"If the majority of people in a community want to fund a public wireless service with their tax dollars, and they vote to do so, then it must happen..."
Problem here is something called "tyranny of the majority." Essentially the will of the majority is FORCED upon the minority. In this case the purchasing choise of the "majority" (purchase this service through the government instead of a company) is not only forced on the minority (who want to purchase it from the free market or don't want it at all) but the majority gets to subsidize their choice with the monies of those in the minority (to the majority this makes the service seem "free" or at least cheap...while the minority carries the burden).
At the end of the day, this is a service that can be provided by/within the free market, and is not important enough to warrent sendind people to jail and taking their posessions if they choose not to fund it...so it is not an appropriate service for the government to fund using tax dollars. If a city council wants to compete with other ISPs, they can quit the council, get some VC funding or a business loan, and start a business like everyone else.
I have a couple criteria in determining if something should be provided by the government (i.e. you should be taxed to pay for it). To be justified, it must get a "yes" for both of the following questions.
1. Is it providing something that cannot be feasibly provided by the private sector?
I live in Colorado (just outside Fort Collins) and have friends (in Windsor) who use a private wireless ISP. My laptop in my office can see the APs for another wireless ISP (I use cable and also have the choice of DSL from several providers). There is also a local wireless COOP that can service anyone within a 12-25-mile radius (line of site) of Horsetooth Rock. I can think of 10 places in town where I can get free WIFI and several others where I can pay a couple bucks to use their connected computer (i.e. for those who can't afford computers).
I know people outside of Colorado Springs, on 5-acre lots (so not a density you'd think is attractive to ISPs). They have access to a wireless ISP and a Cable ISP...and there are a couple DSL providers who think they can service them despite the long phone lines.
I have a friend in **Brush** and even he has high-speed Internet.
2. Is it important enough that the funding of it should be enforced by law/force (should people be thrown in jail and have their assets forfeited for not funding it)?
The first question already disqualified this for me, but it fails this question as well. High-speed Internet is nice, but most people can get it anyway. Those who cannot can visit a local coffee house for a couple bucks, or use dial-up.
Given that we've gotten a "NO" for both of these questions this is not a reasonable place for the government to provide services in.
I have a couple criteria in determining if something should be provided by the government (i.e. you should be taxed to pay for it). To be justified, it must get a "yes" for both of the following questions.
1. Is it providing something that cannot be feasibly provided by the private sector?
I live in Colorado (just outside Fort Collins) and have friends (in Windsor) who use a private wireless ISP because they are out of range for DSL and cable. My laptop in my office can see the APs for another wireless ISP (I use cable and also have the choice of DSL from several providers). There is also a local wireless COOP that can service anyone within a 12-25-mile radius (line of site) of Horsetooth Rock. I can think of 10 places in town where I can get free WIFI and several others where I can pay a couple bucks to use their connected computer (i.e. for those who can't afford computers).
2. Is it important enough that the funding of it should be enforced by law/force (should people be thrown in jail and have their assets forfeited for not funding it)?
The first question already disqualified this for me, but it fails this question as well. High-speed Internet is nice, but most people can get it anyway. Those who cannot can visit a local coffee house for a couple bucks, or use dial-up.
Given that we've gotten a "NO" for both of these questions this is not a reasonable place for the government to provide services in.
"Personally I welcome some funding of open source, it does cost some tax money, but it introduces a notion of competition to corporates which can well be seen as monopolistic in some/many industries - i.e. without governement support of competition things wouldn't progress. There are other ways for governments to encourage support too."
The government does not need to "introduce" the notion of competition, OSS has and will continue to compete without government's help. OSS, like everything else, should compete on it's merits, without imposing a tax on people. Is OSS so important that people should be jailed and have their property taken if they don't support it? If not, it should not be publically funded. The best way for government to support competition is to get out of the way and not not muck with things (except for a few roles like enforcing rules in areas like like antitrust, fraud, enforcement of contracts, etc). The last thing we need is for OSS to become more dependent on public funding.
