I'd just a soon stuff them into a Byte (the object) as a byte (the primitive)
I'm not sure why you would want to incur the overhead of wrapping a primitive with an object. For the base OutputStream, it is far more efficient to send the single byte value. Even if you use a DataOutputStream for the other primitive types, it is still far more efficient to use primitives. Objects contain a significant amount of overhead for their supporting structures. In order to send an object over a stream, it must be serialized, sent, then deserialized on the recieving end. This requires far more overhead than sending a simple primitive.
You can tell JBuilder (and most other IDE's) what version of Java to use. You simply tell it what JDK compiler to use. In fact, many IDEs (e.g. JBuilder 7) allow you to specify the JDK version on a project-by-project basis.
Yes, it does. All of that information is required on the application form. I just had a daughter, so I know. In the US, registration at birth is pushed quite a bit. Information regarding address changes are applied when you fill out a W4 (tax status declaration form) as well as when you file your tax returns. Name changes (such as when you get married) are also required.
found that computers, and by extension MP3 players, are not audio recording equipment
Bad example. You can record television programs using your computer. By your example, that would make VCRs ineligible to be considered recording devices "by extension." A computer is a multi-purpose device, one of whose abilities is to act as an MP3 player. However, MP3 players are not the exclusive domain of the computer. I have both a portable MP3 player (that more closely resembles a CD player than a computer) and a component player (my DVD player), neither of which are computers. An MP3 player, and by extension, cassette recorders are protected under the Audio Home Recording Act.
Saying, "Here's how you exploit a security vulnerability in SurfOS 1.0," is not [ok].
Again, I don't agree with that statement. If anything, it is dangerously false. As the owner of several systems, it is imperitive to my my survival to know if, when, and how those systems are at risk. Furthermore, it is essential that I be able to test those systems for potential failures and take any neccessary corrective actions. Leaving it up to a company (MS, HP, whoever) to fix the problem knowing that their priorities might differ vastly from my own, is dangerous. If anything, it could be argued that the publication of those exploits is what gets them fixed in the first place. There is entirely too much complacency among companies to say "well, people aren't likely to think of trying to create a buffer overflow in program XYZ, so we'll just let it slide. Maybe we'll fix it in the next release. If it's profitable." Publication of these system problems allows those of us affected by them an opportunity to protect ourselves. It also puts the necessary presure on the manufacturers to fix them.
making a tape or MP3s from it is something entirely different
It's apparent that you don't understand the Audio Home Recording Act 1992. I suggest you read it. It quite clearly supports a consumer's right to move a recorded work to another medium for personal use. Otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to video tape a television program or make a tape recording of an album to listen to in your car. These uses were part of the reason that the amendment of Title 17 (aka Copyright Act of 1976) came to be. They are quite clearly extendible to the mp3 recording for personal use. What is not covered is the distribution of the derived work which is not in debate here.
With reference to your comment about the abusive use of the DMCA to suppress the disemination of security vulnerabilities within commerical operating systems, the HP incident that you cited is but only one small example. A more likely example would be Microsoft's attempts to prevent security groups from publicly announcing vulnerabilities so as to avoid any further publicity embarrassments.
I can certainly see how you might have misconstrued my comment. Allow me to clarify. I am in no way advocating piracy of any form and that includes the duplication of DVDs, CDs, et. al. What I am referring to is the deludge of "legislation" that groups like the RIAA and MPAA are currently trying to pass. Most disgusting of all are those suggestions that American Liberties be compromised in the name of "National Security."
What do I mean by American Liberties? Certainly the doctrine of Fair Use come to mind. Not the freedom to arbitrarily (nee illegally) copy protected works, but the right to time/space shift those works of which a copy is legitimately owned. I don't give a crap if I'm not allowed to download an MP3 of a song that I haven't bought. But, if I buy a CD, there is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to make a tape/mp3 of it. This argument, of course, has been beaten to death in these forums so there's no real use in dredging it up here.
Of course, this bit of consumer-level bitching is somewhat trite when compared to the threatened legislation that is before Congress today. Of the biggest note is the notion of a Federally mandated implementation of DRM in all electronic media devices of which computers are included. While at first this seems like a good idea (hell, why shouldn't artists' works be protected?), it is the implication of what these laws mean that cause concern. Of biggest note is the (valid) suggestion that software would be protected under DRM - the installation of which would be managed by the operating system. I have a couple of problems with this and it has nothing to do with the fact that I won't be able to pirate the latest copy of Warcraft III.
