I put together many PDP-11 (both Q-BUS and a few HEX BUS) systems in yesteryear and have many fond memories of RSTS, RT-11, RSX, and Venix (A SYSIII Unix clone which ran on the 11 at the time). Thanks a bunch for your links! --M
And they are archived as well - in a way that really counts, on tens of thousands of PCs or more worldwide, and in dusty CDR collections for decades to come.
It'd be nice to see some kind of official project which legally provided historical archives of these programs. Hell, it goes beyond just games and to the very heart of compsci archival. Who archives old copies of VisiCalc, RT-11, or PRIMEOS? It's mostly gone, and to historians that's a damn shame. --M
OK. I will not engage in a debate over the validity of the that cancer study's conclusions primarily because I know I am not qualified to do so. Neither are you, but you just don't get that fact and instead view yourself an 'expert.' As the lawyers say, only the fool is his own client. Instead I'll debate you on your general assertion that:
However, it seems to me that releasing an insignificant finding such as what was found in that study, to the public under the guise of anti-light advice, is scientifically irresponsible behaviour. Behaviour, which, not surprisingly, is quite common considering the current scientific funding model. Now, where's my cold fusion?
This implies, along with your previous cato.org (a political organization with a very ideological axe to grind I might add) reference, that the academic scientific community as a whole is engaging in large scale manipulation of data and conclusions in order to justify increased research grants from the public sector. In essence, you're accusing the entire scientific community of wholesale fraud.
I find that charge laughable at it's face. Who coordinates the data manipulation and how, such that all scientists in a specific field agree to the fraud? And assuming your assertion that scientists are somehow manipulating data en masse, just how do they make new real discoveries? Data manipulation does not help the discovery process, be definition. And what about the risk to reputation? If only a certain percentage play this game, that is: join the dataset-fraud-club, it will be discovered through peer review and by further experimental replication generating new data at odds with the previous fraudulent data. Reputable scientists will raise their eyebrows in wonder, and in the end certain careers will tank. That's why science works over the long haul.
You have no evidence to substantiate that charge other than editorials by political 'think tanks' imbued by ideology rather than data. Imagine, academic scientists across national borders engaging in conspiracy to defraud their respective governments of public funds by wholesale, coordinated, manipulation of their data and conclusions. I don't believe it's possible because I don't believe that such a conspiracy is workable. Nor do I believe that the majority of scientists would be willing to engage in such conspiracy; they're a conservative lot when it comes to matters of reputation among their peers.
Of course I'm sure with a bit of google searching you can find numerous instances of individual scientists committing data fraud. It happens. But to claim wholesale conspiracy -- wow, that's rich. Bully for you! And I thought I was an internet kook! HA!
I used to roll the score over as a kid. Doubt I could do that still; 35 has a way of catching up with your reflexes. What a fun game though! I might *possibly* have a ROM and copy of MAME floating around and play it occasionally when no spooks are looking. Maybe. Damn, that game would totally saturate my attention and I'd find myself covered in sweat when I finally gave it over to the next guy. I remember the first Asteroids game in our local pizza shop too. They had a table top set that always had kids lined up to play - and blobs of old pizza staining everything nearby. Heh.:)
These games really do deserve historical archival beyond illegal ROM duplication by MAME activists. I know there are more critical IP issues for the EFF to dispute, but this just tugs at my heart. *sigh* --M
OK, so we all know you're a shill for SCO given your posting history. But let's take the assertion of a copyright violation at face value and accept it for argument's sake.
NUMA and SMP will probably be yanked, the kernel will revert back to it's 2.2 days and probably stay there for a long, long time, until someone comes up with something completely original to replace whats missing.
SMP goes back to later 1.3 kernels, and was available as a compile time option back in 2.0. The whole of SMP ain't going anywhere. Instead lets assume that several header files and some c source files are found to violate SCO's SYSV copyrights. Once these files are discerned in discovery, we can all assume Linus et all will simply rewrite these routines and *poof!*, problem gone. Linus can go to the judge and say,
"Sir, I didn't know the specifics of the copyright violation in question, but as soon as we discovered exactly which files violated SCO's copyright we excised those out of the kernel immediately. Also, Sir, SCO didn't make it easy. We would have done this sooner, but SCO forced us to wait until discovery before we could take this action. We tried to negotiate in good faith with SCO, but they refused and instead offered to release their claims of copyright violation under an NDA. Since this stuff was going to come out in discovery anyway, we just chose to wait instead of signing their contract under legal duress."
Does this look like the Linux community is going to have to revert five years back to kernel 2.0 to you? Not me. But then, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe you are and can tell me why I'm wrong?
Hopefully you can provide some arguments to back up why you think scientists are most always saying facts.
Why should I? The scientists quoted are far better sources to ascertain validity than I. My arguing that they're right has the same validity -- littte to none -- as you arguing that they're wrong. You'll notice that I didn't once assert that the scientists' statements were correct, only that the top level poster's argument against their conclusions is faulty. The factual basis of these scientists' claims is completely irrelevant to the meta argument over calebb's (the parent poster) stating that they were making 'sensationalistic' claims. I called him on that because he posted nothing factual beyond the implied assertion of their professional conclusions violating 'common sense'. It's completely irrelevant whether his assumption over the validity of their claims is right or wrong, what matters is that IMO the thought process which lead him to that conclusion is faulty.
Scientists ignore laymens' opinion within their fields not because the layman might be right or wrong on the outcome of a specific issue, but because the layman has no concept of the data collection over time, or thought process and logic, which went into the final conclusion. Therefor, the layman can't replicate the experimental process to derive a valid opposing conclusion. In this case calebb later posted that he is a chemist, and is likely well educated in his field, though is not a biologist or physician and as such has no standing to make a valid factual statement on their claims. However, he didn't even offer opposing references in counterpoint, he simply argued that at it's face what was said was obviously false without even dealing in specifics. It's just a bald faced claim to say that a group of scientists across a wide spectrum of fields were all wrong in their factual statements to a reporter, with nothing of merit to to back it up. To me that reads like pseudoscience. JMO.
Finally, please note that I am NOT a scientist, and am only recently taking acting classes to play one on TV.
You seem to have some metaphyiscal worldview where objectiveness is 'here,' subjectiveness is 'there' & never the two shall meet.
Not always, but in this case we're dealing with an objective frame of reference as defined by a group of scientists and their body of work. The analysis of their data sets is what defines 'objective' reality, at least as far as one can determine as such. But that doesn't take away from my subjective enjoyment of playing an instrument; dating a hot chick; enjoying a fine glass of wine; feeling sand between my toes on the beach; and all the other great stuff life offers.
However, imho, every single presupposition you make is going to oppose every single presupposition I make. I've been involved in 'online' discussions (usenet, etc) since at least 1997, and I've never run into someone like you. I'm at the point where I don't debate/argue anymore unless I'm pretty sure it will benefit at least one person involved in the debate. As you can tell, I don't believe that is the case.
That's too bad. We may disagree in this case, but that doesn't bother me one bit. I'm really curious to see if we can find some sort of common ground. But if you're not interested, I'll let it drop and wish you the best of luck. BTW: a low UID only means I've been reading and posting to/. since before accounts were implemented, and says nothing about the validity of my comments (a statement I'm sure you'll agree with:^). It's less like 1337 and more like 'EEET!' If ya know what I mean. --M
Claiming the article is 'sensationalism' or a 'non-sequitur' is a matter of personal opinion and non-factual. Which is fine. The problem is the ambiguity in your original post: did you mean the scientists were full of it? Are you saying you think the city planners are implementing ridiculous policy due to poor analysis and logic? Or are you saying you think the author extrapolated all of those quotes in a way to completely misrepresent the expert opinions of those quoted, presumably in order to present a biased article?
