"Very little. But lets me clear here, the question was whether this law in and of itself makes a country substantially more free than the United States; which is a much higher standard than if it is harmful or not."
Free is a funny word. How do you measure the amount of "freedom" in a country. Do you measure the number of laws, the percentage of people in jail, the existance of the death penalty, the severity of punishment for seemingly minor infractions, what? No matter how you define "freedom" I think you will find that the US is behind dozens of countries in the freedom scale.
"f homosexual couples are in general raising children together (in a permanent or semi-permanent fashion) then I do think that marriage makes sense. To the best of my knowledge this behavior is fairly rare and anecdotal; if that underlying premise is false then absolutely the conclusion that gay marriage doesn't really accomplish anything becomes false."
Well undoubtably marriage gives a couple rights over and above single people living together. There is no reasonable argument for denying those rights to homosexuals in a free country.
As for children that might be a chicken and egg problem. The reason homosexuals (especially lesbians) don't raise more children is because they are not allowed to adopt. If they were allowed to adopt more of them might be raising children. Also artificial insemination is a deliberate act whereas most children are born from accidental copulations. If it was as hard for heterosexuals to have children as homosexuals then you would see a lot less children in the world.
"What exactly do same sex couples need from a marriage that they can't get from living together and owning a house jointly?"
Tax breaks, insurance, inheritance, all kinds of legal rights.
I'll rephrase the question for you. Since a homosexual marriage would be no different then a childless heterosexual marriage what possible harm could come of it? If a homosexual couple decide to have kid by a surragate or adoption then what?
First of all there is a marriage penalty in taxes (in the US). When you have children then you get some tax breaks.
Secondly I really don't see why people should get a tax break just because they want to have kids. In fact they should get taxed more because the kids get educated on the backs of the tax payers.
"Second, I am not a Mozilla developer, so that won't be happening anytime soon"
You don't have to be a mozilla developer. Writing install scripts, javascript, or xul is pretty easy for just about anybody. Hell even if you simply documented what to do it would be a HUGE help.
"Modifications to the source *should* be made/will likely be required. "
Once again this is not true. There are many posts on this subject now which explain what needs to get done and none of them require source changes.
"MacOSX already handles users and seperating settings between users - it follows that Mozilla should use these more refined more standard methods rather than invent their own."
I am going to try a few experiments but I bet I can even use a centralized install of mozilla. Just install it in one place and have multiple users use it.
" It is just a undeniable reality that the web is chock full of wrongly-coded, badly-coded, intentionally-broken code, and it is important that any browser degrade gracefully under such circumstances[, at which Mozilla does a very respectable job]."
The web will continue to be filled with crappy HTML until enough people stop using IE.
"As IE is already installed on all Windows desktops already, and since all websites are written with IE as the target, he is setting himself up for a rude awakening."
This does not jibe with my experience. Maybe one or two percent of the web sites I ever visit don't work with mozilla. I just skip them, if the guy who wrote the website is that much of a moron there can't possibly be anything valuable at that web site.
" Now thats not really accurate, is it? Sure, the original poster ovev stated in that C++ isn't likely, but it seems very likely that there will be editing of config files, manual tweaking of preferences files, and probably a bit of scripting to make this work. If what the original guy wanted was readily available, he wouldn't be posting the question to Slashdot, would he?"
No he was lying. He said you needed to mess with the C code and recompile. That was a lie and he/she is a liar.
" I think the bigger issue here is why doesn't the Mozilla project have a better Administrators toolkit that is routinely kept up to date? Its a pretty big oversight as Mozilla moves more from the geeks desktop to the corporate multi-platform environment. "
Because nobody hasn't gotten around to writing it yet. Why don't you pitch in and start. Up to now the mozilla folks have been working on little things like speed and features. Eventually they will start worrying about the "enterprise" user.
" Hopefully this whole article will spur development by the core Mozilla team and get them moving towards better customization+deployment as a defacto-part of Mozilla, just like IE."
I would say that Moz already has IE beat in that regard because it does not spew itself all over the hard drive and requires minimal install. Just install, customize and zip it up. A simple VB script ought to take care of most situations handily. Again something you can pitch in and help with. Get going and jump on in, here is a big opportunity to make an impact.
Netscape probably owns the code. IIRC it required an ldap server. It sure would be nice to get it back though, so many people have laptops that it would be Yet Another Thing Mozilla Can Do That IE Can't.
"The things the guy is asking for just isn't availiable with mozilla without jumping hoops through source code."
Liar. It certainly is possible to do it without messing with code.