As has been discussed here in the past, Microsoft owns the patent on the implementation of DRM as an integrated part of an operating system. Now, nothing against Microsoft, but if DRM becomes mandated by the goverment, that means that all operating systems will have to comply. Do you really think that Microsoft, a company known for its fierce competitive practices, is going to license its patent to competing platforms? As a software developer who's livlihood depends on the Solaris platform (among others), I have a legitimate concern. To say nothing of all of the Linux distros. But let's say, for the sake of friendly argument, that Microsoft (or any other company for that matter) did not enforce it's patent. There's the issue of licensing.
The license for a DRM control mechanism will have to be managed by a central body. It only makes sense that the party be the holder of the technology - again, it's Microsoft, but it could be anyone. Since the laws will mandate that you must conform to the DRM licensing scheme, it follows that any software that you develop must have a license. Thus, you must acquire that license from the controlling party. That puts the controlling party in a position of unbridled power in determining what software can be released to the public. This might be Office applications, games, MP3 players, graphic packages, database systems, operating systems. Returning to the fact that the most likely party to hold this position of centralized control is, in fact, Microsoft, that means that they alone would have say over what software gets released to the market. How likely are they going to be to approve a competeing product? But let's cast the conspiracy theories aside for a moment, shall we? There's a much bigger issue at stake.
What about the companies that do custom development for their own internal use? These companies would still be required to comply with the DRM licensing schemes currently being considered before Congress. That means that, potentially, for every installation of a client application, a license must be purchased. Thus, not only must a company pay for the operating system, the application server, the DBMS - all of which are fair, legitimate expenses - and not only must the company cover the cost of the design, development, implementation and deployment of their application, they would also have to incur the cost of a DRM license for each and every deployment. Now, some folks might say "Screw the big companies, they have millions upon millions of dollars to dump on IT projects. The cold reality is that is simply not true. Worse, it does not take into account the tens of thousands of companies that don't have large IT budgets. For a developer like myself, these often make up a substantial portion of my clients.
So, what we are left with is an overly (and arbitrarily) restrictive environment in which companies can no longer afford or justify the cost of software application development putting people like myself out of work. "Too bad", some might say. "Survival of the fittest" some say. "You shouldn't have copied that floppy", some say. That's a crock of sh|t. In the end, this amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare. Companies cannot or will not assume the burden of protecting themselves and so they turn to the government for interdiction. This wouldn't be so bad if it were a case of the government saying "gee, there seems to be a real problem here, perhaps we should do something about it." No, instead it's the lobbying companies (such as the RIAA) who have realised (and this is the important part) it is far cheaper to purchase the favor of a few senators than to incur the cost of protecting your own property.
Am I opposed to laws that say I cannot steal? Of course not. That's a ludicrous accusation. What I am opposed to is the rights of citizens/consumers/ME being stripped in the name of entities (which happens to be media corporations this time around). What I am opposed to is the oppression, nay, elimination of such "inalienable" rights as the freedom of speech, in order to protect said entities. You don't need to look any farther than the 2600 case to understand what I am referring to. Of course, there is also the issue of people not being able to speak negatively about companies, or to be allowed to explain security-related deficiencies that stand as real, legitimate threats to the citizenry. Stand behind the DCMA all you want, but when a security exploit has the ability to compromise public systems, to make the discovery and subsequent publication of those issues, whose sole purpose exist in the hopes of eliminating them, illegal, well, we really have our priorities screwed up.
This isn't about the liberty to copy a DVD. It's much bigger and infinately more important than that.
There is no question that the piracy problem is epidemic in Asian countries. And yet, why is it that it's in the U.S. of A. that our civil liberties are being stripped away and the consumer continuously being raped when it's quite clear that the bigger problems exist outside of America's borders?
Perhaps the almighty US Dollar doesn't buy as much government overseas as it does domestically?
The reason for dumping mssql is simply due to cost. We're at the point where we have to go with the per-server licensing which, iirc, put it somewhere in the 60-80k range for two servers. Ultimately, we're expecting to require a significant number of servers (25+). That's too prohibitive for us, not to mention that we're running on NT 4.0 and Linux and considering moving off of the NT servers.