As a trained scientist I'm sure you'll agree with these two statements:
a) Your medical condition has no bearing on the outcome of data collection and analysis by other professional scientists investigating a tangentially similar issue.
b) Your expertise as a chemist has no bearing on the formation of expert opinion by scientists operating in their disparate fields.
Note that in neither of these posts have I made any assertions as to the validity of the science in question. All of those interviewed could be completely wrong in their conclusions and your response would draw the same objection. A stopped clock being right twice a day doesn't make for a timepiece, just as someone asserting a scientist is wrong on 'common-sense' grounds bears no relevance to the science in question -- even when the scientist in question is wrong.
Regarding the science in the article though, I would argue that when scientists across several fields make similar assertions about the outcome of their respective data analysis, it's often something to seriously consider as real. This is not a factual argument about specific data sets or outcomes, but an argument based on the likelihood of common outcomes dovetailing across disparate fields. And thus to dismiss all of these assertions out of hand as ridiculous misses an obvious point about how collective science works. JMO.
Finally, on a personal note, it's unfortunate that you chose to mark me as a foe rather than debate me directly. I may have come on a bit strong in my initial post, but I didn't insult you personally; I simply attacked your argument. Which, in a debating forum is how it should be. I apologize for any personal insult you felt over my reply, but do so without backing down from the debating position I've so far taken. Heh.:)
There's nothing 'insightful' about this post, it's simply an ideological diatribe maligning the work of real scientists without offering any kind of factual rebuttal. Several scientists and physicians (including a neuroendocrinologist) made many very specific claims about the effects of light pollution on humans, insects, and plankton. Your rebuttal is 'Yeah... Riiiiight.' I didn't read a single valid counterpoint to any of the claims presented in this article.
You probably don't care about the plankton, insects, and other environmental effects presented, so let's get straight to the human outcomes listed: increased cancer rates among humans; dangerous breathing disorders during sleep; decreased attention during critical events such as driving, etc. Real scientists and clinicians made factual statements about problems they're seeing due to light pollution, and you simply toss it off as 'sensationalism'. Not a factual word about why they're wrong other than the implied 'it can't be'. That is the argument of a ideologue.
You'll notice that the scientists interviewed didn't make policy recommendations, only the city planners interviewed did. You might also notice that none of the city planners recommended shutting off the lights, only a move toward a different kind of city lighting. And, to top it off, they're recommendations save money due to increased energy efficiency. Gee, that's 'sensationalism' for ya.
From a factual standpoint, your argument simply doesn't stand muster. It's pseudoscientific babble based not on scientific study and open debate, but on derision of the scientists for their conclusions; regardless of the data they collected. Your skepticism is poorly placed given the argument you presented. JMO.
I don't doubt that the policy exists, so I'm not arguing that you're misrepresenting internal MS policy. I'm just arguing against their stated rationale for that policy. I spoke to this in another message on this thread so I won't repeat myself here. I just wanted to be clear in a direct response that I'm not calling you a liar about the existence of the policy, or something stupid like that.
Multiple people here claim that they work for Microsoft and that Microsoft has such a policy. I believe them. I also believe that Microsoft's top executives are paying a lot of attention to F/OSS these days, and that they consulted with some real lawyers before drafting their strategy.
That doesn't make them right, of course. But I think you've really got your head up your ass to dismiss them so casually.
I never said they didn't have such a policy. I don't work for them, so I don't know, but I'm willing to believe the reports that such a policy is written and implemented. I'm simply arguing that the policy wasn't implemented on the grounds the original author stated, that being that it was implemented over fear of catastrophic IP loss due to potential accidental copyright violations with GPL'd source. That's simply not going to happen.
It's a great FUD tactic though, and Microsoft does have a history of misrepresenting the potential legal threat to owners' IP when using GPL'd software. I presume the policy has more value from a PR standpoint than as legal protection. Though, of course, the policy can also be said to be a responsible preventive measure against accidental copyright violations within the Windows source tree, which is perfectly reasonable. So possibly it serves a dual purpose as a PR FUD tactic and rational preventative measure.
For these reasons, I happen to think it rather likely that if judgment went against Microsoft in a case over a violation of the GPL, the judge would in fact order the company to release the source of the affected software. In any event, the court would certainly at least have the option of ordering Microsoft to comply with the GPL's terms.
Though I suppose it would depend on the perceived value of the illegally distributed material. If we're talking about a small amount of code, say only gzip, then demanding the release of the entire Windows codebase would cost Microsoft far more than the value of what the FSF "lost" via the illegal distribution. However, if Microsoft merged Windows and Linux into a single distribution and released this without following the licensing requirements from each external author, then you might be right. The value of tje illegally distributed code could be so great compared to Windows, being possibly equal in value or more, that it might bring about a specific performance judgment. Maybe.
Realize though, that the previous author suggested that Microsoft's policy was to prevent catastrophic IP loss over an accidental inclusion of a minor amount of GPL'd software into their product line. And I just don't buy that argument. No court would force MS to release Windows source just because some engineer included gzip, readline, or a few GPL'd source files. They wouldn't do it even if the illegal distribution amounted to important functionality bundled into the kernel. The outcome would be a financial judgment and possibly a fine under criminal statute.
But we're both not lawyers, hence we're both babbling idiots spouting nonsense on/.:)
The typical interpretation I read is "if you put GPL code in your software that you release as a binary, you have to release the source, no exceptions."
Copyright law is a civil matter, and the GPL is a contract which limits duplication rights within copyright law, as such it's a contract dispute and a civil case. The worst that can happen is a financial judgement, that is Microsoft would have to pay some kind of penalty for illegal copyright infrigement. The judgement couldn't be any worse than what might happen to someone who illegally mass produced illegal copies of Windows and then sold them on the open market. A judge might enact a stiff financial penalty against Microsoft, which one might consider is representative of the value of Windows (whatever that means), but the judge could not force Microsoft to release their source after Microsoft agreed to remove any infringing GPL'd components. Again, IANAL - but I doubt one would disagree. --M
It's MS's worst nightmare that Windows would have GPL-licensed code checked in, as they could conceivably be forced to open-source the whole product.
Well, looks like you got modded up. But you're wrong just the same. The assertion that Microsoft might have to release Windows, Office, or some portion thereof, because a copyright holder, who happened to license under the GPL, claimed -- and proved -- copyright infringement within one of Microsoft's products, would therefor force Microsoft to release some or all of their product line under the GPL, is plain absurd. It would never happen, nor should it.
Suppose SCO is right and within a few files of the Linux kernel it's proven that someone illegally copied a section, or even whole files, from their source tree into the Linux kernel. Does that mean SCO owns all of the kernel, even those parts they didn't write? No. The outcome would be that those parts which were infringing would be excised and then rewritten.
Suppose it turns out that an engineer in Microsoft illegally copied gzip into Windows, and then Microsoft distributed Windows under their proprietary license. The FSF would have cause for a copyright infringement suit, and they would win. But could they demand a judgment that Microsoft release Windows under the GPL as a result? No. The best they could do would be to demand financial damages plus the removal of their code from the Windows source tree.
Suppose Microsoft management distributed gzip withing Windows, even knowing it's licensing terms under the GPL, could the FSF then enforce the redistribution terms license beyond Microsoft paying damages and removing the infringing code under court order? I seriously doubt it. And that's willingly breaking copyright law by corporate officers (which they have done -- see Stacker).
So, the assertion that Microsoft doesn't allow it's engineers to view GPL'd source under the assumption that said source could illegally make it into their product line and then force them to release their product under the GPL is patently ridiculous. It wouldn't work that way, period. This is, of course, speaking as a layman and not a lawyer.
