Whether a site has any interesting content has precisely sodall to do with whether that content is dynamically generated or not.
I didn't say the content wasn't interesting. The content, whether static or dynamic when the server processes it, is all static once the browser gets it. The content could very well be interesting. But, with only static HTML, there's no database access. That's where juicy info (that's supposed to be hidden) lies. A static HTML site is, more or less, open for the world to see as it is.
And, there's simply no point in cracking a static site. At best, one could hope for creating a shell account with it. But, then static sites aren't usually connected via high bandwidth lines, and usually don't have high end hardware, so what's the point? Of course, you could always destroy the site, or replace it with an 0wn3d page, but static sites aren't usually high profile, and are pretty quick and easy to rebuild.
My point is that not only are static sites harder to hack, but they're also not a very tempting target anyways. And, I can't think of a single high profile site that's purely static HTML. Therefore (unless my memory is simply miserable today, and there's quite a few high profile plain HTML sites), they really aren't a real world example of a site likely to be hacked.
As for contributions, I think we've put in quite a bit. Ever look at a graph of the internet backbone? There's a large chunk in the U.S.
That's because we need the bandwidth to send out all of our spam. And let the script kiddiez r00t boxes. And steal movies and music from P2P networks. Oh yeah...we use it to play games and read Slashdot too. =)
"I took the initative in creating the internet" -Al Gore
Seems like he did to me. Of course, people like you do seem to rewrite history..
Not to be too political here, but let's at least look at things reasonably. The context of that quote was Gore talking about legislation that he spearheaded to fund the creation of the Internet. Neither that quote, or any other, can be interpreted by any but the most die hard conservative as Gore claiming to have invented the Internet. It is, however, a fact that Gore did take initiative in legislation to create the Internet.
When you take things out of context, you can prove almost any point. As the old saying goes, the devil can quote scripture to suit his means (or something like that...)
And I imagine youor thttp server is not doing anything particularly useful, either, is it? And it also doesn't receive very many visits, does it? And contains no interesting info, I'd bet. Exactly the hackers' point.
"And you have to ask yourself who will have a Web server running with this small amount of services activated? Nobody."
Please. What they're basically complaining about is that the web server they were supposed to be attacking was too secure, and not easy enough to get into. If it serves up web pages, it's a web server, whether or not the admin has opened all the ports you're used to exploiting.
Evidently, that Smoothwall Linux server was indeed NOT a real world example...just take a look at KDWork's other webservers. If KDWorks can't secure ALL their servers, they have no business offering up a hack bounty...or security products.
I believe the hackers' point was that, yes, an otherwise unfunctional box can be secured to the point of being extremely difficult (or impossible) to crack. But, as soon as that box starts doing something functional (like, for instance, processing registration requests connected to a database server), then they can hack it.
The biggest rip-off ever pulled on the working class is the lie that joining a union will make your life better, help you feed your children, insure job security and cure cancer....Just look at what unionizing public school teachers has done for education.
Yeah, public school teachers do a piss poor job (in general), are next to impossible to fire, get annual raises, and good benefits too! Sounds like a raw deal to me!
Seriously, a union isn't about making you do your job better, it's about better compensation for doing your job. In that respect, unions benefit the worker, but not the employer....andnot necessarily the consumer.
I know the 24-bit thing was beside the point...that was just an aside.
Once again, however, you are still under the assumption that the set is infinite. It is most undoubtedly not, however.
Like I previously pointed out, the 3 factors that make an "image" unique (color, depth, and FOV) are all finite...therefore the combinations of the 3 are all finite. Of course, with the small "pixels" humans can distinguish, you would be looking at an incredibly large number of "images"...but still finite (and calcuable by someone with the facts and figures of how many colorws we can see, how many "pixels" we can distinguish, etc.)
Easy, even passing on the assumption that humans see the universe in 24-bit RGB. That is false. Monitors display in 24-bit RGB, humans can perceive more (infinite? AFAIK, no, but it is more than 24bit or even 32bit) amounts of color.
You assume that the subset of human viewable "images" of the universe are infinite. Assuming that human color perception is finite, and that "images" are a combination of color, depth (also finite, you can only see so far), and arrangement in your visual perception (also finite), then obviously, there exists a finite number of possible combinations of the 3.
A systems admin depends on this software failing, their whole career depends on the failure of software.