It's also an issue of future planning. We don't like the way that MS' licensing plans are progressing. We were going to upgrade from NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 Adv Server, but with MS dropping its support come April of next year, as well as the issue of not being able to buy further licenses in the near future, we came to the realization that the only way to maintain a standardized, consistent server platform was to either stay at NT 4.0 with SqlServer 6.5 (our current implementation) or move on to Linux or BSD with MySql or similar. This particular tier of clients cannot afford SqlServer, Oracle, DB2, etc and the level that they would be required.
Were cost not an issue, then yes, we would stay with mssql.
It is expected that any mssql stored procs would have to be converted. But that is the price that we are willing to pay in order to have a singular repository for the database logic.
Based on the number of people here who are saying "PostgreSQL", we're going to give some consideration to that alternative.
Can anyone relate their experience with PostgreSQL with respect to performance?
I've been dying to dump our M$ SqlServer base for MySql for a long time now. Once MySql (finally) integrates stored procedures (which I think is now v4.2), that will happen, but not before.
I've heard the arguments for not needing stored procs before, but we have a application environment that is spread across multiple language and technology platforms and cannot afford the duplication in database logic.
Of course, if any one has some better suggestions, I'd be more than happy to hear them.
Schindler's List was a great film, as was Saving Private Ryan. However, I wouldn't consider either of them dark. Schindler's List was dramatic, drawing on actual history. Saving Private Ryan drew on real world events, although it was a work of fiction. Spielberg's style of direction leans more on the sentimental which, for the final installment of SW, would not be appropriate. Remember, we're supposed to hate Vader, one of the most villified characters in cinematic history. We're not supposed to feel sorry for the Lost Boy.
I can only imagine what Spielberg would have done to the series. Ep 3 is supposed to be the darkest of all of the episodes. I'm sorry, but Spielberg just doesn't do dark well enough.
And I can just see him going back to the film several years after its release and replacing all of the lightsabers with walkie-talkies.
Those lords also maintained the roads, the towns, insured farmers could afford to harvest their crops, kept thieving at a minimum, provided medicine, entertainment, and more.
It's a poor example.
Taxes pay collectively for what the individual cannot or, in your case, will not. While the system is, admittedly, abused, there is not a single society that can exist without government (and please don't try to use Pygmies et. al. as a retort).
The fact is that society needs a collective body to protect it, to assist it, to help it function as a society.
And before you go railing against taxation, you might want to reflect on the fact that the U. S. Goverment subsidizes your Internet connection.
Or did you think that your $35 a month was paying for the entire infrastructure?
Back to your original argument that sales tax represents double taxation, kindly admit that you were wrong and move on. Or not. But please don't continue patronizing us with a third grader's misconception of the feudal system.
Again, you are incorrect. They are taxed on the sale only. Any amounts paid for sales tax are deducted from their gross income - which is what the government taxes on. Sales tax is an expense. Gross - expenses = profit.
I own my own business so I know what I'm talking about.
And I didn't moderate you, I replied to your post.
> > I code a lot of Java and I currently develop in it for a living
Not very well, apparently. If you are under the impression that Swing is slow. It's not the language, it's the programmer. This is true for any development language -- not just Java.
And if you don't think that Swing can be fast, I suggest you take a look at JBuilder 6 or 7. They're all Swing, and they're all very fast.
Client or server, Windows or *nix, I have seen very fast apps, as well as very slow ones.
Sales tax is actually collected against the act of saleing an item which, in turn, results in income to the seller. The tax is levied against the seller, not the purchaser. It is the seller's responsibility to pay the tax, not yours.
However, it is socially acceptable in the U.S. to add the tax on to the price of an item at the time of sale. If you compare this to European countries that have VAT (Value Added Tax), the tax is already figured into the price of the item.
Regardless, the vendor has the option of whether to pass cost of the tax to you (a proper business decision as it's to be included in the cost of item to the vendor) as either being included in the price of the item or in addition to the price.
Either way, it's the same. And it is not double-taxation.
The issue here isn't the 1% of users - that's a crock. Comcast and the rest are merely trying to introduce a new pricing model, one that will move them away from the flat price model that currently exists. Simply put, they want to be more like the electric or telephone companies where you pay for how much you use.