First of all, vendors have traditionally bundled Windows with Windows and DOS for nearly two decades. And while lately it's been possible to buy desktops from smaller vendors, buying a laptop without paying for Windows has been an absolute nightmare. That's slowly changing. But Microsoft isn't a convicted monopolist for nothing, they've been playing the restraint of trade game all the way back to the CP/M-86, Stacker, and DR-DOS days.
And then there's the principal of the matter: the license says I can decline and am due a refund. Well, I want that refund. Pay up Mr. Vendor, you're contractually obligated. --M
There are people out there - believe it or not - that think $199 is a good deal on an operating system. Myself included.
There are many people who prefer not to pay for bundled software they didn't use. That you value the bundled software at $199 is irrelevant to the point at hand. My assesment of value is that which I use and am willing to pay for. I find Linux and *BSD to be a high value due to the rock bottom price and high utility. JMO. Further, I do not use Windows and as such prefer not to pay for the product. The license included with the bundled software allows for this by declining the license agreement. I decline.
But "many" as applied to the majority of the people who buy computers is stretching it a bit.
Who said "many" means "majority"? Certainly, given the fact that this issue has been argued by Linux users against vendors for nearly four years, there are "many" people who would like the refund promised in the license agreement. It's that simple. --M
According to http://www.humboldt1.com/~michael.welch/pvpayback. pdf photovoltaic payback in all energy costs associated with manufacture is anywhere from 3-7 years, depending on photovoltaic type (CIS or SC-SI) and assuming 5 hours/day of direct sunlight. Interesting read. --M
Particularly the bit about capital speculation in global hedge funds driving global shifts in employment toward lower wages across the board. This is the predictable outcome of a new gilded age with global trusts abusing the lack of international law and regulation to play off regional labor markets in a drive to the bottom. They will also play off national and local government to drive out regulation in order to force government to reduce environmental and safety regulations at the risk of losing entire industries to the next cheaper country. We see this locally with tax incentives given to attract or keep employers at the state level, it's the same game played internationally. Unfortunately, internationally there are no regulatory bodies under the authority of duly elected officials, nor is there any public scrutiny. It's a free for all.
100 years ago it's this type of behavior by the trust barons which led to the American populist movement, unionization drives, and finally the trust-busting movement in government (remember that Republican, Teddy Roosevelt?) Whole populations had to make their displeasure known to government and industry before the trust barons relented. Looks like it'll have to happen once again, only this time globally.
There's not much IBM can do about this given that their competitors are doing the same. This is the nature of collective action, there's only benefit when all agree and act upon a beneficial course of action. When only one is altruistic, (s)he gets eaten as prey. Which is why we have elected government, to create a process whereby citizens can engage in collective policymaking (through their elected officials) and enforcement to the benefit of all. Thus creating the rules whereby beneficial collective action takes hold.
A couple of points to make WRT capitalism, unions, and trust-busting:
First, there is nothing inherently anticapitalist with duly elected officials creating and enforcing anti-trust, environmental, food safety, worker safety, or anti-poverty (minimum wage) legislation. Capitalism requires a free market of many competing organizations (read: small business) in order to see macro efficiency gains across the whole economy. When a single entity takes over entire market(s) we see the kind of market distortion that Standard Oil, the former IBM, and the current Microsoft enjoy, to the detriment of the economy as a whole. Thus, even capitalist economies at the macro scale require some level of collectivist management. The trick is for the general population to collectively gain through competitive small business, which requires real democracy at the policy-making level. We haven't had that in the US for some time.
Unions create the same economic distortions as do monopoly trusts when they grow too large. Thus we saw the AFL-CIO and other very large unions become corrupt, yet at a time these unions were critical to gaining basic worker rights for average Americans some 100 years back. A union organized in a small shop, which collectively bargains with local management toward rational agreement, provides the local workforce with the leverage they need to counterbalance the inherent power management has over their workforce. But like with Enron, Worldcom, and all the other corporate scandals we've seen, scaled up Unions represent just another opportunity to fleece their membership base (or shareholders, in the corporate scandals).
In both cases we see problems from scaling up to organizational sizes beyond what human society can support (this would likely be a biological limitation), while still meeting rational societal needs. Remember, we formed 'this most perfect union' as a democratic collectivist experiment. We are a society first and foremost. When that dies, only anarchy, lawlessness, and violence will remain.
I believe that what has happened over the last thirty years is that corporate America has taken control of all three branches of government and driven policy makers to enact policies strictly for t
I won't dispute that you're more productive running straight 'NIX rather than OS X; that's your call and your work environment. However, I've moved from x86 with Linux to MacOS X primarily because I need MS Office to exchange Excel spreadsheets with my CPA. She won't waste time fiddling with Open Office and she happens to be a great accountant. That's a straight home business decision.
At work I'm seeing a pretty fast transition from Linux to MacOS X among professors and professionals. They like the ease of use and access to commercial applications, combined with the traditional 'NIX toolbase, that OS X offers. Cheap desktops for students remain running Linux. This too, doesn't surprise me - Linux makes for a very cheap desktop solution when scaled up in large deployments. I expect to see our older Suns and DEC Alpha systems completely replaced with either PCs running Linux or Macs. I also expect to see us run a cost/compute comparison between the G5 and Opteron for clustering.
IMO Apple has successfully reinvigorated their software and hardware product line such that they are now producing very desirable products, and this is reflected in the purchasing decisions across my lab. Whatever you may think of the OS X UI I see a large number of highly qualified professionals and academics jumping to the platform primarily because they don't want to spend time learning hardcore 'NIX; they're too busy conducting research and writing papers.
So, what doesn't work for you seems to work well for them. Customizability is a tradeoff for sure, but these people transitioning to OS X are certainly not stupid or children; they are professionals who prefer to focus on their specialty rather than the near unlimited customizability of X (X Window System). A personal choice, in opposition to yours, which is equally valid.
Me, I think that Dennis Tito did it right- buy a flight at the lowest price he could. Ok, so it turned out to be the Ruskies, I call that an incentive to Americans to actually get off their money-wasting duffs and actually go out and make competitive rockets rather than the government subsidised massively overpriced efforts you see at the moment.
*cough* That would be, he turned to the Russian Government from whom to purchase his flight. Included in that ticket price was a hotel stay in the ISS Bed & Breakfast - to the dismay of NASA and every other ISS participant who were there to perform science instead of waiting on zero G tables.
When a private corporation builds their own launch infrastructure, vehicle, and private orbiting hotel, then maybe you have a point. Until such a time, please accept the fact that public money from all the world's governments funded all the research, physical infrastructure, and maintains the functioning systems we currently use to get us into and out of space. You can't just pay for a ticket and call it "private enterprise" without recognizing this fact. Well, you can, but you're deluding yourself.
Here's an analogy: we've just created the first trains and you want to fight over proprietary track size instead of laying down new track. Let's build the infrastructure first, then we let private companies use the track to move goods at a profit. Or in this case, first we fund the basic research to get viable transport systems into space, then we let the private companies sell payloads at a profit. We may be at stage two already (ready to hand some of the technology over to private hands) but we certainly would never have gotten there without public funding.
OK, after re-reading my response to you I just want to say that my first paragraph where I say 'clearly you don't read the news' was a cheap shot and not fair. I apologize. On to the point:
Every response I have to what you're saying is predicated upon the notion that the government is doing way more than it should, that it should be *radically* scaled back, and I don't believe that you would find that assertion palatable.
That's political debate. I'm OK with your disagreement, I'm OK with your vote in opposition to my position, and I'm OK with a fair political loss.
