In the past and for various reasons, some countries allowed their domains to be run by others, including individuals and organizations.
The article takes issue with countries taking back the control of the domain.
Near as I can tell, the writer of the article believes that the currently holder of a ccTLD is the "rightful owner". The U.S. and ICANN believe the current government of the country is the "rightful owner".
When it comes to ccTLDs I believe that the government of the country is the rightful owner. The current holders, or perhaps controllers is a better word, do so at the pleasure of the country.
Allowing users to create and populate groups pretty much negates the security aspect of groups. Most users are very lax about security and also have no idea how to harden their systems. And, like it or not, good security tends to be a bit of a pain. That is why it tends to be in the hands of a few people. The are central point of contact, action, and blame.
Now, if you had a secondary grouping mechanism, then things change.
BTW, the admins could
create a shell script wrapper to manage what users can do with those wonderful high power commands such as chown and chmod.
write a modified secure version for the users to use.
several other things that are less secure that I am not going to bother with.
those who use a GUI probably won't want to have to open a terminal window to launch their image editing program.
one has to know what something does before one wants it.
first people have to know what something does and where it is before they can just go to where it is.
The whole point is that people have to be able to identify a program as something they want before they download, install, and/or open it.
Questions I have been asked by people who have seen me using my laptop
If a program is listed as Kaffiene, what does it do, make coffee? What is Konqueror, a game like Risk? What is GIMP? XV, what does that do? BitchX? I would want my kid using that!
At least with GAIM you have an idea that it could be something like AIM.
What?!? And offend the other 30 programs that do the same thing that the distro loaded so they can say "We give you 15000 programs and windoze doesn't!"? You would be saying that one is better than the others and that just won't do.
Come on, how do you do that and not get flamed by the entire OSS community for trying to "lock people into using certain programs" or like?
I am an experienced gnu/linux user. I have been using gnu/linux since about 1.6. Currently, my job involves writing scripts for an AIX environment. I have worked as an admin in a mixed Unix/Windows environment. I have done deskside and phone support for windows and unix.
I had a small, hard to find configuration problem that caused my laptop clock to change every time I booted Linux. It took me a while to find the setting and disable it. I have never had that problem with Windows.
I had to download and recompile the source to get a piece of software working that was installed by default by my distro.
I wanted a specific program. But, it wasn't available in a package for my distro. So, I went to the site for it, but they didn't support it on my distro. So, I downloaded the source, modified the config, upgraded some libraries (some of which I had to compile), then compile and install the software. I have never had to do that for Windows.
I didn't want to have a certain peice of software on my system. I went to remove it. But the config software put out by my distro said that if I removed that software, I had to remove other software I wanted to keep. I never had that happen with Windows.
I tried to add a program and was told by the distro config software that I couldn't add it with some of the software I had. I told it to use the new package. The config software then told me it would have to remove about twenty other programs if I continued. Never had that happen with Windows.
I have a USB hard drive. It worked great automounted, etc right out of the box and no changes to the distro. Then, I upgraded my distro. After I upgraded, it would not automount. Now, I didn't change anything other than go to a newer version of the distro. And, after I got it automounting, it started mounting in a totally different location than it originally did and there was no documentation as to WHY. I have had some problems upgrading windows, but I never had a working piece of equipment stop working even though all the drivers were loaded, up to date, and correct.
In my experience, linux is very stable, as long as you don't want anything that isn't provided by your distro and you don't make many changes. Otherwise, you better be willing to do jump through hoops to get it working, even with a major distro.
Oh, and I remember when everyone made fun of windows because the manuals kept getting smaller. When I upgraded my distro this last time, it went from 2 good sized manuals to 1 one smallish manual.
Wood shop: a place where one works with wood. Metal shop: a place where one works with metal. Auto shop: a place where one works on cars.
Following that logic, where does one work with photos....
PhotoShop.
Secondly, I am sure you are right when you say we don't need the "brainless among the users". After all, no one wants to see Linux on the Desktop make it. We certainly don't want to see Microsoft taken down a notch or two. God forbid that someone who is a CEO/CFO/etc and knows just enough to use Windows uses Linux and decides it would be good for the 50000 workers in their company use it as well.
Thirdly, you are right, I am sure the people trying to improve the usablity of OSS are doing nothing for the open source community. Improved usablity is worthless. And, people actually using OSS do nothing for it either. Check it yourself. It is almost a law of nature.
Now, for what you convienently glossed over. Of those 20 programs in your KDE/Graphics menu, how many do you actually use? How many are actually easy to use? How many are big steaming piles of code crap? Of the programs installed on your box, how many are in permant beta? How many have not had a new release in months or years? How many have no programmers because all the sexy code has been written and no one wants to do the polish, upkeep, and maintenance?