If you consider that the electric company is capable of delivering a tremendous amount of power on a shared network and that the use of the full potential of that network's power will have an adverse effect on the rest of the people on the same grid, the comparison isn't far off.
However, I think that it is absolute bull to say that this is being caused by 1% of their users. They simply want to change their service rates and gouge the user.
Insofar as this being limited to people who download music and videos, I don't buy into that. I think that the overhead of analyzing and tracking the header-type of every IP packet would be prohibitive. Even if it could be done, which it certainly cannot. You cannot discern a file's type by analyzing the packet. The variety in protocol's alone make this next to impossible in real time.
Given that they cannot identify the file type accurately enough for billing purposes, that leaves them to implement a flat tiered rate.
Those that claim to have a free conscience, who claim to not download mp3's, pron, etc..., will still be shocked to see how much bandwidth they use playing games, surfing, and whatnot.
And to the pundits who have been saying that the free ride is over, Comcast subscribers have been paying $50+/month for continuingly deteriorating QOS and features. Hardly a free ride, in my opinion.
As has been stated elsewhere, I would much rather lose services like the Comcast portal (which I've never even seen in my 2+ years of service) and "myFileLocker", the cost of which must be very high, and have that savings redirected towards my service fee.
And yes, it is a monopoly. When a single provider exists in a marketplace and the consumer has no other option but to use that provider's service, and the provider takes advantage of that situation, that is a monopoly. Please don't espound on points long forgotten since your freshman-year economics course. Theory is useless here. The applied practice is the reality.
And the reality is that, now that the Internet has become as integral a part of life as the telephone, the service providers are going to jack up the rates as much as they can get away with.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd just a soon stuff them into a Byte (the object) as a byte (the primitive)
I'm not sure why you would want to incur the overhead of wrapping a primitive with an object. For the base OutputStream, it is far more efficient to send the single byte value. Even if you use a DataOutputStream for the other primitive types, it is still far more efficient to use primitives. Objects contain a significant amount of overhead for their supporting structures. In order to send an object over a stream, it must be serialized, sent, then deserialized on the recieving end. This requires far more overhead than sending a simple primitive.
You can tell JBuilder (and most other IDE's) what version of Java to use. You simply tell it what JDK compiler to use. In fact, many IDEs (e.g. JBuilder 7) allow you to specify the JDK version on a project-by-project basis.
Does anyone know where to find the first part (and part III if it has been printed)? The Salt Lake City Tribune charges for access to their archives.
Yes, it does. All of that information is required on the application form. I just had a daughter, so I know. In the US, registration at birth is pushed quite a bit. Information regarding address changes are applied when you fill out a W4 (tax status declaration form) as well as when you file your tax returns. Name changes (such as when you get married) are also required.
found that computers, and by extension MP3 players, are not audio recording equipment
Bad example. You can record television programs using your computer. By your example, that would make VCRs ineligible to be considered recording devices "by extension." A computer is a multi-purpose device, one of whose abilities is to act as an MP3 player. However, MP3 players are not the exclusive domain of the computer. I have both a portable MP3 player (that more closely resembles a CD player than a computer) and a component player (my DVD player), neither of which are computers. An MP3 player, and by extension, cassette recorders are protected under the Audio Home Recording Act.
Saying, "Here's how you exploit a security vulnerability in SurfOS 1.0," is not [ok].
Again, I don't agree with that statement. If anything, it is dangerously false. As the owner of several systems, it is imperitive to my my survival to know if, when, and how those systems are at risk. Furthermore, it is essential that I be able to test those systems for potential failures and take any neccessary corrective actions. Leaving it up to a company (MS, HP, whoever) to fix the problem knowing that their priorities might differ vastly from my own, is dangerous. If anything, it could be argued that the publication of those exploits is what gets them fixed in the first place. There is entirely too much complacency among companies to say "well, people aren't likely to think of trying to create a buffer overflow in program XYZ, so we'll just let it slide. Maybe we'll fix it in the next release. If it's profitable." Publication of these system problems allows those of us affected by them an opportunity to protect ourselves. It also puts the necessary presure on the manufacturers to fix them.
making a tape or MP3s from it is something entirely different
It's apparent that you don't understand the Audio Home Recording Act 1992. I suggest you read it. It quite clearly supports a consumer's right to move a recorded work to another medium for personal use. Otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to video tape a television program or make a tape recording of an album to listen to in your car. These uses were part of the reason that the amendment of Title 17 (aka Copyright Act of 1976) came to be. They are quite clearly extendible to the mp3 recording for personal use. What is not covered is the distribution of the derived work which is not in debate here.