Clearly we disagree on the matter of taxation and the kinds of services we expect from government. We both support basic free market capitalism. This means open markets of individual actors exchanging goods freely with little market intervention. Our divergence in opinion, from the perspective of this debate, is one of government regulation and taxation to support public services. Another point of debate appears to be whether government should hold regulatory power over the free market or the free market should hold power over government. Clearly, I believe we need a central authority responsible to the public which regulates the market in order to set clear and non-discriminatory rules. That is a matter of debate.
Give me a fair game and I'll play to win while accepting loss. The current political game is fixed though, and as such I find the situation offensive and corrupt. JMO.
Don't know if you'll bother reading this since you posted AC, but I just wanted to make a short point. I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote. The GOP's policy dovetails with their campaign contributors' interests exactly, and provides only cultural support for their citizen contingency. What I mean by that is that the campaign contributors get money through targeted tax repeals and closed bidding contracts, while Republican voters gain government enforcement of their moral codes/beliefs.
The Democrats play the same game by offering special deals for their campaign contributors, but have nothing to offer their voters since Democrats are primarily 'moderates' with a minority progressive wing. The Democratic base has been marginalized primarily because the DNC doesn't offer voters any reason beyond 'we're not the GOP' and 'we might give you a crumb, but only after our campaign contributors are satiated from feeding at the government trough'. Campaign contributors are never satiated.
So, the DNC has traded it's voting majority for large scale campaign contributions from business and in the process been marginalized by the GOP, since business trusts the GOP far more than the DNC after the New Deal. This trend with the DNC started back in the 1940 congressional race when Lyndon Johnson saved the Democrats from losing congressional leadership by soliciting Texas funds from the local oil exploration and large contracting (dam builders) business community and spreading those funds around the country in close congressional races. By soliciting huge donations (much of it in cash and illegal) Johnson was able to not only retain the DNC majority (when they were expecting to lose 30 seats or more) but even gain seats. Of course the Texas oil barons and major contracting houses expected a ROI and they got far more than they ever gave the DNC. From that point on the DNC lost their concern for their voting constituency and focused on soliciting donations from the business community.
First of all, I note that you haven't responded to any of my factual points and have instead replied with a short screed targeting the words "tax cuts for the rich" as "class warfare". You don't actually read the news, do you? Because what you wrote looks like its been cribbed off last months GOP talking points. They're not even bothering with these lines any longer. If you want decent news with a conservative slant might I suggest The Economist? At least you'll receive a factual education.
What do you consider low income? People who make 30k or under, if they have any kids, pay *no* income tax. At least 40% of people in this country pay no income tax. If you believe that payroll taxes should be cut, fine...I'm with you.
In a demand deposit driven economy, income levels (as a hard number) are irrelevant. What matters is purchasing power and cost of living, which are regional and inflation dependent. So, for example, in current dollars $30K/yr in Cincinnati might actually be a good income. In Boston (where I live) it's a pittance. You can't even afford a decent apartment with that level of income, never mind a house and children. However, taxes are levied without regard to regional cost of living. In fact, as I pointed out previously, the payroll tax burden is incurred entirely by those making under $86K/yr; those earning above that level pay nothing above the first $86K/yr.
Why don't you ask yourself these three questions, and if you think I'm factually wrong please feel free to dispute:
Is tax money levied strictly for social services being siphoned off for general revenues? [Factual answer: YES.
Do income, investment, and estate taxes cover the burden of non-social services government services? [Factual answer: NO].
Who disproportionately received the greatest benefit from Bush's income, investment (capital gains), and estate tax cuts? [factual answer: those with investment incomes outside of their 401Ks, those who earn over $300K/yr, those who have large estates to pass to their children]. That is simply a FACT.
Now, finally, ask yourself one last question:
Do you expect to receive Social Security in your lifetime?
Did you answer NO? So did I. And here's a step in that direction. Salon has another good article on the subject of bankrupting Social Security by defunding general revenues. This represents a transfer of vast sums of wealth from the Social Security Trust Fund to the General Account, and as such represents REAL "Class Warfare" given how the Social Security Trust Fund is financed. Do not claim liberal bias in these print publications, instead refute the FACTS as presented. Can you?
Never mind the demographic change leading to the claims of fewer and fewer working to pay for more and more seniors, since that's a red herring. Think about it, what do you think will be the result of the huge immigrant wave currently engulfing America? Will these immigrants not pay into the social security trust fund in years hence? Social Security is NOT in danger of going bankrupt, it is general revenues which have been in deficit for over forty years and that is what's bankrupting America. You're paying a tax that is only levied against $86K/yr, while those who earn more pay nothing above this, and all that wealth is being transferred to the General Account to pay for general services while our congressional representatives dream up ways to destroy the primary benefits those taxes were created to fund.
Bush's innefectual, for-the-wealthy tax cut is 35 GigaUSD per year.
You're such a moron. Tax cuts are supposed to be for people who...PAY TAXES. In this 'for the rich' tax cut, people who don't pay taxes are getting between $400-$3k back that they didn't even pay into the system....I'd like to see a 'rich' person that gets more money back from the IRS than he or she gives to it. Wake up. National income taxes shouldn't even be neccesary.[...]
I simply can't understand this line of reasoning. Bush cut income, estate, and dividend taxes, targeting the cuts disproportionately at the wealthy investor class. He did not cut payroll taxes. Certainly people who pay payroll taxes are also "PAY[ing] TAXES", are they not? And isn't it true that payroll taxes generate a huge surplus in the social security trust fund, while income taxes don't pay anywhere near enough into the general account to pay for basic governmental services? Are we not running a deficit?
Now you may argue that payroll taxes are collected strictly to pay out social services and are not collected for general revenue or spent on general services, as such they shouldn't be cut. However, this isn't the case. In fact the HUGE SURPLUS of $200B/yr is siphoned off to reduce our general account deficit. In fact, the currently stated $450B (4.5%GDP) deficit would actually be $650B (6.5%GDP) were it not for the surplus generated from payroll taxes. Note that payroll tax collections are capped at $86K/yr, meaning that any income above $86K/yr is not taxed; this is called a regressive tax because collections don't continue linearly across all income streams. The rich pay much less proportionally for payroll taxes than do you or I.
Realize that general revenues pay for basic government services such as the military, infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, rail, etc), NASA, and government overhead - NOT social services. So, I wonder how anyone can defend a tax cut that reduces revenue from a general account which is already $650B/yr in deficit? And the gall of claiming that it is done on the grounds that income taxes are somehow 'real' while payroll taxes don't matter, when it is the payroll tax surplus which covers 1/3rd of our current account deficit.
Whatever you may think of the rationality of providing social services (I support them, you may not, either opinion is legitimate political debate), certainly you agree that general services slated for payment through income taxes should collect enough on their own to pay for those services. We should not be running a 6.5% GDP deficit (or even a 4.5% GDP deficit) while at the same time cutting the very taxes slated to pay for those services. That the current administration claims to cut these taxes for the people who "PAY TAXES", while at the same time cutting no taxes for those who pay a regressive tax, is simply disingenuous and offensive.
And I haven't even begun discussing our current foreign trade deficit, which is another +5% of GDP. Frankly, if this continues Bush's administration may well take America over the brink into bankruptcy. We're already printing money to prevent 'deflation', the Treasury Department has signaled it's willingness to let the dollar continue to depreciate in value against other foreign currencies, and our manufacturing base is running 1/4 idle.
IMO, these tax cuts are a policy mess. Bush and the fed are 'pushing on a string' with their policy blunders by flooding the investment streets with money while there's nothing left to invest in. We should be pushing the money down to the individual low income tax payers to stir consumption, not further investment and development with no buyers in sight.
