I can't speak for everyone, but I find education quite entertaining. There are times where I'll be reading Wikipedia for hours, engrossed in all the stuff there is to read about.
Maybe that's the difference between something being entertaining and being interesting.
Just like how we factor in inflation when comparing monetary values from different time periods, you have to factor in population growth when comparing death rates.
For example, if the global population was less than 0.5 billion, a thousand years ago, and it is 6 billion now, then one would have to kill 12 times the amount of people now, to have a comparable affect.
But maybe that's just because most wars now seem to be for arbitrary political reasons, whereas a stuggle for local resources against a competing tribe might trigger different emotional and hormonal responses.
As much as people like to quote the macintouch surveys, they are still self-selected unverified Internet studies. As such, they are not useful for any real-world decision making, any more than Slashdot polls.
Macintouch claims that this is not a problem, but they have no way to support that claim.
This would be more useful than a slashdot poll since it has a communicated serious intent, whereas slashdot polls do not.
Plus, one need not have a fully scientific study done to know to avoid a product or not. Annecdotal evidence seems to be enough for most people, so this would still be a better source of information than people would usually have access to.
It being self-selecting is not a problem, it's an asset, because the readership is of the same type of self-selected group as the polled participants. By that, I mean, as technical users we prefer information gathered from other technical users, since we trust that more than information from clueless users.
I know it sounds cool to hold everything up to some sort of scientifically rigorous standard, but for most people that's not actually necessary for choosing how to plop down less than $2000.
Not only are those measures unlikely, as you've noted, but they are impractical. Trusts and corporations have their legitimate purposes. And I'm not convinced that it makes sense to put the burden of our society, so disproportionately, on the rich.
This is why I think it's very important to focus on the most effective measures first, because we can all drown our efforts in ineffective and potentially counterproductive measures, like what you have described.
Also, a system should benefit from, but not depend on, having honest people in charge. The US system of checks and balances is a clear acknowledgement of this reality. Focus on incremental reform of your political system, instead of hoping for broad sweeping revolutionary changes. Because in any great change, there is little oversight for the many small mistakes.
In Canada, our previous Prime Minister, Jean Cretien, pushed through some legislation a few years ago to limit corporate political donations. Now parties have to rely much more on individual donations. And there are caps so that no individual can give a very large amount. I'm positive that this will reduce corruption, more and more, over time.
Another problem common to the USA and Canada is that many federal ridings are effectively uncontested. That is to say, one can say with certainty which party will win in the vast majority of ridings. These boundaries tend to be geographic in nature, and cement regional divisions. If we could implement some form of limited proportional representation, then we could enter a new era. No longer would crappy politicians be guaranteed to get into office merely because they run under the favoured party. The USA could break the back of the two party system. Maybe then someone who is fiscally conservative would not be limited to voting for someone who is socially conservative. Or, put another way, someone who enjoys freedom won't be limited to voting for someone who wants to blow all our money on who knows what.
I don't want to get sucked into a Liberal Party vs Conservative Party debate here. But suffice to say, I am not impressed with either party's platform decisions this election. Both are vying as to who can come up with the best way to spend billions of dollars. Well, here's my novel approach: Don't spend it. Leave things as they are, and put any excess money towards paying down the debt. It sounds pretty boring, and it'll get a little repetitive trying to sell that idea for the next decade. But hey, once the debt is gone, then we'll actually truly have money that we can argue as to how to spend on whatever.
I've heard that in the USA, the cities have to talk directly to the feds for funding. In Canada, the cities belong to the provinces. So in our system it's a little easier to see what each level is responsible for.
Regardless of what level pays for what, I believe that the local expenditures that directly affect our quality of life, are a fraction of our total taxes. The majority of taxes, in Canada and the USA, go towards either debt interest payments, or to programs that I think should be reevaluated. And it might not be simple, there may be a lot of tough calls, where that money is helping someone, but it still has to be taken away.
I'm not so sure that rejigging the tax structure is the way forward. That won't solve the problem, it only has the potential for changing the problem. So you come up with a way to make the progressive income tax system penalise the rich even more. Well then they'll just move their assets into corporations and trusts, so they have no income.
I agree that there's no sense cutting some things to the bone, while other more blatant problems remain. The most gregarious offenders should be targetted first.
I'm going to respond to your list of things we'd lose without taxes. As such, I'm not commenting on what other things each level of government provides. I don't know about you Americans, but here in Canada we have municipal, provincial and federal taxes.
I spend around $1000 a year in property taxes to pay for intracity roads, police, fire department, primary education, and garbage pickup.
My provincial taxes are around $6800 and pay for secondary education, and intercity roads.
My federal taxes are around $8000 and pay for military, and our social security equivalent.
Can you see the pattern here? The lowest level of government pays for the stuff that I need the most, at the least cost. Each higher level of government costs more and more for things that I need less and less. And I'm not even counting all the taxes that the province and the feds get off of my employer.