If you were my SysAdmin, I'd fire you just on the basis of that statement. A SysAdmin depends on the NOTHING failing. When everything is running smoothly, then you know you've done a good job (at least for the next 4 hours).
As for your automated server/factory analogy, maybe you haven't noticed, but there's a whole industry of SysAdmins for those "automated" factories. There's PLC programmers to program the machines, there are installers to install the machines and network them, the admins even have laptops! (Egads! Imagine that!) The only thing that automated factories replaced were low level assembly line folks. In the proces, they created a new demand for the knowledge workers to keep it running. (BTW, I'm the SysAdmin for a semi-automated water bottling factory, and I know of what I speak)
#1 Technical skills, in the form of specific experience in a particular OS or certification are irrelevant. We have IT staff who were interns, clerks or in one case a driver who injured his leg. In most cases they became good mid-level Unix or NT admins in about 12-18 months. 5/6 of them are taking classes paid for by our organization.
And if you would've hired someone with 4 years of industry experience, instead of 4 yrs in a Liberal Arts university, then they would be a mid level Unix/NT admin from day one. And you wouldn't have had to pay for classes for them (unless it's for a new technology).
Most employers don't run a nonprofit educational center, and they don't hire folks with the thought that "maybe in 2 years, with $40,000 in training classes, he can become a SysAdmin!". They're more interested in what you can do for them NOW.
I stand corrected. There are, evidently, some colleges that offer network engineering courses. I'm a bit curious, though, if what you're learning in class is applicable to the real world? For instance, you mention PPP, SONET, and 802.11. While those are desirable technologies to learn about...what about the more mundane things like Disaster Recovery Planning, Network Diagramming and Documentation, routing protocols, etc.? Do they teach those, or are you stuffed with theory and still expected to get the hands on knowledge on your own time (eg., learning the OSI model vs. actually figuring out what it means to people in the field...and that TCP/IP does not conform to it)?
I still say there's no substitute for good experience, and even a BS degree in Network Technologies is a less impressive credential than a few years of experience.
If you're REALLY interested in a SysAdmin career, then forget about college. Most colleges don't offer anything in the way of Network Admin courses...it's all Engineering or Programming.
Get your certifications now, and concentrate on getting a job in the field. You'll probably start off at the helpdesk (don't we all?), but if you're knowledgeable and dedicated, you'll be tapped for a promotion soon enough. I'd recommend knowing the Windows clients backwards and forwards, and knowing network basics as well. And don't be afraid to talk to the admins in your company either, they can ALWAYS use help. Just don't act like you're the all knowing God and they're just there because they have an MCSE (even if it's true)...that'll get you nowhere pretty fast.
If you're going to be OS-agnostic, I'd recommend starting with an A+ and Network+ cert (you should be able to get those in less than a month). That should get in the door with an entry level position.
After that, get an MCSA (Microsoft Certfied Systems Administrator) which will easily upgrade to an MCSE. The MCSA should take about 3-6 months to earn. Then, start looking at the RHCE (assuming you have previous Linux/UNIX admin skills, you may want to start with the RHCE...it'll open a LOT of doors, but it's a good bit harder to get than an MCSA/E) to add to your resume. I'd skip the Novell CNA/E (NetWare is dead, Novell just hasn't noticed yet) and save Cisco for later (they're a royal PITA).
At that point, you should have around 2 years experience in the field, and should be able to grab a junior admin position for a larger network, or a sysadmin gig in a smaller shop. Of course, it goees without saying that if you just study for the certs, without knowledge to back it up, you'll be quickly found out and treated accordingly-so make sure you know your stuff as well.
Oh, and while I'm at it, learn Perl and shell programming for Linux/UNIX administration, and WSH/VBScript (or JScript if you prefer) for Windows administration. It'll make life easier and prove a lot of people wrong when they say "you can't do xxxx on Windows/Linux".
If, OTOH, you THINK you want a sysadmin position, but can see yourself changing careers later in life (including IT management), then go to college. Get a degree in SOMETHING (Business Admin, CIS/DIS, Comp. Eng., etc. would all work wonders). That will give you the opportunity to change career tracks later in life. An MCSE/RHCE does not prepare you for a management position.
AFAIK, I don't see how somebody could get conned out of their grocery money with this gelatin thing. Are you going to sit there and let the crook carefully take ur fingerprint!? Of course not.