How is that relevant to the factual basis of his statements? rms uses specific language and terminology because he knows this frames the debate and underlying assumptions to best make his case. This is no different from any other PR message. That you dislike his looks (which is a personal matter) makes little difference to the debate at hand (other than as a smear).
rms is certainly a quirky character, with idiosyncrasies that some may find offensive. But any fair observer must agree he has worked his ass off building and creating that which he fervently believes is ethically right. I believe this deserves honest credit. Anyone who uses GNU software should thank him and the FSF for the hard work they've accomplished. And if you disagree with his stated opinions and assumptions, say so. I certainly won't use the term GNU/Linux, whatever he may think. But I thank him just the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I put together many PDP-11 (both Q-BUS and a few HEX BUS) systems in yesteryear and have many fond memories of RSTS, RT-11, RSX, and Venix (A SYSIII Unix clone which ran on the 11 at the time). Thanks a bunch for your links! --M
And they are archived as well - in a way that really counts, on tens of thousands of PCs or more worldwide, and in dusty CDR collections for decades to come.
It'd be nice to see some kind of official project which legally provided historical archives of these programs. Hell, it goes beyond just games and to the very heart of compsci archival. Who archives old copies of VisiCalc, RT-11, or PRIMEOS? It's mostly gone, and to historians that's a damn shame. --M
OK. I will not engage in a debate over the validity of the that cancer study's conclusions primarily because I know I am not qualified to do so. Neither are you, but you just don't get that fact and instead view yourself an 'expert.' As the lawyers say, only the fool is his own client. Instead I'll debate you on your general assertion that:
However, it seems to me that releasing an insignificant finding such as what was found in that study, to the public under the guise of anti-light advice, is scientifically irresponsible behaviour. Behaviour, which, not surprisingly, is quite common considering the current scientific funding model. Now, where's my cold fusion?
This implies, along with your previous cato.org (a political organization with a very ideological axe to grind I might add) reference, that the academic scientific community as a whole is engaging in large scale manipulation of data and conclusions in order to justify increased research grants from the public sector. In essence, you're accusing the entire scientific community of wholesale fraud.
I find that charge laughable at it's face. Who coordinates the data manipulation and how, such that all scientists in a specific field agree to the fraud? And assuming your assertion that scientists are somehow manipulating data en masse, just how do they make new real discoveries? Data manipulation does not help the discovery process, be definition. And what about the risk to reputation? If only a certain percentage play this game, that is: join the dataset-fraud-club, it will be discovered through peer review and by further experimental replication generating new data at odds with the previous fraudulent data. Reputable scientists will raise their eyebrows in wonder, and in the end certain careers will tank. That's why science works over the long haul.
You have no evidence to substantiate that charge other than editorials by political 'think tanks' imbued by ideology rather than data. Imagine, academic scientists across national borders engaging in conspiracy to defraud their respective governments of public funds by wholesale, coordinated, manipulation of their data and conclusions. I don't believe it's possible because I don't believe that such a conspiracy is workable. Nor do I believe that the majority of scientists would be willing to engage in such conspiracy; they're a conservative lot when it comes to matters of reputation among their peers.
Of course I'm sure with a bit of google searching you can find numerous instances of individual scientists committing data fraud. It happens. But to claim wholesale conspiracy -- wow, that's rich. Bully for you! And I thought I was an internet kook! HA!
Cheers,
--Maynard
I used to roll the score over as a kid. Doubt I could do that still; 35 has a way of catching up with your reflexes. What a fun game though! I might *possibly* have a ROM and copy of MAME floating around and play it occasionally when no spooks are looking. Maybe. Damn, that game would totally saturate my attention and I'd find myself covered in sweat when I finally gave it over to the next guy. I remember the first Asteroids game in our local pizza shop too. They had a table top set that always had kids lined up to play - and blobs of old pizza staining everything nearby. Heh. :)
These games really do deserve historical archival beyond illegal ROM duplication by MAME activists. I know there are more critical IP issues for the EFF to dispute, but this just tugs at my heart. *sigh* --M
OK, so we all know you're a shill for SCO given your posting history. But let's take the assertion of a copyright violation at face value and accept it for argument's sake.
NUMA and SMP will probably be yanked, the kernel will revert back to it's 2.2 days and probably stay there for a long, long time, until someone comes up with something completely original to replace whats missing.
SMP goes back to later 1.3 kernels, and was available as a compile time option back in 2.0. The whole of SMP ain't going anywhere. Instead lets assume that several header files and some c source files are found to violate SCO's SYSV copyrights. Once these files are discerned in discovery, we can all assume Linus et all will simply rewrite these routines and *poof!*, problem gone. Linus can go to the judge and say,
"Sir, I didn't know the specifics of the copyright violation in question, but as soon as we discovered exactly which files violated SCO's copyright we excised those out of the kernel immediately. Also, Sir, SCO didn't make it easy. We would have done this sooner, but SCO forced us to wait until discovery before we could take this action. We tried to negotiate in good faith with SCO, but they refused and instead offered to release their claims of copyright violation under an NDA. Since this stuff was going to come out in discovery anyway, we just chose to wait instead of signing their contract under legal duress."
Does this look like the Linux community is going to have to revert five years back to kernel 2.0 to you? Not me. But then, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe you are and can tell me why I'm wrong?
--Maynard
Hopefully you can provide some arguments to back up why you think scientists are most always saying facts.
Why should I? The scientists quoted are far better sources to ascertain validity than I. My arguing that they're right has the same validity -- littte to none -- as you arguing that they're wrong. You'll notice that I didn't once assert that the scientists' statements were correct, only that the top level poster's argument against their conclusions is faulty. The factual basis of these scientists' claims is completely irrelevant to the meta argument over calebb's (the parent poster) stating that they were making 'sensationalistic' claims. I called him on that because he posted nothing factual beyond the implied assertion of their professional conclusions violating 'common sense'. It's completely irrelevant whether his assumption over the validity of their claims is right or wrong, what matters is that IMO the thought process which lead him to that conclusion is faulty.
Scientists ignore laymens' opinion within their fields not because the layman might be right or wrong on the outcome of a specific issue, but because the layman has no concept of the data collection over time, or thought process and logic, which went into the final conclusion. Therefor, the layman can't replicate the experimental process to derive a valid opposing conclusion. In this case calebb later posted that he is a chemist, and is likely well educated in his field, though is not a biologist or physician and as such has no standing to make a valid factual statement on their claims. However, he didn't even offer opposing references in counterpoint, he simply argued that at it's face what was said was obviously false without even dealing in specifics. It's just a bald faced claim to say that a group of scientists across a wide spectrum of fields were all wrong in their factual statements to a reporter, with nothing of merit to to back it up. To me that reads like pseudoscience. JMO.
Finally, please note that I am NOT a scientist, and am only recently taking acting classes to play one on TV.
Cheers,
--Maynard
You seem to have some metaphyiscal worldview where objectiveness is 'here,' subjectiveness is 'there' & never the two shall meet.
/. since before accounts were implemented, and says nothing about the validity of my comments (a statement I'm sure you'll agree with :^). It's less like 1337 and more like 'EEET!' If ya know what I mean. --M
Not always, but in this case we're dealing with an objective frame of reference as defined by a group of scientists and their body of work. The analysis of their data sets is what defines 'objective' reality, at least as far as one can determine as such. But that doesn't take away from my subjective enjoyment of playing an instrument; dating a hot chick; enjoying a fine glass of wine; feeling sand between my toes on the beach; and all the other great stuff life offers.
