Ten to twenty years from now, people are going to be shaking their heads in bewilderment about the attempts to make money selling "free software." They will react in much the same way that we do when people mention "New Coke".
Hey, how about some dedicated FTP bandwidth for club members? I know the release of the PPC- 8.2 may well flatten the public servers.
I am sure that all 26 of you guys will be able to get your copies without too much of a problem.
PowerPCs make up all of about 5% of the market. What percentage of PowerPC users run something other than a Mac OS? About a tenth of a percent? Yeah, that's going to be a crushing demand. I hope that the Internet backbone providers can handle the traffic. Maybe Mandrake can add a few dozen OC-3 lines to handle the traffic if they release a DEC Alpha version of Mandrake 8.2.
Note to moderators: If you feel the need to mod this comment down, may I suggest Flamebait? "Troll" is really not right since I'm expressing my actual opinion, though in an offensive and confrontational manner. Also, since I am at 50 Karma points, I suggest first modding this up to +5 and then down to -1 to get the maximum effect (-6 karma points).
You really didn't think about where you were posting this at all, did you? The entire story was about how Microsoft and Unisys were running their anti-Unix web site on a FreeBSD box. If FreeBSD is "dying", why was it chosen to host the web site in question?
Well, first of all, it's not "trespassing" because nothing has physically entered your property.
You have no understanding of law at all, do you? Computer Trespass has been illegal for years at both the state and local level. Trespass to chattels is a form of trespassing and has been recognized as such by the courts when applied to mail servers. If you don't understand the law, then don't make pronouncements about it. It just muddies the discussion and wastes everyone's time.
That's because your "sign" is not in a place where it is easily read by the "trespasser".
The name of my domain is "anti-spam.org." How much clearer can I make it than that?
I'm really starting to get the feeling that you are a spammer. You create scenarios that render it virtually impossible for anyone to avoid spam and then say "not my problem" when they point out the impracticality of your suggestions to you.
People cannot be reasonably expected to have the pre-cognition to know the e-mail addresses of every person or business that they might wish to receive mail from. If spammers can't be expected to see a "sign" that a mail server sends out as a message, then there is no place to put up a "no solicitation" sign on a domain.
I'm starting to feel like I'm being suckered by a well-done troll...
So I'm supposed to know any and all telephone numbers from which anyone I may wish to talk with may call from? How am I supposed to know whether the "Unknown Caller" is a friend in trouble or a telemarketer?
That's not my problem. It's your problem. By making a law against it you force me to pay my tax money to solve your problem? Sorry, I'm not willing to do that. Figure out your own solution.
I figured out a solution: I'm voting for Congressional representatives that recognize junk e-mail, fax, etc. as theft and pass legislation against it. Then they will spend tax dollars, including your, prosecuting those who violate the law. Your taxes just aren't so precious that the government should turn a blind eye to spam.
No, but it does mean that anyone is welcome to come up to your front porch and knock on your door.
So what? The mail server is inside my house. I don't want random people entering my house physically or electronically.
No. There is a key difference. Without a door, private property is still private property.
And my mail server is my private property. This is an established legal fact and one recognized by numerous state laws and court cases. If you want to read, then search for "trespass to chattels" and learn about it. AOL has won lawsuits against several spammers based on that legal principle.
The bottom line is that I don't want my tax money spent protecting you from yourself.
You are an arrogant ass.
Protecting people from spammers who will, given enough time, consume all available bandwidth and storage on the net, is not protecting people from themselves. It's protecting them against those who would exploit weaknesses in the SMTP protocol to force their almost universally unwanted e-mail on others. You also ignore the fact that 99%+ of the people on the net don't run their own mail servers. ISPs are choking under the onslaught of spam. They are having to pay for more hardware, bandwidth, and personnel to deal with the spam. Those costs are all passed on to all of their subscribers. And that's a tax, too. Just not one imposed by the government.
If you can't afford the fraction of a cent that it would cost out of your taxes to prosecute spammers, then you certainly can't afford to pay Verio a premium every month to cover their spam-associated costs.
