One of the tax propositions I'm for is eliminating income tax for people making $20k or less. That's really a good start, since when a person is making $12k/yr, $4k in taxes is a huge portion to them, but not to the government.
Also, tax information about John Edwards revealed that he was paying about 6% total gross taxes. Since I was paying around 33%, I much be richer than him lol;)
The "value added tax" (i think that's which one it is) defines a raw added tax that begins at $80k income, and stays the same on up. So, a person who reaches $80k will basically be sunk by that tax, and everyone higher up will not be that greatly affected by it.
Statistics have constantly showed that the taxation system that most liberals and socialists propose ends up benefiting the rich beyond belief, and practically dooming the lower and middle classes. One of these days I'd like a rational discussion with a person who promotes tax increases, and see their logic behind it. As for me, a student who currently lives at home and makes practically nothing, I've paid thousands in taxes over the years and am not happy about it.
When I was working at the Argonne National Laboratory outside of Chicago as a summer intern, tax was not automatically deducted. So, the self-employment tax went into effect because of that. I was only 19, made around $2.5k that summer, and paid almost $900 in taxes total (I'm guessing around 33%). Now I'm 22, and haven't had a job in over a year and a half, and I've been broke for about that long. I went through all the tax forms and found that not even a single dollar out of the thousands I've paid in taxes over the years are returnable. As for social security tax, I don't want social security benefits; but there's no way for me to "opt out". Then, any notion of tax cuts over the decades has lead to the idea that it "benefits the rich". Am I rich?! Right now I make a huge salary of $0/year (but I do little projects here and there for cash).
If I lived a full year in the "self employed" status, and had to pay 33% in taxes (and had a total income of about $12k/yr), I'd be paying over $4k in taxes.
One interesting thing is that when taxes are automatically deducted, it's actually the employer who pays for the taxes, the added social security "employer" part, the benefits, etc. So a person making $30k/yr would be making (guessed values) of around maybe $22 after-tax income, and the added benefits would easily bring the yearly salary paid by the employer to over $45k. So, you get $22k/yr, but the employer pays $45k/yr. Is it fair?
Also relative salary amounts and also the minimum wage principle (which was actually outlined in one of Mussolini's fascist manifesto-like documents) not only cause the less fortunate people to lose jobs (or prevent them from getting jobs), but also place enormous financial burdens on employers (making them want to turn to the federal government establishment for help). For an example, take the minimum wage to the extreme and say it's at $100/hr. With that, most low-end companies (such as restaurants, shops, etc) will all die out. From the employer perspective, if you worked at a restaurant, who would you pay (if anyone at all) $100/hr to work for you? In reality they would only choose the absolute best possible if they could afford it, but normally would not be able to afford such a price/performance ratio. It's kinda like forcing a person to buy 486 computers today for $1,000 each.
If minimum wage is $15/hr let's say, places that normally pay around 7-8/hr would fire all the less skilled employees, and only hire the best. These minimum wage limits sure bring financial equality, don't they? lol. More like financial racism. And do you know who the minimum wage laws usually rule out? Blacks and Hispanics.
That's why I'm for a free market; companies that illegally gain should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Any more thoughts on this?
Adding to my point, it would be even worse if a Windows computer became an infinite being, just as HAL did at the end of 2010, and shown in the books 2061 and 3001. That would bring a whole new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death lol. Ouch.
Hehe - but the HAL 9000 in 2001 was an acronym for Heuristic Algorithmic Logic (in case anyone's interested) and used holographic data storage.
"Obviously this project was created by people hoping to expedite the construction of an intelligent machine capable of going awry and killing humans. You sick bastards."
Actually to make it more accurate to the book series and also to Windows, you could probably consider HAL the technology that Micro$oft used to make Winblows (mainly from Xerox, Apple, etc). In the 2001 book, HAL suffers from the effects of human lies and deception, which he was supposed to follow and also perform himself. The issue was the existence of TMA-2 by Jupiter (the large monolith) and he was supposed to lie to the crew about the entire issue, which he couldn't accurately do (thus the hysteria). You could tie that into Micro$soft's deliberate lies, manipulation, deception, etc, and show that the software and hardware is going berzerk today because of it;) hehe.