Government does have a role similar to that of corporations in using and contributing where relevant to open source to fill it's own needs (a consumer of OSS, if you will), but government involvement "for the greater good" is rubbish as an economic principle or public policy.
"Free" is probably the worst term one could choose to describe funding OSS via tax monies. I see no valid reason to fund OSS using taxpayer money.
First, tax monies should not fund things that are obviously able to be funded privately as OSS is (lots of individual, non-profit, and coporate support and funding).
Second, we should be VERY careful in selecting what to fund with tax in order to minimize what is funded with taxes because of the associated burden and consequences. People who don't pay 100% of the tax they owe are likely to face criminal charges and have their personal posessions confiscated. Is funding of OSS so important that people should face these consequences for not funding it?
Third, if something is funded that could otherwise be funded by the normal free market, it is artificially supported by the government and is likely to always require that support. There are many things that can seem good or be made to sound that way by politicians (farm subsidies, steel tarriffs, other forms of corporate welfare) but in the end they remove the realities of the market from those activities with serious consequences (farm subsidies make things like cotton prices artificially low, hurting domestic and foreign farmers...steel tariffs insulate domestic steel companes so they don't have to learn how to compete in the global market and make domestic steel prices high with a ripple effect into manufacturing, without this competition they learn to depend on the tariffs...etc). OSS does not need tax funding, should not get tax funding, and should not want tax funding (less OSS becomes dependent on and becomes subject to politicians).
It's just a bad idea all around and will lessen personal freedoms (economic freedom and thus other freedoms as well) and would create a socialist environment around OSS instead of the competitive, choice, and capitalist environment which has and will continue to allow OSS to exist and thrive (and do so based on it's merits).
I still prefer Debian itself for servers which will not run any GUI at all.
You can have "base" Ubuntu install, much like a base Debian installation. Simply type "custom" at the install/boot prompt when booting from the install CD.
From the Ubuntu web site:
A "base" system is not expected to be useful for any particular purpose. It's simply the minimal working system that we will support. It should be a platform that one can quickly get working, and on top of which one can construct a useful collection of services. Typically, servers would start out life as a "base" system, and the system administrator would then add specific services and packages as needed.
"That was followed up by calling Powell basically a two-faced liar who said that indecency should be controlled by the market, then "cowtowing" to pressure from the large conglomerate radio organizations, and allowing a few organizations to become very powerful in radio."
If you've ever read interviews with Michael Powell or heard him speak, you'd know he is a very pro-freedom anti-regulation person. I'm pretty sure if he had his way there would be no indeciency acts. However, he doesn't get to make that call...lawmakers do. He's there to enforce them. If Stern wants to attack Michael for the laws Congress writes, I want to watch him even less than I did before. Stern is a jackass.
According to these exif headers in the parent post, the picture is JPEG, a compressed format. Without the RAW picture to analze, I'd pass the "tail" off as a possible artifact created by the JPEG creation software inside the camera as it dealt with the bright spot.
Lights don't always burn out instantly, they can _burn_, which includes creating smoke. Depending on the conditions and that we're likely talking about a large filiment (like you see in the metal halide and similar industrial bulbs) it wouldn't surprise me if it burnt brightly for several seconds before (and into) when the picture was taken. This would explain seeing smoke and the bright light at the same time.
The only thing left is ensuring that it's an appropriate time of day for lights to be on. It looks like some of the lights are on, and that it's dusk/dawn (the exif headers corroborate that it is dusk). Dusk is when automatic lights turn on.
We're possibly seeing nothing more than a bulb burning out (during turn-on or soon there after, which would be a reasonable time given that this is when most bulbs have problems) and a JPEG artifact.
I would like to see a picture from the night before and night after (they would likely show that that light is worked the one day and not the next, unless the maintanance guys are quick).
I've noticed that the latest version of Symantec AntiVirus has anti spyware features. Seeing spyware as simply another form of non-worm virus makes sense, and so does combining the products (both scan processes, memory, disk, etc). However, I have no idea if Symantec's is effective or not. Given their size, not including their product in this article was a large oversight.
