I'd rather be Tom Cruise - he gets all the chicks.
Be careful dude: there are lots of rumours that although women really like Tom Cruise, he isn't all that interested in women... He might *actually* prefer CowboyNeal!
Most companies I have worked at or know people at go with a third party backup solution such as the ones from Tivoli or Veritas.
We have looked at both TSM and NetBackup. Both are an improvement over my current Solaris backup and restore process, but neither are as nice as what AIX does out of the box.
It was an interesting experience talking to the vendors: the Veritas guys claimed their product was better than TSM, and gave use four or five reasons why. The IBM people claimed that their product was better than Veritas for the exact same reasons. Both products are pretty good, and each has strengths and weaknesses.
AIX has it's faults but +5 insightful to IBM for mksysb.
But today, if you give good training to your staff and give them good management tool, like the Tivoli suite from IBM
I have a medium-sized Tivoli installation, and it has not really reduced the number of SysAdmins we have. Tivoli still has some bugs in it, and some of the modules (i.e. software distribution) do not work consistently. Furthermore, Tivoli has problem running large scripts on remote servers.
In fairness, it does a very good job of monitoring systems, and it takes care of the more mind-numbingly dull and repetitive tasks for us, but we still need to have skilled UNIX admins around.
From personal experience, I found that backup and recovery can be quite different depending on the flavours involved. For example, I back up my AIX systems with/usr/bin/mksysb, ftp the file to a system that is connected to a tape library and copy the image to a 4mm tape. I can do a bare-metal recovery from that tape to any equivalent or better RS/6000 in about an hour or so and have an exact clone of the original system as of the date the backup was taken. In this regard, AIX rocks.
My Solaris backup and recovery strategy is not as elegant in that I make backup tapes via/usr/sbin/ufsdump, but restoring a system from tape is more involved, and I cannot restore that tape on a different class of Sun hardware.
I do not expect both to work identically, but there are some significant differences between the two.
Its is impossible to prove something does not exist.
In formal logic and mathematics, it is very easy to prove that something does not exist. Proof by contradiction is probably the easiest example. IIRC from lectures I attended, it is more difficult to prove the existance of something than it is to prove that something does not exist.
You cannot logically put an impossible burden on someone
My PHB does it all the time! Mind you logic and PHB's do not go hand-in-hand...
You get to vote for your government every 4 years. Once they're in, 4 years is long term. Corporations, on the other hand, have to keep you happy every day, forever. Corporations, especially these days when brands are so important, are massively concerned with what people think of them, and if they're unpopular, they'll change.
Oh really?
If what you say is true, then please explain to me how microsoft's behaviour is consistent with your argument. If you have time, I would also like to hear how the MPAA and RIAA are concerned with what people think of them, and I am anxiously awaiting them to change for the better...
Encourage new technologies with SBIR funding or tax incentives, but let's not get stupid and *mandate* this sort of thing.
So, subsidies are ok and publicly funded research is ok. But enforcable standards are not? I do not understand the trust you place in organizations that are not accountable to the public at large.
I understand the thrust of your argument, but I cannot accept it. Consider the evidence: large corporations cannot be trusted to behave ethically if they have the option to do otherwise. It would appear that if a corporation can make more money by engaging in un-ethical behaviour, they will go for the unethical behaviour - particularly if punishment for being caught doing so is inconsequential. (*cough* microsoft *cough*)
I work hard for my money and do not want my tax dollars to be wasted on corporate welfare. I see no value in allowing corporations to reap the benefits and profits from publicly funded research. To me, that would be *stupid*. BR>
Far better that there are standards. In addition to those standards, there should also be significant punishment for non-compliance. How many corporations would choose to pollute if part of the punishment for doing so was that the board of directors would go to jail for a minimum 5 year term and the personal assets of board members would be siezed and sold to help finance the clean-up operation?
The most telling point is the institution of the "fourth R." Regulation.