I can just see it... Intellectual Property in 2050... the personal "ownership" of individual ideas:
"Today I'm going to Wal-Mart. That's my idea for the day. When I arrive there, if I see anyone else heading there, I'll either charge them royalties or sue their asses off in court for infringing on my idea. It was my idea in the first place, so I own it. People should make way for me in the streets too, and show respect for my unique and ingenious idea." - John Doe, year 2050
That's also similar to how the current patent system is (especially with tech-related issues). Thomas Jefferson wrote a wonderful paper on the problems with claiming ownership over ideas (it was mainly about patenting ideas instead of inventions). If John Doe in 2050 designes his own type of modified car that automatically takes him to Wal Mart, then he would at least be more closer to an "invention" than an idea.
"I once had a biology professor who would waste countless hours of lecture time going on about how great vegans are and how awesome greenpeace and PETA are, and would spout all kinds of pseudo-science hippy crap. Half of what he was saying was typical flat out lies and PETA idiocy. I eventually dropped the course and complained to the administration, nothing came of it though."
You should have him watch some of the new Penn and Teller's "Bulls**t" shows that deal with PETA and Greenpeace. The Greenpeace one is very interesting since they interviewed the founder (and ex-president) who described how the organization was politically hijacked for agendas not even related to it's intended purpose. Show the teacher those, and he'll puke;) Some of the P&T shows lack lots of evidence and credibility, but certain ones like that one sure do.
"The guy was supposed to be teaching mitosis and DNA's and shit, not pontificating about how the "hole in the ozone" and "global warming" are caused by people who eat meat."
In grade school after being lectured over and over about the ozone layer and the dangers it posed, I remember telling my dad that the ozone was in danger, and that if it wasn't fixed then all the air inside the atmosphere would be sucked out into space. Man I was stupid back then lol. Luckily I'm smarter now;)
Re:I think no - (addition to my comments)
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
Almost forgot - I also wanted to point out that I'm against most government intervention, skeptical of regulation (mostly federal), etc. I'm also for restricting the executive power of the President (which is part of the Texas Republican platform document), against most federal taxes since I made around $2.5k one summer as a student, and had to pay almost $900 in taxes, in cash (the self-employment tax got me), and I had a small salary then, but right now I haven't worked since december '02 - guess I'm one of the rich, huh?;) My ideals are extremely close to those of Alan Keyes, so if you study him and people like him, that's pretty much how I am.
Be careful what you say about this. For example, the main article claimed "Lemley's distinction also points to the unusual fact that in IP, traditional liberals are often calling for less and less government, while conservatives demand regulation in order to protect their exclusive right to use their intellectual creations." - Now I'm a strong conservative, and I consider myself a traditional liberal since I'm very much for much smaller governments, and I also tend to agree with libertarians on a lot of issues. But then you come out and say that "Conservatives believe what's good for the corporations is good for anyone. Liberals believe that what is good for the peopple is good for anyone." Excuse me? I'm a conservative and I'm against large corporations (primarily corruption), but am very much for free trade, which is a small-market concept very similar to the open source model. I also believe in what's good for the people. You would probably claim I'm a liberal, but I'm not. I would encourage you to learn how conservatives like me think before jumping to conclusions. I've spend most of my life studying how liberals think and reason, and I'm almost at the point of being able to shift my thinking process into a truly liberal mindset. Can you do the same to the other side? It's a good challenge:)
Well when you compare the two, you see that one side has a family setting, while the other side has more of a dictatorial teacher approach. In a public schooling system, either you think like everyone else, or you're branded with something like ADD/ADHD.
Public schooling has many more social problems than home schooling. A person who is homeschooled gets to learn to think and act independently, unlike in a public system where peer pressure constantly keeps the person in a defense mindset, while teaching the "uselessness" of personal independence (through groupthink practices). In my other post in this discussion I explained the extreme anxiety that I developed due to the public schooling system (and modern schooling practices).