Normal people need to provide e-mail addresses to friends, colleagues, businesses, and potential employers. They don't know the addresses of everyone that might write to them (not spam them) and can't afford the time to create filters that only let a predefined list of people reach them. Nor do they want to risk bouncing important e-mails. It's more important to pass legislation that protects the vast majority of the public than it is to let you hoarde your pennies and not pay taxes.
No, it like saying that by looking at your caller ID and answering the phone you are volunteering to receive calls at your expense from anyone that wants to sell you something.
So I'm supposed to know any and all telephone numbers from which anyone I may wish to talk with may call from? How am I supposed to know whether the "Unknown Caller" is a friend in trouble or a telemarketer?
It's no different from a store owner suing people for trespassing just because they offer to sell him something.
Absolutely untrue. My e-mail address is is private property like my home address. It is not like a public store. When I provide the address of my home, it does not mean that anyone is welcome to step inside, uninvited, to sell something to me.
You can't force people to read your mind. That's what you're asking for.
No, what I am asking for is legislation that forces everyone's e-mail address to be treated the way that I described. Besides, you don't need to be a mind reader to figure out that people don't want you stealing their time, bandwidth, and storage for your ads.
I've never - not once - had a spammer forge a from address to an address of a friend or a company with which I wanted to receive mail.
Nor did I. But the addresses are forged, nonetheless, making it impossible for me to block mail from a given spammer. If Investigations2002@yahoo.com sends me spam and I block it that sender, the same low-life will send something else "from" michelle92348@aol.com next time.
That doesn't change the fact that every single one of those pieces of spam were accepted by your computer.
My computer does not make decisions for me or represent my will. It does not have intelligence. It simply implements an insecure Internet protocol (SMTP). That's like arguing that you weren't trespassing because the door opened when you turned the knob. Or it's like saying that you must have wanted kiddie porn because your mail server accepted it on your behalf.
But that's exactly why spam is not theft. You are voluntarily offering to be contacted by random people via email.
That's absurdly twisted logic. That's like saying that simply having a cell phone means that you are volunteering to receive calls at your expense from anyone that wants to sell you something.
My having an e-mail address is not an invitation for random people to contact me. It is so that people and companies can reply to me when I contact them. If I choose to post it on a web page about turkey vulture watching, then I am inviting contacts from people about that particular subject -- and no other.
If you don't want unsolicited emails, set up your mail server not to accept them.
And how do you propose doing that when the spammers forge the from address and use subjects that sound legitimate? I already block blind-copied mail from untrusted senders, all mail from China, Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan. I block mail that has any of the following country domains in the Received: lines:
.ar - Argentina .br - Brazil .cn - China .cz - Czech Republic .de - Germany .id - Indonesia .il - Israel .it - Italy .jp - Japan .kr - Korea .mx - Mexico .my - Malaysia .pl - Poland .ru - Russia .sg - Singapore .tw - Taiwan
I have a huge list of keywords from the subject and body that get blocked. I use mail-forwarding accounts so that I can give out different addresses based on the level of trust I have for the entity I'm giving the address to. I then filter accordingly.
What I want to know is when is a GPS company going to release a GPS for the car that does traffic analysis and automatically can route you around bad traffic spots?
What I want to know is when is a GPS company going to release a GPS for other people's cars that automatically routes them out of my way!
"Here with a News 7 exclusive is Senior Technology Reporter Jim Wright."
"Thank you Tom. It has just been revealed that Apple Computer, the corporate giant that manufactures the Macintosh computer line, has been using unpaid child labor to create the "operating system" that powers their successful computers. For those not familiar with the term, an operating system is a computer file that contains computer program instructions. These computer program instructions allow the computer system to operate -- hence the name "operating system."
According to sources close to the case, young Finlay Dobbie, has worked for hundreds of hours for Apple computer yet never received any pay. Apple, instead, has formed a cult-like group that refer to themselves as the "Open Source Movement." This group convinced Finlay and many others to spend countless hours writing and improving computer programs for Apple's operating system -- which Apple then sells at a tremendous profit.