Uhhh, you must've missed the part about taking latent prints and etching them into PCBs, right? Unless you religiously wear gloves, you could be pretty much screwed on this fingerprint deal.....
but not in a way that CREATES jobs, its invested in a way to make other CEOs richer.
Who the hell is going to "borrow" money for a living?
Actually, a great many people borrow money for living. Look at credit card debt, auto loans, mortgages, etc.
Maybe someone whos rich can borrow millions of dollars but the average person cant afford to borrow any money at all.
You don't have to borrow millions. Milions borrowing a dollar will have the same effect.
Second the places this money is reinvested in, is not places which matter to the working class.
Large corporations borrowing money to expand business results in more jobs. Small business owners borrow money as well. And of course, the previously mentioned auto loans, mortgages, etc.
The working class benifits from more jobs, not from invested money.
Is this a troll? Invested money creates jobs. Jobs create extra money, which is reinvested. Whihc creates jobs...round and round we go.
In the private sector, a dollar gets bounced around between businesses and individuals. Let's say that I buy a TiVo at Circuit City. Circuit City pays its employees out of that money. One of those employees grabs a Big Mac on his lunch break. That money gets paid to a McDonald's employee, who buys a CD at the record store, etc. The more likely path that dollar will take through the government will be to pay off an old fart on Social Security or a welfare queen (but I repeat myself here) or throw the money down some pork-barrel rathole. At best, it might get tied up in capital expenses for infrastructure or something like that.
And the welfare queen or old fart on SS does what with that dollar? Burns it? No, they, of course, go out and buy something (probably a Tivo as well, but that's beside the point). Now that dollar follows the same path thru the economy as your dollar did.
The pork barrel rathole, while inefficent and a general waste of taxpayer money, is simply a funnel to a private sector business. That private sector business pays its employess, who all go out and buy Tivos. Once again, that dollar follws the same path.
If anything, I would argue that private sector money is LESS efficent at motivating the economy because for each dollar that gets spent in the private sector, a portion of it will end up in someone's bank account saved for a rainy day. The bank is required to hold back 10% of that portion, effectively removing it from circulation.
The government, on the other hand, has no way to save a dollar (and wouldn't know how to, even if there was a way). Every dollar that finds it's way into the government is spent. Of course, it eventually ends back up in the private sector (to be stashed in a bank account), but it's at least 1 step behind the dollar that started in the private sector.
I'm wondering that too, Curmudgeon. Judging by your eloquent comment-with such an amazing amount of substance, clearly demonstrated intellectual capabilities, and penchant for rational discourse-I'd say the limits to which your ignorance can decline are unfathomable.
Hmmm...let's see. This should be pretty easy....
Welfare benefits wealthy folks because it keeps the poor, huddled masses from amassing a revolution and forcefully taking Microsoft's/Bill Gates billions.
Medicare benefits wealthy folks because it keeps the peons alive and well enough to perform manual labor for minimum wage, thereby increasing stockholder profit.
Public schools benefit wealthy folks by giving them a (semi)educated workforce to perform menial labor for a (semi)living wage, thereby increasing stockholder profit. Also, it can be used to indoctrinate them into capitalism, thereby ensuring the wealthy folks' continued success.
Now that I've finished with your uncreative argument, here's a few facts (Warning: the preceding link is to an Excel spreadsheet).
The largest budget item is national defense. This is a greater benefit to others more wealthy than me for a few reasons. First, I have very little to defend. If China was to take over the US today, they would not seize my property or money...I have none. Bill Gates, however, would probably very quickly go from billionaire to thousandaire. (Of course, we would also both lose freedoms, but that would be an equal benefit.) Second, due to my lower income level, I cannot invest in stocks. Wealthy folks can invest in defense companies, and thereby increase their wealth (a good bit of the $300 billion will go to defense contractors).
Social Security and Medicare are paid with seperate taxes. Those taxes are only levied on salaries up to (IIRC) $65,000/yr, so wealthy folks don't pay 90% of those programs.
Health and Income Services, I'll have to admit, I'm a bit fuzzy on. I'll guess that Income Services are federal employee salaries? If that's the case, then we don't really need to discuss that. It obviously only benefits federal employees. Health, I really have no idea. Most hospitals (all?) are locally funded. Healthcare is privatized, and we all pay our HMO's for it....