When I was a kid I could always communicate much more easily with adults, since there wasn't any peer pressure to deal with; I would've been a perfect candidate for homeschooling, but alas I ended up in the other system.
I've talked with a lot of people who were homeschooled, and they are suprisingly well-adjusted and extremely intelligent. Many people on here think homeschooling can only be done by the parents, but tutors also work. Looking over the writing methods of people in the 19th and 18th centuries definately shows that current generations lack a great deal of intelligence that was once common.
I was also a victim of these modern schooling trends outlined in the book. I was sent off to school before I was socially mature enough, since the mainstream was pushing for earlier education. I quickly developed a great deal of anxiety towards schooling in the first few years (preschool and kindergarden mainly), and later on ended up suffering from an extreme case of social anxiety (which peaked around 8th grade, and continued at that level until it was treated by medications after high school). High school was hell for me, and it wasn't simply because I was a geek; I was scared of everybody and all social situations, to the point of having numerous panic attacks.
The college I go to now is absolutely wonderful (it's a private school), due to the extremely friendly and personal atmosphere, but I'm still struggling with academic problems that were the result of the previous experiences. I would never in my right mind go back to a public college (I was at a public community college before which was pretty bad); public schooling drives me insane.
Out of all of that, people consider me to be at genious levels with most of my talents (computers, music, philosophy, etc), but I really only excel in what I personally studied; not what was forced on me during school. But I'm glad that I broke out of the socialist public schooling system.
"NT 3 was practically bulletproof. It's when they started grafting on Win32 junk from 9x, things started to get screwed up."
Well the Win32 APIs appeared before Win9x; for example NT 3.51 contained the pre-win95 Win32 API infrastructure, and Microsoft ported that subsystem over to Win 3.1x as an addon (called Microsoft Win32s), even though NT 3 had a much easier time executing the 32-bit executables. Many Win9x apps run on NT 3.51 fine (except for some that require DirectX extensions). Win95 had a slightly enhanced Win32 API, and that API (along with the new v4 graphical interface) was then ported over to NT4.
Most of the problems stem from the amount of features running at the kernel level (which Andrew Tannenbaum could go on for hours about), and each version gets worse in this respect; XP and Server 2003 are frightening. One example is that Windows has the graphical interface (the core, not the userland components) running at kernel level, while Linux, Unix, and MacOS X all run the graphical interface at the user level. A single exploit in any of these kernel-level Windows systems can compromise an entire system. MacOS X has a microkernel architecture (Mach), and so most of these issues don't apply to it.
Also NT3 had lots of exploits and was nowhere near bulletproof.
"The base nuts of NTFS and the security scheme has been solid ever since it was ripped from VMS." Yep; but also remember that NTFS was derived from both VMS and OS/2's filesystem HPFS. Many core components of NT are based on early Microsoft/IBM-designed OS/2 infrastructures, along with many VMS-specific designs mostly from Dave Cutler I'm guessing.
SCO: 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'
eventhorizon5: 'Linux exists (see www.kernel.org if in doubt). Everyone knows Linux is a GPL licensed clone of Unix'
Maybe they should claim Minix doesn't exist. Or BSD (i'd love to see them try to tackle that lol). Maybe they can even get Microsoft to claim that FreeDOS is an unlicensed version of DOS (even though it's in C, instead of assembly which MS-DOS is mostly in), or claim that the ReactOS is an unlicensed version of Windows NT.
Or even better. We should claim that Ken Brown's viewpoints are an unlicensed version of SCO's viewpoints lol:
Ken Brown to Dennis Richie (real quote): 'In my opinion, you wrote Unix'
Dennis Richie (made up quote): 'According to the code, Thompson wrote Unix. I wrote C you insensitive clod.'
I'd suggest you read "Darwin at Nuremburg" at the Darwin Papers (www.thedarwinpapers.com). The stuff you're writing isn't making much sense either, since it seems as if you didn't read the related material that I wrote. I'll assume you're close-minded.
lol we've got a flamer;) I'm a hypocrite? Can you prove it? I guess you'll just "tell" me what I'm supposed to believe, is that it? lol Also you probably didn't read my follow-up post either (which I posted after I saw the ad itself).