With reference to your comment about the abusive use of the DMCA to suppress the disemination of security vulnerabilities within commerical operating systems, the HP incident that you cited is but only one small example. A more likely example would be Microsoft's attempts to prevent security groups from publicly announcing vulnerabilities so as to avoid any further publicity embarrassments.
I can certainly see how you might have misconstrued my comment. Allow me to clarify. I am in no way advocating piracy of any form and that includes the duplication of DVDs, CDs, et. al. What I am referring to is the deludge of "legislation" that groups like the RIAA and MPAA are currently trying to pass. Most disgusting of all are those suggestions that American Liberties be compromised in the name of "National Security."
What do I mean by American Liberties? Certainly the doctrine of Fair Use come to mind. Not the freedom to arbitrarily (nee illegally) copy protected works, but the right to time/space shift those works of which a copy is legitimately owned. I don't give a crap if I'm not allowed to download an MP3 of a song that I haven't bought. But, if I buy a CD, there is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to make a tape/mp3 of it. This argument, of course, has been beaten to death in these forums so there's no real use in dredging it up here.
Of course, this bit of consumer-level bitching is somewhat trite when compared to the threatened legislation that is before Congress today. Of the biggest note is the notion of a Federally mandated implementation of DRM in all electronic media devices of which computers are included. While at first this seems like a good idea (hell, why shouldn't artists' works be protected?), it is the implication of what these laws mean that cause concern. Of biggest note is the (valid) suggestion that software would be protected under DRM - the installation of which would be managed by the operating system. I have a couple of problems with this and it has nothing to do with the fact that I won't be able to pirate the latest copy of Warcraft III.
As has been discussed here in the past, Microsoft owns the patent on the implementation of DRM as an integrated part of an operating system. Now, nothing against Microsoft, but if DRM becomes mandated by the goverment, that means that all operating systems will have to comply. Do you really think that Microsoft, a company known for its fierce competitive practices, is going to license its patent to competing platforms? As a software developer who's livlihood depends on the Solaris platform (among others), I have a legitimate concern. To say nothing of all of the Linux distros. But let's say, for the sake of friendly argument, that Microsoft (or any other company for that matter) did not enforce it's patent. There's the issue of licensing.
The license for a DRM control mechanism will have to be managed by a central body. It only makes sense that the party be the holder of the technology - again, it's Microsoft, but it could be anyone. Since the laws will mandate that you must conform to the DRM licensing scheme, it follows that any software that you develop must have a license. Thus, you must acquire that license from the controlling party. That puts the controlling party in a position of unbridled power in determining what software can be released to the public. This might be Office applications, games, MP3 players, graphic packages, database systems, operating systems. Returning to the fact that the most likely party to hold this position of centralized control is, in fact, Microsoft, that means that they alone would have say over what software gets released to the market. How likely are they going to be to approve a competeing product? But let's cast the conspiracy theories aside for a moment, shall we? There's a much bigger issue at stake.
What about the companies that do custom development for their own internal use? These companies would still be required to comply with the DRM licensing schemes currently being considered before Congress. That means that, potentially, for every installation of a client application, a license must be purchased. Thus, not only must a company pay for the operating system, the application server, the DBMS - all of which are fair, legitimate expenses - and not only must the company cover the cost of the design, development, implementation and deployment of their application, they would also have to incur the cost of a DRM license for each and every deployment. Now, some folks might say "Screw the big companies, they have millions upon millions of dollars to dump on IT projects. The cold reality is that is simply not true. Worse, it does not take into account the tens of thousands of companies that don't have large IT budgets. For a developer like myself, these often make up a substantial portion of my clients.