"Arguably there might be a moral dilema in using IEAK, but getting his solution deployed quickly might actually outweigh any moral obligations he might feel."
If you are able to sell your moral convictions then you never had them in the first place.
The declared dividend will not eat into their cash reserve very much.
I think Bill was waiting for George to implement what Bill told him to do (remove taxes from dividends). This way Bill and the other handful of MS bigwig stock holders can collect the cash without being taxed on it.
Well I realized that but it does not answer my question. Why bother doing such a thing. If you goal is to advance open source then why not leave better products like mozilla only running in linux? That way you actually encourage people switching to linux.
People who use windows often pirate copies of commercial software so they don't need or want open source software.
Even if a an open source software was clearly superior to a windows equivalent (zope, apache, postgres etc) why make it so that it runs on windows. Aren't you discouraging people from using linux by doing that?
" Well, we haven't experienced a catastrophic worldwide depression like in the 1930's but we have had recession and economic hardships."
Right and if we did not have worldwide system of public assistance every single one of those would have turned into a depression.
" Yes, and if we tax people and take their money away to provide for these services, there isn't as much money for people to spend."
No not quite true. If you get rid of all welfare then the poor will resort to crime. Thefts, murders, drugs will all increase as the poor will rob to eat and to sustain themselves. Given a choice between dying or stealing people will steal. All the money you saved by not paying welfare will be spent on increased spending on law enforcement. Widespread poverty will also result in a health problem when people will live on the streets, die on the streets, and shit and piss on the streets. You will spend more money on healthcare as people get sick more often. I don't mean the poor who will simply die of disease I mean the middle class who will not be able to avoid walking on the streets on which people die and defecate. Lest you think this is some kind of a worst case scenario I will point out that this is already happening in most major cities due to the economic downturn.
Also of course when the poor become truly destitute they stop buying altogether which will also further economic downturn. In fact it will cause a negative feedback mechanism which will spiral the economy in an ever downward path requiring massive govt spending or another world war to come out of it.
I firmly believe that if the welfare system did not exist we would have suffered through at least one if not two or three more depressions sinse then. In fact I think we would probably be going through one now. Consumer spending has been the only thing keeping the economy from spiraling out of control.
Well I don't want to belabor the point but what kind of a "flashy" car can you buy for 20k? Especially after the govt takes half in taxes. Also consider that you can make that in one day selling crack.
I think at least a 100K. make it aimed at males 18 to 35. If you are male 10 to 35 and you agree to get a reversible procedure (even a vasectomy is reversible) you get 100K from the govt. I think the govt would go broke because every male would take the deal. Young guys don't want kids anyway and this will make sure they don't accidentally get one. They can then take to money pay for a collage education.
"Nothing at all. I read in the NYT today that the top 1% of Americans earn 18% of the money, but pay 25% of the taxes. And in the Washington Post the other day, it said that 5% of Americans pay 41% of the taxes."
Sure you can slice the pie in many ways but the upper 1% is probably something like 10 people. I think if you made some arbitrary but realtively logical slices then calculate the money earned and tax accordingly then you'd have a pretty fair system. Take simple progression for example. top 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 percent and make sure they pay the same rate of taxes as they earn. It wouln't be that hard.
"I simply think that everyone who receives an equal service from the government should contribute an equal amount to it. What is wrong with that?:-)"
Here is what's wrong. Let's say bill gates lost 99% of his money and now only had one billion dollars. DO you think he could live a pretty good life with that kind of money? Sure. Now take a guy who makes 30K and let him lose 10% of his money (3K). Guess what that's a couple of months of mortgage and he could lose his house, his family might go hungry, his power and phone will be cut off. In other words he will suffer greatly.
"At the most basic level, it isn't, because the planet is not a closed thermodynamic system."
True.
"A fully-grown plant is worth more than a seed, but the energy, from the perspective of Earth, is free."
True.
"You can cut down a tree, build something, and wait for the tree to grow back and build something else."
Ah but there is the rub. There are too many humans who want too many things for trees to be sustainably harvested. Sustainibilty is the key and we don't have it. Whether it's trees, oil, coal, soil, water or any natural resource it is being harvested at a much faster rate then it is being replenished.
"If you have energy, clean water is essentially unlimited,"
But you don't have unlimited energy.
"unless you actually need the entire volume of the ocean for something."
Yes you need the plankton to make you oxygen, you need the ocean to control the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I don't think there is any doubt that the loss of the oceans would end almost all life on this planet.
"Ovarian cancer, testicular cancer, breast cancer, etc. are treatable. Stomach cancer isn't. So why not put the money spent on 'treating' stomach cancer into... Geez, just about anything else."