When Finlay was released from the group, he staggered outside, pale, gaunt, and squinting his young eyes that have not seen sunlight in many months. I had trouble understanding what he was muttering exept for "pee, pee, pee" leaving this reporter wondering if Finlay's keepers have even been denying him the right to use a restroom.
Sources at Apple computer refused to return questions, stating that it was a matter being handled by their legal department.
There is some judgement before people get "qualified for the final round". It may not be as stringent as some would like, but some entries are filtered out before that point.
If the "poem" shown on windpub.org was judged to be a finalist, then I'd hate to see one that was "filtered out"! That one was scary-bad.
Let's look at a statement from your web page:
We need new and experienced poets and essay writers to feature in our quarterly hardcover books, and Verses, our highly acclaimed literary magazine.
What you need is people to pay you for vanity press services. Your web page makes it sound like you are publishing a for-profit periodical that is seeking material for which there is a market demand.
Like I said, I have nothing to hide from open discussion.
Okay, you asked for it!;-)
1. What percentage of submitted poems make it to the "finals"? Feel free to estimate if you don't have an exact number.
2. What percentage of the poems are published at the author's expense?
3. By whom is your Verses magazine "highly aclaimed"?
4. Was your web page designed with the intent of making people believe that your business was something other than a vanity press?
5. What are the circulation figures for Verses magazine (newstand, subscription, and complimentary copies)? What does a subscription cost?
The poetry contest I take entries for is not a scam. It could be called a vanity press, but they do not defraud people. If people want to pay to see their poetry in a book, we give them that opportunity.
Calling a vanity press operation a "poetry contest" is a scam. Telling people that their poetry qualifies them as a finalist in a contest when no judgement of the work has taken place is a scam.
The accusations that windpub.org makes that this sort of contest cares little about literature is a weak argument. Is MTV a scam because it cares little about music? Is McDonalds a scam because it cares little about nutrition?
MTV does not purport to judge the quality of the music their channel plays. McDonalds makes no claim to be providing food of the highest nutritional value. McDonalds also tells customers what the cost of their product is up front. Neither McDonalds nor MTV try to convince people that they have won a contest in order to get their money. Sorry, but I just don't buy that analogy.
I want you to know that calling the contest a scam is potentially libellous.
I'll send you my name and address to you via e-mail so that you and/or Cader Publishing can easily take legal action against me if you wish. Just tell me what e-mail address to send it to. I would welcome the opportunity to defend my characterization of the "poetry contest" in a court of law.
If you want to take that route, just get your records in order. I'll subpeona your records relating to the number of "winners", the amount of prize money awarded, the judging process, the number of poems published for which no fee was paid, etc. This could be fun.
By the way, in the American system of government, the President does not decide what gets funded or not. That decision is made by the Congress, and both the House and the Senate were run by the Democrat Party during the entire length of Nixon's term in office.
Don't be naive. The President has the power of the pen and can put the screws to Congress until they present him with the budget he wants.
No, they will get a job and contribute something useful to society like everyone else has to do.
And what kind of job would you recommend that an 85 year old, mentally and physically frail widow apply for?
If they can't, then it is up to their community and family to support them.
Many of the people that need these programs live in communities where the average wage is below the poverty level. The idea of government programs is to assure that everyone is treated equally -- so that people living in poor neighborhoods don't freeze to death while those living in wealthy ones are well cared for. It is also to make sure that even unpopular people aren't left to die.
It doesn't justify stealing my money, and leaving me no recourse.
It isn't "stealing" even if you call it that. The federal government has the right to collect taxes and that right has been upheld by the courts in hundreds of cases.
Secondly, if you don't want to do your duty as a U.S. citizen, you do have recourse: You can emigrate to a country that has no income taxes.
If that happens, I wouldn't expect big brother government to steal hard working people's money to support me.
Just how hard do you work, Jason? Running a scam "poetry contest" (see this link for more info) is not my definition of "hard work." Given the nature of the "poetry contest" you run, you have a lot of gall accusing the government of stealing because they tax your ill-gotten gains. In this case, perhaps they could be considered partners in crime.