If anyone has comparative info on Symantec vs. the freeware anti-spyware products...please post as a reply to this post.
The number would be higher, but there are companies who make LCD screens who have licensed this technology...and companies who sell these non-infringing screens.
"Genocides and other human rights atrocities should be dealt with through the United Nations, an international organization set up SPECIFICALLY to handle things like this."
Yah, they're real effective.;) Giving Iraq money for palaces while making billions off the commission, doing nothing about Sudan, asking North Korea (in a friendly tone) to not get Nukes, etc. seems like a good working plan.
The UN is crap. It's the best current working example of power corrupting. The first problem with the UN is that it recognizes "nations" instead of people (or nations by/for the people). The fact that they consider places like North Korea, Sudan, Iraq, etc. "soverign" and given them ANY seat at the table is a big enough sign to me that they have virtually no real interest in human rights. The UN's interests align much closer with power-seeking. Their overall effect is to prop-up/recognize/legitimize the people, systems and laws in power regardless of their level of corruption, genocide, etc.
The UN is not set up specifically to handle human rights. If it were, it would recognize humans (and collections of humans), not states that rule/terrorize/enslave the people of that "nation."
I've been telling my wife that we need to start saving for a small personal helicopter (which I think could be achievable within like 20 years, even though we're not rich by any means). The rest of my family and many friends live 2+ hours away, which I imagine will rapidly increase as this area populated. Same goes for many areas/spots of interest. I would thouroughly enjoy being able to avoid the idiot drivers, the traffic jams and accidents, arriving in a predictable/consistent 60 minutes.
I see government overregulation as one problem (has made general aviation too expensive).
Another problem is that technology has not advanced into this area quickly enough (possibly a function of the previous problem). Single-rotor helis are still the norm, instead of meshed counter-rotating rotors. Real low-end (i.e. not turbine) helis from places like http://www.robinsonheli.com/ are only finally starting to switch to fuel-injection from carborators.
If they made flying cars that were safe, you'd solve my desire for a heli above, as well as providing ground transportation at my destinatios (instead of having to scatter $1000 automobiles or borrow cars at common destination points).
I'm not about to tell you that you should deduct your share of military costs from your taxes, because that would quickly result in negative impacts on you (confiscation of your property, possibly jail time) and eventually through this cohersion you would be forced pay.
You actually make my point quite well. Instead of all these things that *I* LIKE or *you* LIKE being provided by the government on everyone's back (willing or not), there should be a VERY LIMITED set of what the public accepts as things the government has the right to (by force) take money from individuals to distribute as it sees fit. It's probably the biggest thing overlooked in our constitution...but, then again, our founding fathers thought that we'd be able to keep the government in check through the active exercise of the first two amendments to our Constitution (not that our government follows the constitution any more, but that's another topic in itself).
I would much rather depend on the kindness of straingers (and not-so-strangers) if I were in need than have the government *forcibly* take money from friends/family/strangers/anyone to give to me...especially when the government is so wasteful and ineffective with the money it collects for these and other purposes.
I'm sure you'll get flamed plenty by those who simply lack common sense or refuse to see the reality that capitalism is better than socialism at delivering goods, services, and increasing the standard of living. We (USA) are still living off the benefits of capitalism but for some dumbass reason people want more and think that reverting (not *progressing*) to socialist solutions is the answer.
Hint: The parent post has the real answer, and that is to let the market forces work (not subsidize, regulate, or socialize).
I'm all for broadband, but I don't see the wisdom in doing it through government any more than I see wisdom in having the government provide food, shelter, charity, religion, education, employment, health care, etc. It might sound like a nice eutopia, but it's not sustainable without the competition introduced by a free and open market. The best example is our food. Food is THE necessity, even more than health care, etc. If the government provided it there would be little selection, less supply, and less quality.