Given that humaity tends to be stupid, lazy and vain (c.f history of mankind) I do not see how the necessary paradigm shift away from the non-renewable resources we currently depend on will happen without some encouragement. Who do you trust? Obviously not big, evil governments. I suppose that the socialist hordes that make up pan-national governing bodies are not to be trusted either. So what's left?
Unfettered capitalism will devour the planet and leave nothing of value in its wake. Corporations do not tend to take the long-term view because it is not particularly profitable to do so. Besides, they are only accountable to the shareholders, and the shareholders mainly care about ROI.
If I understand your argument then, the paradigm shift will be forced on us when the status quo becomes unprofitable and unsustainable, and not a minute sooner.
That sounds like a pretty crappy future. Especially when we have the option of choosing an alternative one. But why should we inconvenience ourselves? Let's just ignore the problem and hope it just goes away. If that strategy fails, we can always comfort ourselves with the knowledge that the problems really won't come to a head in our lifetimes...
Look at how hard factories fight things like filters on smokestacks, because it'll raise prices a few cents per item.
That is because the people doing that bitching are only concerned with their own immediate interests, and nothing more. If your eyes do not look beyond the next quarter's financial statements, effective and intelligent planning for the future is next to impossible. "Why implement Kyoto? It will have a negative effect on our profits - and our stock options".
It would be in everyone's best interest to maybe look at the big picture once in a while. I suspect that if you take the long term view, the question is no longer "How much is this going to cost us?" Instead the question becomes "What is the cost of not doing this?" In that case, the filters on the smokestacks should be a slam dunk because their relatively trivial cost more than offsets the enormous costs of not cleaning up the environment.
What do you think about ongoing conflict in middle east?
No offense, but what sort of question is that? I don't imagine that any reasonable person would be in favour of the on-going conflict. Nor do I see how any decent sort of person would claim that the death count (on all sides) is not yet high enough. The violence is so self-defeating. As we brutalize others, so do we brutalize ourselves.
What do you think about massacre that Isreali soldiers commited in refugee camp in Jenin?
Why not ask him how he feels about the suicide bombers who deliberately choose to attack non-combatants?
Could we leave the partisanship aside and discuss things relevant to the/. crowd?
Many recognize the value of Doing The Right Thing(TM).
Absolutely! You need look no further than Phillip Morris for exemplary corporate behaviour. They don't send SPAM - all they want to do is get kids hooked on smoking at an early age so that they can derive maximum profit from the addiction before the customers die.
Kind of warms your heart to see them Doing The Right Thing and not flooding our mailboxes with SPAM!
I do *not* have to be careful about what I say. Thats the whole friggin point. I can say anything.
Believe what you like then, but if you ever decide to put that belief to the test, do not be surprised if things turn out badly. I do not think that even the likes of the ACLU would condone outright slander and defamation.
There are limits to freedom of expression, and I would go so far as to argue that there must be limits. Sure, we have to do distasteful things like permit the dumb-ass rednecks of the KKK to hold their marches and rallys, but we do so knowing that they are exposing their ignorance to the world. They are allowed to voice their opinions (however objectionable) as per the same laws that permit others to disagree with the government, the media, and other citizens.
However, I think it would be considered a crime if a private citizen were to publicly announce a bounty on the head of another person. In fact, I am pretty sure that it would be a crime if I privately offered to pay someone to kill another person. I doubt that this would be considered freedom of speech.
Sorry dude, but you can't say whatever you want...
They just don't stop, they just don't listen, and they NEVER LEARN
You are right that the MPAA (et. al.) do not stop. But they DO learn. In fact, they have learned all to well. They have learned that sufficiently large donations to politicians result in legislation that protects their interests at the expense of the puble, and past legal precedants be damned. The MPAA does not have to listen to the likes of us, and the politicians will politely listen, but will not bite the hand that pays to re-elect them.
I contact my congressman over this stuff every time, and I will continue to do so.
And I would encourage you, and anyone else who finds this sort of legislation offensive. Unfortunately, until the campaign financing laws are changed in our supposedly superior western democracies to prevent corporations or lobby groups from buying politicians (and legislation), we should not expect the politicians to act on our concerns.