And what if it was kerry/edwards instead? If that were so, I'd even see a post such as "maybe thats what he wanted... to advertise kerry/edwards" as blatantly idiotic.
Sorry, I saw the ad after I posted, but basically what you're saying is the fact that he has a screenshot of the bush/cheney homepage automatically makes him a Republican. So if you went to the same website, that would make you a Republican too;) Ever tried using logic? hehe
Oh, so you're saying that all Republicans are pro-ads, spam, etc? lol
Since I'm between an independent and Republican (mostly Republican), then why am I running ad-blocking proxy servers in my house, doing huge anti-spam measures including spam analysis (http://www.tliquest.net/spam), and also why do I get pissed at every commercial on TV (and that I usually either mute it or turn it off)? Yep, from your amazing superior analysis, I'd be a democrat. haha.
almost forgot - here's the summary of the material in my main paper, parts of which are in excerpts in the other post:
Darwin's primary racist viewpoints summed up (from my complete paper; not all quotes are in this post):
1. Humans are divided into sub-species
2. The strongest live and the weakest die, which is good (Hitler and Marx agreed)
3. The sub-species are not simply variants
4. A "race war" would be beneficial to mankind
5. Blacks and Aborigines occupy a sub-species between Apes and Caucasians
6. The extinction of blacks and gorillas to advance the white "race" is good
7. Sub-species are also known as races
8. Different sub-species have different characteristics, such as mental capabilities
9. Irish are also non-Aryan and should be extinct
10. Europe doesn't owe any ancestry to the Greeks
11. It would be good if a wealthy nation replaces a less privileged race
12. Christianity is a damnable doctrine, and Hitler agreed saying it is a rebellion against nature
13. Social Darwinism includes imperialism, racial extermination and sexual inequality as Darwinism was intended to explain society as a whole
14. "lower class" races should not normally be cared for; they should not multiply and should become extinct
That stuff always happens with extremely dogmatic people. If they hear anything that even mildly questions any of their beliefs (even if question is coming from their own side of the debate), they practically burst into flames. I'm not saying that I've never been dogmatic anytime; everyone has. A good comparison to this is the interest in money. An obsessive rich person can be so engrossed in their own self indulgences that they will end up being extremely close-minded and dogmatic; their "religion" (also known as "world view") would be money. If their entire life revolves around their money, then that's their religion (their world view; since their whole life and their whole view of the world revolves around money). If you analyze any fanatical religious cult, and then compare it to any fanatical mad scientist (or group of mad scientists), there's really no difference, except in the location, methods, group aspect, etc (ceremonial and physical aspects differ, but are not the determining factor). With a religious cult, their "religion" is usually their leader. Their world revolves around their leader. To a fanatical scientist, their religion is science. Their world revolves around science. The problem is that science can only be used to observe and study aspects of nature and everything that is physically measurable, while it cannot study the unmeasurable (such as the human mind, not the physical brain; or the absolute speed and location of a spacecraft or planet going through space, not a relative speed/location which would be measured in relation to another object, but an absolute one found by not using comparative measurements at all).
Science even has only begun to find that the speed of light is not constant, which would basically render almost every single measurement that used C as a constant, invalid.
I've got another post in this discussion, in which I posted excerpts from a reference paper that I wrote (with help from another guy), which directly quotes Darwin and uses that as a basis to question Darwin's theories. I even quoted those (the quotes) to a political science teacher who was literally *preaching* about Darwin (for months), and his face turned bright red when he heard those, and could barely come up with a response.
I try to listen and understand the other person's viewpoints completely when I discuss stuff; but other people have never tried to understand me first.
Happens almost every time lol. Almost every thing I've posted has only gotten a score of 1. One time I posted good information, and got modded flamebait, so I complained in another post and reposted the material, and got modded up luckily. I've recently been adding to another list about the flaws in the theory of evolution (which includes facts and incidents that disproved areas of it).
If you want more information on this stuff on Darwin, go to a friend of mine's site: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com (my paper which I'll publish on the internet soon, is a comprehensive summary of Darwin's racist material, while the Darwin Papers goes much more in-depth).