The poster said "1 ounce of gold" not a one-ounce gold coin.
If one paid with a US$50.00 gold piece, then it could be argued that the price of the item is $50.00 and tax would be paid on that amount. If the receiver then tried to sell the coin for any amount, sales tax would be paid on that amount. It would not neccessarily involve the Federal Government or the Federal tax code. The true outcome of this would mostly likely be decided by the courts.
While I like you quoting the Constitution, that particular section, "Powers prohibited of States", does not limit the Federal Government. It only limits the powers of the individual states. It reads in full
Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
The part applicable to the Federal Government is in section 8 Powers of Congress
Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
This section give congress to make money out of anything it wishes and to regulate how it is valued. That is why it was possible for the U.S. to leave the gold standard.
Yeah, the two ideas are not that far apart. It is really just personal preference. There are some that think the national sales tax would just raise prices.
And, I may be wrong on this, but don't most business get a pass on taxes when they are buying things for business?
True, but the poster may sell something not used in all 50 states, or not legal in all 50 states.
The poster may also not ship to all 50 states. What happens if you don't ship past the Missisip? Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California. That is 22 states that you don't ship to.
Another possible reason is that the poster does not ship beyond a certain zone for the company.
Or, the posters product hasn't caught on in all areas (Moonpie anyone?
There are a lot of reason why the poster would only be concerned about 30 states.
Actually, this particular piece of the constitution is to prevent states from imposing import/export tariffs on goods from other states. Example: California can not impose an import tariff on Florida oranges or Georgia peaches. There is a long history as to why this was put in there.
It would actually bother me more if they sited those reasons, because those reasons show a lack of understanding of the problem and pure reactionary thinking.
What you are describing is effects of the abuse of alcohol and alocholism. It would truly be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Would you deprive me, or anyone, of enjoying a beer or a glass of wine with dinner because a few people abuse alcohol? Along those lines, one may as well outlaw cars because people speed, die in wrecks, hit pedestrians, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
While this may be true, not to long ago there was an article about load times. It seems the time it takes to load a particular class of program (say a word process, spreadsheet,etc) has stayed the same for the last 20 or so years. It actually takes longer to load the OS now than it did 20 years ago. Yet, look at the increase in processesing power between then and now.
Why is it that the capabilities of the machine have increased by 4 (or more) orders of magnitude, yet the software still takes as long to load and doesn't really do more except look pretty? And, no I am not talking about the high end 3D games. I am talking about the average business programs.
Basically, there are three choices: leave, create something that can run securely in an insecure network, or create a separate network. The last two may actually be the same thing.
Back before the internet was a household word there were the on-line services such as Compuserve and GEnie and later AOL. Before that, there were Bulletin Board Systems that allowed people to post messages, trade file, and if the system were powerful enough, maybe let people talk in real time.
We could turn back the clock and return to the days of dial up BBS and maybe even make a network of dial up BBSes that are connect via secure tunnels over the internet. There could even be secure connection over the internet to those BBSes.
There could be a return to the On-line services, which are both more free and more controled. After all, it is a corporate service with rules.
The geeks of the world could rise up and light the dark fiber with their own Internet... if they could pay for it. But, you would still need a central control to manage things such as name and number assignment, etc.
One thing to remember about the design of the internet, as a whole. It was designed to be functionally decentralized, but not operationally decentralized. What I mean by that is while internet is designed to be robust and route around damage, it is still designed to be run by the fewest people possible. It is part of the design parameters because the internet was designed as a secondary robust communication system incase of nuclear war.
So, basically, you are using a discussion on a technical matter whose outcome was decided by a non-U.S. body, but whose outcome may have been influenced by a "statement of principle" made by the U.S. months ago, stating the U.S. believed countries should have majority control over their own networks as a stump for your political beliefs and distain for the current U.S. government.
You had no measure, implied or otherwise. I chose mine.
I am a veteran of the U.S. Navy. I was in the first Gulf war. I saw the burning oil fields, the mines, and the Scud missles.
You mention a small subset of the population, yet do not state who they are. Who is this subset? The poor, the military, who? The poor and middle class are implied by the next line, but they are not a small subset of the population.
If you wish to discuss unambiguous results, perhaps we should talk about why the U.S. didn't disarm the populace, as happened after WWII.
If you wish to discuss national purpose and commitment, perhaps we should discuss why those opposed to the President and the war wish to abandon the commitment the U.S. government has to the people of Iraq and Afganistan and these same.