The only other large item is Net Interest. That's to pay interest on the federal debt, which is mostly in the hands of the wealthy in the form of treasury bonds. The linked article even states that Microsoft used to invest exclusively in treasury bonds. And of course, each deficit dollar spent helps the wealthy even more, as they can buy even more treasury bonds.
"Education, training, employment and social services" is a paltry 3.3% of the federal budget (for 2000). Commerce and housing credits account for around 2/10 a percent. Natural resources and environment? 1.5%. Agriculture? 2%. Administration of justice? 1.5%. General gov't? Less than 1%. Transportation? Around 2.6%.
Now, you tell me where all these benefits that I'm supposed to be getting are....
personally would be happy to pay reparations to former slaves.
Oh wait, they're all dead.
Oh, you mean you want to give out money to people who are totally unaffected by slavery? Sorry, that's a different matter.
Totally unaffected? How's this for an argument:
(1) Capital wealth and property allows for the easier creation of more wealth.
(2) Whites in slave times were allowed to obtain and maintain capital wealth and property. In some cases, whites received property just by asking for it. Other times, they paid a small pittance for it. Blacks were not able to accumulate wealth, nor own property, nor vote in elections to bring about a change in status.
(3) Whites who obtained wealth and/or property(whether truly wealthy, or perhaps only had a shack to their name) were able to pass that wealth to heirs. Blacks had no wealth, and could not pass any wealth to their heirs even if they had had any.
(4) Whites were able to "do better than their parents", and build upon previous wealth. Blacks were forced to start over upon each new generation.
(5) Conclusion: The field did not become remotely level until 1860. In 1860, blacks were starting completely from scratch, while whites had a couple hundred year's headstart and had claimed most, if not all, of the available and desirable land.
Only the Native Americans (who actually had wealth taken from them) got a bigger shaft than the blacks (who weren't allowed to accumulate wealth) in this country's founding.
I don't know about other countries, but point me to an article about someone in the United States who died of starvation. It NEVER happens.
You're right. That's because while they're begging for change to get something to eat (or picking thru a dumpster, or sleeping on a bench in a park, etc.) they're arrested and thrown in jail for being a derelict with no ID and no $$.
Or, they rob a convenience store and get jailed or shot.
Or, they freeze to death before they starve to death.
The reason people are hungry is not unequal distribution of wealth, it's because of unequal distribution of capitalism and freedom. Lack of food and money is a symptom, not a root cause.
Let me be the first to call "bullshit". While that is certainly a factor in some cases, unequal distribution of natural resources is much higher on the list. Sahara sand don't grow wheat, my friend. Nebraska prairies, however, certainly do...and do it very well.
Bravo. You hit it right on the head. Just to emphasize, I'll restate.
Assuming a perfect market (which is the assumption to begin with), the corps will have already priced their product at that optimal level to get the most profit. If taxes are increased, the only way to increase prices is to lower profits. That, of course, is a prettu dumb thing to do. The only way to pay the taxes, then, is to dip into the profit margin.
Microsoft should not be allowed to have 40 billion dollars sitting in the bank, that DOES have a HUGE impact on our economy, 40 billion dollars is biggger than the movie industry, the gaming industry, the airline industry combined.
Think about the effects this has on our economy, think about how many jobs 40 billion dollars would create, it would create hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs!!!
Pssst. MS's money isn't sitting in a bank. If you had read the next article on Microsoft's money managing, you would have seen that it's invested in "short term US Treasuries...commercial paper, municipal bonds and mortgage-backed securities...[and] others".
Even the money that is in a bank will be used by the bank to fund their own investments (why do you think they want your money so badly?). IIRC, banks are required to keep 10% or 12% of the deposited amount on hand, so that amount, is, in effect removed from the economy.
The great bulk of MS's $40 billion, however, is reinvested.
[MS is] not a growth stock anymore, at best they are a "utility" stock that should produce 10-15% returns every year. If done right, they should be the new Coca-Cola - profits and dividends every year from now until eternity.
Don't you get it? In 10 years, MS will have enough cash to buy the US government. At that point, all the taxes will go to Microsoft. Talk about profits and dividends!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say the content wasn't interesting. The content, whether static or dynamic when the server processes it, is all static once the browser gets it. The content could very well be interesting. But, with only static HTML, there's no database access. That's where juicy info (that's supposed to be hidden) lies. A static HTML site is, more or less, open for the world to see as it is.