Yeah, gee, why would you learn how to advertise to the people that almost, but not quite, have decided to buy your products? That's a dead end... Can't imagine you have the chance of getting any revenue from them.
Okay, suppose there are three of those people. Would targeting those three people be a viable, long-term business plan? Apple needs to learn to sell to the vast market that is not considering their products, not to the tiny one that that thought about buying a Mac and decided against it.
I'm not saying you should blame Bush for the failure of this mission -- I was answering the poster that said "they shoulda been buildin moonbase by now"[sic]. I said that you should elect a Democrat if you want funding for space exploration.
That said, space exploration is a risky venture. Simply getting funding does not guarantee success.
We believe that constant tinkering in a free market is unnecessary.
On that, we will have to disagree. Capitalism insures that those with money get what they want. If you are a poor, uneducated, widow, that can't afford enough food, the "free market" does little for you.
If these social programs are important, then there will be a market demand for the services they provide.
So people who can't afford home heating oil will pay the cost of a program to give them money to buy home heating oil? Is that a Libertarian version of perpetual motion?
There are a few exceptions to this rule
Like pure research, space exploration, or charity. Anything that's unlikely to lead to someone getting rich in the near future is an exception.
Want to see the free market and how it applies to charity? Look at the response to September 11. If you lost your spouse to that act of terrorism, your family would have received huge sums of money and aid from charitable organizations. If, on the other hand, your spouse was killed in a traffic accident, you'd receive almost nothing from charities. (Note: I realize that money does not, for normal people, compensate them for the death of a loved one.)
Does the woman who lost her husband due to a traffic accident have less need than the woman whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center? Of course not, yet the free market compensated the latter (financially) to a much greater degree.
They don't have staffers doing research into anything except getting reelected. They don't give a fuck about anything but that.
If that were the case, any legislator that was not running for reelection would simple lay off their staffers, kick back, and flip coins to decide their votes. While there are some legislators that fit your gloomy picture of the world (Fritz Hollings comes to mind), I think that there is an even greater number of them that are trying to make this country a better place. Almost any member of Congress could quit, form a law practice or become a corporate officer and get more money, less public scrutiny, and a less demanding schedule, so there has to be some reward other than simply keeping the job.
The people that they should be asking are those of us who are not considering the purchase of a Mac. Why ask the tiny percentage of the market that is considering it? What about those of us who "think different[ly]"? That said, Apple needs to either get more converts or switch CPUs. With the relatively small user base, their simply is not the money for R&D to improve the CPU and, while it might have been hot when it was launched, it's getting a bit long in the tooth now -- as shown by independent benchmarks.
Who wanted a permanent space station? Oh yeah, that was Reagan.
Reagan wanted to launch a major space project shortly before the elections, since it would create jobs in important states such as California, Texas and Florida. The scheduled funding for the project was such that the lion's share of it would be borne by adminstrations that followed Reagan's. The Station's long term funding plan called for $0.235 billion in Fiscal 1985, $0.335 billion in 1986, about $1.2 billion in 1987, and about $2 billion per year in 1988-91 (all figures in 1984 dollars). NASA expected to spend an additional $16 billion by 2002 to add a space tug for missions to geostationary orbit and the Moon.
What Reagan approved was a program that would make him popular in key states while shouldering his successors with the burden of paying for it. He cut taxes and then approved a program that would have to be funded under other administrations. What a bold visionary he was.
Clinton was ready to kill the station when he was on the primary campaign trail in 92 until he had Gore on his team.
But he did not kill it. For all we know, Nixon may have been "ready to" fund a mission to Mars, but he didn't do it.
But think about why Clinton might have wanted to kill it. Reagan/Bush left him with a struggling economy, reduced tax base, and an ill-conceived program that was ballooning in cost.
That being said, I work in the industry as well, and am continually frustrated by how much of NASAs money the ISS and Shuttle waste each year. These programs tie up well over 80% of the budget at the expense of basic research.