You might look to the government to (at the threat of inprisonment) take money from everyone else to pay for what you want or need, but I'd rather people have the option to pay for what they want and help others in the way they see most fit. Most sane/intelligent people see the former as theft, but it's obvious that some view it as a way of life.
Wow, not only are you ignorant, you spread FUD based on that ignorance.
- Do you really think that people pay $1m/year pay according to their tax rate? No way. When you have money you can do two things: (1) buy loopholes (2) afford to hire an accountant to jump through said loopholes. So the poor get a free ride (no taxes + handouts), the rich get their loopholes, and the middle class get royally screwed (from the perspective of % of income actually paid in taxes).
- Most flat-tax proposals include something like a standard deduction or include progressive rates at the real low end - so it's not truely a flat tax usually being spoken about...it's just a lot flatter than usual.
- Mr $1m and Mr $18k both go to lunch and get the same meal. Mr $18k pays $0.36 for the same lunch Mr $1m pays $20 for and you're saying that's UNFAIR to Mr $1m (who has very likely created wealth/opportunity/income not only for himself, but for many other people and that $1m is a reflection of that contribution to society)? Wow, I hope you make more $$ than me and we have lunch sometime.
- If you think someone should have a free lunch, or you think they shouldn't - you should be able to act on that. The government is horribly poor at identifying need (those with real need are often "not eligable" while others take advantage of the system) and even worse at efficiently helping those in need (LOTS of overhead). Individuals are much better at making charitable decisions, and private charities are much better at providing those services than the government. You might SOUND compassionate in passing a bill to yank another $200/year from every taxpayer through force and redistribute it for benefit...but really the effect is quite the opposite.
- The government's job is not to encourage or discourage people from doing "good" or "bad" things (as dictated by YOU). You might have good intentions in strong-arming people to hold the same values as you or make the choices you think are "right" - but in the end you're still strong-arming people and setting precidence for truely evil things to be implemented/enforced through a similar means. It's VERY ignorant to think that a certain decision is right/beneficial for everyone. It's VERY oppressive/tyrranical to enforce that decision through law or use the cohersive powers (like tax) to all but enforce it.
A "flat tax" would be more equitable than our current taxing system in many ways: 1. Cost of compliance (not only is this more fair, it's more efficient - and an efficient economy is better for everyone). 2. Fairness (no/less loopholes and no free lunches - at least not provided by the state). 3. Socially. No cohersion as to how to run your life / what decisions to make.
Educate yourself on the issues and use common sense - or take your Marxism and stay out of/leave the US!
Yah, I love those "affordable housing" programs. Big-Government types just don't understand supply and demand, and really don't like reason and logic either, for that matter.
I live near Boulder, CO - the mindset there seems to be (minus the parenthetical notes, which are my reasoned observations):
1. Limit growth (supply of housing). 2. Complain that housing is too expensive for the poor (because the supply can't meet demand). 3. Subsidize housing for the poor (increases demand because, doesn't increase supply, increases housing. 4. Repeat.
This does several things: 1. Benefits only the rich or established (who can or do own land there) because it drives values/prices up. 2. Slows ecnomic progress (and they call themselves "progressives", hah) by driving the cost of business up in relation to other areas. 3. Drives the middle/working class out of town. Those who are between established/rich and poor don't get housing assistance, but can't afford to buy either. 4. Enslaves the poor. They're able to subside ("thanks" to the subsidies), but never have a chance to move up / purchase housing (prices are high, existing housing is already owned, no new housing to provide an opportunity). Yet their money (to the highest extent possible "as much as they can afford") is paid to the rich.
It may SEEM like compassion or caring, and passing a BILL that "helps the poor" also sounds good during election time...but in reality (just like prohibition) the effects are opposite those intended. These programs should be laughed out of existance (along with all other subsidies, social or corporate).
Slashdot Mirror
"If the majority of people in a community want to fund a public wireless service with their tax dollars, and they vote to do so, then it must happen..."