And, there's simply no point in cracking a static site. At best, one could hope for creating a shell account with it. But, then static sites aren't usually connected via high bandwidth lines, and usually don't have high end hardware, so what's the point? Of course, you could always destroy the site, or replace it with an 0wn3d page, but static sites aren't usually high profile, and are pretty quick and easy to rebuild.
My point is that not only are static sites harder to hack, but they're also not a very tempting target anyways. And, I can't think of a single high profile site that's purely static HTML. Therefore (unless my memory is simply miserable today, and there's quite a few high profile plain HTML sites), they really aren't a real world example of a site likely to be hacked.
That's because we need the bandwidth to send out all of our spam. And let the script kiddiez r00t boxes. And steal movies and music from P2P networks. Oh yeah...we use it to play games and read Slashdot too. =)
Not to be too political here, but let's at least look at things reasonably. The context of that quote was Gore talking about legislation that he spearheaded to fund the creation of the Internet. Neither that quote, or any other, can be interpreted by any but the most die hard conservative as Gore claiming to have invented the Internet. It is, however, a fact that Gore did take initiative in legislation to create the Internet.
When you take things out of context, you can prove almost any point. As the old saying goes, the devil can quote scripture to suit his means (or something like that...)
And I imagine youor thttp server is not doing anything particularly useful, either, is it? And it also doesn't receive very many visits, does it? And contains no interesting info, I'd bet. Exactly the hackers' point.
Evidently, that Smoothwall Linux server was indeed NOT a real world example...just take a look at KDWork's other webservers. If KDWorks can't secure ALL their servers, they have no business offering up a hack bounty...or security products.
I believe the hackers' point was that, yes, an otherwise unfunctional box can be secured to the point of being extremely difficult (or impossible) to crack. But, as soon as that box starts doing something functional (like, for instance, processing registration requests connected to a database server), then they can hack it.
Yeah, public school teachers do a piss poor job (in general), are next to impossible to fire, get annual raises, and good benefits too! Sounds like a raw deal to me!
Seriously, a union isn't about making you do your job better, it's about better compensation for doing your job. In that respect, unions benefit the worker, but not the employer....andnot necessarily the consumer.
Once again, however, you are still under the assumption that the set is infinite. It is most undoubtedly not, however.
Like I previously pointed out, the 3 factors that make an "image" unique (color, depth, and FOV) are all finite...therefore the combinations of the 3 are all finite. Of course, with the small "pixels" humans can distinguish, you would be looking at an incredibly large number of "images"...but still finite (and calcuable by someone with the facts and figures of how many colorws we can see, how many "pixels" we can distinguish, etc.)
You assume that the subset of human viewable "images" of the universe are infinite. Assuming that human color perception is finite, and that "images" are a combination of color, depth (also finite, you can only see so far), and arrangement in your visual perception (also finite), then obviously, there exists a finite number of possible combinations of the 3.
If you were my SysAdmin, I'd fire you just on the basis of that statement. A SysAdmin depends on the NOTHING failing. When everything is running smoothly, then you know you've done a good job (at least for the next 4 hours).
As for your automated server/factory analogy, maybe you haven't noticed, but there's a whole industry of SysAdmins for those "automated" factories. There's PLC programmers to program the machines, there are installers to install the machines and network them, the admins even have laptops! (Egads! Imagine that!) The only thing that automated factories replaced were low level assembly line folks. In the proces, they created a new demand for the knowledge workers to keep it running. (BTW, I'm the SysAdmin for a semi-automated water bottling factory, and I know of what I speak)
And if you would've hired someone with 4 years of industry experience, instead of 4 yrs in a Liberal Arts university, then they would be a mid level Unix/NT admin from day one. And you wouldn't have had to pay for classes for them (unless it's for a new technology).
Most employers don't run a nonprofit educational center, and they don't hire folks with the thought that "maybe in 2 years, with $40,000 in training classes, he can become a SysAdmin!". They're more interested in what you can do for them NOW.
Yeah, but the Ask /.'er was specifically asking about SysAdmin...not CS or EE.
I still say there's no substitute for good experience, and even a BS degree in Network Technologies is a less impressive credential than a few years of experience.