Thank you for proving my point. Nixon approved the shuttle program and Reagan, as you pointed out, gave the green light to what has been scaled back to become the ISS. If you want money for basic space research, elect a Democrat as President.
Slashdot Mirror
Ten to twenty years from now, people are going to be shaking their heads in bewilderment about the attempts to make money selling "free software." They will react in much the same way that we do when people mention "New Coke".
Hey, how about some dedicated FTP bandwidth for club members? I know the release of the PPC-
8.2 may well flatten the public servers.
I am sure that all 26 of you guys will be able to get your copies without too much of a problem.
PowerPCs make up all of about 5% of the market. What percentage of PowerPC users run something other than a Mac OS? About a tenth of a percent? Yeah, that's going to be a crushing demand. I hope that the Internet backbone providers can handle the traffic. Maybe Mandrake can add a few dozen OC-3 lines to handle the traffic if they release a DEC Alpha version of Mandrake 8.2.
Note to moderators: If you feel the need to mod this comment down, may I suggest Flamebait? "Troll" is really not right since I'm expressing my actual opinion, though in an offensive and confrontational manner. Also, since I am at 50 Karma points, I suggest first modding this up to +5 and then down to -1 to get the maximum effect (-6 karma points).
You really didn't think about where you were posting this at all, did you? The entire story was about how Microsoft and Unisys were running their anti-Unix web site on a FreeBSD box. If FreeBSD is "dying", why was it chosen to host the web site in question?
Well, first of all, it's not "trespassing" because nothing has physically entered your property.
You have no understanding of law at all, do you? Computer Trespass has been illegal for years at both the state and local level. Trespass to chattels is a form of trespassing and has been recognized as such by the courts when applied to mail servers. If you don't understand the law, then don't make pronouncements about it. It just muddies the discussion and wastes everyone's time.
That's because your "sign" is not in a place where it is easily read by the "trespasser".
The name of my domain is "anti-spam.org." How much clearer can I make it than that?
I'm really starting to get the feeling that you are a spammer. You create scenarios that render it virtually impossible for anyone to avoid spam and then say "not my problem" when they point out the impracticality of your suggestions to you.
People cannot be reasonably expected to have the pre-cognition to know the e-mail addresses of every person or business that they might wish to receive mail from. If spammers can't be expected to see a "sign" that a mail server sends out as a message, then there is no place to put up a "no solicitation" sign on a domain.
I'm starting to feel like I'm being suckered by a well-done troll...
So I'm supposed to know any and all telephone numbers from which anyone I may wish to talk with may call from? How am I supposed to know whether the "Unknown Caller" is a friend in trouble or a telemarketer?
That's not my problem. It's your problem. By making a law against it you force me to pay my tax money to solve your problem? Sorry, I'm not willing to do that. Figure out your own solution.
I figured out a solution: I'm voting for Congressional representatives that recognize junk e-mail, fax, etc. as theft and pass legislation against it. Then they will spend tax dollars, including your, prosecuting those who violate the law. Your taxes just aren't so precious that the government should turn a blind eye to spam.
No, but it does mean that anyone is welcome to come up to your front porch and knock on your door.
So what? The mail server is inside my house. I don't want random people entering my house physically or electronically.
No. There is a key difference. Without a door, private property is still private property.
And my mail server is my private property. This is an established legal fact and one recognized by numerous state laws and court cases. If you want to read, then search for "trespass to chattels" and learn about it. AOL has won lawsuits against several spammers based on that legal principle.
The bottom line is that I don't want my tax money spent protecting you from yourself.
You are an arrogant ass.
Protecting people from spammers who will, given enough time, consume all available bandwidth and storage on the net, is not protecting people from themselves. It's protecting them against those who would exploit weaknesses in the SMTP protocol to force their almost universally unwanted e-mail on others. You also ignore the fact that 99%+ of the people on the net don't run their own mail servers. ISPs are choking under the onslaught of spam. They are having to pay for more hardware, bandwidth, and personnel to deal with the spam. Those costs are all passed on to all of their subscribers. And that's a tax, too. Just not one imposed by the government.