>I'm looking forward to the next article about > somebody trying to "prove" biblical "facts".
I'm looking forward to your next post where you try to to "disprove" Darwin's genocidal, white-supremacist racism (what? how could you say that about Darwin eventhorizon5??). If you somehow think Newton's theological stuff is crazy, you should start reading some of Darwin's writings. Funny how Darwin's beliefs are the exact opposite of mine, and how his beliefs reflect almost perfectly with Carl Marx, Adolf Hitler, etc.
Here's some examples:
(encouraging the extinction of Blacks to advance the white "master race")
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." - Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man
Describes that the human race is divided into sub-species, which have inferior and even mentally-incapable races:
"In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate."... "The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties." - Descent, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man, pp.343
-States that it would be very good if wealthy nations replaces the less privileged races in his above quoted power struggle
"But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilized races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."
states that "lower class" races should not normally be cared for (but yes if they absolutely must); that they should not multiply and should become extinct
"I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilized nations may be worth adding . . . With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. . ..The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, fo
Slashdot Mirror
One of the tax propositions I'm for is eliminating income tax for people making $20k or less. That's really a good start, since when a person is making $12k/yr, $4k in taxes is a huge portion to them, but not to the government.
;)
Also, tax information about John Edwards revealed that he was paying about 6% total gross taxes. Since I was paying around 33%, I much be richer than him lol
The "value added tax" (i think that's which one it is) defines a raw added tax that begins at $80k income, and stays the same on up. So, a person who reaches $80k will basically be sunk by that tax, and everyone higher up will not be that greatly affected by it.
Statistics have constantly showed that the taxation system that most liberals and socialists propose ends up benefiting the rich beyond belief, and practically dooming the lower and middle classes. One of these days I'd like a rational discussion with a person who promotes tax increases, and see their logic behind it. As for me, a student who currently lives at home and makes practically nothing, I've paid thousands in taxes over the years and am not happy about it.
-eventhorizon
When I was working at the Argonne National Laboratory outside of Chicago as a summer intern, tax was not automatically deducted. So, the self-employment tax went into effect because of that. I was only 19, made around $2.5k that summer, and paid almost $900 in taxes total (I'm guessing around 33%). Now I'm 22, and haven't had a job in over a year and a half, and I've been broke for about that long. I went through all the tax forms and found that not even a single dollar out of the thousands I've paid in taxes over the years are returnable. As for social security tax, I don't want social security benefits; but there's no way for me to "opt out". Then, any notion of tax cuts over the decades has lead to the idea that it "benefits the rich". Am I rich?! Right now I make a huge salary of $0/year (but I do little projects here and there for cash).
If I lived a full year in the "self employed" status, and had to pay 33% in taxes (and had a total income of about $12k/yr), I'd be paying over $4k in taxes.
One interesting thing is that when taxes are automatically deducted, it's actually the employer who pays for the taxes, the added social security "employer" part, the benefits, etc. So a person making $30k/yr would be making (guessed values) of around maybe $22 after-tax income, and the added benefits would easily bring the yearly salary paid by the employer to over $45k. So, you get $22k/yr, but the employer pays $45k/yr. Is it fair?
Also relative salary amounts and also the minimum wage principle (which was actually outlined in one of Mussolini's fascist manifesto-like documents) not only cause the less fortunate people to lose jobs (or prevent them from getting jobs), but also place enormous financial burdens on employers (making them want to turn to the federal government establishment for help). For an example, take the minimum wage to the extreme and say it's at $100/hr. With that, most low-end companies (such as restaurants, shops, etc) will all die out. From the employer perspective, if you worked at a restaurant, who would you pay (if anyone at all) $100/hr to work for you? In reality they would only choose the absolute best possible if they could afford it, but normally would not be able to afford such a price/performance ratio. It's kinda like forcing a person to buy 486 computers today for $1,000 each.
If minimum wage is $15/hr let's say, places that normally pay around 7-8/hr would fire all the less skilled employees, and only hire the best. These minimum wage limits sure bring financial equality, don't they? lol. More like financial racism. And do you know who the minimum wage laws usually rule out? Blacks and Hispanics.