If you wish to discuss competent leadership, perhaps we should discuss why the U.S. should give overbearing weight to the opinion of countries who have lucrative oil contracts with the regime we oppose. Or maybe we should discuss how the leadership of the U.N. allowed kickbacks and bribery. We could discuss how certain quarters claim there was no right to go in to Iraq and depose Hussein, even though he was, and had been, in direct contradiction of the terms of peace set out for the first Gulf War. Or maybe we should talk about people who claim the U.S. didn't give the U.N. weapon inspectors enough time when they had more than 10 years.
I wonder if the reporting on the government were as intense during the cold was as it is now, would you still think things were "more stable". I wonder if it would be possible for a President today to have regular three way sex romps with two secretaries in the white house pool, as JFK did. If that was not known until just recently, what else was not known?
Those domains you mention (
The controling agencies for a number of these have allowed "domain cross contamination" (my phrase). This is a bad thing.
Because the U.S. was first, the government claimed the bare gTLDs that I listed. At the time, the internet was solely controled by the U.S. Other countries, such as the U.K. and Australia, have domains such as
You can be a citizen and still be anti-U.S. Also, you may be an indicator of a recent news article.
I notice you don't explain how the U.S. is responsible for what happened. Care to say how a statement of principle from the U.S. makes the U.S. responsible for ICANN returning ccTLDs to the countries who are supposed to control them?
But, the U.S. had no say in what happened. ICANN made the ruling. ICANN relied on a "statement of principle" put out by a U.S. government agency that said countries should have a major say in what happens with their ccTLDs and how their parts of the InterNet are managed".
I am guessing you still haven't read the article and are just an anti-U.S. troll.
The only problem I see is that your rant has nothing to do with the real issue of who is the rightful controller of a country's ccTLD.
I wonder if you read the article, which throws blame on the U.S. but fails to say why the U.S. is responsible when it was ICANN that made the decision.
So, my question to you is "Who should control the country code top level domain for a country?"
You post is full of inaccuracies (or lies if it were coming from a right wing conservative republican). Perhaps you should try reading a few history books.
WWII death toll: 55,000,000
Iraq War death toll: < 50,000
A source states The death toll in the "War on Terrorism" is almost 200x smaller than that of World War II, and about 50x smaller than Vietnam.
World War II 1939 - 1945
War on Terrorism: 2001 - Present(2005)
That is 6 years for WWII and 4 years for the War on Terrorism.
The Cuban Missle Crisis occured in 1962. World ware II ended in 1945. That is an 18 year gap during which the USSR was able to develop atomic and nuclear weapons. If at the end of World War II, the United States, the U.K. and other non-Communist countries had turned on the USSR (as was wanted by MacArthur and others), there probably would not have been a Cuban Missle Crisis.
Some facts about Iraq under Saddam Hussein:
In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children.
In 1991, he cracked down against uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 40,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.
After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total, and more are being uncovered to this day. Also after the invasion, numerous torture centers were found in security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. Among these centers were those used by Saddam's sons to rape and murder women.
Your first question seems to be the contention in the article. The domains in question are Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs). Country Code domains are considered to represent the country it is assigned to, and it is considered the "property" of the country and the government of said country.
In the past and for various reasons, some countries allowed their domains to be run by others, including individuals and organizations.
The article takes issue with countries taking back the control of the domain.
Near as I can tell, the writer of the article believes that the currently holder of a ccTLD is the "rightful owner". The U.S. and ICANN believe the current government of the country is the "rightful owner".
When it comes to ccTLDs I believe that the government of the country is the rightful owner. The current holders, or perhaps controllers is a better word, do so at the pleasure of the country.
Now, if you had a secondary grouping mechanism, then things change.
BTW, the admins could
The whole point is that people have to be able to identify a program as something they want before they download, install, and/or open it.
Questions I have been asked by people who have seen me using my laptop
At least with GAIM you have an idea that it could be something like AIM.
What?!? And offend the other 30 programs that do the same thing that the distro loaded so they can say "We give you 15000 programs and windoze doesn't!"? You would be saying that one is better than the others and that just won't do.
Come on, how do you do that and not get flamed by the entire OSS community for trying to "lock people into using certain programs" or like?
Are you so sure about this?
I am an experienced gnu/linux user. I have been using gnu/linux since about 1.6. Currently, my job involves writing scripts for an AIX environment. I have worked as an admin in a mixed Unix/Windows environment. I have done deskside and phone support for windows and unix.
I had a small, hard to find configuration problem that caused my laptop clock to change every time I booted Linux. It took me a while to find the setting and disable it. I have never had that problem with Windows.
I had to download and recompile the source to get a piece of software working that was installed by default by my distro.