The real bitch is that I know that most of my federal taxes are going to paying interest on debt. If the baby boomer generation hadn't sunken us all into this hole, then I could easily have $3000 less taxes right there.
The solution, chronologically, is quite straightforward:
1. Spend less. This is hard, and it hurts. Tough luck.
2. Pay down debt. Free us from the interest yoke.
3. Reduce taxes. With no debt, we can afford to reduce taxes.
Yes, of course we've designed that in. *whispers to assistant* Right? *response* Well, we were going to, in version 2.0 Ummm, I'm going to have to get back to you on that one. *commotion, as they quickly shuffle away*
If we say that it is open to interpretation because it only has some nice stories, then what parts do we follow and what parts are just there as example? This leaves a wide door open for man's imperfect interjection of man's own beliefs.
Since Jesus taught almost exclusively in parables, one would think that would answer your question of whether to follow a literal interpretation or an allegorical one.
Plus, Jesus made a point of superceding all those anal little rules with two very simple yet broad and interpretable ones. ( http://www.bible.com/bible/Bcommand.html )
So, I'm sorry, but if you want to call yourself a Christian ( ala Jesus Christ ), then you pretty much have to deal with these questions of interpretation, and ditch the literal cop-out.
If there's some secret key on the CD that is verified to make the game run, then why not include an app on the CD that can generate a time limited key that's put on the hard drive. That way I can at least go for a trip with my iBook, and not have to have the CD for that time period.
It would be just as secure as the current system, but would remove the excuse for so called legitimate cracking.
Microsoft fosters innovation indirectly. Their hegemony over operating systems creates a single target platform for others to standardise on, freeing these third parties to focus on their problem domain.
This is good. It will force the protocol to adapt. Think of all the legitimate users of bittorrent who gain all of these improvements made necessary by the copyright infringers.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus there's the issue of the sarcophagus making them insane.
Wow, things are really simple, and people all follow the rules in your world.
Sorry about the problems with iTunes on Linux. But, you can download ICEpdf, a Java based PDF viewer, for free:
http://download.icesoft.com/newregistration.php
Presumably that's bounded by earth's population...
That's only because:
A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.
Nonbiologists say "adapt" where a biologist would say "aclimatise"
I can't speak for everyone, but I find education quite entertaining. There are times where I'll be reading Wikipedia for hours, engrossed in all the stuff there is to read about.
Maybe that's the difference between something being entertaining and being interesting.
Just like how we factor in inflation when comparing monetary values from different time periods, you have to factor in population growth when comparing death rates.
For example, if the global population was less than 0.5 billion, a thousand years ago, and it is 6 billion now, then one would have to kill 12 times the amount of people now, to have a comparable affect.
But maybe that's just because most wars now seem to be for arbitrary political reasons, whereas a stuggle for local resources against a competing tribe might trigger different emotional and hormonal responses.
As much as people like to quote the macintouch surveys, they are still self-selected unverified Internet studies. As such, they are not useful for any real-world decision making, any more than Slashdot polls.
Macintouch claims that this is not a problem, but they have no way to support that claim.
This would be more useful than a slashdot poll since it has a communicated serious intent, whereas slashdot polls do not.
Plus, one need not have a fully scientific study done to know to avoid a product or not. Annecdotal evidence seems to be enough for most people, so this would still be a better source of information than people would usually have access to.
It being self-selecting is not a problem, it's an asset, because the readership is of the same type of self-selected group as the polled participants. By that, I mean, as technical users we prefer information gathered from other technical users, since we trust that more than information from clueless users.
I know it sounds cool to hold everything up to some sort of scientifically rigorous standard, but for most people that's not actually necessary for choosing how to plop down less than $2000.
Not only are those measures unlikely, as you've noted, but they are impractical. Trusts and corporations have their legitimate purposes. And I'm not convinced that it makes sense to put the burden of our society, so disproportionately, on the rich.
This is why I think it's very important to focus on the most effective measures first, because we can all drown our efforts in ineffective and potentially counterproductive measures, like what you have described.
Also, a system should benefit from, but not depend on, having honest people in charge. The US system of checks and balances is a clear acknowledgement of this reality. Focus on incremental reform of your political system, instead of hoping for broad sweeping revolutionary changes. Because in any great change, there is little oversight for the many small mistakes.
In Canada, our previous Prime Minister, Jean Cretien, pushed through some legislation a few years ago to limit corporate political donations. Now parties have to rely much more on individual donations. And there are caps so that no individual can give a very large amount. I'm positive that this will reduce corruption, more and more, over time.
Another problem common to the USA and Canada is that many federal ridings are effectively uncontested. That is to say, one can say with certainty which party will win in the vast majority of ridings. These boundaries tend to be geographic in nature, and cement regional divisions. If we could implement some form of limited proportional representation, then we could enter a new era. No longer would crappy politicians be guaranteed to get into office merely because they run under the favoured party. The USA could break the back of the two party system. Maybe then someone who is fiscally conservative would not be limited to voting for someone who is socially conservative. Or, put another way, someone who enjoys freedom won't be limited to voting for someone who wants to blow all our money on who knows what.