So, what we are left with is an overly (and arbitrarily) restrictive environment in which companies can no longer afford or justify the cost of software application development putting people like myself out of work. "Too bad", some might say. "Survival of the fittest" some say. "You shouldn't have copied that floppy", some say. That's a crock of sh|t. In the end, this amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare. Companies cannot or will not assume the burden of protecting themselves and so they turn to the government for interdiction. This wouldn't be so bad if it were a case of the government saying "gee, there seems to be a real problem here, perhaps we should do something about it." No, instead it's the lobbying companies (such as the RIAA) who have realised (and this is the important part) it is far cheaper to purchase the favor of a few senators than to incur the cost of protecting your own property.
Am I opposed to laws that say I cannot steal? Of course not. That's a ludicrous accusation. What I am opposed to is the rights of citizens/consumers/ME being stripped in the name of entities (which happens to be media corporations this time around). What I am opposed to is the oppression, nay, elimination of such "inalienable" rights as the freedom of speech, in order to protect said entities. You don't need to look any farther than the 2600 case to understand what I am referring to. Of course, there is also the issue of people not being able to speak negatively about companies, or to be allowed to explain security-related deficiencies that stand as real, legitimate threats to the citizenry. Stand behind the DCMA all you want, but when a security exploit has the ability to compromise public systems, to make the discovery and subsequent publication of those issues, whose sole purpose exist in the hopes of eliminating them, illegal, well, we really have our priorities screwed up.
This isn't about the liberty to copy a DVD. It's much bigger and infinately more important than that.
There is no question that the piracy problem is epidemic in Asian countries. And yet, why is it that it's in the U.S. of A. that our civil liberties are being stripped away and the consumer continuously being raped when it's quite clear that the bigger problems exist outside of America's borders?
Perhaps the almighty US Dollar doesn't buy as much government overseas as it does domestically?
Guilty.
;)
Damn you!
I've looked into Firebird before. Unfortunately, it's just not at the level that we need right now.
Since you asked :)
The reason for dumping mssql is simply due to cost. We're at the point where we have to go with the per-server licensing which, iirc, put it somewhere in the 60-80k range for two servers. Ultimately, we're expecting to require a significant number of servers (25+). That's too prohibitive for us, not to mention that we're running on NT 4.0 and Linux and considering moving off of the NT servers.
It's also an issue of future planning. We don't like the way that MS' licensing plans are progressing. We were going to upgrade from NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 Adv Server, but with MS dropping its support come April of next year, as well as the issue of not being able to buy further licenses in the near future, we came to the realization that the only way to maintain a standardized, consistent server platform was to either stay at NT 4.0 with SqlServer 6.5 (our current implementation) or move on to Linux or BSD with MySql or similar. This particular tier of clients cannot afford SqlServer, Oracle, DB2, etc and the level that they would be required.
Were cost not an issue, then yes, we would stay with mssql.
It is expected that any mssql stored procs would have to be converted. But that is the price that we are willing to pay in order to have a singular repository for the database logic.
Based on the number of people here who are saying "PostgreSQL", we're going to give some consideration to that alternative.
Can anyone relate their experience with PostgreSQL with respect to performance?
I've been dying to dump our M$ SqlServer base for MySql for a long time now. Once MySql (finally) integrates stored procedures (which I think is now v4.2), that will happen, but not before.
I've heard the arguments for not needing stored procs before, but we have a application environment that is spread across multiple language and technology platforms and cannot afford the duplication in database logic.
Of course, if any one has some better suggestions, I'd be more than happy to hear them.
Well, I would have used emacs but I didn't have it installed on my modded digital watch, you anonymous Troll.
Go ahead. Encourage folks to help out some more.
You have to be using IE.
I use Opera and it was driving me nuts looking for it.
Spielberg didn't direct Brothers in Arms. He was the executive producer.
Schindler's List was a great film, as was Saving Private Ryan. However, I wouldn't consider either of them dark. Schindler's List was dramatic, drawing on actual history. Saving Private Ryan drew on real world events, although it was a work of fiction. Spielberg's style of direction leans more on the sentimental which, for the final installment of SW, would not be appropriate. Remember, we're supposed to hate Vader, one of the most villified characters in cinematic history. We're not supposed to feel sorry for the Lost Boy.
I can only imagine what Spielberg would have done to the series. Ep 3 is supposed to be the darkest of all of the episodes. I'm sorry, but Spielberg just doesn't do dark well enough.
And I can just see him going back to the film several years after its release and replacing all of the lightsabers with walkie-talkies.