At one time all cancers were untreatable. Lots of money was spent and not most cancers can at least be treated to some degree. The reason you spend money stomach cancer is to learn how to treat it.
"If my understanding is correct, you are saying that environmental pollutants cause cancer? "
I am saying it contributes along with various other poisons we put into our bodies. It all adds up the pollution in the air, water, preservatives, various chemicals we expose ourselves to every day including all kinds of pesticides and herbicides. Are you prepared to say that pollution, preservatives, pestices etc have absolutely no contributing effects on the increased rate of cancer and other chronic diseases (like allergies) in the US?
"Unless there is some sanity brought to the courts, expect more strikes like those in WVa. and PA"
Well this is a tough call. These awards are determined by juries so there has to be some reason for awarding them. It seems silly to say to people "sorry the doctor cut off the wrong leg, now we are going to cut off the one we should have and send you on your way. Have a nice day!". If a doctor makes a mistake they ought to pay for it.
As for the doctors striking that's a union issue. The doctors have a union (the AMA) and if the union stays powerful and organized they may get their way. OTOH just as President Reagan destroyed the Air Traffic Controller union and fired them the states could revoke the licenses of the doctors and forbid them from practising in the state.
"Now, if I am correct, the libertarians have a solution to correctly placing costs on polluters: the private lawsuit. I'd rather pay that bill in the purchase of my car and electric bill than in my taxes."
I for one believe that moving the trials from criminal to civil court would be a huge mistake. The corporations are too powerful to sue (especially if you pass tort reform) and they can afford to drag you through the system till you go broke. You can't possibly be for settling things in civil court and tort refom simultaniously.
"let's look at the tobacco settlement"
your state like mine and all others is full of corrupt politicians. Where is the news in that?
Slashdot Mirror
"Who knows, maybe Joel's wrong."
Has he ever been wrong before? I have read a few of his writing and I wasn't impressed. It's not like he is some sort of a deity or something.
I am curious as to why you would site him as some sort of an infallible source.
"Very little. But lets me clear here, the question was whether this law in and of itself makes a country substantially more free than the United States; which is a much higher standard than if it is harmful or not."
Free is a funny word. How do you measure the amount of "freedom" in a country. Do you measure the number of laws, the percentage of people in jail, the existance of the death penalty, the severity of punishment for seemingly minor infractions, what? No matter how you define "freedom" I think you will find that the US is behind dozens of countries in the freedom scale.
"f homosexual couples are in general raising children together (in a permanent or semi-permanent fashion) then I do think that marriage makes sense. To the best of my knowledge this behavior is fairly rare and anecdotal; if that underlying premise is false then absolutely the conclusion that gay marriage doesn't really accomplish anything becomes false."
Well undoubtably marriage gives a couple rights over and above single people living together. There is no reasonable argument for denying those rights to homosexuals in a free country.
As for children that might be a chicken and egg problem. The reason homosexuals (especially lesbians) don't raise more children is because they are not allowed to adopt. If they were allowed to adopt more of them might be raising children. Also artificial insemination is a deliberate act whereas most children are born from accidental copulations. If it was as hard for heterosexuals to have children as homosexuals then you would see a lot less children in the world.
"What exactly do same sex couples need from a marriage that they can't get from living together and owning a house jointly?"
Tax breaks, insurance, inheritance, all kinds of legal rights.
I'll rephrase the question for you. Since a homosexual marriage would be no different then a childless heterosexual marriage what possible harm could come of it? If a homosexual couple decide to have kid by a surragate or adoption then what?
First of all there is a marriage penalty in taxes (in the US). When you have children then you get some tax breaks.
Secondly I really don't see why people should get a tax break just because they want to have kids. In fact they should get taxed more because the kids get educated on the backs of the tax payers.
There is nothing Saddam or anybody else on this planet can do to stop GW from invading Iraq.
"Second, I am not a Mozilla developer, so that won't be happening anytime soon"
You don't have to be a mozilla developer. Writing install scripts, javascript, or xul is pretty easy for just about anybody. Hell even if you simply documented what to do it would be a HUGE help.
"Modifications to the source *should* be made/will likely be required. "
Once again this is not true. There are many posts on this subject now which explain what needs to get done and none of them require source changes.
"MacOSX already handles users and seperating settings between users - it follows that Mozilla should use these more refined more standard methods rather than invent their own."
I am going to try a few experiments but I bet I can even use a centralized install of mozilla. Just install it in one place and have multiple users use it.
Where have you been? The best way to get modded up on slashdot is to encourage the use of MS products or the extol the virtue of MS products.