That's why I'm for a free market; companies that illegally gain should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Any more thoughts on this?
-eventhorizon
Adding to my point, it would be even worse if a Windows computer became an infinite being, just as HAL did at the end of 2010, and shown in the books 2061 and 3001. That would bring a whole new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death lol. Ouch.
Hehe - but the HAL 9000 in 2001 was an acronym for Heuristic Algorithmic Logic (in case anyone's interested) and used holographic data storage.
;) hehe.
"Obviously this project was created by people hoping to expedite the construction of an intelligent machine capable of going awry and killing humans. You sick bastards."
Actually to make it more accurate to the book series and also to Windows, you could probably consider HAL the technology that Micro$oft used to make Winblows (mainly from Xerox, Apple, etc). In the 2001 book, HAL suffers from the effects of human lies and deception, which he was supposed to follow and also perform himself. The issue was the existence of TMA-2 by Jupiter (the large monolith) and he was supposed to lie to the crew about the entire issue, which he couldn't accurately do (thus the hysteria). You could tie that into Micro$soft's deliberate lies, manipulation, deception, etc, and show that the software and hardware is going berzerk today because of it
I can just see it... Intellectual Property in 2050... the personal "ownership" of individual ideas:
"Today I'm going to Wal-Mart. That's my idea for the day. When I arrive there, if I see anyone else heading there, I'll either charge them royalties or sue their asses off in court for infringing on my idea. It was my idea in the first place, so I own it. People should make way for me in the streets too, and show respect for my unique and ingenious idea." - John Doe, year 2050
That's also similar to how the current patent system is (especially with tech-related issues). Thomas Jefferson wrote a wonderful paper on the problems with claiming ownership over ideas (it was mainly about patenting ideas instead of inventions). If John Doe in 2050 designes his own type of modified car that automatically takes him to Wal Mart, then he would at least be more closer to an "invention" than an idea.
-eventhorizon
Now when can I get the code burned into my laptop's onboard Trident Cyberblade 16mb world's greatest chipset? ;) mmmm... 3d.... lol
Me and my mistakes.. ugh
"but certain ones like that one sure do."
You know what I meant:
Some of the P&T shows lack lots of evidence and credibility, but certain ones like that one sure don't.
"I once had a biology professor who would waste countless hours of lecture time going on about how great vegans are and how awesome greenpeace and PETA are, and would spout all kinds of pseudo-science hippy crap. Half of what he was saying was typical flat out lies and PETA idiocy. I eventually dropped the course and complained to the administration, nothing came of it though."
;) Some of the P&T shows lack lots of evidence and credibility, but certain ones like that one sure do.
;)
You should have him watch some of the new Penn and Teller's "Bulls**t" shows that deal with PETA and Greenpeace. The Greenpeace one is very interesting since they interviewed the founder (and ex-president) who described how the organization was politically hijacked for agendas not even related to it's intended purpose. Show the teacher those, and he'll puke
"The guy was supposed to be teaching mitosis and DNA's and shit, not pontificating about how the "hole in the ozone" and "global warming" are caused by people who eat meat."
In grade school after being lectured over and over about the ozone layer and the dangers it posed, I remember telling my dad that the ozone was in danger, and that if it wasn't fixed then all the air inside the atmosphere would be sucked out into space. Man I was stupid back then lol. Luckily I'm smarter now
Almost forgot - I also wanted to point out that I'm against most government intervention, skeptical of regulation (mostly federal), etc. I'm also for restricting the executive power of the President (which is part of the Texas Republican platform document), against most federal taxes since I made around $2.5k one summer as a student, and had to pay almost $900 in taxes, in cash (the self-employment tax got me), and I had a small salary then, but right now I haven't worked since december '02 - guess I'm one of the rich, huh? ;) My ideals are extremely close to those of Alan Keyes, so if you study him and people like him, that's pretty much how I am.