Problem here is something called "tyranny of the majority." Essentially the will of the majority is FORCED upon the minority. In this case the purchasing choise of the "majority" (purchase this service through the government instead of a company) is not only forced on the minority (who want to purchase it from the free market or don't want it at all) but the majority gets to subsidize their choice with the monies of those in the minority (to the majority this makes the service seem "free" or at least cheap...while the minority carries the burden).
At the end of the day, this is a service that can be provided by/within the free market, and is not important enough to warrent sendind people to jail and taking their posessions if they choose not to fund it...so it is not an appropriate service for the government to fund using tax dollars. If a city council wants to compete with other ISPs, they can quit the council, get some VC funding or a business loan, and start a business like everyone else.
I have a couple criteria in determining if something should be provided by the government (i.e. you should be taxed to pay for it). To be justified, it must get a "yes" for both of the following questions.
1. Is it providing something that cannot be feasibly provided by the private sector?
I live in Colorado (just outside Fort Collins) and have friends (in Windsor) who use a private wireless ISP. My laptop in my office can see the APs for another wireless ISP (I use cable and also have the choice of DSL from several providers). There is also a local wireless COOP that can service anyone within a 12-25-mile radius (line of site) of Horsetooth Rock. I can think of 10 places in town where I can get free WIFI and several others where I can pay a couple bucks to use their connected computer (i.e. for those who can't afford computers).
I know people outside of Colorado Springs, on 5-acre lots (so not a density you'd think is attractive to ISPs). They have access to a wireless ISP and a Cable ISP...and there are a couple DSL providers who think they can service them despite the long phone lines.
I have a friend in **Brush** and even he has high-speed Internet.
2. Is it important enough that the funding of it should be enforced by law/force (should people be thrown in jail and have their assets forfeited for not funding it)?
The first question already disqualified this for me, but it fails this question as well. High-speed Internet is nice, but most people can get it anyway. Those who cannot can visit a local coffee house for a couple bucks, or use dial-up.
Given that we've gotten a "NO" for both of these questions this is not a reasonable place for the government to provide services in.
I have a couple criteria in determining if something should be provided by the government (i.e. you should be taxed to pay for it). To be justified, it must get a "yes" for both of the following questions.
1. Is it providing something that cannot be feasibly provided by the private sector?
I live in Colorado (just outside Fort Collins) and have friends (in Windsor) who use a private wireless ISP because they are out of range for DSL and cable. My laptop in my office can see the APs for another wireless ISP (I use cable and also have the choice of DSL from several providers). There is also a local wireless COOP that can service anyone within a 12-25-mile radius (line of site) of Horsetooth Rock. I can think of 10 places in town where I can get free WIFI and several others where I can pay a couple bucks to use their connected computer (i.e. for those who can't afford computers).
2. Is it important enough that the funding of it should be enforced by law/force (should people be thrown in jail and have their assets forfeited for not funding it)?
The first question already disqualified this for me, but it fails this question as well. High-speed Internet is nice, but most people can get it anyway. Those who cannot can visit a local coffee house for a couple bucks, or use dial-up.
Given that we've gotten a "NO" for both of these questions this is not a reasonable place for the government to provide services in.
The government does not need to "introduce" the notion of competition, OSS has and will continue to compete without government's help. OSS, like everything else, should compete on it's merits, without imposing a tax on people. Is OSS so important that people should be jailed and have their property taken if they don't support it? If not, it should not be publically funded. The best way for government to support competition is to get out of the way and not not muck with things (except for a few roles like enforcing rules in areas like like antitrust, fraud, enforcement of contracts, etc). The last thing we need is for OSS to become more dependent on public funding. Government does have a role similar to that of corporations in using and contributing where relevant to open source to fill it's own needs (a consumer of OSS, if you will), but government involvement "for the greater good" is rubbish as an economic principle or public policy.
"Free" is probably the worst term one could choose to describe funding OSS via tax monies. I see no valid reason to fund OSS using taxpayer money.
First, tax monies should not fund things that are obviously able to be funded privately as OSS is (lots of individual, non-profit, and coporate support and funding).
