If you read the text of the article carefully, you will find this paragraph:
Draft No. 22
The current draft of the treaty, released on Oct. 2, attempts to level the legal playing field throughout Europe by standardizing computer crime statues and requiring signatories to cooperate with one another.
Standardzied crime statues. Hmmm, so they need to make sure those statues of Kevin Mitnick I see *so* often are of the same height, weight, material, linear distance from "computing device", and so on?
If you read the text of the article carefully, you will find this paragraph:
Draft No. 22
The current draft of the treaty, released on Oct. 2, attempts to level the legal playing field throughout Europe by standardizing computer crime statues and requiring signatories to cooperate with one another.
Standardzied crime statues. Hmmm, so they need to make sure those statues of Kevin Mitnick I see *so* often are of the same height, weight, material, linear distance from "computing device", and so on?
Stupid question, perhaps, but why on Earth isn't Airport mentioned in the article? After all, it's Linux-compatible (at least I remember seeing some drivers for it in recent linux-pmac kernels) as well as Mac-compatible, easy to install, configure, etc. etc. etc.
Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs
.. shutting off the information flow doesn't always achieve that, and is not synonymous with personal sovreignty. I think it's important to separate one's control of one's own life from information about oneself -- because they are not one and the same. There's a lot of overlap, but not identity.
So why should you not have control over your personal information, to do with as you please, and prevent others from abusing that information, say for marketing or employment?
America is actually a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials.
Oh, please. Spare me the lecture on pure democracy.
And you did a nice job of pointing out that a democracy -- a real one, where the majority has unlimited power -- is simply a diffused tyrrany. The minority must always submit to the majority.
Of course it must! How else do you expect a democracy (oh, fine, democratic republic, whatever) to function? Otherwise, laws just become optional.
That's not right, and it's one of the things our government was specifically designed to prevent.
So what? The thing about "taxes == tyranny" is getting a little old. You've already admitted that taxation is inescapable. In your black-and-white world, though, taxation is so morally abhorrent that it must be abolished.
without some form of collective action,
most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually
Um... substantiate this.
All right. Suppose you were to try to live totally autonomously. Where would you get your food? Agriculture is a form of collective action -- it's near impossible to provide for yourself on a small bit of land. The economy as a whole is also a form of collective action -- those farm implements you buy were made by someone else, after all. Or if you buy your food, it was made by someone else, shipped by someone else to your store, and kept cool and fresh by someone else at your store. How do you propose to survive without all that, which is the result of a collective action?
Furthermore, the government intervenes at each step of the way to make sure that certain standards are kept -- so you don't have to worry about it. The farmer has to meet USDA regulations (so he doesn't produce food that could cause things like, say, BSD, or have carcinogens in them) and is provided with information by the USDA and Extension Service to ensure their crop is successful; the shipper has to meet USDA and FDA regs about storage (so the food doesn't spoil) and has to pass OSHA requirements (so the driver doesn't easily get injured) and has to pass EPA regs (so his truck doesn't pollute too much on the way there); the store owner has to meet HHS, USDA, OSHA and FDA requirements on food storage, hygiene and more to ensure the food stays fresh, doesn't get contaminated and is of good quality.
None of this would succeed as well as it does without government involvement. Without it, the farmer would be at the mercy of local climate changes and soil misuse by his neighbors (erosion, pollution, pesticide/herbicide misuse); and from there it goes on to the shipper and store owner. Some would still maintain that level of quality, but some would not -- and how would you know? How do you know your fresh tomatoes weren't sprayed with dioxin-based pesticides until thirty years later, when you get cancer?
--snip--
The Catholic Church was, in large part, the government in the middle ages (off-topic).
No shit, Sherlock.
--snip--
The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim
I can't see how a market is free if the outcome is pre-ordained. Please explain.
There is no black and white "free and not free". That's why I wrote "freer".
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted).
I vote Libertarian, which means I don't vote myself any part of your paycheck inasmuchas that's possible. As I've stated before, the taxes that go to providing a common defense and preventing people from harming other people, are legitimate. I think you're being disingenous by equating that with the receipt of a personal subsidy.
Disingenuous? It's disingenuous of you to partake in *anything* from government funding (education, infrastructure, defense, health regulations) while bitching about taxes, and then call it a "personal subsidy".
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry, Yes.
suffer disease, Yes.
Mmmm-hmmm. And "Social Darwinism" doesn't suit you?
Any "right" that must be paid for by someone else isn't a right.
Oh? I guess you should stop using the roads and highways, then. Or do you have a right to use them? Ah, but then you can use the railways -- oops, also government-funded. Well, fly, then. Hmmm, flying without air-traffic control and airports could get interesting, though you could land the plane on the highway -- oh, nuts, we're stuck there again.
So you go home in a sulk (you can't go anywhere anyway), and decide to have something to eat. You open the fridge powered by the electric plant down the road that was at least partially government-funded. You eat those eggs in the fridge without a second thought, because a government USDA inspector made sure they were edible. You drink tapwater that you know is safe because the local waterworks (government-funded, of course) made sure it's drinkable and was kind enough to remove everyone else's poop from it first.
Imagine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful.
100% doubtful, as a lot of what the government does is wasteful and destructive.
But a lot of it isn't. Which is why I believe it's important for the private sector to do as much as possible, with the government taking action where needed to ensure that society as a whole prospers.
The private sector acting totally on its own would *not* provide for those who need it. Rather than allow that injustice to happen, we need the "moral force" of the government from time to time.
For that matter, the government's actions can and do provide for collective improvement very effectively, with a relative minimum of effort on the government's part. Think "Internet". While most of the Net we use today was built with private funds, the government set the whole thing in motion -- ARPANET, the universities' networks and so on. For that matter, government funding of universities has made studying things like computer science more affordable, allowing more people to study it, and increasing the prosperity of the people as a whole. Same goes for biotechnology, medicine, and other areas. And that's all because of taxes.
And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
I think you mean "necessary force," not "moral or legal authority." Correct my if I'm wrong.
Yes, you are. I mean both. Any institution that operates in the name of the people and by their collective consent has a great deal of moral authority. The only question is the degree of restraint exercised in applying that moral, legal and political authority.
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good.
What about the minority? Who decides what "the common good is?" Does it mean simply "what is good for the majority, in the opinion of the majority?"
The people collectively decide, either through their representatives in the government or through direct referenda. If they collectively aren't happy with how something worked out, they can have it repealed (like Prohibition) or reformed (like welfare).
The minority still have their basic rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights -- they have the right to speak out against what they see is wrong, they have the right to peacefully protest against it, they have the right to vote against those who supported the measure, and so on.
In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
What's "fair and just?" If the majority, who is Protestant, decided to impose a 70% income tax on all non-protestants, who are in the minority, why couldn't they?
No, because one group is being singled out for their beliefs. That much should be obvious. So long as everyone shares the same burden (at least as far as that can be practically applied), there is no injustice involved.
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments.[...]
Privacy is not always a good thing. But it is a lot of the time. For instance, it is rarely good for government (and government officials) to enjoy much privacy.
Certainly. But even public figures (including public officials) have basic rights. They also have responsibilities, but that does not void their rights. It's all a question of balance.
I think any amendment guaranteeing a right to provacy would have be very carefully worded. I think an explicit mention of "privacy" was left out of the Constitution so as to leave it as a matter of law, which can be changed. "Privacy" has variable definition and value.
I don't believe it does. Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs. Indeed, it's a little ironic to me that you wish to have freedom, yet are willing to leave your privacy open to someone else's prying eyes (or at least aren't willing to have it protected more clearly).
Interesting you say that mandatory collective financing is the only sane way of paying for health insurance "without forcing the Federal Government to intervene," and when I point out that, by making collective health insurance mandatory, the federal government would be intervening, you say that's obvious. I don't get it.
Fair enough -- I'll clarify. Admittedly I changed the use of the word "intervene" midway through. By "intervention" I originally meant "direct and exclusive government control through government spending and bureacracy", in effect through a nationalized operation. That is what I wish to avoid in this scheme, by having private companies and groups still operating (partially voluntarily, in the case of standardized forms, partially compulsorily, in the case of mandatory insurance) within a set of (quite broad and basic) groundrules. But "intervention" in the sense of "getting involved" is obviously unavoidable.