If you can't afford the fraction of a cent that it would cost out of your taxes to prosecute spammers, then you certainly can't afford to pay Verio a premium every month to cover their spam-associated costs.
Normal people need to provide e-mail addresses to friends, colleagues, businesses, and potential employers. They don't know the addresses of everyone that might write to them (not spam them) and can't afford the time to create filters that only let a predefined list of people reach them. Nor do they want to risk bouncing important e-mails. It's more important to pass legislation that protects the vast majority of the public than it is to let you hoarde your pennies and not pay taxes.
No, it like saying that by looking at your caller ID and answering the phone you are volunteering to receive calls at your expense from anyone that wants to sell you something.
So I'm supposed to know any and all telephone numbers from which anyone I may wish to talk with may call from? How am I supposed to know whether the "Unknown Caller" is a friend in trouble or a telemarketer?
It's no different from a store owner suing people for trespassing just because they offer to sell him something.
Absolutely untrue. My e-mail address is is private property like my home address. It is not like a public store. When I provide the address of my home, it does not mean that anyone is welcome to step inside, uninvited, to sell something to me.
You can't force people to read your mind. That's what you're asking for.
No, what I am asking for is legislation that forces everyone's e-mail address to be treated the way that I described. Besides, you don't need to be a mind reader to figure out that people don't want you stealing their time, bandwidth, and storage for your ads.
I've never - not once - had a spammer forge a from address to an address of a friend or a company with which I wanted to receive mail.
Nor did I. But the addresses are forged, nonetheless, making it impossible for me to block mail from a given spammer. If Investigations2002@yahoo.com sends me spam and I block it that sender, the same low-life will send something else "from" michelle92348@aol.com next time.
That doesn't change the fact that every single one of those pieces of spam were accepted by your computer.
My computer does not make decisions for me or represent my will. It does not have intelligence. It simply implements an insecure Internet protocol (SMTP). That's like arguing that you weren't trespassing because the door opened when you turned the knob. Or it's like saying that you must have wanted kiddie porn because your mail server accepted it on your behalf.
Go here and do some reading.
But that's exactly why spam is not theft. You are voluntarily offering to be contacted by random people via email.
That's absurdly twisted logic. That's like saying that simply having a cell phone means that you are volunteering to receive calls at your expense from anyone that wants to sell you something.
My having an e-mail address is not an invitation for random people to contact me. It is so that people and companies can reply to me when I contact them. If I choose to post it on a web page about turkey vulture watching, then I am inviting contacts from people about that particular subject -- and no other.
If you don't want unsolicited emails, set up your mail server not to accept them.
And how do you propose doing that when the spammers forge the from address and use subjects that sound legitimate? I already block blind-copied mail from untrusted senders, all mail from China, Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan. I block mail that has any of the following country domains in the Received: lines:
.ar - Argentina
.br - Brazil
.cn - China
.cz - Czech Republic
.de - Germany
.id - Indonesia
.il - Israel
.it - Italy
.jp - Japan
.kr - Korea
.mx - Mexico
.my - Malaysia
.pl - Poland
.ru - Russia
.sg - Singapore
.tw - Taiwan
I have a huge list of keywords from the subject and body that get blocked. I use mail-forwarding accounts so that I can give out different addresses based on the level of trust I have for the entity I'm giving the address to. I then filter accordingly.
And I still get spam.
If it is my DNA, then no one else has a right to patent it. Besides, patents are supposed to be granted for inventions and processes, not discoveries.
I always wondered whether we would see Duke Nukem Forever or Mozilla 1.0 first. Sort of a tortoise and tortoise race.
What I want to know is when is a GPS company going to release a GPS for the car that does traffic analysis and automatically can route you around bad traffic spots?
What I want to know is when is a GPS company going to release a GPS for other people's cars that automatically routes them out of my way!
Had my fill of M$
Having your fill of them and not acknowledging their existence are two different things.
Microsoft Who? Don't know who you are talking about.
You'll find out when you get a job in the tech industry. For now, enjoy school.