The problem is of course that the people who benefit the most from the present system will almost certainly fight the hardest to maintain the status quo.
i really think the only solution to this problem lies in the usual rhetoric, but you dont think that is worth discussing.
I think that we can all agree that the impact that violence has on society as a whole is a very complex issue. I do not believe that the solution will be much less complex. The usual fluff around here about leaving the libertarians free to exercise their personal freedoms provided that nobody is directly harmed is of no value to the discussion and a waste of bandwidth.
Personally, I agree that the solution will definitely require parents to take a more active role in raising their children, but that is only part of the solution, not the whole of it. Parents can not and should not be expected to monitor their kids 24x7. Besides, it is a regrettable truth that all children do not live in ideal homes and environments, and some parents are not appropriate role models for their kids. Children are exposed to violence of varying degrees in many places. Preventing them from accessing violent video games is clearly not going to solve the ills of the world, but at least somebody out there is aware of the issue and is trying to do something about it.
The issue at hand here is NOT the video games. Seeing violence other places could cause it too. There are MANY things that could be blamed for violence.
The issue at hand is exposure to violence and the effects it has particularly on young people. While you may not like that, video games are definitely part of the issue. Maybe you should check out the American Psychological Association website. It contains references and articles which indicate that exposure to violence is a significant cause of violent behaviour.
I've played violent video games since Doom, and I've never committed any violent crimes (actually, no crimes period). So they're obviously NOT the problem. My friends have too, and they're just the same way I am.
Unfortunately, the existance of a counter-example does not negate the value of the research. Nobody is saying that exposure to violence will automatically turn anyone into an axe-murderer. The results are significant, but less dramatic:
It increases the viewer's fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and increased mistrust of others.
It desensitizes the viewer to violence, resulting in a calloused attitude toward violence directed at others and a decreased likelihood of taking action to help a victim of violence.
It increases the viewer's appetite for becoming involved with violence.
It often demonstrates how desirable commodities can be obtained through the use of aggression and violence.
Sexual violence in X- and R-rated videotapes widely available to teenagers has also been shown to cause an increase male aggression against females.
Could we avoid the typical/. knee-jerk reaction and look at the big picture for a moment? Or will we wallow in the usual rhetoric about personal choice and parental responsibility without regard to the unfortuate consequences of our behaviours.
But it doesn't change the fact that The Rich cannot buy votes to elect their representatives, they can only use it to convince the sheep to elect whom the Rich want to represent them.
Like I said before, not quite. I think that in addition to being brutally self-interested, corporations are also pretty smart. They don't make a donation to just one candidate - they donate to *both* parties. Naturally the incumbant gets the most since that individual can be of more immediate use, but they cover their bets just in case. It is highly unlikely that either candidate you get to choose from is unsullied by corporate interests. And in the off-chance that someone who has not yet been co-opted manages to get elected, the corporate bagmen are more than happy to meet with Mr. Smith when he goes to Washington and explain their position and make a nice donation to the re-election fund.
Your argument implies there is a real choice when it comes to the ballot box. Unfortunately, I do not think that is necessarily true.
Probably the best thing to do would be to eliminate corporate donations to political parties and limit the maximum amount of annual donations one person could make. It would also be helpful to eliminate third-party partisan election campaigning, but I doubt any of these options are possible. Other alternatives might include limiting the term of the incumbant -either by legislation or strategic voting. That way, each special interest group would have to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hpersuade new politicians to support their cause more often.
If you tell your representatives how they should vote, and you vote for a polician based on thorough review of his record, consider yourself absolved from the governmental mess that is this country
Since I don't live in your country, I cannot be blamed.:-)
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.
It's not as if there are any poor or hungry people in the first world where capitalism and economic freedom dominate.
Rich people can't actually buy votes; they can only spend large amounts of money to convince voters to elect people who will work for big business over the voter's interest.
Not quite.