The clarification is this: were there to be a government monopoly on insurance and health care, as in the UK, there would be little to no competitive element in the health care market. Therefore there would be no downward pressure on prices (not without price controls, which would stifle the whole sector), and there would be far greater limits on consumer choice (since they would be required or compelled to give up some kinds of more advanced health care). Quality of service would also likely suffer, as it typically does in any monopoly. This is the main weakness of socialized medicine. Added to this, the government almost always ends up bloated and managing too much, with a lot of institutional waste involved. Private companies would have a more vested interest in avoiding all of that, provided they too do not end up as monopolies.
Would this mean a loss of "freedom"? Yes, of course it would. But at the same time, you would agree that you don't have the "freedom" to shoot someone at will, or to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You have to balance your own individual freedoms with the needs of everyone else. That's necessary in a modern society. Again, it's a question of balance -- balancing the needs and freedoms of the individual against the needs of society as a whole.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
People advocating forced collective endeavors always make that retort when I point out that forced collective endeavors are incompatible with freedom.
Except that they aren't. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. There is such a thing as practical realities, and practical needs of those around you.
The reason we have limits on freedom is because to have unlimited freedom is the same as anarchy. The only question is, where do you place those limits, on what justification, and why?
I believe it is worth it to surrender that freedom to not pay for something in return for the security of having stable, reliable, high-quality health care for everyone, because everyone potentially benefits. It's not *that* different from saying "We agree that murder should be illegal, for otherwise people will live in constant fear for their lives".
It's like they assume that, since I don't want to force people to work together, I don't want them working together at all; and since I don't want to force people to be "nice" to each other, that I don't want them to be nice to each other at all. You're offering a false alternative, a straw man, and a slur all at once. I think people working together is great, but using the force of the government to make people work together is not.
The point is that, in a democratic society, people yield to the larger will of the electorate to which they belong. That's why we have democracy in the first place. You can't be totally autonomous anyway, at least not for very long.
The reason I bring up Social Darwinism is that, without some form of collective action, most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually -- it's rather hard to live a long, healthy life as a hermit). This is why we have governments -- for the common good. There has never been a viable alternative for universally helping everyone _except_ through govermental action -- unless you count the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, which (surprise!) collected taxes (the tithe) and acted very much like a government.
It's as if people think that if we could just point the guns at the right people in the right way, our problems would be solved.
Speaking of straw men and slurs...
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly.
Debatable at best -- the "throw your bread on the water, and it will come back 10-fold" argument. Even if that were true, it would not change the fact that under your propsed system, I wouldn't be a voluntary participant; my bread would be taken away from me by force and given to other people.
And you would get bread back as well. Or better said, some (not all!) of your wheat is taken from you, and you get bread back. So what?
The promise that, if I need bread one day then other people's bread will be taken away by force and given to me somehow doesn't comfort me. And if your plan's so good, then sell it on its merits and don't use force. People aren't dumb; they'll know a good deal when they see one. Only bad plans have to be forced on people.
If the people votes for the plan, at least a majority, then it isn't being forced to use it. Or are you trying to say that every individual should just have a right to decide which laws they should obey, and which they shouldn't?
Taxes are not automatically evil
True. But they're not automatically good, either. In general, the fewer of them needed, the better.
Fair enough. That's why I also advocated the flat tax and maintaining the moratorium on taxing e-commerce.
And taxes should never benefit one group at the expense of another; they should never be used to "transfer wealth."
Well, I hate to break this to you, but taxes are by definition there to transfer wealth -- either to the government to pay for things like roads, or to employees of the government (like police, soldiers, etc.) to perform their duties, or to those in need of support for whatever reason (scientists, the poor, universities and schools and so on). In each case, the government is making an investment on behalf of the people -- transferring wealth -- in order to achieve goals in the public interest (building infrastructure, promoting science, improving skills in the workforce, alleviating poverty).
in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible
I.e., as long as they achieve the result you have pre-ordained. That's not a free market, no matter what you call it.
If you insist on using such an absolute definition, that's your problem. The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim of universal health care and maintaining high-quality care.
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
Spend some time with a dictionary.
Straw men and slurs?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
So, because I vote myself your paycheck, that makes it okay?
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted). At a minimum you're using roads I helped pay for, living under the protection of the US military, CIA and FBI that I helped pay for, attending schools that I may well have helped pay for, eventually getting money from the Social Security that I helped pay for. And I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.
Are you one of those people that make the "because it's legel, it's moral" arguments?
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry, suffer disease, be victims of violence? You can't have your absolutist, totally ideal world.
Are all laws moral? No, I don't believe that. Yet at the same time, we all have the ability to influence those laws, and should respect them for that same reason, even if we disagree with them.
Imagine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful. There are some angels out there taking care of people regardless, but the sad fact is that human beings by and large can't be bothered to help people directly (at least those they don't know, and even many they do know). So someone has to take the moral leadership and make sure that the worst problems are taken care of. And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
You're evading my question, I think. I'll state it differently:
Under what circumstances is it okay for the property of one person to be taken from them and given to another person?
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good. In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense.
I don't follow you. It is stated clearly in Amendment 9; why will they pay more attention to it if repeat the limitation in Amendment 28?
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments. This is why that right (which I think we agree exists, regardless of what the Constitution has to say) should be safeguarded by an amendment -- to prevent that kind of abuse or misuse.
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK.
Two problems with that-- I'm not British, and they advocate a lot of what I don't want, such as 100% subsudized health care. "Liberals" used to be free-thinking, free-enterprise, lasseiz-faire, enlightenment-era people. Now, they are collectivists and socialists.
The UK Liberal Democrats are collectivist and socialist? What planet are you on?
They aren't as extreme as the Libertarians in the US, but that's also because they accept the reality that the government is in fact needed for something once in a while. They don't abide by dogma ("the state should be as small as possible, abolish taxes, legalize everything") and instead try to think of the best solution for a particular situation. Besides, you may shrug off the tyranny of a State, but you end up suffering under the tyranny of something else in exchange, because the State is too weak to protect you (employers, insurance companies, environment endangerers, etc.) and everyone else around you.
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds"
... by mandating health insurance, the federal government is intervening.
Well, that much is obvious.
By making everyone pay into a pool to cover people who couldn't otherwise afford that health insurance, the federal government would also be providing funds. It wouldn't go through the treasury, but because they are compeeling payment, it is a tax.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly. You benefit directly because you have health insurance (and before you say "I don't need it", the point of insurance is that you *may* need it -- after all, you could get hit by a truck or God knows what). You benefit indirectly because overall health in society improves (as more people can afford to get preventative health care), less days are missed at work (again because of preventative health care), productivity rises (because more people are working more), and the economy benefits. So do you.
Taxes are not automatically evil, regardless of who levies them. If you want to call mandatory health insurance a "tax", that's your problem. But don't try to hide or distort the potential benefits for everyone, tax or no. (And in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible while providing everyone with insurance.)
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on.
If they don't agree to it of their own free will, but because the government has mandated that it be so, then it is a government-imposed bureaucracy
I said it would be "voluntary". Therefore it is not "government-imposed". The insurers would, however, be quite happy to adopt such a system, especially if the government were to fund its development (at least partially) and make it generally available. The insurers would be happy because it would mean great savings for them; patients would be happy because it would free them to get care wherever they wished (since they could use their cards anywhere).
It's a socialism vs fascism argument there --
Is it fascist or socialist to merely work for the common good, whlie trying to strike a balance with private interests? If your idea of liberty is being free to be severely ill with no chance of affordable health care, but by God I don't have to pay those vile, nasty taxes, then you live in a pretty strange world.
Society needs individuals working in concert, and society needs a basic structure to make it work. Otherwise, you get nowhere -- or quickly end up with the strong ruling the weak without mercy or justice, as the rule of law deteriorates with no state (or a too-weak state) on its behalf.