Second, we should be VERY careful in selecting what to fund with tax in order to minimize what is funded with taxes because of the associated burden and consequences. People who don't pay 100% of the tax they owe are likely to face criminal charges and have their personal posessions confiscated. Is funding of OSS so important that people should face these consequences for not funding it?
Third, if something is funded that could otherwise be funded by the normal free market, it is artificially supported by the government and is likely to always require that support. There are many things that can seem good or be made to sound that way by politicians (farm subsidies, steel tarriffs, other forms of corporate welfare) but in the end they remove the realities of the market from those activities with serious consequences (farm subsidies make things like cotton prices artificially low, hurting domestic and foreign farmers...steel tariffs insulate domestic steel companes so they don't have to learn how to compete in the global market and make domestic steel prices high with a ripple effect into manufacturing, without this competition they learn to depend on the tariffs...etc). OSS does not need tax funding, should not get tax funding, and should not want tax funding (less OSS becomes dependent on and becomes subject to politicians).
It's just a bad idea all around and will lessen personal freedoms (economic freedom and thus other freedoms as well) and would create a socialist environment around OSS instead of the competitive, choice, and capitalist environment which has and will continue to allow OSS to exist and thrive (and do so based on it's merits).
Ubuntu actually makes a decent server, provided you catch it before it installs all the GNOME desktop/Xfree86 stuff.
Is it that hard to type "custom" at the boot prompt given by the installation CD?
I think the point is to not run out of cash...that they (cannonical) will have cash flow by selling services to companies that need it.
You can have "base" Ubuntu install, much like a base Debian installation. Simply type "custom" at the install/boot prompt when booting from the install CD.
From the Ubuntu web site:
"That was followed up by calling Powell basically a two-faced liar who said that indecency should be controlled by the market, then "cowtowing" to pressure from the large conglomerate radio organizations, and allowing a few organizations to become very powerful in radio."
If you've ever read interviews with Michael Powell or heard him speak, you'd know he is a very pro-freedom anti-regulation person. I'm pretty sure if he had his way there would be no indeciency acts. However, he doesn't get to make that call...lawmakers do. He's there to enforce them. If Stern wants to attack Michael for the laws Congress writes, I want to watch him even less than I did before. Stern is a jackass.
Smoke could also be from failing transformer/ballist (or whatever you call the equivilant gadget a street light).
According to these exif headers in the parent post, the picture is JPEG, a compressed format. Without the RAW picture to analze, I'd pass the "tail" off as a possible artifact created by the JPEG creation software inside the camera as it dealt with the bright spot.
Lights don't always burn out instantly, they can _burn_, which includes creating smoke. Depending on the conditions and that we're likely talking about a large filiment (like you see in the metal halide and similar industrial bulbs) it wouldn't surprise me if it burnt brightly for several seconds before (and into) when the picture was taken. This would explain seeing smoke and the bright light at the same time.
The only thing left is ensuring that it's an appropriate time of day for lights to be on. It looks like some of the lights are on, and that it's dusk/dawn (the exif headers corroborate that it is dusk). Dusk is when automatic lights turn on.
We're possibly seeing nothing more than a bulb burning out (during turn-on or soon there after, which would be a reasonable time given that this is when most bulbs have problems) and a JPEG artifact.
I would like to see a picture from the night before and night after (they would likely show that that light is worked the one day and not the next, unless the maintanance guys are quick).
I've noticed that the latest version of Symantec AntiVirus has anti spyware features. Seeing spyware as simply another form of non-worm virus makes sense, and so does combining the products (both scan processes, memory, disk, etc). However, I have no idea if Symantec's is effective or not. Given their size, not including their product in this article was a large oversight.
If anyone has comparative info on Symantec vs. the freeware anti-spyware products...please post as a reply to this post.
"Wasn't the money-laundering part Kerry's contribution to the PATRIOT act?"
/. story: Kerry's Record On Electronic And Civil Rights.