Large corporations spend a lot of time lobbying politicians and making campaign donations. I don't think this is done for benevolent reasons. These donations are likely considered an investment, and naturally the corporations expect a return on this investment.
The end results are usually seen in the legislation. Consider the bills tabled by Hollings. Is it a coincidence that the industry that will benefit the most from his proposed legislation just happens to be the industry that has bankrolled him through the last couple of elections?
As for a shelter shielding Microsoft from taxes, their own financials reported a total income tax expense (2001) of $1,288,000,000 US Dollars. If they have a tax dodge in place, it AIN'T working.
Yes, but what about Gates? Right now, when he wants some coin, he sells some shares, and the proceeds of those shares are taxed at a lower marginal rate than if he had received dividends. I suspect that guys like Bill Gates and Paul Allen are avoiding a great deal of taxation in doing so.
It's not as if they can't afford to pay the tax...
The difference I might add that in some European countries it will be Illegal to speak out against it to ANY extent they want ( Not talking about violent action, talking like that COULD get you in trouble even in the US). Here we can bitch and moan to our hearts content, and actually DO something about it. There, once its law forget it.......
Some European countries? I don't suppose that you could provide us with some details to back that claim up, could you?
...Should Alan Cox start a fight in all countries, or should he just deal with Linux and let the fights go on with diplomats and politicians?
It is precisely because the matter was left to the diplomats, policitians, and the large corporate interests that fund political campaings that this directive was passed in the first place!
Besides, how much power does he have outside the internet? Leave the fights to the popular, not the techies.
Who did you have in mind to lead the charge? How many people who are "popular" are also sufficiently well informed about the issues and able to speak coherently and intelligently about the issues. Surely the people who attract the public eye have already been co-opted, or at least see this legislation in their own best interests too. For example, I do not imagine that Brittney Spears would ever argue against these sorts of laws. I doubt that she understands the implications - and even if she did, it is in her record company's best interests to make sure that everyone who wants to listen to her music pays for it, and her best interest because a portion of those royalties go to her
Sure, the average person on the street does not know who Alan Cox is, but amongst those who are technologically aware, he is known and his opinion carries some weight.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather be Tom Cruise - he gets all the chicks.
Be careful dude: there are lots of rumours that although women really like Tom Cruise, he isn't all that interested in women... He might *actually* prefer CowboyNeal!
Most companies I have worked at or know people at go with a third party backup solution such as the ones from Tivoli or Veritas.
We have looked at both TSM and NetBackup. Both are an improvement over my current Solaris backup and restore process, but neither are as nice as what AIX does out of the box.
It was an interesting experience talking to the vendors: the Veritas guys claimed their product was better than TSM, and gave use four or five reasons why. The IBM people claimed that their product was better than Veritas for the exact same reasons. Both products are pretty good, and each has strengths and weaknesses.
AIX has it's faults but +5 insightful to IBM for mksysb.
But today, if you give good training to your staff and give them good management tool, like the Tivoli suite from IBM
I have a medium-sized Tivoli installation, and it has not really reduced the number of SysAdmins we have. Tivoli still has some bugs in it, and some of the modules (i.e. software distribution) do not work consistently. Furthermore, Tivoli has problem running large scripts on remote servers.
In fairness, it does a very good job of monitoring systems, and it takes care of the more mind-numbingly dull and repetitive tasks for us, but we still need to have skilled UNIX admins around.
From personal experience, I found that backup and recovery can be quite different depending on the flavours involved. For example, I back up my AIX systems with /usr/bin/mksysb, ftp the file to a system that is connected to a tape library and copy the image to a 4mm tape. I can do a bare-metal recovery from that tape to any equivalent or better RS/6000 in about an hour or so and have an exact clone of the original system as of the date the backup was taken. In this regard, AIX rocks.
/usr/sbin/ufsdump, but restoring a system from tape is more involved, and I cannot restore that tape on a different class of Sun hardware.
My Solaris backup and recovery strategy is not as elegant in that I make backup tapes via
I do not expect both to work identically, but there are some significant differences between the two.
Its is impossible to prove something does not exist.