However, imho, every single presupposition you make is going to oppose every single presupposition I make. I've been involved in 'online' discussions (usenet, etc) since at least 1997, and I've never run into someone like you. I'm at the point where I don't debate/argue anymore unless I'm pretty sure it will benefit at least one person involved in the debate. As you can tell, I don't believe that is the case.
That's too bad. We may disagree in this case, but that doesn't bother me one bit. I'm really curious to see if we can find some sort of common ground. But if you're not interested, I'll let it drop and wish you the best of luck. BTW: a low UID only means I've been reading and posting to
A couple of points to make:
:)
Claiming the article is 'sensationalism' or a 'non-sequitur' is a matter of personal opinion and non-factual. Which is fine. The problem is the ambiguity in your original post: did you mean the scientists were full of it? Are you saying you think the city planners are implementing ridiculous policy due to poor analysis and logic? Or are you saying you think the author extrapolated all of those quotes in a way to completely misrepresent the expert opinions of those quoted, presumably in order to present a biased article?
As a trained scientist I'm sure you'll agree with these two statements:
a) Your medical condition has no bearing on the outcome of data collection and analysis by other professional scientists investigating a tangentially similar issue.
b) Your expertise as a chemist has no bearing on the formation of expert opinion by scientists operating in their disparate fields.
Note that in neither of these posts have I made any assertions as to the validity of the science in question. All of those interviewed could be completely wrong in their conclusions and your response would draw the same objection. A stopped clock being right twice a day doesn't make for a timepiece, just as someone asserting a scientist is wrong on 'common-sense' grounds bears no relevance to the science in question -- even when the scientist in question is wrong.
Regarding the science in the article though, I would argue that when scientists across several fields make similar assertions about the outcome of their respective data analysis, it's often something to seriously consider as real. This is not a factual argument about specific data sets or outcomes, but an argument based on the likelihood of common outcomes dovetailing across disparate fields. And thus to dismiss all of these assertions out of hand as ridiculous misses an obvious point about how collective science works. JMO.
Finally, on a personal note, it's unfortunate that you chose to mark me as a foe rather than debate me directly. I may have come on a bit strong in my initial post, but I didn't insult you personally; I simply attacked your argument. Which, in a debating forum is how it should be. I apologize for any personal insult you felt over my reply, but do so without backing down from the debating position I've so far taken. Heh.
Cheers,
--Maynard
There's nothing 'insightful' about this post, it's simply an ideological diatribe maligning the work of real scientists without offering any kind of factual rebuttal. Several scientists and physicians (including a neuroendocrinologist) made many very specific claims about the effects of light pollution on humans, insects, and plankton. Your rebuttal is 'Yeah... Riiiiight.' I didn't read a single valid counterpoint to any of the claims presented in this article.
You probably don't care about the plankton, insects, and other environmental effects presented, so let's get straight to the human outcomes listed: increased cancer rates among humans; dangerous breathing disorders during sleep; decreased attention during critical events such as driving, etc. Real scientists and clinicians made factual statements about problems they're seeing due to light pollution, and you simply toss it off as 'sensationalism'. Not a factual word about why they're wrong other than the implied 'it can't be'. That is the argument of a ideologue.
You'll notice that the scientists interviewed didn't make policy recommendations, only the city planners interviewed did. You might also notice that none of the city planners recommended shutting off the lights, only a move toward a different kind of city lighting. And, to top it off, they're recommendations save money due to increased energy efficiency. Gee, that's 'sensationalism' for ya.
From a factual standpoint, your argument simply doesn't stand muster. It's pseudoscientific babble based not on scientific study and open debate, but on derision of the scientists for their conclusions; regardless of the data they collected. Your skepticism is poorly placed given the argument you presented. JMO.
--Maynard
I don't doubt that the policy exists, so I'm not arguing that you're misrepresenting internal MS policy. I'm just arguing against their stated rationale for that policy. I spoke to this in another message on this thread so I won't repeat myself here. I just wanted to be clear in a direct response that I'm not calling you a liar about the existence of the policy, or something stupid like that.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Multiple people here claim that they work for Microsoft and that Microsoft has such a policy. I believe them. I also believe that Microsoft's top executives are paying a lot of attention to F/OSS these days, and that they consulted with some real lawyers before drafting their strategy.
That doesn't make them right, of course. But I think you've really got your head up your ass to dismiss them so casually.
I never said they didn't have such a policy. I don't work for them, so I don't know, but I'm willing to believe the reports that such a policy is written and implemented. I'm simply arguing that the policy wasn't implemented on the grounds the original author stated, that being that it was implemented over fear of catastrophic IP loss due to potential accidental copyright violations with GPL'd source. That's simply not going to happen.
It's a great FUD tactic though, and Microsoft does have a history of misrepresenting the potential legal threat to owners' IP when using GPL'd software. I presume the policy has more value from a PR standpoint than as legal protection. Though, of course, the policy can also be said to be a responsible preventive measure against accidental copyright violations within the Windows source tree, which is perfectly reasonable. So possibly it serves a dual purpose as a PR FUD tactic and rational preventative measure.
Cheers,
--Maynard
For these reasons, I happen to think it rather likely that if judgment went against Microsoft in a case over a violation of the GPL, the judge would in fact order the company to release the source of the affected software. In any event, the court would certainly at least have the option of ordering Microsoft to comply with the GPL's terms.
/. :)
Though I suppose it would depend on the perceived value of the illegally distributed material. If we're talking about a small amount of code, say only gzip, then demanding the release of the entire Windows codebase would cost Microsoft far more than the value of what the FSF "lost" via the illegal distribution. However, if Microsoft merged Windows and Linux into a single distribution and released this without following the licensing requirements from each external author, then you might be right. The value of tje illegally distributed code could be so great compared to Windows, being possibly equal in value or more, that it might bring about a specific performance judgment. Maybe.
Realize though, that the previous author suggested that Microsoft's policy was to prevent catastrophic IP loss over an accidental inclusion of a minor amount of GPL'd software into their product line. And I just don't buy that argument. No court would force MS to release Windows source just because some engineer included gzip, readline, or a few GPL'd source files. They wouldn't do it even if the illegal distribution amounted to important functionality bundled into the kernel. The outcome would be a financial judgment and possibly a fine under criminal statute.
But we're both not lawyers, hence we're both babbling idiots spouting nonsense on
Cheers,
--Maynard
The typical interpretation I read is "if you put GPL code in your software that you release as a binary, you have to release the source, no exceptions."
Copyright law is a civil matter, and the GPL is a contract which limits duplication rights within copyright law, as such it's a contract dispute and a civil case. The worst that can happen is a financial judgement, that is Microsoft would have to pay some kind of penalty for illegal copyright infrigement. The judgement couldn't be any worse than what might happen to someone who illegally mass produced illegal copies of Windows and then sold them on the open market. A judge might enact a stiff financial penalty against Microsoft, which one might consider is representative of the value of Windows (whatever that means), but the judge could not force Microsoft to release their source after Microsoft agreed to remove any infringing GPL'd components. Again, IANAL - but I doubt one would disagree. --M
It's MS's worst nightmare that Windows would have GPL-licensed code checked in, as they could conceivably be forced to open-source the whole product.
Well, looks like you got modded up. But you're wrong just the same. The assertion that Microsoft might have to release Windows, Office, or some portion thereof, because a copyright holder, who happened to license under the GPL, claimed -- and proved -- copyright infringement within one of Microsoft's products, would therefor force Microsoft to release some or all of their product line under the GPL, is plain absurd. It would never happen, nor should it.