To top it off, why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people? What makes that right? If it's the intent, then I can rob you to pay for my Aunt's mammograms -- or would that be theft? If it's the people doing it, why is state-sponsoted theft okay, but me 'redistributing' your wealth not?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy[...]
I'd like to know, so I will know who NOT to vote for. A consitutionl amendment mandating "privacy?" Do you mean personal obscurity, or personal sovreignty? Because if it's the latter, we already have that in the constitution -- it's admendment nine:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not that legislators have given a shit about that to date.
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense. Even though many have said that the right to privacy was so obvious that the Founding Fathers didn't even bother with it, legislators and private interests have been infringing on that right increasingly in recent years. (And yes, I was referring more to personal sovereignity -- i.e. control of my personal information so that it is not abused by, say, marketers.)
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance
Argh!
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds, AND it also provides for high-risk patients (like myself). By having everyone pay into the pot for a minimum amount of coverage, insurers would be more willing and able to insure patients with pre-existing conditions (like myself). Hawaii and other states already have this, and it works very well for them. So does Germany, and it's almost entirely privately run (they have one state-owned insurer, the rest are all private).
standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy)
Or rather, to institute a federal, central bureaucracy.
No, that is not the case. The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on. This is one of the most major drains of money in the American health care system -- there are literally hundreds of different forms for even basic things, like making claims on insurance, with needless differences and overhead. Compliance would be voluntary, but the Federal Government could set something like this in motion. Again, it would all be privately done, just with the government providing the impetus.
standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility)
National ID cards! Track me now, Big Brother!
Not if you have that amendment about privacy. Also, Germany has the exact same system, and no one is allowed to use the data for tracking purposes; all that is on the smart cards is your name, current address, and insurer. Nothing else. (Though medical history would also be interesting to have on there, especially if you're in an accident and are unable to speak for yourself.) The German system has many, many safeguards against private data being misused, and they take it very seriously (much to the dismay of many marketers, insurers and businesses).
I would like answers to those questions as well... so I know who not to vote for. Of course, I can play it safe and continue to vote for the one party that respects people -- the Libertarian Party.
Fair enough -- your party choice is up to you. However, I should point out that a party sworn to never "exert moral force" on another person (see your membership card, if you have one) would have an awfully hard time controlling crime, given that punishment (the main way to stop crime effectively) is a kind of moral force...
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK. At least they are liberal/libertarian and are reasonably coherent. (Paddy Ashdown is God. Too bad he retired.) But the Liberatarian Party of the US? You can have them.
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy, especially with regard to the control of personal information?
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance for all citizens; standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy); standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility) using smart card technology; and reforms on health maintenance organizations (HMOs)? If not, what kinds of reforms of the health care system would you agree to?
Would you support legislation to increase use of renewable, non-nuclear energy by the Federal Government? Further, would you support tax reductions for those who willingly use renewable, non-nuclear energy?
Would you support a flat-tax scheme in which all income above a minimum level (for example, set at twice the official poverty level) is taxed at the same rate?
Would you seek to continue the moratorium on taxation of e-commerce, and would you seek to extend the moratorium globally via the WTO or other institution?
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
I couldn't resist making a slight change to their text. Read on:
SELL YOUR CUSTOMER A SOLUTION, NOT A PROBLEM?
Your customers depend on you. Trouble is, if you act on your customers' willingness to buy Windows PCs--knowing full well they are at risk of acquiring free operating systems elsewhere--you expose them to legal risks, viruses, and frustrating technical troubles. Hardly the stuff of great business relationships, particularly when they come back to you for help. And even if your customer manages to acquire and install free operating systems elsewhere, it still costs them far more time and money than they bargained for. No matter how you look at them, Windows PCs are bad for your customers. Which means they are also bad for you.
...have long been exaggerated. What ESR fails to appreciate is that there are still many reasons for many users to use Macs.
For one, Macs still have by far the easiest and most transparent GUI (though this could change for the worse with OS X -- though I'm keeping my mind open on that). No GUI currently comes close to the elegance of the Mac GUI in terms of how you can use it. For one thing, the Mac Clipboard, for example, works far more powerfully than any other comparable "clipboard" on any other OS that I have seen, given its ability to convert data on-the-fly, depending on what program you copied from and are pasting to (or, even better, are dragging and dropping from or to).
Another point is that, yes, the original Mac team in the form of Eazel is working on the GNOME desktop -- but they have a *long* way to go before it even comes close to the Mac GUI and desktop. There are many areas that have nothing to do with GNOME that also have to be improved -- colorspace models (and the ability to quickly and easily calibrate and configure them), fonts and font administration (installing fonts is still a pain on Windows and Linux, and previewing them on Linux is a *major* pain), transparent media format support (video, audio, pixel formats) and so on. In other words, much of what is tied to the Mac's old strengths -- desktop publishing, video and graphic design. Most of these weaknesses are tied more to XFree86 than they are to anything else.
Yet another major weakness of Linux is still the lack of desktop apps that match or exceed the quality of those on Mac OS and Windows. This is changing, of course, but you have to remember that that Mac OS community (and the Windows community) are moving targets. The lack of hardcore standards on the Linux platform also tends to hurt application development -- what libraries do I support? What desktop version? What kernel version? -- and I see no plausible solution for all that.
In the longer term -- some years down the road -- it would also be interesting to see if Linux continues its rapid upward climb. At the moment, this is taken as gospel, but remember that Linux is done mostly voluntarily -- it may be that someday the "coolness factor" wears off, and Linux withers into a twilight existence. I doubt that Linux will ever "die" -- in fact it's almost impossible, unless we have some titanic global catastrophe -- but OTOH it's not hard for me to imagine some scenario where the developers working on Linux simply lose interest someday, or a major fork happening (the GNOME vs. KDE war has the ability to cause that), enough to damage Linux's continued growth and development. I don't suggest that this *will* happen, but that it is a real possibility.
I use Linux, and do so quite happily. I use it mainly as a server OS, but sometimes also for gaming and website development. I also actively support Linux's development by working for various Linux companies (Loki, theKompany.com, LinuxPPC), mainly by doing website design, packaging, press releases and other promotional work.
And Linux has many, many strengths, and may indeed surpass Mac OS in many areas. It already has in stability and efficiency -- technical areas, in other words. The fact that Linux is a free OS (as in speech) also has a very strong appeal to me, though its weaknesses keep me from going to Linux entirely. The question is, will Linux -- given its divided approach -- ever have the singleness of vision that drove the Mac's development? For all the Mac's technical faults, that singleminded hardcore approach for the _overall_ vision of the OS is what makes it good at what it does (graphics, GUI, media).
So I would say that, even if Linux "overtakes" the Mac as the main "opponent" of Microsoft, it's not really a sign of the Mac's demise. True, anti-MS sentiment is a lot of what keeps many Mac fans true to their Macs -- but that's hardly the only reason they use their Macs so faithfully. Nor is it proven that Linux will indeed kill off MS _or_ Apple. I'm far more inclined the believe that all these OSes will continue to coexist -- indeed, I believe that they days of one-OS-fits-all (if they ever existed, in spite of what MS tries to claim) are over.
Sorry for the rambling, but that's a lotta stuff I had to say...;-)
Try www.rpmfind.net or ftp.wesmo.com for LinuxPPC precompiled RPMs. Note that these should work fine with LinuxPPC 2000, YDL CS 1.2, and MkLinux R1, but not necessarily with SuSE. If you use Debian/PPC, you should be able to use alien to install them.
In other news today, Microsoft has announced that they have at last released a bug-free version of Windows, version 2.12. "We are proud that we have been able to release the first truly bug-free operating system ever," said Steve Ballmer, second-in-first-in-command of Microsoft. "With this version, we believe we will hit Linux where it hurts--on old, useless 386 PCs."
"It took us some twelve years, but we're proud of this achievement," said Bill Gates, first-in-second-in-command of Microsoft.
Linus Torvalds, leading light of the Linux open source operating system movement, admitted distress at having such hard-fought competition for the lucrative 386 market.