You are correct. I reference the article referenced in this
The number would be higher, but there are companies who make LCD screens who have licensed this technology...and companies who sell these non-infringing screens.
I notice that HP is conspicuous by it's abscence from the list of companies being sued.
I think the HP LCDs are manufactured by one of the companies that did license this technology. If true, they would be in the clear.
"Genocides and other human rights atrocities should be dealt with through the United Nations, an international organization set up SPECIFICALLY to handle things like this."
;) Giving Iraq money for palaces while making billions off the commission, doing nothing about Sudan, asking North Korea (in a friendly tone) to not get Nukes, etc. seems like a good working plan.
Yah, they're real effective.
The UN is crap. It's the best current working example of power corrupting. The first problem with the UN is that it recognizes "nations" instead of people (or nations by/for the people). The fact that they consider places like North Korea, Sudan, Iraq, etc. "soverign" and given them ANY seat at the table is a big enough sign to me that they have virtually no real interest in human rights. The UN's interests align much closer with power-seeking. Their overall effect is to prop-up/recognize/legitimize the people, systems and laws in power regardless of their level of corruption, genocide, etc.
The UN is not set up specifically to handle human rights. If it were, it would recognize humans (and collections of humans), not states that rule/terrorize/enslave the people of that "nation."
I don't need to explain why to those familiar with LaMont.
http://www.mmjgroup.com/
Hell yes.
I've been telling my wife that we need to start saving for a small personal helicopter (which I think could be achievable within like 20 years, even though we're not rich by any means). The rest of my family and many friends live 2+ hours away, which I imagine will rapidly increase as this area populated. Same goes for many areas/spots of interest. I would thouroughly enjoy being able to avoid the idiot drivers, the traffic jams and accidents, arriving in a predictable/consistent 60 minutes.
I see government overregulation as one problem (has made general aviation too expensive).
Another problem is that technology has not advanced into this area quickly enough (possibly a function of the previous problem). Single-rotor helis are still the norm, instead of meshed counter-rotating rotors. Real low-end (i.e. not turbine) helis from places like http://www.robinsonheli.com/ are only finally starting to switch to fuel-injection from carborators.
If they made flying cars that were safe, you'd solve my desire for a heli above, as well as providing ground transportation at my destinatios (instead of having to scatter $1000 automobiles or borrow cars at common destination points).
I'm not about to tell you that you should deduct your share of military costs from your taxes, because that would quickly result in negative impacts on you (confiscation of your property, possibly jail time) and eventually through this cohersion you would be forced pay.
You actually make my point quite well. Instead of all these things that *I* LIKE or *you* LIKE being provided by the government on everyone's back (willing or not), there should be a VERY LIMITED set of what the public accepts as things the government has the right to (by force) take money from individuals to distribute as it sees fit. It's probably the biggest thing overlooked in our constitution...but, then again, our founding fathers thought that we'd be able to keep the government in check through the active exercise of the first two amendments to our Constitution (not that our government follows the constitution any more, but that's another topic in itself).
I would much rather depend on the kindness of straingers (and not-so-strangers) if I were in need than have the government *forcibly* take money from friends/family/strangers/anyone to give to me...especially when the government is so wasteful and ineffective with the money it collects for these and other purposes.
Nice to see someone here has a clue.
I'm sure you'll get flamed plenty by those who simply lack common sense or refuse to see the reality that capitalism is better than socialism at delivering goods, services, and increasing the standard of living. We (USA) are still living off the benefits of capitalism but for some dumbass reason people want more and think that reverting (not *progressing*) to socialist solutions is the answer.
Hint: The parent post has the real answer, and that is to let the market forces work (not subsidize, regulate, or socialize).
I'm all for broadband, but I don't see the wisdom in doing it through government any more than I see wisdom in having the government provide food, shelter, charity, religion, education, employment, health care, etc. It might sound like a nice eutopia, but it's not sustainable without the competition introduced by a free and open market. The best example is our food. Food is THE necessity, even more than health care, etc. If the government provided it there would be little selection, less supply, and less quality.