In formal logic and mathematics, it is very easy to prove that something does not exist. Proof by contradiction is probably the easiest example. IIRC from lectures I attended, it is more difficult to prove the existance of something than it is to prove that something does not exist.
You cannot logically put an impossible burden on someone
My PHB does it all the time! Mind you logic and PHB's do not go hand-in-hand...
You get to vote for your government every 4 years. Once they're in, 4 years is long term. Corporations, on the other hand, have to keep you happy every day, forever. Corporations, especially these days when brands are so important, are massively concerned with what people think of them, and if they're unpopular, they'll change.
Oh really? If what you say is true, then please explain to me how microsoft's behaviour is consistent with your argument. If you have time, I would also like to hear how the MPAA and RIAA are concerned with what people think of them, and I am anxiously awaiting them to change for the better...
Encourage new technologies with SBIR funding or tax incentives, but let's not get stupid and *mandate* this sort of thing.
So, subsidies are ok and publicly funded research is ok. But enforcable standards are not? I do not understand the trust you place in organizations that are not accountable to the public at large.
I understand the thrust of your argument, but I cannot accept it. Consider the evidence: large corporations cannot be trusted to behave ethically if they have the option to do otherwise. It would appear that if a corporation can make more money by engaging in un-ethical behaviour, they will go for the unethical behaviour - particularly if punishment for being caught doing so is inconsequential.
(*cough* microsoft *cough*)
I work hard for my money and do not want my tax dollars to be wasted on corporate welfare. I see no value in allowing corporations to reap the benefits and profits from publicly funded research. To me, that would be *stupid*. BR>
Far better that there are standards. In addition to those standards, there should also be significant punishment for non-compliance. How many corporations would choose to pollute if part of the punishment for doing so was that the board of directors would go to jail for a minimum 5 year term and the personal assets of board members would be siezed and sold to help finance the clean-up operation?
The most telling point is the institution of the "fourth R." Regulation.
Given that humaity tends to be stupid, lazy and vain (c.f history of mankind) I do not see how the necessary paradigm shift away from the non-renewable resources we currently depend on will happen without some encouragement. Who do you trust? Obviously not big, evil governments. I suppose that the socialist hordes that make up pan-national governing bodies are not to be trusted either. So what's left?
Unfettered capitalism will devour the planet and leave nothing of value in its wake. Corporations do not tend to take the long-term view because it is not particularly profitable to do so. Besides, they are only accountable to the shareholders, and the shareholders mainly care about ROI.
If I understand your argument then, the paradigm shift will be forced on us when the status quo becomes unprofitable and unsustainable, and not a minute sooner.
That sounds like a pretty crappy future. Especially when we have the option of choosing an alternative one. But why should we inconvenience ourselves? Let's just ignore the problem and hope it just goes away. If that strategy fails, we can always comfort ourselves with the knowledge that the problems really won't come to a head in our lifetimes...
The planet is BIG. There is near infinite room to put garbage and waste.
Dude, our planet is not "near infinite", and spelling "big" in all caps does not make it any more so.
Look at how hard factories fight things like filters on smokestacks, because it'll raise prices a few cents per item.
That is because the people doing that bitching are only concerned with their own immediate interests, and nothing more. If your eyes do not look beyond the next quarter's financial statements, effective and intelligent planning for the future is next to impossible. "Why implement Kyoto? It will have a negative effect on our profits - and our stock options".
It would be in everyone's best interest to maybe look at the big picture once in a while. I suspect that if you take the long term view, the question is no longer "How much is this going to cost us?" Instead the question becomes "What is the cost of not doing this?" In that case, the filters on the smokestacks should be a slam dunk because their relatively trivial cost more than offsets the enormous costs of not cleaning up the environment.
What do you think about ongoing conflict in middle east?
/. crowd?
No offense, but what sort of question is that? I don't imagine that any reasonable person would be in favour of the on-going conflict. Nor do I see how any decent sort of person would claim that the death count (on all sides) is not yet high enough. The violence is so self-defeating. As we brutalize others, so do we brutalize ourselves.