Now that Microsoft has released such a compelling 386 PC solution, Torvalds is believed to be concentrating his efforts on getting Linux to run more effectively on Macintosh SE/40s, in hopes of salvaging what he can of the Linux market in that sector, given the competitiveness of Macintosh System 4.0, a relatively bug-free version of the Macintosh System. Torvalds also announced work on a port to the Archimedes, believed to also be a possible gap in the Wintel hegemony.
Torvalds was also quoted as saying "First post."
Microsoft is a industry-leading monopolist and software startup buyer. For more information, visit Microsoft's homepage.
As for not being an Amiga, there quite simply isn't a better successor that captures the spirit of the Amiga (i.e. everything that is Amiga) as perfectly.
How so? I really don't see how. What made Amiga so revolutionary wasn't just that it something new, but that it was something new that was awesomely powerful with the existing hardware technology at the time--and cheap. That's what earned Amiga the adulation that it got (deservedly so).
But all that I read of Tao doesn't strike me as being all that wonderful. I really don't see any particular benefit. Yes, it's interesting to see a proto-OS able to run with other OSes, but what about the hardware? Yes, it's interesting to see this proto-OS idea (or maybe meta-OS is a better word), but there are other concepts out there like microkernels (Mach and HURD) as well as more exotic things like exokernels, but nothing to say definitively if they are The Answer(TM). Feel free to disagree, but I'm very skeptical.
Read what I say with the background knowledge about TAO's products and you too will know why traditional operating systems (including Linux of course) are living out their last of their days as the best tools for the job.
Whoa there. Hold on. "Living out their last days"? That's a tad extreme. There is nothing to suggest that there is a need for a type of OS software like Tao on a mass market. Yes, Elite is intended to be highly portable and connectable, but Linux, for example, already is quite portable, even to handhelds or smaller devices. So is Mach. If you want _really_ high levels of modularity, you've got the exokernel idea. Yet with increasing processor power and decreasing size and power use, the need for extremely slim clients starts to unravel--and consumers want extra bells and whistles for consumer devices (otherwise, why are Pentium IIIs and Athlons selling so well, even though most people don't need that kind of power?), so that added power will be needed. And available.
So the Tao idea sounds interesting, but I honestly don't see how on Earth it should hasten any conceived "extinction" of a traditional operating system. Some of them will die out anyway, like the old MacOS (not OS X). Maybe Windows, too, in the long run (ten years or so). But we already have a high degree of portability and modularity with existing UN*X kernels and low-level layers, so why do we need something as new and different as Tao?
The desktop OS paradigm also has quite a lot of life left in it, if it ever dies at all. There will always IMO be a need for a central workstation, which will need a traditional OS. Interconnected devices are nice, and so is the idea of ubiquitous computing. But I don't believe at all that you can get away from using a more traditional computing device in some form--with a central "desktop" (or whatever you prefer to call it), documents, storage volumes and so on. All that will be networked, sure. The physical computer device may also vanish. But there will still be a need for the OS in the end.
And none of this really explains why it makes sense to use Tao for the new Amiga-named thingie, nor does it explain why the new Amiga-named thingie will be a compelling alternative to existing OSes.
We have RTOS versions of Linux, for example. We may even see RT versions of Mach (and therefore OS X) in the near future. What is the compelling reason for the mass market to switch to Elite?
(Consider this an open invitation for a sales pitch.;-) )
So, they are actually doing exactly as you suggest they do. You can quit your whinging now Ethelred.
To create a new consumer OS from the basis that they are using is tantamount to creating a new OS from scratch. Elate is merely meant to be a core, not a whole consumer OS.
Quote from their site:
It has been designed to run very fast as both stand alone and co-existing with host operating systems across any kind of processor.
That doesn't sound like a complete OS to me. It also sounds like it won't work with any existing mainstream OS without a wee bit of work. Doesn't sound like a recipe for success IMO.
Furthermore, it still isn't an Amiga.
Back to you:
Perhaps you ought to actually LEARN before you slag off, eh?
Perhaps you ought to sit back, relax, take a deep breath and join a civil discussion rather than resorting to flames and posting AC. (And yes, I did read up, long before posting--or long before this was posted on/.)
Rather than questioning my integrity, perhaps--just perhaps--you should try to support your own argument like an adult.
Feel free to convince me. But please don't behave like a fool.
Because this is the first "attempt" where Amiga Inc. doesn't have a parent company above it to choke it...
It also doesn't have a parent company to provide it with capital. If the "new" Amiga is to have any success at all, it will need that above all.
If Amiga were to seriously succeed, it would need a parent company that gives a damn. Amiga hasn't had that for years (if ever).
Furthermore, it would be more beneficial to everyone in general if those working on the Amiga would work on existing OSes to improve them, rather than creating yet another OS trading on the name of a once-revolutionary-now-in-twilight OS.
I just find it to be hard on those wishing for Amigas to return, when the "Amiga" returning isn't an Amiga at all--there will never be another true Amiga IMHO, because its active OS development went into a weird twilight long ago. This looks, feels and smells like another mirage.
I would have far more positive feelings about it if Amiga were contributing to something else: BeOS maybe, or Linux. Maybe make an alternative kernel and/or windowing system that works with Linux software. Just some ideas. But to create something new from scratch now strikes me as singularly quixotic.
...why should this be any more real than previous attempts?
Besides, what does this have to do with the "original" Amiga? Nothing but the name.
I remember using an Amiga 500 with a friend and being knocked sideways by its sheer power. I remember an innovative system that in many ways was too good for its time. But please, this is starting to border on cruelty -- every few months there is a new apparition on the horizon, and old Amiga users look up in hope, only to have those hopes dashed.
Face it: this won't be an Amiga. There is little to no chance that it will be as revolutionary as the original Amiga; at best, it will have a few nice things but will mostly be hard to find a reason to buy it (short of the name).
Pin your hopes on something else that does have a chance of success: Linux, or maybe Mac OS X, or maybe BeOS, or *BSD. Whatever strikes your fancy. But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush...
I don't know why there is this constant harping on the iMac being "useless". The iMac DVs are great little computers, with the operative word being little. Ever used an iMac in person? Notice how little space it uses? Notice how quiet an iMac DV is (not the older iMacs)? No fan, no noise.
Not to mention the specs. Built-in DVD (as a slot, not as a tray), decent 3D card, great monitor (awesome picture quality, at 117 Hz), built-in video mirroring, 400 MHz PowerPC G3, 100 MHz bus, 100BaseT Ethernet, Airport. When anyone thinks an iMac, especially in its latest incarnation, is therefore "useless", then they must be beyond bothering to try and convince (though I will anyway;-) ). Especially when you consider what you get for the price.
I also recently heard the new iMac's Harmon-Kardon speakers. They kick serious tookus for their size. The old iMac speakers sucked, but these are great.:-)
And if I can run Linux on it, so much the better. I like having a choice of OSes, and I happen to use both MacOS and LinuxPPC. I have a lime iMac DV 400 on its way to me, so thanks to the guys at iMacLinux.net, now I can use it with Linux as well.
Mind you, I'm not wild about the iBooks, mainly because of their lack of external video--a major minus for me. I also wish they had G4s in the iMacs and iBooks, but oh, well.
But the main point is this: don't go slagging a computer because you don't happen to like its looks, or imply that it somehow isn't worthy of running Linux. Both are ridiculous things to assert. The iMac's hardware is as demonstrably as good as any on the PC market in its price range, and just because it happens to be bright and colorful doesn't mean that "serious" OSes shouldn't run on it. In fact, the converse is true.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Presently, it's either Apple or nobody. There were shining hopes for something better, but it never appeared.
Actually, there are many non-Apple PPC computers that run Linux (though admittedly *new* non-Apple PPC hardware is hard to come by).
For example, there's the RS/6000 IBM boxes, BeBoxes, Amiga APUS, and Motorola and Bull boxes. And, of course, TiVo and other embedded platforms.
Check out http://www.linuxppc.com/about/hardware/ for a complete list of supported hardware.