I don't want to get sucked into a Liberal Party vs Conservative Party debate here. But suffice to say, I am not impressed with either party's platform decisions this election. Both are vying as to who can come up with the best way to spend billions of dollars. Well, here's my novel approach: Don't spend it. Leave things as they are, and put any excess money towards paying down the debt. It sounds pretty boring, and it'll get a little repetitive trying to sell that idea for the next decade. But hey, once the debt is gone, then we'll actually truly have money that we can argue as to how to spend on whatever.
I've heard that in the USA, the cities have to talk directly to the feds for funding. In Canada, the cities belong to the provinces. So in our system it's a little easier to see what each level is responsible for.
Regardless of what level pays for what, I believe that the local expenditures that directly affect our quality of life, are a fraction of our total taxes. The majority of taxes, in Canada and the USA, go towards either debt interest payments, or to programs that I think should be reevaluated. And it might not be simple, there may be a lot of tough calls, where that money is helping someone, but it still has to be taken away.
I'm not so sure that rejigging the tax structure is the way forward. That won't solve the problem, it only has the potential for changing the problem. So you come up with a way to make the progressive income tax system penalise the rich even more. Well then they'll just move their assets into corporations and trusts, so they have no income.
I agree that there's no sense cutting some things to the bone, while other more blatant problems remain. The most gregarious offenders should be targetted first.
I'm going to respond to your list of things we'd lose without taxes. As such, I'm not commenting on what other things each level of government provides. I don't know about you Americans, but here in Canada we have municipal, provincial and federal taxes.
I spend around $1000 a year in property taxes to pay for intracity roads, police, fire department, primary education, and garbage pickup.
My provincial taxes are around $6800 and pay for secondary education, and intercity roads.
My federal taxes are around $8000 and pay for military, and our social security equivalent.
Can you see the pattern here? The lowest level of government pays for the stuff that I need the most, at the least cost. Each higher level of government costs more and more for things that I need less and less. And I'm not even counting all the taxes that the province and the feds get off of my employer.
The real bitch is that I know that most of my federal taxes are going to paying interest on debt. If the baby boomer generation hadn't sunken us all into this hole, then I could easily have $3000 less taxes right there.
The solution, chronologically, is quite straightforward:
1. Spend less. This is hard, and it hurts. Tough luck.
2. Pay down debt. Free us from the interest yoke.
3. Reduce taxes. With no debt, we can afford to reduce taxes.
Yes, of course we've designed that in.
*whispers to assistant* Right?
*response* Well, we were going to, in version 2.0
Ummm, I'm going to have to get back to you on that one.
*commotion, as they quickly shuffle away*
There is no such thing as "they can always just hire a code monkey to hand-tune it with assembler".
If we say that it is open to interpretation because it only has some nice stories, then what parts do we follow and what parts are just there as example? This leaves a wide door open for man's imperfect interjection of man's own beliefs.
Since Jesus taught almost exclusively in parables, one would think that would answer your question of whether to follow a literal interpretation or an allegorical one.
Plus, Jesus made a point of superceding all those anal little rules with two very simple yet broad and interpretable ones. ( http://www.bible.com/bible/Bcommand.html )
So, I'm sorry, but if you want to call yourself a Christian ( ala Jesus Christ ), then you pretty much have to deal with these questions of interpretation, and ditch the literal cop-out.
You are my hero for the day.
Pfff. I, on the other hand, have no morals, and so have pirated my copy of Debian GNU/Linux, just to stick it to the man!
(Maybe there should be an option to mod a post: -1 Retarded Joke)
If there's some secret key on the CD that is verified to make the game run, then why not include an app on the CD that can generate a time limited key that's put on the hard drive. That way I can at least go for a trip with my iBook, and not have to have the CD for that time period.
It would be just as secure as the current system, but would remove the excuse for so called legitimate cracking.
Microsoft fosters innovation indirectly. Their hegemony over operating systems creates a single target platform for others to standardise on, freeing these third parties to focus on their problem domain.
This is good. It will force the protocol to adapt. Think of all the legitimate users of bittorrent who gain all of these improvements made necessary by the copyright infringers.
They should make diapers with this, so when your baby pees itself, you'd know to change their diaper before they have to cry.
Oh, and blue LEDs would like up on their crotch, because that would be cool, or err wierd.
I work at a company called ICEsoft Technologies, on the ICEpdf team. We just use our own PDF viewer instead of waiting for Acrobat Reader.
You can grab the trial download of the cross-platform Java viewer application for free. It says it's for 30 days, but there is no time limit anymore.
http://www.icesoft.com/products/icepdf.html
And your registration email address is completely confidential.
It's easier for me to remember it as:
Alphabetically after C.