What do you think about massacre that Isreali soldiers commited in refugee camp in Jenin?
Why not ask him how he feels about the suicide bombers who deliberately choose to attack non-combatants?
Could we leave the partisanship aside and discuss things relevant to the
Many recognize the value of Doing The Right Thing(TM).
Absolutely! You need look no further than Phillip Morris for exemplary corporate behaviour. They don't send SPAM - all they want to do is get kids hooked on smoking at an early age so that they can derive maximum profit from the addiction before the customers die.
Kind of warms your heart to see them Doing The Right Thing and not flooding our mailboxes with SPAM!
I do *not* have to be careful about what I say. Thats the whole friggin point. I can say anything.
Believe what you like then, but if you ever decide to put that belief to the test, do not be surprised if things turn out badly. I do not think that even the likes of the ACLU would condone outright slander and defamation.
There are limits to freedom of expression, and I would go so far as to argue that there must be limits. Sure, we have to do distasteful things like permit the dumb-ass rednecks of the KKK to hold their marches and rallys, but we do so knowing that they are exposing their ignorance to the world. They are allowed to voice their opinions (however objectionable) as per the same laws that permit others to disagree with the government, the media, and other citizens.
However, I think it would be considered a crime if a private citizen were to publicly announce a bounty on the head of another person. In fact, I am pretty sure that it would be a crime if I privately offered to pay someone to kill another person. I doubt that this would be considered freedom of speech.
Sorry dude, but you can't say whatever you want...
They just don't stop, they just don't listen, and they NEVER LEARN
You are right that the MPAA (et. al.) do not stop. But they DO learn. In fact, they have learned all to well. They have learned that sufficiently large donations to politicians result in legislation that protects their interests at the expense of the puble, and past legal precedants be damned. The MPAA does not have to listen to the likes of us, and the politicians will politely listen, but will not bite the hand that pays to re-elect them.
I contact my congressman over this stuff every time, and I will continue to do so.
And I would encourage you, and anyone else who finds this sort of legislation offensive. Unfortunately, until the campaign financing laws are changed in our supposedly superior western democracies to prevent corporations or lobby groups from buying politicians (and legislation), we should not expect the politicians to act on our concerns.
The problem is of course that the people who benefit the most from the present system will almost certainly fight the hardest to maintain the status quo.
Lets face it how many bands are there today that will leave a mark on society like the Beatles did or Elvis?
I think that if he fell on society, Elvis would make quite the impression - and leave a fat, sweaty, jumpsuit-shaped mark...
(shudder)
i really think the only solution to this problem lies in the usual rhetoric, but you dont think that is worth discussing.
I think that we can all agree that the impact that violence has on society as a whole is a very complex issue. I do not believe that the solution will be much less complex. The usual fluff around here about leaving the libertarians free to exercise their personal freedoms provided that nobody is directly harmed is of no value to the discussion and a waste of bandwidth.
Personally, I agree that the solution will definitely require parents to take a more active role in raising their children, but that is only part of the solution, not the whole of it. Parents can not and should not be expected to monitor their kids 24x7. Besides, it is a regrettable truth that all children do not live in ideal homes and environments, and some parents are not appropriate role models for their kids. Children are exposed to violence of varying degrees in many places. Preventing them from accessing violent video games is clearly not going to solve the ills of the world, but at least somebody out there is aware of the issue and is trying to do something about it.
The issue at hand is exposure to violence and the effects it has particularly on young people. While you may not like that, video games are definitely part of the issue. Maybe you should check out the American Psychological Association website. It contains references and articles which indicate that exposure to violence is a significant cause of violent behaviour.
I've played violent video games since Doom, and I've never committed any violent crimes (actually, no crimes period). So they're obviously NOT the problem. My friends have too, and they're just the same way I am.