Still, the OpenPPC.org bit has been a bitter disappointment so far. Ah well, keep your fingers and toes crossed...
HTH
Ethelred
So does a Mac truck only have one wheel? ;-)
(Should be Mack truck, BTW...)
cya
Ethelred
Sorry to nitpick, but...
"so its kind of like Mac OS"
"Yeah, exactly"
"So it runs on a Mac"
"No"
Er, actually it *does* run on Macs, along with Alpha, Sparc, MIPS, StrongARM...
Linux != Intel-Linux.
typed on an Apple Firewire-PowerBook G3 500 MHz running LinuxPPC 2000
Ethelred
If you're wondering what the hell the above post is about, see the thread it was intended for.
Ethelred
Draft No. 22
The current draft of the treaty, released on Oct. 2, attempts to level the legal playing field throughout Europe by standardizing computer crime statues and requiring signatories to cooperate with one another.
Standardzied crime statues. Hmmm, so they need to make sure those statues of Kevin Mitnick I see *so* often are of the same height, weight, material, linear distance from "computing device", and so on?
cya
Ethelred
Draft No. 22
The current draft of the treaty, released on Oct. 2, attempts to level the legal playing field throughout Europe by standardizing computer crime statues and requiring signatories to cooperate with one another.
Standardzied crime statues. Hmmm, so they need to make sure those statues of Kevin Mitnick I see *so* often are of the same height, weight, material, linear distance from "computing device", and so on?
cya
Ethelred
cya
Ethelred
cya
Ethelred
And I'm supposed to take your word for it?
cya
Ethelred
Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs
So why should you not have control over your personal information, to do with as you please, and prevent others from abusing that information, say for marketing or employment?
America is actually a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials.
Oh, please. Spare me the lecture on pure democracy.
And you did a nice job of pointing out that a democracy -- a real one, where the majority has unlimited power -- is simply a diffused tyrrany. The minority must always submit to the majority.
Of course it must! How else do you expect a democracy (oh, fine, democratic republic, whatever) to function? Otherwise, laws just become optional.
That's not right, and it's one of the things our government was specifically designed to prevent.
So what? The thing about "taxes == tyranny" is getting a little old. You've already admitted that taxation is inescapable. In your black-and-white world, though, taxation is so morally abhorrent that it must be abolished.
without some form of collective action, most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually
Um... substantiate this.
All right. Suppose you were to try to live totally autonomously. Where would you get your food? Agriculture is a form of collective action -- it's near impossible to provide for yourself on a small bit of land. The economy as a whole is also a form of collective action -- those farm implements you buy were made by someone else, after all. Or if you buy your food, it was made by someone else, shipped by someone else to your store, and kept cool and fresh by someone else at your store. How do you propose to survive without all that, which is the result of a collective action?
Furthermore, the government intervenes at each step of the way to make sure that certain standards are kept -- so you don't have to worry about it. The farmer has to meet USDA regulations (so he doesn't produce food that could cause things like, say, BSD, or have carcinogens in them) and is provided with information by the USDA and Extension Service to ensure their crop is successful; the shipper has to meet USDA and FDA regs about storage (so the food doesn't spoil) and has to pass OSHA requirements (so the driver doesn't easily get injured) and has to pass EPA regs (so his truck doesn't pollute too much on the way there); the store owner has to meet HHS, USDA, OSHA and FDA requirements on food storage, hygiene and more to ensure the food stays fresh, doesn't get contaminated and is of good quality.
None of this would succeed as well as it does without government involvement. Without it, the farmer would be at the mercy of local climate changes and soil misuse by his neighbors (erosion, pollution, pesticide/herbicide misuse); and from there it goes on to the shipper and store owner. Some would still maintain that level of quality, but some would not -- and how would you know? How do you know your fresh tomatoes weren't sprayed with dioxin-based pesticides until thirty years later, when you get cancer? --snip--
The Catholic Church was, in large part, the government in the middle ages (off-topic).
No shit, Sherlock. --snip--
The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim
I can't see how a market is free if the outcome is pre-ordained. Please explain.
There is no black and white "free and not free". That's why I wrote "freer".
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted).
I vote Libertarian, which means I don't vote myself any part of your paycheck inasmuchas that's possible. As I've stated before, the taxes that go to providing a common defense and preventing people from harming other people, are legitimate. I think you're being disingenous by equating that with the receipt of a personal subsidy.
Disingenuous? It's disingenuous of you to partake in *anything* from government funding (education, infrastructure, defense, health regulations) while bitching about taxes, and then call it a "personal subsidy".
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry,
Yes.
suffer disease,
Yes.
Mmmm-hmmm. And "Social Darwinism" doesn't suit you?
Any "right" that must be paid for by someone else isn't a right.
Oh? I guess you should stop using the roads and highways, then. Or do you have a right to use them? Ah, but then you can use the railways -- oops, also government-funded. Well, fly, then. Hmmm, flying without air-traffic control and airports could get interesting, though you could land the plane on the highway -- oh, nuts, we're stuck there again.
So you go home in a sulk (you can't go anywhere anyway), and decide to have something to eat. You open the fridge powered by the electric plant down the road that was at least partially government-funded. You eat those eggs in the fridge without a second thought, because a government USDA inspector made sure they were edible. You drink tapwater that you know is safe because the local waterworks (government-funded, of course) made sure it's drinkable and was kind enough to remove everyone else's poop from it first.
Imagine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful.
100% doubtful, as a lot of what the government does is wasteful and destructive.
But a lot of it isn't. Which is why I believe it's important for the private sector to do as much as possible, with the government taking action where needed to ensure that society as a whole prospers.
The private sector acting totally on its own would *not* provide for those who need it. Rather than allow that injustice to happen, we need the "moral force" of the government from time to time.
For that matter, the government's actions can and do provide for collective improvement very effectively, with a relative minimum of effort on the government's part. Think "Internet". While most of the Net we use today was built with private funds, the government set the whole thing in motion -- ARPANET, the universities' networks and so on. For that matter, government funding of universities has made studying things like computer science more affordable, allowing more people to study it, and increasing the prosperity of the people as a whole. Same goes for biotechnology, medicine, and other areas. And that's all because of taxes.
And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
I think you mean "necessary force," not "moral or legal authority." Correct my if I'm wrong.
Yes, you are. I mean both. Any institution that operates in the name of the people and by their collective consent has a great deal of moral authority. The only question is the degree of restraint exercised in applying that moral, legal and political authority.
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good.
What about the minority? Who decides what "the common good is?" Does it mean simply "what is good for the majority, in the opinion of the majority?"
The people collectively decide, either through their representatives in the government or through direct referenda. If they collectively aren't happy with how something worked out, they can have it repealed (like Prohibition) or reformed (like welfare).
The minority still have their basic rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights -- they have the right to speak out against what they see is wrong, they have the right to peacefully protest against it, they have the right to vote against those who supported the measure, and so on.
In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
What's "fair and just?" If the majority, who is Protestant, decided to impose a 70% income tax on all non-protestants, who are in the minority, why couldn't they?
No, because one group is being singled out for their beliefs. That much should be obvious. So long as everyone shares the same burden (at least as far as that can be practically applied), there is no injustice involved.
cya
Ethelred
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments.[...]
Privacy is not always a good thing. But it is a lot of the time. For instance, it is rarely good for government (and government officials) to enjoy much privacy.
Certainly. But even public figures (including public officials) have basic rights. They also have responsibilities, but that does not void their rights. It's all a question of balance.
I think any amendment guaranteeing a right to provacy would have be very carefully worded. I think an explicit mention of "privacy" was left out of the Constitution so as to leave it as a matter of law, which can be changed. "Privacy" has variable definition and value.
I don't believe it does. Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs. Indeed, it's a little ironic to me that you wish to have freedom, yet are willing to leave your privacy open to someone else's prying eyes (or at least aren't willing to have it protected more clearly).
Interesting you say that mandatory collective financing is the only sane way of paying for health insurance "without forcing the Federal Government to intervene," and when I point out that, by making collective health insurance mandatory, the federal government would be intervening, you say that's obvious. I don't get it.