Since he's not legally bound by the license, will he give away Apple's code?
There is some judgement before people get "qualified for the final round". It may not be as stringent as some would like, but some entries are filtered out before that point.
;-)
If the "poem" shown on windpub.org was judged to be a finalist, then I'd hate to see one that was "filtered out"! That one was scary-bad.
Let's look at a statement from your web page:
We need new and experienced poets and essay writers to feature in our quarterly hardcover books, and Verses, our highly acclaimed literary magazine.
What you need is people to pay you for vanity press services. Your web page makes it sound like you are publishing a for-profit periodical that is seeking material for which there is a market demand.
Like I said, I have nothing to hide from open discussion.
Okay, you asked for it!
1. What percentage of submitted poems make it to the "finals"? Feel free to estimate if you don't have an exact number.
2. What percentage of the poems are published at the author's expense?
3. By whom is your Verses magazine "highly aclaimed"?
4. Was your web page designed with the intent of making people believe that your business was something other than a vanity press?
5. What are the circulation figures for Verses magazine (newstand, subscription, and complimentary copies)? What does a subscription cost?
Quanta also manufactured the Netpliance iopener "Internet appliance." They are a very big force in the laptop market, as the article points out.
The poetry contest I take entries for is not a scam. It could be called a vanity press, but they do not defraud people. If people want to pay to see their poetry in a book, we give them that opportunity.
Calling a vanity press operation a "poetry contest" is a scam. Telling people that their poetry qualifies them as a finalist in a contest when no judgement of the work has taken place is a scam.
The accusations that windpub.org makes that this sort of contest cares little about literature is a weak argument. Is MTV a scam because it cares little about music? Is McDonalds a scam because it cares little about nutrition?
MTV does not purport to judge the quality of the music their channel plays. McDonalds makes no claim to be providing food of the highest nutritional value. McDonalds also tells customers what the cost of their product is up front. Neither McDonalds nor MTV try to convince people that they have won a contest in order to get their money. Sorry, but I just don't buy that analogy.
I want you to know that calling the contest a scam is potentially libellous.
I'll send you my name and address to you via e-mail so that you and/or Cader Publishing can easily take legal action against me if you wish. Just tell me what e-mail address to send it to. I would welcome the opportunity to defend my characterization of the "poetry contest" in a court of law.
If you want to take that route, just get your records in order. I'll subpeona your records relating to the number of "winners", the amount of prize money awarded, the judging process, the number of poems published for which no fee was paid, etc. This could be fun.
By the way, in the American system of government, the President does not decide what gets funded or not. That decision is made by the Congress, and both the House and the Senate were run by the Democrat Party during the entire length of Nixon's term in office.
Don't be naive. The President has the power of the pen and can put the screws to Congress until they present him with the budget he wants.
No, they will get a job and contribute something useful to society like everyone else has to do.
And what kind of job would you recommend that an 85 year old, mentally and physically frail widow apply for?
If they can't, then it is up to their community and family to support them.
Many of the people that need these programs live in communities where the average wage is below the poverty level. The idea of government programs is to assure that everyone is treated equally -- so that people living in poor neighborhoods don't freeze to death while those living in wealthy ones are well cared for. It is also to make sure that even unpopular people aren't left to die.
It doesn't justify stealing my money, and leaving me no recourse.
It isn't "stealing" even if you call it that. The federal government has the right to collect taxes and that right has been upheld by the courts in hundreds of cases.
Secondly, if you don't want to do your duty as a U.S. citizen, you do have recourse: You can emigrate to a country that has no income taxes.
If that happens, I wouldn't expect big brother government to steal hard working people's money to support me.
Just how hard do you work, Jason? Running a scam "poetry contest" (see this link for more info) is not my definition of "hard work." Given the nature of the "poetry contest" you run, you have a lot of gall accusing the government of stealing because they tax your ill-gotten gains. In this case, perhaps they could be considered partners in crime.
Yeah, gee, why would you learn how to advertise to the people that almost, but not quite, have decided to buy your products? That's a dead end... Can't imagine you have the chance of getting any revenue from them.