Suppose SCO is right and within a few files of the Linux kernel it's proven that someone illegally copied a section, or even whole files, from their source tree into the Linux kernel. Does that mean SCO owns all of the kernel, even those parts they didn't write? No. The outcome would be that those parts which were infringing would be excised and then rewritten.
Suppose it turns out that an engineer in Microsoft illegally copied gzip into Windows, and then Microsoft distributed Windows under their proprietary license. The FSF would have cause for a copyright infringement suit, and they would win. But could they demand a judgment that Microsoft release Windows under the GPL as a result? No. The best they could do would be to demand financial damages plus the removal of their code from the Windows source tree.
Suppose Microsoft management distributed gzip withing Windows, even knowing it's licensing terms under the GPL, could the FSF then enforce the redistribution terms license beyond Microsoft paying damages and removing the infringing code under court order? I seriously doubt it. And that's willingly breaking copyright law by corporate officers (which they have done -- see Stacker).
So, the assertion that Microsoft doesn't allow it's engineers to view GPL'd source under the assumption that said source could illegally make it into their product line and then force them to release their product under the GPL is patently ridiculous. It wouldn't work that way, period. This is, of course, speaking as a layman and not a lawyer.
Cheers,
--Maynard
First of all, vendors have traditionally bundled Windows with Windows and DOS for nearly two decades. And while lately it's been possible to buy desktops from smaller vendors, buying a laptop without paying for Windows has been an absolute nightmare. That's slowly changing. But Microsoft isn't a convicted monopolist for nothing, they've been playing the restraint of trade game all the way back to the CP/M-86, Stacker, and DR-DOS days.
And then there's the principal of the matter: the license says I can decline and am due a refund. Well, I want that refund. Pay up Mr. Vendor, you're contractually obligated. --M
There are people out there - believe it or not - that think $199 is a good deal on an operating system. Myself included.
There are many people who prefer not to pay for bundled software they didn't use. That you value the bundled software at $199 is irrelevant to the point at hand. My assesment of value is that which I use and am willing to pay for. I find Linux and *BSD to be a high value due to the rock bottom price and high utility. JMO. Further, I do not use Windows and as such prefer not to pay for the product. The license included with the bundled software allows for this by declining the license agreement. I decline.
But "many" as applied to the majority of the people who buy computers is stretching it a bit.
Who said "many" means "majority"? Certainly, given the fact that this issue has been argued by Linux users against vendors for nearly four years, there are "many" people who would like the refund promised in the license agreement. It's that simple. --M
According to http://www.humboldt1.com/~michael.welch/pvpayback. pdf photovoltaic payback in all energy costs associated with manufacture is anywhere from 3-7 years, depending on photovoltaic type (CIS or SC-SI) and assuming 5 hours/day of direct sunlight. Interesting read. --M
Particularly the bit about capital speculation in global hedge funds driving global shifts in employment toward lower wages across the board. This is the predictable outcome of a new gilded age with global trusts abusing the lack of international law and regulation to play off regional labor markets in a drive to the bottom. They will also play off national and local government to drive out regulation in order to force government to reduce environmental and safety regulations at the risk of losing entire industries to the next cheaper country. We see this locally with tax incentives given to attract or keep employers at the state level, it's the same game played internationally. Unfortunately, internationally there are no regulatory bodies under the authority of duly elected officials, nor is there any public scrutiny. It's a free for all.
100 years ago it's this type of behavior by the trust barons which led to the American populist movement, unionization drives, and finally the trust-busting movement in government (remember that Republican, Teddy Roosevelt?) Whole populations had to make their displeasure known to government and industry before the trust barons relented. Looks like it'll have to happen once again, only this time globally.
There's not much IBM can do about this given that their competitors are doing the same. This is the nature of collective action, there's only benefit when all agree and act upon a beneficial course of action. When only one is altruistic, (s)he gets eaten as prey. Which is why we have elected government, to create a process whereby citizens can engage in collective policymaking (through their elected officials) and enforcement to the benefit of all. Thus creating the rules whereby beneficial collective action takes hold.
A couple of points to make WRT capitalism, unions, and trust-busting:
First, there is nothing inherently anticapitalist with duly elected officials creating and enforcing anti-trust, environmental, food safety, worker safety, or anti-poverty (minimum wage) legislation. Capitalism requires a free market of many competing organizations (read: small business) in order to see macro efficiency gains across the whole economy. When a single entity takes over entire market(s) we see the kind of market distortion that Standard Oil, the former IBM, and the current Microsoft enjoy, to the detriment of the economy as a whole. Thus, even capitalist economies at the macro scale require some level of collectivist management. The trick is for the general population to collectively gain through competitive small business, which requires real democracy at the policy-making level. We haven't had that in the US for some time.
Unions create the same economic distortions as do monopoly trusts when they grow too large. Thus we saw the AFL-CIO and other very large unions become corrupt, yet at a time these unions were critical to gaining basic worker rights for average Americans some 100 years back. A union organized in a small shop, which collectively bargains with local management toward rational agreement, provides the local workforce with the leverage they need to counterbalance the inherent power management has over their workforce. But like with Enron, Worldcom, and all the other corporate scandals we've seen, scaled up Unions represent just another opportunity to fleece their membership base (or shareholders, in the corporate scandals).
In both cases we see problems from scaling up to organizational sizes beyond what human society can support (this would likely be a biological limitation), while still meeting rational societal needs. Remember, we formed 'this most perfect union' as a democratic collectivist experiment. We are a society first and foremost. When that dies, only anarchy, lawlessness, and violence will remain.
I believe that what has happened over the last thirty years is that corporate America has taken control of all three branches of government and driven policy makers to enact policies strictly for t
I won't dispute that you're more productive running straight 'NIX rather than OS X; that's your call and your work environment. However, I've moved from x86 with Linux to MacOS X primarily because I need MS Office to exchange Excel spreadsheets with my CPA. She won't waste time fiddling with Open Office and she happens to be a great accountant. That's a straight home business decision.
At work I'm seeing a pretty fast transition from Linux to MacOS X among professors and professionals. They like the ease of use and access to commercial applications, combined with the traditional 'NIX toolbase, that OS X offers. Cheap desktops for students remain running Linux. This too, doesn't surprise me - Linux makes for a very cheap desktop solution when scaled up in large deployments. I expect to see our older Suns and DEC Alpha systems completely replaced with either PCs running Linux or Macs. I also expect to see us run a cost/compute comparison between the G5 and Opteron for clustering.
IMO Apple has successfully reinvigorated their software and hardware product line such that they are now producing very desirable products, and this is reflected in the purchasing decisions across my lab. Whatever you may think of the OS X UI I see a large number of highly qualified professionals and academics jumping to the platform primarily because they don't want to spend time learning hardcore 'NIX; they're too busy conducting research and writing papers.
So, what doesn't work for you seems to work well for them. Customizability is a tradeoff for sure, but these people transitioning to OS X are certainly not stupid or children; they are professionals who prefer to focus on their specialty rather than the near unlimited customizability of X (X Window System). A personal choice, in opposition to yours, which is equally valid.
Cheers,
--Maynard
When a private corporation builds their own launch infrastructure, vehicle, and private orbiting hotel, then maybe you have a point. Until such a time, please accept the fact that public money from all the world's governments funded all the research, physical infrastructure, and maintains the functioning systems we currently use to get us into and out of space. You can't just pay for a ticket and call it "private enterprise" without recognizing this fact. Well, you can, but you're deluding yourself.
Here's an analogy: we've just created the first trains and you want to fight over proprietary track size instead of laying down new track. Let's build the infrastructure first, then we let private companies use the track to move goods at a profit. Or in this case, first we fund the basic research to get viable transport systems into space, then we let the private companies sell payloads at a profit. We may be at stage two already (ready to hand some of the technology over to private hands) but we certainly would never have gotten there without public funding.