Fair enough -- I'll clarify. Admittedly I changed the use of the word "intervene" midway through. By "intervention" I originally meant "direct and exclusive government control through government spending and bureacracy", in effect through a nationalized operation. That is what I wish to avoid in this scheme, by having private companies and groups still operating (partially voluntarily, in the case of standardized forms, partially compulsorily, in the case of mandatory insurance) within a set of (quite broad and basic) groundrules. But "intervention" in the sense of "getting involved" is obviously unavoidable.
The clarification is this: were there to be a government monopoly on insurance and health care, as in the UK, there would be little to no competitive element in the health care market. Therefore there would be no downward pressure on prices (not without price controls, which would stifle the whole sector), and there would be far greater limits on consumer choice (since they would be required or compelled to give up some kinds of more advanced health care). Quality of service would also likely suffer, as it typically does in any monopoly. This is the main weakness of socialized medicine. Added to this, the government almost always ends up bloated and managing too much, with a lot of institutional waste involved. Private companies would have a more vested interest in avoiding all of that, provided they too do not end up as monopolies.
Would this mean a loss of "freedom"? Yes, of course it would. But at the same time, you would agree that you don't have the "freedom" to shoot someone at will, or to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You have to balance your own individual freedoms with the needs of everyone else. That's necessary in a modern society. Again, it's a question of balance -- balancing the needs and freedoms of the individual against the needs of society as a whole.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
People advocating forced collective endeavors always make that retort when I point out that forced collective endeavors are incompatible with freedom.
Except that they aren't. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. There is such a thing as practical realities, and practical needs of those around you.
The reason we have limits on freedom is because to have unlimited freedom is the same as anarchy. The only question is, where do you place those limits, on what justification, and why?
I believe it is worth it to surrender that freedom to not pay for something in return for the security of having stable, reliable, high-quality health care for everyone, because everyone potentially benefits. It's not *that* different from saying "We agree that murder should be illegal, for otherwise people will live in constant fear for their lives".
It's like they assume that, since I don't want to force people to work together, I don't want them working together at all; and since I don't want to force people to be "nice" to each other, that I don't want them to be nice to each other at all. You're offering a false alternative, a straw man, and a slur all at once. I think people working together is great, but using the force of the government to make people work together is not.
The point is that, in a democratic society, people yield to the larger will of the electorate to which they belong. That's why we have democracy in the first place. You can't be totally autonomous anyway, at least not for very long.
The reason I bring up Social Darwinism is that, without some form of collective action, most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually -- it's rather hard to live a long, healthy life as a hermit). This is why we have governments -- for the common good. There has never been a viable alternative for universally helping everyone _except_ through govermental action -- unless you count the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, which (surprise!) collected taxes (the tithe) and acted very much like a government.
It's as if people think that if we could just point the guns at the right people in the right way, our problems would be solved.
Speaking of straw men and slurs...
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly.
Debatable at best -- the "throw your bread on the water, and it will come back 10-fold" argument. Even if that were true, it would not change the fact that under your propsed system, I wouldn't be a voluntary participant; my bread would be taken away from me by force and given to other people.
And you would get bread back as well. Or better said, some (not all!) of your wheat is taken from you, and you get bread back. So what?
The promise that, if I need bread one day then other people's bread will be taken away by force and given to me somehow doesn't comfort me. And if your plan's so good, then sell it on its merits and don't use force. People aren't dumb; they'll know a good deal when they see one. Only bad plans have to be forced on people.
If the people votes for the plan, at least a majority, then it isn't being forced to use it. Or are you trying to say that every individual should just have a right to decide which laws they should obey, and which they shouldn't?
Taxes are not automatically evil
True. But they're not automatically good, either. In general, the fewer of them needed, the better.
Fair enough. That's why I also advocated the flat tax and maintaining the moratorium on taxing e-commerce.
And taxes should never benefit one group at the expense of another; they should never be used to "transfer wealth."
Well, I hate to break this to you, but taxes are by definition there to transfer wealth -- either to the government to pay for things like roads, or to employees of the government (like police, soldiers, etc.) to perform their duties, or to those in need of support for whatever reason (scientists, the poor, universities and schools and so on). In each case, the government is making an investment on behalf of the people -- transferring wealth -- in order to achieve goals in the public interest (building infrastructure, promoting science, improving skills in the workforce, alleviating poverty).
in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible
I.e., as long as they achieve the result you have pre-ordained. That's not a free market, no matter what you call it.
If you insist on using such an absolute definition, that's your problem. The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim of universal health care and maintaining high-quality care.
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
Spend some time with a dictionary.
Straw men and slurs?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
So, because I vote myself your paycheck, that makes it okay?
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted). At a minimum you're using roads I helped pay for, living under the protection of the US military, CIA and FBI that I helped pay for, attending schools that I may well have helped pay for, eventually getting money from the Social Security that I helped pay for. And I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.
Are you one of those people that make the "because it's legel, it's moral" arguments?
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry, suffer disease, be victims of violence? You can't have your absolutist, totally ideal world.
Are all laws moral? No, I don't believe that. Yet at the same time, we all have the ability to influence those laws, and should respect them for that same reason, even if we disagree with them.
Imagine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful. There are some angels out there taking care of people regardless, but the sad fact is that human beings by and large can't be bothered to help people directly (at least those they don't know, and even many they do know). So someone has to take the moral leadership and make sure that the worst problems are taken care of. And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
You're evading my question, I think. I'll state it differently:
Under what circumstances is it okay for the property of one person to be taken from them and given to another person?
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good. In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
cya
Ethelred
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense.
I don't follow you. It is stated clearly in Amendment 9; why will they pay more attention to it if repeat the limitation in Amendment 28?
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments. This is why that right (which I think we agree exists, regardless of what the Constitution has to say) should be safeguarded by an amendment -- to prevent that kind of abuse or misuse.
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK.
Two problems with that-- I'm not British, and they advocate a lot of what I don't want, such as 100% subsudized health care. "Liberals" used to be free-thinking, free-enterprise, lasseiz-faire, enlightenment-era people. Now, they are collectivists and socialists.
The UK Liberal Democrats are collectivist and socialist? What planet are you on?
They aren't as extreme as the Libertarians in the US, but that's also because they accept the reality that the government is in fact needed for something once in a while. They don't abide by dogma ("the state should be as small as possible, abolish taxes, legalize everything") and instead try to think of the best solution for a particular situation. Besides, you may shrug off the tyranny of a State, but you end up suffering under the tyranny of something else in exchange, because the State is too weak to protect you (employers, insurance companies, environment endangerers, etc.) and everyone else around you.
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds"
Well, that much is obvious.
By making everyone pay into a pool to cover people who couldn't otherwise afford that health insurance, the federal government would also be providing funds. It wouldn't go through the treasury, but because they are compeeling payment, it is a tax.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly. You benefit directly because you have health insurance (and before you say "I don't need it", the point of insurance is that you *may* need it -- after all, you could get hit by a truck or God knows what). You benefit indirectly because overall health in society improves (as more people can afford to get preventative health care), less days are missed at work (again because of preventative health care), productivity rises (because more people are working more), and the economy benefits. So do you.
Taxes are not automatically evil, regardless of who levies them. If you want to call mandatory health insurance a "tax", that's your problem. But don't try to hide or distort the potential benefits for everyone, tax or no. (And in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible while providing everyone with insurance.)
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on.
If they don't agree to it of their own free will, but because the government has mandated that it be so, then it is a government-imposed bureaucracy
I said it would be "voluntary". Therefore it is not "government-imposed". The insurers would, however, be quite happy to adopt such a system, especially if the government were to fund its development (at least partially) and make it generally available. The insurers would be happy because it would mean great savings for them; patients would be happy because it would free them to get care wherever they wished (since they could use their cards anywhere).
It's a socialism vs fascism argument there --
Is it fascist or socialist to merely work for the common good, whlie trying to strike a balance with private interests? If your idea of liberty is being free to be severely ill with no chance of affordable health care, but by God I don't have to pay those vile, nasty taxes, then you live in a pretty strange world.