Be careful what you say about this. For example, the main article claimed "Lemley's distinction also points to the unusual fact that in IP, traditional liberals are often calling for less and less government, while conservatives demand regulation in order to protect their exclusive right to use their intellectual creations." - Now I'm a strong conservative, and I consider myself a traditional liberal since I'm very much for much smaller governments, and I also tend to agree with libertarians on a lot of issues. But then you come out and say that "Conservatives believe what's good for the corporations is good for anyone. Liberals believe that what is good for the peopple is good for anyone." Excuse me? I'm a conservative and I'm against large corporations (primarily corruption), but am very much for free trade, which is a small-market concept very similar to the open source model. I also believe in what's good for the people. You would probably claim I'm a liberal, but I'm not. I would encourage you to learn how conservatives like me think before jumping to conclusions. I've spend most of my life studying how liberals think and reason, and I'm almost at the point of being able to shift my thinking process into a truly liberal mindset. Can you do the same to the other side? It's a good challenge :)
Well when you compare the two, you see that one side has a family setting, while the other side has more of a dictatorial teacher approach. In a public schooling system, either you think like everyone else, or you're branded with something like ADD/ADHD.
Public schooling has many more social problems than home schooling. A person who is homeschooled gets to learn to think and act independently, unlike in a public system where peer pressure constantly keeps the person in a defense mindset, while teaching the "uselessness" of personal independence (through groupthink practices). In my other post in this discussion I explained the extreme anxiety that I developed due to the public schooling system (and modern schooling practices).
When I was a kid I could always communicate much more easily with adults, since there wasn't any peer pressure to deal with; I would've been a perfect candidate for homeschooling, but alas I ended up in the other system.
I've talked with a lot of people who were homeschooled, and they are suprisingly well-adjusted and extremely intelligent. Many people on here think homeschooling can only be done by the parents, but tutors also work. Looking over the writing methods of people in the 19th and 18th centuries definately shows that current generations lack a great deal of intelligence that was once common.
I was also a victim of these modern schooling trends outlined in the book. I was sent off to school before I was socially mature enough, since the mainstream was pushing for earlier education. I quickly developed a great deal of anxiety towards schooling in the first few years (preschool and kindergarden mainly), and later on ended up suffering from an extreme case of social anxiety (which peaked around 8th grade, and continued at that level until it was treated by medications after high school). High school was hell for me, and it wasn't simply because I was a geek; I was scared of everybody and all social situations, to the point of having numerous panic attacks.
The college I go to now is absolutely wonderful (it's a private school), due to the extremely friendly and personal atmosphere, but I'm still struggling with academic problems that were the result of the previous experiences. I would never in my right mind go back to a public college (I was at a public community college before which was pretty bad); public schooling drives me insane.
Out of all of that, people consider me to be at genious levels with most of my talents (computers, music, philosophy, etc), but I really only excel in what I personally studied; not what was forced on me during school. But I'm glad that I broke out of the socialist public schooling system.
"NT 3 was practically bulletproof. It's when they started grafting on Win32 junk from 9x, things started to get screwed up."
Well the Win32 APIs appeared before Win9x; for example NT 3.51 contained the pre-win95 Win32 API infrastructure, and Microsoft ported that subsystem over to Win 3.1x as an addon (called Microsoft Win32s), even though NT 3 had a much easier time executing the 32-bit executables. Many Win9x apps run on NT 3.51 fine (except for some that require DirectX extensions). Win95 had a slightly enhanced Win32 API, and that API (along with the new v4 graphical interface) was then ported over to NT4.
Most of the problems stem from the amount of features running at the kernel level (which Andrew Tannenbaum could go on for hours about), and each version gets worse in this respect; XP and Server 2003 are frightening. One example is that Windows has the graphical interface (the core, not the userland components) running at kernel level, while Linux, Unix, and MacOS X all run the graphical interface at the user level. A single exploit in any of these kernel-level Windows systems can compromise an entire system. MacOS X has a microkernel architecture (Mach), and so most of these issues don't apply to it.
Also NT3 had lots of exploits and was nowhere near bulletproof.
"The base nuts of NTFS and the security scheme has been solid ever since it was ripped from VMS."