Get your certifications now, and concentrate on getting a job in the field. You'll probably start off at the helpdesk (don't we all?), but if you're knowledgeable and dedicated, you'll be tapped for a promotion soon enough. I'd recommend knowing the Windows clients backwards and forwards, and knowing network basics as well. And don't be afraid to talk to the admins in your company either, they can ALWAYS use help. Just don't act like you're the all knowing God and they're just there because they have an MCSE (even if it's true)...that'll get you nowhere pretty fast.
If you're going to be OS-agnostic, I'd recommend starting with an A+ and Network+ cert (you should be able to get those in less than a month). That should get in the door with an entry level position.
After that, get an MCSA (Microsoft Certfied Systems Administrator) which will easily upgrade to an MCSE. The MCSA should take about 3-6 months to earn. Then, start looking at the RHCE (assuming you have previous Linux/UNIX admin skills, you may want to start with the RHCE...it'll open a LOT of doors, but it's a good bit harder to get than an MCSA/E) to add to your resume. I'd skip the Novell CNA/E (NetWare is dead, Novell just hasn't noticed yet) and save Cisco for later (they're a royal PITA).
At that point, you should have around 2 years experience in the field, and should be able to grab a junior admin position for a larger network, or a sysadmin gig in a smaller shop. Of course, it goees without saying that if you just study for the certs, without knowledge to back it up, you'll be quickly found out and treated accordingly-so make sure you know your stuff as well.
Oh, and while I'm at it, learn Perl and shell programming for Linux/UNIX administration, and WSH/VBScript (or JScript if you prefer) for Windows administration. It'll make life easier and prove a lot of people wrong when they say "you can't do xxxx on Windows/Linux".
If, OTOH, you THINK you want a sysadmin position, but can see yourself changing careers later in life (including IT management), then go to college. Get a degree in SOMETHING (Business Admin, CIS/DIS, Comp. Eng., etc. would all work wonders). That will give you the opportunity to change career tracks later in life. An MCSE/RHCE does not prepare you for a management position.
Uhhh, you must've missed the part about taking latent prints and etching them into PCBs, right? Unless you religiously wear gloves, you could be pretty much screwed on this fingerprint deal.....
Actually, a great many people borrow money for living. Look at credit card debt, auto loans, mortgages, etc.
You don't have to borrow millions. Milions borrowing a dollar will have the same effect.
Large corporations borrowing money to expand business results in more jobs. Small business owners borrow money as well. And of course, the previously mentioned auto loans, mortgages, etc.
Is this a troll? Invested money creates jobs. Jobs create extra money, which is reinvested. Whihc creates jobs...round and round we go.
And the welfare queen or old fart on SS does what with that dollar? Burns it? No, they, of course, go out and buy something (probably a Tivo as well, but that's beside the point). Now that dollar follows the same path thru the economy as your dollar did.
The pork barrel rathole, while inefficent and a general waste of taxpayer money, is simply a funnel to a private sector business. That private sector business pays its employess, who all go out and buy Tivos. Once again, that dollar follws the same path.
If anything, I would argue that private sector money is LESS efficent at motivating the economy because for each dollar that gets spent in the private sector, a portion of it will end up in someone's bank account saved for a rainy day. The bank is required to hold back 10% of that portion, effectively removing it from circulation.
The government, on the other hand, has no way to save a dollar (and wouldn't know how to, even if there was a way). Every dollar that finds it's way into the government is spent. Of course, it eventually ends back up in the private sector (to be stashed in a bank account), but it's at least 1 step behind the dollar that started in the private sector.
I'm wondering that too, Curmudgeon. Judging by your eloquent comment-with such an amazing amount of substance, clearly demonstrated intellectual capabilities, and penchant for rational discourse-I'd say the limits to which your ignorance can decline are unfathomable.
Welfare benefits wealthy folks because it keeps the poor, huddled masses from amassing a revolution and forcefully taking Microsoft's/Bill Gates billions.
Medicare benefits wealthy folks because it keeps the peons alive and well enough to perform manual labor for minimum wage, thereby increasing stockholder profit.
Public schools benefit wealthy folks by giving them a (semi)educated workforce to perform menial labor for a (semi)living wage, thereby increasing stockholder profit. Also, it can be used to indoctrinate them into capitalism, thereby ensuring the wealthy folks' continued success.