Society needs individuals working in concert, and society needs a basic structure to make it work. Otherwise, you get nowhere -- or quickly end up with the strong ruling the weak without mercy or justice, as the rule of law deteriorates with no state (or a too-weak state) on its behalf.
To top it off, why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people? What makes that right? If it's the intent, then I can rob you to pay for my Aunt's mammograms -- or would that be theft? If it's the people doing it, why is state-sponsoted theft okay, but me 'redistributing' your wealth not?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
cya
Ethelred
Wonderful. I go and read this just as I was about to go to bed (given that it's midnight European time).
Wonderful...sweet dreams... :-/
Mommy, can you leave the light on?
cya
Ethelred
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy[...]
I'd like to know, so I will know who NOT to vote for. A consitutionl amendment mandating "privacy?" Do you mean personal obscurity, or personal sovreignty? Because if it's the latter, we already have that in the constitution -- it's admendment nine :"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not that legislators have given a shit about that to date.
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense. Even though many have said that the right to privacy was so obvious that the Founding Fathers didn't even bother with it, legislators and private interests have been infringing on that right increasingly in recent years. (And yes, I was referring more to personal sovereignity -- i.e. control of my personal information so that it is not abused by, say, marketers.)
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance
Argh!
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds, AND it also provides for high-risk patients (like myself). By having everyone pay into the pot for a minimum amount of coverage, insurers would be more willing and able to insure patients with pre-existing conditions (like myself). Hawaii and other states already have this, and it works very well for them. So does Germany, and it's almost entirely privately run (they have one state-owned insurer, the rest are all private).
standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy)
Or rather, to institute a federal, central bureaucracy.
No, that is not the case. The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on. This is one of the most major drains of money in the American health care system -- there are literally hundreds of different forms for even basic things, like making claims on insurance, with needless differences and overhead. Compliance would be voluntary, but the Federal Government could set something like this in motion. Again, it would all be privately done, just with the government providing the impetus.
standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility)
National ID cards! Track me now, Big Brother!
Not if you have that amendment about privacy. Also, Germany has the exact same system, and no one is allowed to use the data for tracking purposes; all that is on the smart cards is your name, current address, and insurer. Nothing else. (Though medical history would also be interesting to have on there, especially if you're in an accident and are unable to speak for yourself.) The German system has many, many safeguards against private data being misused, and they take it very seriously (much to the dismay of many marketers, insurers and businesses).
I would like answers to those questions as well... so I know who not to vote for. Of course, I can play it safe and continue to vote for the one party that respects people -- the Libertarian Party.
Fair enough -- your party choice is up to you. However, I should point out that a party sworn to never "exert moral force" on another person (see your membership card, if you have one) would have an awfully hard time controlling crime, given that punishment (the main way to stop crime effectively) is a kind of moral force...
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK. At least they are liberal/libertarian and are reasonably coherent. (Paddy Ashdown is God. Too bad he retired.) But the Liberatarian Party of the US? You can have them.
cya
Ethelred
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy, especially with regard to the control of personal information?
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance for all citizens; standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy); standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility) using smart card technology; and reforms on health maintenance organizations (HMOs)? If not, what kinds of reforms of the health care system would you agree to?
Would you support legislation to increase use of renewable, non-nuclear energy by the Federal Government? Further, would you support tax reductions for those who willingly use renewable, non-nuclear energy?
Would you support a flat-tax scheme in which all income above a minimum level (for example, set at twice the official poverty level) is taxed at the same rate?
Would you seek to continue the moratorium on taxation of e-commerce, and would you seek to extend the moratorium globally via the WTO or other institution?
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
cya
Ethelred
I couldn't resist making a slight change to their text. Read on:
SELL YOUR CUSTOMER A SOLUTION, NOT A PROBLEM?
Your customers depend on you. Trouble is, if you act on your customers' willingness to buy Windows PCs--knowing full well they are at risk of acquiring free operating systems elsewhere--you expose them to legal risks, viruses, and frustrating technical troubles. Hardly the stuff of great business relationships, particularly when they come back to you for help. And even if your customer manages to acquire and install free operating systems elsewhere, it still costs them far more time and money than they bargained for. No matter how you look at them, Windows PCs are bad for your customers. Which means they are also bad for you.
Hmm....sounds good to me. :-)
cya
Ethelred
For one, Macs still have by far the easiest and most transparent GUI (though this could change for the worse with OS X -- though I'm keeping my mind open on that). No GUI currently comes close to the elegance of the Mac GUI in terms of how you can use it. For one thing, the Mac Clipboard, for example, works far more powerfully than any other comparable "clipboard" on any other OS that I have seen, given its ability to convert data on-the-fly, depending on what program you copied from and are pasting to (or, even better, are dragging and dropping from or to).
Another point is that, yes, the original Mac team in the form of Eazel is working on the GNOME desktop -- but they have a *long* way to go before it even comes close to the Mac GUI and desktop. There are many areas that have nothing to do with GNOME that also have to be improved -- colorspace models (and the ability to quickly and easily calibrate and configure them), fonts and font administration (installing fonts is still a pain on Windows and Linux, and previewing them on Linux is a *major* pain), transparent media format support (video, audio, pixel formats) and so on. In other words, much of what is tied to the Mac's old strengths -- desktop publishing, video and graphic design. Most of these weaknesses are tied more to XFree86 than they are to anything else.
Yet another major weakness of Linux is still the lack of desktop apps that match or exceed the quality of those on Mac OS and Windows. This is changing, of course, but you have to remember that that Mac OS community (and the Windows community) are moving targets. The lack of hardcore standards on the Linux platform also tends to hurt application development -- what libraries do I support? What desktop version? What kernel version? -- and I see no plausible solution for all that.
In the longer term -- some years down the road -- it would also be interesting to see if Linux continues its rapid upward climb. At the moment, this is taken as gospel, but remember that Linux is done mostly voluntarily -- it may be that someday the "coolness factor" wears off, and Linux withers into a twilight existence. I doubt that Linux will ever "die" -- in fact it's almost impossible, unless we have some titanic global catastrophe -- but OTOH it's not hard for me to imagine some scenario where the developers working on Linux simply lose interest someday, or a major fork happening (the GNOME vs. KDE war has the ability to cause that), enough to damage Linux's continued growth and development. I don't suggest that this *will* happen, but that it is a real possibility.
I use Linux, and do so quite happily. I use it mainly as a server OS, but sometimes also for gaming and website development. I also actively support Linux's development by working for various Linux companies (Loki, theKompany.com, LinuxPPC), mainly by doing website design, packaging, press releases and other promotional work.
And Linux has many, many strengths, and may indeed surpass Mac OS in many areas. It already has in stability and efficiency -- technical areas, in other words. The fact that Linux is a free OS (as in speech) also has a very strong appeal to me, though its weaknesses keep me from going to Linux entirely. The question is, will Linux -- given its divided approach -- ever have the singleness of vision that drove the Mac's development? For all the Mac's technical faults, that singleminded hardcore approach for the _overall_ vision of the OS is what makes it good at what it does (graphics, GUI, media).
So I would say that, even if Linux "overtakes" the Mac as the main "opponent" of Microsoft, it's not really a sign of the Mac's demise. True, anti-MS sentiment is a lot of what keeps many Mac fans true to their Macs -- but that's hardly the only reason they use their Macs so faithfully. Nor is it proven that Linux will indeed kill off MS _or_ Apple. I'm far more inclined the believe that all these OSes will continue to coexist -- indeed, I believe that they days of one-OS-fits-all (if they ever existed, in spite of what MS tries to claim) are over.
Sorry for the rambling, but that's a lotta stuff I had to say... ;-)
cya
Ethelred
Try www.rpmfind.net or ftp.wesmo.com for LinuxPPC precompiled RPMs. Note that these should work fine with LinuxPPC 2000, YDL CS 1.2, and MkLinux R1, but not necessarily with SuSE. If you use Debian/PPC, you should be able to use alien to install them.