No thanks.
Those lords also maintained the roads, the towns, insured farmers could afford to harvest their crops, kept thieving at a minimum, provided medicine, entertainment, and more.
It's a poor example.
Taxes pay collectively for what the individual cannot or, in your case, will not. While the system is, admittedly, abused, there is not a single society that can exist without government (and please don't try to use Pygmies et. al. as a retort).
The fact is that society needs a collective body to protect it, to assist it, to help it function as a society.
And before you go railing against taxation, you might want to reflect on the fact that the U. S. Goverment subsidizes your Internet connection.
Or did you think that your $35 a month was paying for the entire infrastructure?
Back to your original argument that sales tax represents double taxation, kindly admit that you were wrong and move on. Or not. But please don't continue patronizing us with a third grader's misconception of the feudal system.
Again, you are incorrect. They are taxed on the sale only. Any amounts paid for sales tax are deducted from their gross income - which is what the government taxes on. Sales tax is an expense. Gross - expenses = profit.
I own my own business so I know what I'm talking about.
And I didn't moderate you, I replied to your post.
> > I code a lot of Java and I currently develop in it for a living
Not very well, apparently. If you are under the impression that Swing is slow. It's not the language, it's the programmer. This is true for any development language -- not just Java.
And if you don't think that Swing can be fast, I suggest you take a look at JBuilder 6 or 7. They're all Swing, and they're all very fast.
Client or server, Windows or *nix, I have seen very fast apps, as well as very slow ones.
It's time to learn a little code optimization.
Actually, that's not entirely accurate.
Sales tax is actually collected against the act of saleing an item which, in turn, results in income to the seller. The tax is levied against the seller, not the purchaser. It is the seller's responsibility to pay the tax, not yours.
However, it is socially acceptable in the U.S. to add the tax on to the price of an item at the time of sale. If you compare this to European countries that have VAT (Value Added Tax), the tax is already figured into the price of the item.
Regardless, the vendor has the option of whether to pass cost of the tax to you (a proper business decision as it's to be included in the cost of item to the vendor) as either being included in the price of the item or in addition to the price.
Either way, it's the same. And it is not double-taxation.
It's unlimited, you just can't use it all at once.
Sort of like an all-u-can-eat buffet. Eat too much and they tell you to leave.
The issue here isn't the 1% of users - that's a crock. Comcast and the rest are merely trying to introduce a new pricing model, one that will move them away from the flat price model that currently exists. Simply put, they want to be more like the electric or telephone companies where you pay for how much you use.
If you consider that the electric company is capable of delivering a tremendous amount of power on a shared network and that the use of the full potential of that network's power will have an adverse effect on the rest of the people on the same grid, the comparison isn't far off.
However, I think that it is absolute bull to say that this is being caused by 1% of their users. They simply want to change their service rates and gouge the user.
Insofar as this being limited to people who download music and videos, I don't buy into that. I think that the overhead of analyzing and tracking the header-type of every IP packet would be prohibitive. Even if it could be done, which it certainly cannot. You cannot discern a file's type by analyzing the packet. The variety in protocol's alone make this next to impossible in real time.
Given that they cannot identify the file type accurately enough for billing purposes, that leaves them to implement a flat tiered rate.
Those that claim to have a free conscience, who claim to not download mp3's, pron, etc..., will still be shocked to see how much bandwidth they use playing games, surfing, and whatnot.
And to the pundits who have been saying that the free ride is over, Comcast subscribers have been paying $50+/month for continuingly deteriorating QOS and features. Hardly a free ride, in my opinion.
As has been stated elsewhere, I would much rather lose services like the Comcast portal (which I've never even seen in my 2+ years of service) and "myFileLocker", the cost of which must be very high, and have that savings redirected towards my service fee.
And yes, it is a monopoly. When a single provider exists in a marketplace and the consumer has no other option but to use that provider's service, and the provider takes advantage of that situation, that is a monopoly. Please don't espound on points long forgotten since your freshman-year economics course. Theory is useless here. The applied practice is the reality.
And the reality is that, now that the Internet has become as integral a part of life as the telephone, the service providers are going to jack up the rates as much as they can get away with.
Hey Jon,
How about sharing that hard to find 888 number for AOL with us?
You just reminded me that I have an old AOL account rotting away.