I wanted a specific program. But, it wasn't available in a package for my distro. So, I went to the site for it, but they didn't support it on my distro. So, I downloaded the source, modified the config, upgraded some libraries (some of which I had to compile), then compile and install the software. I have never had to do that for Windows.
I didn't want to have a certain peice of software on my system. I went to remove it. But the config software put out by my distro said that if I removed that software, I had to remove other software I wanted to keep. I never had that happen with Windows.
I tried to add a program and was told by the distro config software that I couldn't add it with some of the software I had. I told it to use the new package. The config software then told me it would have to remove about twenty other programs if I continued. Never had that happen with Windows.
I have a USB hard drive. It worked great automounted, etc right out of the box and no changes to the distro. Then, I upgraded my distro. After I upgraded, it would not automount. Now, I didn't change anything other than go to a newer version of the distro. And, after I got it automounting, it started mounting in a totally different location than it originally did and there was no documentation as to WHY. I have had some problems upgrading windows, but I never had a working piece of equipment stop working even though all the drivers were loaded, up to date, and correct.
In my experience, linux is very stable, as long as you don't want anything that isn't provided by your distro and you don't make many changes. Otherwise, you better be willing to do jump through hoops to get it working, even with a major distro.
Oh, and I remember when everyone made fun of windows because the manuals kept getting smaller. When I upgraded my distro this last time, it went from 2 good sized manuals to 1 one smallish manual.
Wood shop: a place where one works with wood.
Metal shop: a place where one works with metal.
Auto shop: a place where one works on cars.
Following that logic, where does one work with photos....
PhotoShop.
Secondly, I am sure you are right when you say we don't need the "brainless among the users". After all, no one wants to see Linux on the Desktop make it. We certainly don't want to see Microsoft taken down a notch or two. God forbid that someone who is a CEO/CFO/etc and knows just enough to use Windows uses Linux and decides it would be good for the 50000 workers in their company use it as well.
Thirdly, you are right, I am sure the people trying to improve the usablity of OSS are doing nothing for the open source community. Improved usablity is worthless. And, people actually using OSS do nothing for it either. Check it yourself. It is almost a law of nature.
Now, for what you convienently glossed over. Of those 20 programs in your KDE/Graphics menu, how many do you actually use? How many are actually easy to use? How many are big steaming piles of code crap? Of the programs installed on your box, how many are in permant beta? How many have not had a new release in months or years? How many have no programmers because all the sexy code has been written and no one wants to do the polish, upkeep, and maintenance?
Same Difference.
The part applicable to the Federal Government is in section 8 Powers of Congress
This section give congress to make money out of anything it wishes and to regulate how it is valued. That is why it was possible for the U.S. to leave the gold standard.
Yeah, the two ideas are not that far apart. It is really just personal preference. There are some that think the national sales tax would just raise prices.
And, I may be wrong on this, but don't most business get a pass on taxes when they are buying things for business?
True, but the poster may sell something not used in all 50 states, or not legal in all 50 states.
The poster may also not ship to all 50 states. What happens if you don't ship past the Missisip? Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California. That is 22 states that you don't ship to.
Another possible reason is that the poster does not ship beyond a certain zone for the company.
Or, the posters product hasn't caught on in all areas (Moonpie anyone?
There are a lot of reason why the poster would only be concerned about 30 states.
And piss off all those campaign contributors, I mean bankers? Get real.
Credit card companies and other financial institutions have HUGE lobbying stables and it would never get passed.
They convert the price of per ounce of gold at the time the deal was struck into dollars and tax accordingly.
Or, if they want to gamble, they do it at time of delivery. This would result in the amount of tax changing.
That's funny. I live in Florida and pay 6% sales tax to the state and 1 5 to the county.
You need to think like a politician:
"But, if we do it that way, MY state doesn't get a piece of the action!"
Personally, I prefer a flat rate tax combined with a national sales tax.
The more you make, the more spend, the more you pay.
And, I do mean a flat rate tax. Say, 20 or 25% right off the top. Add 5% if you are not a living being.
Actually, this particular piece of the constitution is to prevent states from imposing import/export tariffs on goods from other states. Example: California can not impose an import tariff on Florida oranges or Georgia peaches. There is a long history as to why this was put in there.
It would actually bother me more if they sited those reasons, because those reasons show a lack of understanding of the problem and pure reactionary thinking.
What you are describing is effects of the abuse of alcohol and alocholism. It would truly be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Would you deprive me, or anyone, of enjoying a beer or a glass of wine with dinner because a few people abuse alcohol? Along those lines, one may as well outlaw cars because people speed, die in wrecks, hit pedestrians, etc.