You might look to the government to (at the threat of inprisonment) take money from everyone else to pay for what you want or need, but I'd rather people have the option to pay for what they want and help others in the way they see most fit. Most sane/intelligent people see the former as theft, but it's obvious that some view it as a way of life.
Care to qualify this with a source/link/reference?
Thanks.
Not just an ICBM but a manned ICBM. You can imagine the intense competition for that job.
Wow, not only are you ignorant, you spread FUD based on that ignorance.
- Do you really think that people pay $1m/year pay according to their tax rate? No way. When you have money you can do two things: (1) buy loopholes (2) afford to hire an accountant to jump through said loopholes. So the poor get a free ride (no taxes + handouts), the rich get their loopholes, and the middle class get royally screwed (from the perspective of % of income actually paid in taxes).
- Most flat-tax proposals include something like a standard deduction or include progressive rates at the real low end - so it's not truely a flat tax usually being spoken about...it's just a lot flatter than usual.
- Mr $1m and Mr $18k both go to lunch and get the same meal. Mr $18k pays $0.36 for the same lunch Mr $1m pays $20 for and you're saying that's UNFAIR to Mr $1m (who has very likely created wealth/opportunity/income not only for himself, but for many other people and that $1m is a reflection of that contribution to society)? Wow, I hope you make more $$ than me and we have lunch sometime.
- If you think someone should have a free lunch, or you think they shouldn't - you should be able to act on that. The government is horribly poor at identifying need (those with real need are often "not eligable" while others take advantage of the system) and even worse at efficiently helping those in need (LOTS of overhead). Individuals are much better at making charitable decisions, and private charities are much better at providing those services than the government. You might SOUND compassionate in passing a bill to yank another $200/year from every taxpayer through force and redistribute it for benefit...but really the effect is quite the opposite.
- The government's job is not to encourage or discourage people from doing "good" or "bad" things (as dictated by YOU). You might have good intentions in strong-arming people to hold the same values as you or make the choices you think are "right" - but in the end you're still strong-arming people and setting precidence for truely evil things to be implemented/enforced through a similar means. It's VERY ignorant to think that a certain decision is right/beneficial for everyone. It's VERY oppressive/tyrranical to enforce that decision through law or use the cohersive powers (like tax) to all but enforce it.
A "flat tax" would be more equitable than our current taxing system in many ways:
1. Cost of compliance (not only is this more fair, it's more efficient - and an efficient economy is better for everyone).
2. Fairness (no/less loopholes and no free lunches - at least not provided by the state).
3. Socially. No cohersion as to how to run your life / what decisions to make.
Educate yourself on the issues and use common sense - or take your Marxism and stay out of/leave the US!
Yah, I love those "affordable housing" programs. Big-Government types just don't understand supply and demand, and really don't like reason and logic either, for that matter.
I live near Boulder, CO - the mindset there seems to be (minus the parenthetical notes, which are my reasoned observations):
1. Limit growth (supply of housing).
2. Complain that housing is too expensive for the poor (because the supply can't meet demand).
3. Subsidize housing for the poor (increases demand because, doesn't increase supply, increases housing.
4. Repeat.
This does several things:
1. Benefits only the rich or established (who can or do own land there) because it drives values/prices up.
2. Slows ecnomic progress (and they call themselves "progressives", hah) by driving the cost of business up in relation to other areas.
3. Drives the middle/working class out of town. Those who are between established/rich and poor don't get housing assistance, but can't afford to buy either.
4. Enslaves the poor. They're able to subside ("thanks" to the subsidies), but never have a chance to move up / purchase housing (prices are high, existing housing is already owned, no new housing to provide an opportunity). Yet their money (to the highest extent possible "as much as they can afford") is paid to the rich.
It may SEEM like compassion or caring, and passing a BILL that "helps the poor" also sounds good during election time...but in reality (just like prohibition) the effects are opposite those intended. These programs should be laughed out of existance (along with all other subsidies, social or corporate).