Okay, suppose there are three of those people. Would targeting those three people be a viable, long-term business plan? Apple needs to learn to sell to the vast market that is not considering their products, not to the tiny one that that thought about buying a Mac and decided against it.
I'm not saying you should blame Bush for the failure of this mission -- I was answering the poster that said "they shoulda been buildin moonbase by now"[sic]. I said that you should elect a Democrat if you want funding for space exploration.
That said, space exploration is a risky venture. Simply getting funding does not guarantee success.
We believe that constant tinkering in a free market is unnecessary.
On that, we will have to disagree. Capitalism insures that those with money get what they want. If you are a poor, uneducated, widow, that can't afford enough food, the "free market" does little for you.
If these social programs are important, then there will be a market demand for the services they provide.
So people who can't afford home heating oil will pay the cost of a program to give them money to buy home heating oil? Is that a Libertarian version of perpetual motion?
There are a few exceptions to this rule
Like pure research, space exploration, or charity. Anything that's unlikely to lead to someone getting rich in the near future is an exception.
Want to see the free market and how it applies to charity? Look at the response to September 11. If you lost your spouse to that act of terrorism, your family would have received huge sums of money and aid from charitable organizations. If, on the other hand, your spouse was killed in a traffic accident, you'd receive almost nothing from charities. (Note: I realize that money does not, for normal people, compensate them for the death of a loved one.)
Does the woman who lost her husband due to a traffic accident have less need than the woman whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center? Of course not, yet the free market compensated the latter (financially) to a much greater degree.
They don't have staffers doing research into anything except getting reelected. They don't give a fuck about anything but that.
If that were the case, any legislator that was not running for reelection would simple lay off their staffers, kick back, and flip coins to decide their votes. While there are some legislators that fit your gloomy picture of the world (Fritz Hollings comes to mind), I think that there is an even greater number of them that are trying to make this country a better place.
Almost any member of Congress could quit, form a law practice or become a corporate officer and get more money, less public scrutiny, and a less demanding schedule, so there has to be some reward other than simply keeping the job.
How dare you laugh at Project PIG (Platform Independent Gaming)?
The people that they should be asking are those of us who are not considering the purchase of a Mac. Why ask the tiny percentage of the market that is considering it? What about those of us who "think different[ly]"? That said, Apple needs to either get more converts or switch CPUs. With the relatively small user base, their simply is not the money for R&D to improve the CPU and, while it might have been hot when it was launched, it's getting a bit long in the tooth now -- as shown by independent benchmarks.
Who wanted a permanent space station? Oh yeah, that was Reagan.
Reagan wanted to launch a major space project shortly before the elections, since it would create jobs in important states such as California, Texas and Florida. The scheduled funding for the project was such that the lion's share of it would be borne by adminstrations that followed Reagan's. The Station's long term funding plan called for $0.235 billion in Fiscal 1985, $0.335 billion in 1986, about $1.2 billion in 1987, and about $2 billion per year in 1988-91 (all figures in 1984 dollars). NASA expected to spend an additional $16 billion by 2002 to add a space tug for missions to geostationary orbit and the Moon.
What Reagan approved was a program that would make him popular in key states while shouldering his successors with the burden of paying for it. He cut taxes and then approved a program that would have to be funded under other administrations. What a bold visionary he was.
Clinton was ready to kill the station when he was on the primary campaign trail in 92 until he had Gore on his team.
But he did not kill it. For all we know, Nixon may have been "ready to" fund a mission to Mars, but he didn't do it.
But think about why Clinton might have wanted to kill it. Reagan/Bush left him with a struggling economy, reduced tax base, and an ill-conceived program that was ballooning in cost.
That being said, I work in the industry as well, and am continually frustrated by how much of NASAs money the ISS and Shuttle waste each year. These programs tie up well over 80% of the budget at the expense of basic research.
Thank you for proving my point. Nixon approved the shuttle program and Reagan, as you pointed out, gave the green light to what has been scaled back to become the ISS. If you want money for basic space research, elect a Democrat as President.