As for benefits I would say not having to patch IE every two weeks is a pretty good benefit.
" It is just a undeniable reality that the web is chock full of wrongly-coded, badly-coded, intentionally-broken code, and it is important that any browser degrade gracefully under such circumstances[, at which Mozilla does a very respectable job]."
The web will continue to be filled with crappy HTML until enough people stop using IE.
"As IE is already installed on all Windows desktops already, and since all websites are written with IE as the target, he is setting himself up for a rude awakening."
This does not jibe with my experience. Maybe one or two percent of the web sites I ever visit don't work with mozilla. I just skip them, if the guy who wrote the website is that much of a moron there can't possibly be anything valuable at that web site.
" Now thats not really accurate, is it? Sure, the original poster ovev stated in that C++ isn't likely, but it seems very likely that there will be editing of config files, manual tweaking of preferences files, and probably a bit of scripting to make this work. If what the original guy wanted was readily available, he wouldn't be posting the question to Slashdot, would he?"
No he was lying. He said you needed to mess with the C code and recompile. That was a lie and he/she is a liar.
" I think the bigger issue here is why doesn't the Mozilla project have a better Administrators toolkit that is routinely kept up to date? Its a pretty big oversight as Mozilla moves more from the geeks desktop to the corporate multi-platform environment. "
Because nobody hasn't gotten around to writing it yet. Why don't you pitch in and start. Up to now the mozilla folks have been working on little things like speed and features. Eventually they will start worrying about the "enterprise" user.
" Hopefully this whole article will spur development by the core Mozilla team and get them moving towards better customization+deployment as a defacto-part of Mozilla, just like IE."
I would say that Moz already has IE beat in that regard because it does not spew itself all over the hard drive and requires minimal install. Just install, customize and zip it up. A simple VB script ought to take care of most situations handily. Again something you can pitch in and help with. Get going and jump on in, here is a big opportunity to make an impact.
Netscape probably owns the code. IIRC it required an ldap server. It sure would be nice to get it back though, so many people have laptops that it would be Yet Another Thing Mozilla Can Do That IE Can't.
"The things the guy is asking for just isn't availiable with mozilla without jumping hoops through source code."
Liar. It certainly is possible to do it without messing with code.
"Arguably there might be a moral dilema in using IEAK, but getting his solution deployed quickly might actually outweigh any moral obligations he might feel."
If you are able to sell your moral convictions then you never had them in the first place.
The declared dividend will not eat into their cash reserve very much.
I think Bill was waiting for George to implement what Bill told him to do (remove taxes from dividends). This way Bill and the other handful of MS bigwig stock holders can collect the cash without being taxed on it.
And of course it will be done with a Mac.
What difference does it make where the evidence is presented? Why don't you instead ask if the evidence is stong.
"Jammers are great, until the high-explosive warheads start homing in on your signal."
Hell you don't need fancy electronic devices to get warheads homing in your city you just have to live in Iraq.
Because a really good program can drive the adoption of an operating system.
Well I realized that but it does not answer my question. Why bother doing such a thing. If you goal is to advance open source then why not leave better products like mozilla only running in linux? That way you actually encourage people switching to linux.
Windows already runs more software then linux.
People who use windows often pirate copies of commercial software so they don't need or want open source software.
Even if a an open source software was clearly superior to a windows equivalent (zope, apache, postgres etc) why make it so that it runs on windows. Aren't you discouraging people from using linux by doing that?
Why did Rhomas get 20 times the money other justices did? COuld the timing of this case have anything to do with it?
" Well, we haven't experienced a catastrophic worldwide depression like in the 1930's but we have had recession and economic hardships."
Right and if we did not have worldwide system of public assistance every single one of those would have turned into a depression.
" Yes, and if we tax people and take their money away to provide for these services, there isn't as much money for people to spend."
No not quite true. If you get rid of all welfare then the poor will resort to crime. Thefts, murders, drugs will all increase as the poor will rob to eat and to sustain themselves. Given a choice between dying or stealing people will steal. All the money you saved by not paying welfare will be spent on increased spending on law enforcement. Widespread poverty will also result in a health problem when people will live on the streets, die on the streets, and shit and piss on the streets. You will spend more money on healthcare as people get sick more often. I don't mean the poor who will simply die of disease I mean the middle class who will not be able to avoid walking on the streets on which people die and defecate. Lest you think this is some kind of a worst case scenario I will point out that this is already happening in most major cities due to the economic downturn.
Also of course when the poor become truly destitute they stop buying altogether which will also further economic downturn. In fact it will cause a negative feedback mechanism which will spiral the economy in an ever downward path requiring massive govt spending or another world war to come out of it.