Now that I've finished with your uncreative argument, here's a few facts (Warning: the preceding link is to an Excel spreadsheet).
The largest budget item is national defense. This is a greater benefit to others more wealthy than me for a few reasons. First, I have very little to defend. If China was to take over the US today, they would not seize my property or money...I have none. Bill Gates, however, would probably very quickly go from billionaire to thousandaire. (Of course, we would also both lose freedoms, but that would be an equal benefit.) Second, due to my lower income level, I cannot invest in stocks. Wealthy folks can invest in defense companies, and thereby increase their wealth (a good bit of the $300 billion will go to defense contractors).
Social Security and Medicare are paid with seperate taxes. Those taxes are only levied on salaries up to (IIRC) $65,000/yr, so wealthy folks don't pay 90% of those programs.
Health and Income Services, I'll have to admit, I'm a bit fuzzy on. I'll guess that Income Services are federal employee salaries? If that's the case, then we don't really need to discuss that. It obviously only benefits federal employees. Health, I really have no idea. Most hospitals (all?) are locally funded. Healthcare is privatized, and we all pay our HMO's for it....
The only other large item is Net Interest. That's to pay interest on the federal debt, which is mostly in the hands of the wealthy in the form of treasury bonds. The linked article even states that Microsoft used to invest exclusively in treasury bonds. And of course, each deficit dollar spent helps the wealthy even more, as they can buy even more treasury bonds.
"Education, training, employment and social services" is a paltry 3.3% of the federal budget (for 2000). Commerce and housing credits account for around 2/10 a percent. Natural resources and environment? 1.5%. Agriculture? 2%. Administration of justice? 1.5%. General gov't? Less than 1%. Transportation? Around 2.6%.
Now, you tell me where all these benefits that I'm supposed to be getting are....
Totally unaffected? How's this for an argument:
(1) Capital wealth and property allows for the easier creation of more wealth.
(2) Whites in slave times were allowed to obtain and maintain capital wealth and property. In some cases, whites received property just by asking for it. Other times, they paid a small pittance for it. Blacks were not able to accumulate wealth, nor own property, nor vote in elections to bring about a change in status.
(3) Whites who obtained wealth and/or property(whether truly wealthy, or perhaps only had a shack to their name) were able to pass that wealth to heirs. Blacks had no wealth, and could not pass any wealth to their heirs even if they had had any.
(4) Whites were able to "do better than their parents", and build upon previous wealth. Blacks were forced to start over upon each new generation.
(5) Conclusion: The field did not become remotely level until 1860. In 1860, blacks were starting completely from scratch, while whites had a couple hundred year's headstart and had claimed most, if not all, of the available and desirable land.
Only the Native Americans (who actually had wealth taken from them) got a bigger shaft than the blacks (who weren't allowed to accumulate wealth) in this country's founding.
No. Neither has my Grandmother (I called and asked her). But she has heard of MS Windows XP.
You're right. That's because while they're begging for change to get something to eat (or picking thru a dumpster, or sleeping on a bench in a park, etc.) they're arrested and thrown in jail for being a derelict with no ID and no $$.
Or, they rob a convenience store and get jailed or shot.
Or, they freeze to death before they starve to death.
Let me be the first to call "bullshit". While that is certainly a factor in some cases, unequal distribution of natural resources is much higher on the list. Sahara sand don't grow wheat, my friend. Nebraska prairies, however, certainly do...and do it very well.
Assuming a perfect market (which is the assumption to begin with), the corps will have already priced their product at that optimal level to get the most profit. If taxes are increased, the only way to increase prices is to lower profits. That, of course, is a prettu dumb thing to do. The only way to pay the taxes, then, is to dip into the profit margin.
Pssst. MS's money isn't sitting in a bank. If you had read the next article on Microsoft's money managing, you would have seen that it's invested in "short term US Treasuries...commercial paper, municipal bonds and mortgage-backed securities...[and] others".
Even the money that is in a bank will be used by the bank to fund their own investments (why do you think they want your money so badly?). IIRC, banks are required to keep 10% or 12% of the deposited amount on hand, so that amount, is, in effect removed from the economy.
The great bulk of MS's $40 billion, however, is reinvested.
Don't you get it? In 10 years, MS will have enough cash to buy the US government. At that point, all the taxes will go to Microsoft. Talk about profits and dividends!!!!