JMO,
--Maynard
That's political debate. I'm OK with your disagreement, I'm OK with your vote in opposition to my position, and I'm OK with a fair political loss.
Clearly we disagree on the matter of taxation and the kinds of services we expect from government. We both support basic free market capitalism. This means open markets of individual actors exchanging goods freely with little market intervention. Our divergence in opinion, from the perspective of this debate, is one of government regulation and taxation to support public services. Another point of debate appears to be whether government should hold regulatory power over the free market or the free market should hold power over government. Clearly, I believe we need a central authority responsible to the public which regulates the market in order to set clear and non-discriminatory rules. That is a matter of debate.
Give me a fair game and I'll play to win while accepting loss. The current political game is fixed though, and as such I find the situation offensive and corrupt. JMO.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Don't know if you'll bother reading this since you posted AC, but I just wanted to make a short point. I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote. The GOP's policy dovetails with their campaign contributors' interests exactly, and provides only cultural support for their citizen contingency. What I mean by that is that the campaign contributors get money through targeted tax repeals and closed bidding contracts, while Republican voters gain government enforcement of their moral codes/beliefs.
The Democrats play the same game by offering special deals for their campaign contributors, but have nothing to offer their voters since Democrats are primarily 'moderates' with a minority progressive wing. The Democratic base has been marginalized primarily because the DNC doesn't offer voters any reason beyond 'we're not the GOP' and 'we might give you a crumb, but only after our campaign contributors are satiated from feeding at the government trough'. Campaign contributors are never satiated.
So, the DNC has traded it's voting majority for large scale campaign contributions from business and in the process been marginalized by the GOP, since business trusts the GOP far more than the DNC after the New Deal. This trend with the DNC started back in the 1940 congressional race when Lyndon Johnson saved the Democrats from losing congressional leadership by soliciting Texas funds from the local oil exploration and large contracting (dam builders) business community and spreading those funds around the country in close congressional races. By soliciting huge donations (much of it in cash and illegal) Johnson was able to not only retain the DNC majority (when they were expecting to lose 30 seats or more) but even gain seats. Of course the Texas oil barons and major contracting houses expected a ROI and they got far more than they ever gave the DNC. From that point on the DNC lost their concern for their voting constituency and focused on soliciting donations from the business community.
Cheers,
--Maynard
First of all, I note that you haven't responded to any of my factual points and have instead replied with a short screed targeting the words "tax cuts for the rich" as "class warfare". You don't actually read the news, do you? Because what you wrote looks like its been cribbed off last months GOP talking points. They're not even bothering with these lines any longer. If you want decent news with a conservative slant might I suggest The Economist? At least you'll receive a factual education.
In a demand deposit driven economy, income levels (as a hard number) are irrelevant. What matters is purchasing power and cost of living, which are regional and inflation dependent. So, for example, in current dollars $30K/yr in Cincinnati might actually be a good income. In Boston (where I live) it's a pittance. You can't even afford a decent apartment with that level of income, never mind a house and children. However, taxes are levied without regard to regional cost of living. In fact, as I pointed out previously, the payroll tax burden is incurred entirely by those making under $86K/yr; those earning above that level pay nothing above the first $86K/yr.
Why don't you ask yourself these three questions, and if you think I'm factually wrong please feel free to dispute:
Now, finally, ask yourself one last question:
Did you answer NO? So did I. And here's a step in that direction. Salon has another good article on the subject of bankrupting Social Security by defunding general revenues. This represents a transfer of vast sums of wealth from the Social Security Trust Fund to the General Account, and as such represents REAL "Class Warfare" given how the Social Security Trust Fund is financed. Do not claim liberal bias in these print publications, instead refute the FACTS as presented. Can you?
Never mind the demographic change leading to the claims of fewer and fewer working to pay for more and more seniors, since that's a red herring. Think about it, what do you think will be the result of the huge immigrant wave currently engulfing America? Will these immigrants not pay into the social security trust fund in years hence? Social Security is NOT in danger of going bankrupt, it is general revenues which have been in deficit for over forty years and that is what's bankrupting America. You're paying a tax that is only levied against $86K/yr, while those who earn more pay nothing above this, and all that wealth is being transferred to the General Account to pay for general services while our congressional representatives dream up ways to destroy the primary benefits those taxes were created to fund.
That would be "The Rich" who don't pay this tax.
Does that even come close
I simply can't understand this line of reasoning. Bush cut income, estate, and dividend taxes, targeting the cuts disproportionately at the wealthy investor class. He did not cut payroll taxes. Certainly people who pay payroll taxes are also "PAY[ing] TAXES", are they not? And isn't it true that payroll taxes generate a huge surplus in the social security trust fund, while income taxes don't pay anywhere near enough into the general account to pay for basic governmental services? Are we not running a deficit?
Now you may argue that payroll taxes are collected strictly to pay out social services and are not collected for general revenue or spent on general services, as such they shouldn't be cut. However, this isn't the case. In fact the HUGE SURPLUS of $200B/yr is siphoned off to reduce our general account deficit. In fact, the currently stated $450B (4.5%GDP) deficit would actually be $650B (6.5%GDP) were it not for the surplus generated from payroll taxes. Note that payroll tax collections are capped at $86K/yr, meaning that any income above $86K/yr is not taxed; this is called a regressive tax because collections don't continue linearly across all income streams. The rich pay much less proportionally for payroll taxes than do you or I.
Realize that general revenues pay for basic government services such as the military, infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, rail, etc), NASA, and government overhead - NOT social services. So, I wonder how anyone can defend a tax cut that reduces revenue from a general account which is already $650B/yr in deficit? And the gall of claiming that it is done on the grounds that income taxes are somehow 'real' while payroll taxes don't matter, when it is the payroll tax surplus which covers 1/3rd of our current account deficit.
Whatever you may think of the rationality of providing social services (I support them, you may not, either opinion is legitimate political debate), certainly you agree that general services slated for payment through income taxes should collect enough on their own to pay for those services. We should not be running a 6.5% GDP deficit (or even a 4.5% GDP deficit) while at the same time cutting the very taxes slated to pay for those services. That the current administration claims to cut these taxes for the people who "PAY TAXES", while at the same time cutting no taxes for those who pay a regressive tax, is simply disingenuous and offensive.
And I haven't even begun discussing our current foreign trade deficit, which is another +5% of GDP. Frankly, if this continues Bush's administration may well take America over the brink into bankruptcy. We're already printing money to prevent 'deflation', the Treasury Department has signaled it's willingness to let the dollar continue to depreciate in value against other foreign currencies, and our manufacturing base is running 1/4 idle.
IMO, these tax cuts are a policy mess. Bush and the fed are 'pushing on a string' with their policy blunders by flooding the investment streets with money while there's nothing left to invest in. We should be pushing the money down to the individual low income tax payers to stir consumption, not further investment and development with no buyers in sight.
Cheers,
--Maynard
How is that relevant to the factual basis of his statements? rms uses specific language and terminology because he knows this frames the debate and underlying assumptions to best make his case. This is no different from any other PR message. That you dislike his looks (which is a personal matter) makes little difference to the debate at hand (other than as a smear).
rms is certainly a quirky character, with idiosyncrasies that some may find offensive. But any fair observer must agree he has worked his ass off building and creating that which he fervently believes is ethically right. I believe this deserves honest credit. Anyone who uses GNU software should thank him and the FSF for the hard work they've accomplished. And if you disagree with his stated opinions and assumptions, say so. I certainly won't use the term GNU/Linux, whatever he may think. But I thank him just the same.
Cheers,
--Maynard