For other such questions, I suggest the new LinuxPPC.org site or the LinuxPPC mailing list archives.
cya
Ethelred
(who knows that he's risking an Offtopic mod but is begging and pleading for clemency)
In other news today, Microsoft has announced that they have at last released a bug-free version of Windows, version 2.12. "We are proud that we have been able to release the first truly bug-free operating system ever," said Steve Ballmer, second-in-first-in-command of Microsoft. "With this version, we believe we will hit Linux where it hurts--on old, useless 386 PCs."
"It took us some twelve years, but we're proud of this achievement," said Bill Gates, first-in-second-in-command of Microsoft.
Linus Torvalds, leading light of the Linux open source operating system movement, admitted distress at having such hard-fought competition for the lucrative 386 market.
Now that Microsoft has released such a compelling 386 PC solution, Torvalds is believed to be concentrating his efforts on getting Linux to run more effectively on Macintosh SE/40s, in hopes of salvaging what he can of the Linux market in that sector, given the competitiveness of Macintosh System 4.0, a relatively bug-free version of the Macintosh System. Torvalds also announced work on a port to the Archimedes, believed to also be a possible gap in the Wintel hegemony.
Torvalds was also quoted as saying "First post."
Microsoft is a industry-leading monopolist and software startup buyer. For more information, visit Microsoft's homepage.
How so? I really don't see how. What made Amiga so revolutionary wasn't just that it something new, but that it was something new that was awesomely powerful with the existing hardware technology at the time--and cheap. That's what earned Amiga the adulation that it got (deservedly so).
But all that I read of Tao doesn't strike me as being all that wonderful. I really don't see any particular benefit. Yes, it's interesting to see a proto-OS able to run with other OSes, but what about the hardware? Yes, it's interesting to see this proto-OS idea (or maybe meta-OS is a better word), but there are other concepts out there like microkernels (Mach and HURD) as well as more exotic things like exokernels, but nothing to say definitively if they are The Answer(TM). Feel free to disagree, but I'm very skeptical.
Read what I say with the background knowledge about TAO's products and you too will know why traditional operating systems (including Linux of course) are living out their last of their days as the best tools for the job.
Whoa there. Hold on. "Living out their last days"? That's a tad extreme. There is nothing to suggest that there is a need for a type of OS software like Tao on a mass market. Yes, Elite is intended to be highly portable and connectable, but Linux, for example, already is quite portable, even to handhelds or smaller devices. So is Mach. If you want _really_ high levels of modularity, you've got the exokernel idea. Yet with increasing processor power and decreasing size and power use, the need for extremely slim clients starts to unravel--and consumers want extra bells and whistles for consumer devices (otherwise, why are Pentium IIIs and Athlons selling so well, even though most people don't need that kind of power?), so that added power will be needed. And available.
So the Tao idea sounds interesting, but I honestly don't see how on Earth it should hasten any conceived "extinction" of a traditional operating system. Some of them will die out anyway, like the old MacOS (not OS X). Maybe Windows, too, in the long run (ten years or so). But we already have a high degree of portability and modularity with existing UN*X kernels and low-level layers, so why do we need something as new and different as Tao?
The desktop OS paradigm also has quite a lot of life left in it, if it ever dies at all. There will always IMO be a need for a central workstation, which will need a traditional OS. Interconnected devices are nice, and so is the idea of ubiquitous computing. But I don't believe at all that you can get away from using a more traditional computing device in some form--with a central "desktop" (or whatever you prefer to call it), documents, storage volumes and so on. All that will be networked, sure. The physical computer device may also vanish. But there will still be a need for the OS in the end.
And none of this really explains why it makes sense to use Tao for the new Amiga-named thingie, nor does it explain why the new Amiga-named thingie will be a compelling alternative to existing OSes.
We have RTOS versions of Linux, for example. We may even see RT versions of Mach (and therefore OS X) in the near future. What is the compelling reason for the mass market to switch to Elite?
(Consider this an open invitation for a sales pitch. ;-) )
cya
Ethelred
To create a new consumer OS from the basis that they are using is tantamount to creating a new OS from scratch. Elate is merely meant to be a core, not a whole consumer OS.
Quote from their site:
It has been designed to run very fast as both stand alone and co-existing with host operating systems across any kind of processor.
That doesn't sound like a complete OS to me. It also sounds like it won't work with any existing mainstream OS without a wee bit of work. Doesn't sound like a recipe for success IMO.
Furthermore, it still isn't an Amiga.
Back to you:
Perhaps you ought to actually LEARN before you slag off, eh?
Perhaps you ought to sit back, relax, take a deep breath and join a civil discussion rather than resorting to flames and posting AC. (And yes, I did read up, long before posting--or long before this was posted on /.)
Rather than questioning my integrity, perhaps--just perhaps--you should try to support your own argument like an adult.
Feel free to convince me. But please don't behave like a fool.
Ethelred
It also doesn't have a parent company to provide it with capital. If the "new" Amiga is to have any success at all, it will need that above all.
If Amiga were to seriously succeed, it would need a parent company that gives a damn. Amiga hasn't had that for years (if ever).
Furthermore, it would be more beneficial to everyone in general if those working on the Amiga would work on existing OSes to improve them, rather than creating yet another OS trading on the name of a once-revolutionary-now-in-twilight OS.
I just find it to be hard on those wishing for Amigas to return, when the "Amiga" returning isn't an Amiga at all--there will never be another true Amiga IMHO, because its active OS development went into a weird twilight long ago. This looks, feels and smells like another mirage.
I would have far more positive feelings about it if Amiga were contributing to something else: BeOS maybe, or Linux. Maybe make an alternative kernel and/or windowing system that works with Linux software. Just some ideas. But to create something new from scratch now strikes me as singularly quixotic.
cya
Ethelred
Besides, what does this have to do with the "original" Amiga? Nothing but the name.
I remember using an Amiga 500 with a friend and being knocked sideways by its sheer power. I remember an innovative system that in many ways was too good for its time. But please, this is starting to border on cruelty -- every few months there is a new apparition on the horizon, and old Amiga users look up in hope, only to have those hopes dashed.
Face it: this won't be an Amiga. There is little to no chance that it will be as revolutionary as the original Amiga; at best, it will have a few nice things but will mostly be hard to find a reason to buy it (short of the name).
Pin your hopes on something else that does have a chance of success: Linux, or maybe Mac OS X, or maybe BeOS, or *BSD. Whatever strikes your fancy. But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush...
cya
Ethelred
Not to mention the specs. Built-in DVD (as a slot, not as a tray), decent 3D card, great monitor (awesome picture quality, at 117 Hz), built-in video mirroring, 400 MHz PowerPC G3, 100 MHz bus, 100BaseT Ethernet, Airport. When anyone thinks an iMac, especially in its latest incarnation, is therefore "useless", then they must be beyond bothering to try and convince (though I will anyway ;-) ). Especially when you consider what you get for the price.
I also recently heard the new iMac's Harmon-Kardon speakers. They kick serious tookus for their size. The old iMac speakers sucked, but these are great. :-)
And if I can run Linux on it, so much the better. I like having a choice of OSes, and I happen to use both MacOS and LinuxPPC. I have a lime iMac DV 400 on its way to me, so thanks to the guys at iMacLinux.net, now I can use it with Linux as well.
Mind you, I'm not wild about the iBooks, mainly because of their lack of external video--a major minus for me. I also wish they had G4s in the iMacs and iBooks, but oh, well.
But the main point is this: don't go slagging a computer because you don't happen to like its looks, or imply that it somehow isn't worthy of running Linux. Both are ridiculous things to assert. The iMac's hardware is as demonstrably as good as any on the PC market in its price range, and just because it happens to be bright and colorful doesn't mean that "serious" OSes shouldn't run on it. In fact, the converse is true. ;-)
Anyway. 'Nuff venting my spleen fer t'day. :-)
Ethelred (he of LinuxMac)
But it was /Hungarian/, not Bulgarian.
"I wheel not by zis tobacconist, it is scratched!"
"Please föööndle my buttocks."
"Ah, yes. Two blocks down, and left at the light."
And so on...
No! Don't click me!