Unfortunately, the existance of a counter-example does not negate the value of the research. Nobody is saying that exposure to violence will automatically turn anyone into an axe-murderer. The results are significant, but less dramatic: Could we avoid the typical
But it doesn't change the fact that The Rich cannot buy votes to elect their representatives, they can only use it to convince the sheep to elect whom the Rich want to represent them.
:-)
Like I said before, not quite. I think that in addition to being brutally self-interested, corporations are also pretty smart. They don't make a donation to just one candidate - they donate to *both* parties. Naturally the incumbant gets the most since that individual can be of more immediate use, but they cover their bets just in case. It is highly unlikely that either candidate you get to choose from is unsullied by corporate interests. And in the off-chance that someone who has not yet been co-opted manages to get elected, the corporate bagmen are more than happy to meet with Mr. Smith when he goes to Washington and explain their position and make a nice donation to the re-election fund.
Your argument implies there is a real choice when it comes to the ballot box. Unfortunately, I do not think that is necessarily true.
Probably the best thing to do would be to eliminate corporate donations to political parties and limit the maximum amount of annual donations one person could make. It would also be helpful to eliminate third-party partisan election campaigning, but I doubt any of these options are possible. Other alternatives might include limiting the term of the incumbant -either by legislation or strategic voting. That way, each special interest group would have to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hpersuade new politicians to support their cause more often.
If you tell your representatives how they should vote, and you vote for a polician based on thorough review of his record, consider yourself absolved from the governmental mess that is this country
Since I don't live in your country, I cannot be blamed.
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.
It's not as if there are any poor or hungry people in the first world where capitalism and economic freedom dominate.
Oh, wait...
Rich people can't actually buy votes; they can only spend large amounts of money to convince voters to elect people who will work for big business over the voter's interest.
Not quite.
Large corporations spend a lot of time lobbying politicians and making campaign donations. I don't think this is done for benevolent reasons. These donations are likely considered an investment, and naturally the corporations expect a return on this investment.
The end results are usually seen in the legislation. Consider the bills tabled by Hollings. Is it a coincidence that the industry that will benefit the most from his proposed legislation just happens to be the industry that has bankrolled him through the last couple of elections?
As for a shelter shielding Microsoft from taxes, their own financials reported a total income tax expense (2001) of $1,288,000,000 US Dollars. If they have a tax dodge in place, it AIN'T working.
Yes, but what about Gates? Right now, when he wants some coin, he sells some shares, and the proceeds of those shares are taxed at a lower marginal rate than if he had received dividends. I suspect that guys like Bill Gates and Paul Allen are avoiding a great deal of taxation in doing so.
It's not as if they can't afford to pay the tax...
Don't all the search engines 'deep link'? I guess the new search engines will only point to home pages. What a crock!
Never mind that - it could be the end of slashdot. I wonder when Taco will be getting his "cease and desist" order(s)!
The difference I might add that in some European countries it will be Illegal to speak out against it to ANY extent they want ( Not talking about violent action, talking like that COULD get you in trouble even in the US). Here we can bitch and moan to our hearts content, and actually DO something about it. There, once its law forget it.......
Some European countries? I don't suppose that you could provide us with some details to back that claim up, could you?
It is precisely because the matter was left to the diplomats, policitians, and the large corporate interests that fund political campaings that this directive was passed in the first place!
Besides, how much power does he have outside the internet? Leave the fights to the popular, not the techies.
Who did you have in mind to lead the charge? How many people who are "popular" are also sufficiently well informed about the issues and able to speak coherently and intelligently about the issues. Surely the people who attract the public eye have already been co-opted, or at least see this legislation in their own best interests too. For example, I do not imagine that Brittney Spears would ever argue against these sorts of laws. I doubt that she understands the implications - and even if she did, it is in her record company's best interests to make sure that everyone who wants to listen to her music pays for it, and her best interest because a portion of those royalties go to her
Sure, the average person on the street does not know who Alan Cox is, but amongst those who are technologically aware, he is known and his opinion carries some weight.
Who do you think would be a better candidate?
This law would be something the left would devise
How is catering to corporate interests at the expense of the citizens a left-wing trait?