I firmly believe that if the welfare system did not exist we would have suffered through at least one if not two or three more depressions sinse then. In fact I think we would probably be going through one now. Consumer spending has been the only thing keeping the economy from spiraling out of control.
Well I don't want to belabor the point but what kind of a "flashy" car can you buy for 20k? Especially after the govt takes half in taxes. Also consider that you can make that in one day selling crack.
I think at least a 100K. make it aimed at males 18 to 35. If you are male 10 to 35 and you agree to get a reversible procedure (even a vasectomy is reversible) you get 100K from the govt. I think the govt would go broke because every male would take the deal. Young guys don't want kids anyway and this will make sure they don't accidentally get one. They can then take to money pay for a collage education.
"Nothing at all. I read in the NYT today that the top 1% of Americans earn 18% of the money, but pay 25% of the taxes. And in the Washington Post the other day, it said that 5% of Americans pay 41% of the taxes."
:-)"
Sure you can slice the pie in many ways but the upper 1% is probably something like 10 people. I think if you made some arbitrary but realtively logical slices then calculate the money earned and tax accordingly then you'd have a pretty fair system. Take simple progression for example. top 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 percent and make sure they pay the same rate of taxes as they earn. It wouln't be that hard.
"I simply think that everyone who receives an equal service from the government should contribute an equal amount to it. What is wrong with that?
Here is what's wrong. Let's say bill gates lost 99% of his money and now only had one billion dollars. DO you think he could live a pretty good life with that kind of money? Sure. Now take a guy who makes 30K and let him lose 10% of his money (3K). Guess what that's a couple of months of mortgage and he could lose his house, his family might go hungry, his power and phone will be cut off. In other words he will suffer greatly.
"At the most basic level, it isn't, because the planet is not a closed thermodynamic system."
True.
"A fully-grown plant is worth more than a seed, but the energy, from the perspective of Earth, is free."
True.
"You can cut down a tree, build something, and wait for the tree to grow back and build something else."
Ah but there is the rub. There are too many humans who want too many things for trees to be sustainably harvested. Sustainibilty is the key and we don't have it. Whether it's trees, oil, coal, soil, water or any natural resource it is being harvested at a much faster rate then it is being replenished.
"If you have energy, clean water is essentially unlimited,"
But you don't have unlimited energy.
"unless you actually need the entire volume of the ocean for something."
Yes you need the plankton to make you oxygen, you need the ocean to control the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I don't think there is any doubt that the loss of the oceans would end almost all life on this planet.
In that case they have not yet cracked the upper middle class barrier. They are still middle class folks. 100K just ain't what it used to be.
"Ovarian cancer, testicular cancer, breast cancer, etc. are treatable. Stomach cancer isn't. So why not put the money spent on 'treating' stomach cancer into... Geez, just about anything else."
At one time all cancers were untreatable. Lots of money was spent and not most cancers can at least be treated to some degree. The reason you spend money stomach cancer is to learn how to treat it.
"If my understanding is correct, you are saying that environmental pollutants cause cancer? "
I am saying it contributes along with various other poisons we put into our bodies. It all adds up the pollution in the air, water, preservatives, various chemicals we expose ourselves to every day including all kinds of pesticides and herbicides. Are you prepared to say that pollution, preservatives, pestices etc have absolutely no contributing effects on the increased rate of cancer and other chronic diseases (like allergies) in the US?
"Unless there is some sanity brought to the courts, expect more strikes like those in WVa. and PA"
Well this is a tough call. These awards are determined by juries so there has to be some reason for awarding them. It seems silly to say to people "sorry the doctor cut off the wrong leg, now we are going to cut off the one we should have and send you on your way. Have a nice day!". If a doctor makes a mistake they ought to pay for it.
As for the doctors striking that's a union issue. The doctors have a union (the AMA) and if the union stays powerful and organized they may get their way. OTOH just as President Reagan destroyed the Air Traffic Controller union and fired them the states could revoke the licenses of the doctors and forbid them from practising in the state.
"Now, if I am correct, the libertarians have a solution to correctly placing costs on polluters: the private lawsuit. I'd rather pay that bill in the purchase of my car and electric bill than in my taxes."
I for one believe that moving the trials from criminal to civil court would be a huge mistake. The corporations are too powerful to sue (especially if you pass tort reform) and they can afford to drag you through the system till you go broke. You can't possibly be for settling things in civil court and tort refom simultaniously.
"let's look at the tobacco settlement"
your state like mine and all others is full of corrupt politicians. Where is the news in that?