Yep; but also remember that NTFS was derived from both VMS and OS/2's filesystem HPFS. Many core components of NT are based on early Microsoft/IBM-designed OS/2 infrastructures, along with many VMS-specific designs mostly from Dave Cutler I'm guessing.
SCO: 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'
eventhorizon5: 'Linux exists (see www.kernel.org if in doubt). Everyone knows Linux is a GPL licensed clone of Unix'
Maybe they should claim Minix doesn't exist. Or BSD (i'd love to see them try to tackle that lol). Maybe they can even get Microsoft to claim that FreeDOS is an unlicensed version of DOS (even though it's in C, instead of assembly which MS-DOS is mostly in), or claim that the ReactOS is an unlicensed version of Windows NT.
Or even better. We should claim that Ken Brown's viewpoints are an unlicensed version of SCO's viewpoints lol:
Ken Brown to Dennis Richie (real quote): 'In my opinion, you wrote Unix'
Dennis Richie (made up quote): 'According to the code, Thompson wrote Unix. I wrote C you insensitive clod.'
I'd suggest you read "Darwin at Nuremburg" at the Darwin Papers (www.thedarwinpapers.com). The stuff you're writing isn't making much sense either, since it seems as if you didn't read the related material that I wrote. I'll assume you're close-minded.
lol we've got a flamer ;)
I'm a hypocrite? Can you prove it? I guess you'll just "tell" me what I'm supposed to believe, is that it? lol
Also you probably didn't read my follow-up post either (which I posted after I saw the ad itself).
And what if it was kerry/edwards instead?
If that were so, I'd even see a post such as "maybe thats what he wanted... to advertise kerry/edwards" as blatantly idiotic.
Sorry, I saw the ad after I posted, but basically what you're saying is the fact that he has a screenshot of the bush/cheney homepage automatically makes him a Republican. So if you went to the same website, that would make you a Republican too ;)
Ever tried using logic? hehe
Oh, so you're saying that all Republicans are pro-ads, spam, etc? lol
Since I'm between an independent and Republican (mostly Republican), then why am I running ad-blocking proxy servers in my house, doing huge anti-spam measures including spam analysis (http://www.tliquest.net/spam), and also why do I get pissed at every commercial on TV (and that I usually either mute it or turn it off)? Yep, from your amazing superior analysis, I'd be a democrat. haha.
I posted my writings on the subject, and also much more.
View them here
almost forgot - here's the summary of the material in my main paper, parts of which are in excerpts in the other post:
Darwin's primary racist viewpoints summed up (from my complete paper; not all quotes are in this post):
1. Humans are divided into sub-species
2. The strongest live and the weakest die, which is good (Hitler and Marx agreed)
3. The sub-species are not simply variants
4. A "race war" would be beneficial to mankind
5. Blacks and Aborigines occupy a sub-species between Apes and Caucasians
6. The extinction of blacks and gorillas to advance the white "race" is good
7. Sub-species are also known as races
8. Different sub-species have different characteristics, such as mental capabilities
9. Irish are also non-Aryan and should be extinct
10. Europe doesn't owe any ancestry to the Greeks
11. It would be good if a wealthy nation replaces a less privileged race
12. Christianity is a damnable doctrine, and Hitler agreed saying it is a rebellion against nature
13. Social Darwinism includes imperialism, racial extermination and sexual inequality as Darwinism was intended to explain society as a whole
14. "lower class" races should not normally be cared for; they should not multiply and should become extinct
My Other Post
That stuff always happens with extremely dogmatic people. If they hear anything that even mildly questions any of their beliefs (even if question is coming from their own side of the debate), they practically burst into flames. I'm not saying that I've never been dogmatic anytime; everyone has. A good comparison to this is the interest in money. An obsessive rich person can be so engrossed in their own self indulgences that they will end up being extremely close-minded and dogmatic; their "religion" (also known as "world view") would be money. If their entire life revolves around their money, then that's their religion (their world view; since their whole life and their whole view of the world revolves around money).
If you analyze any fanatical religious cult, and then compare it to any fanatical mad scientist (or group of mad scientists), there's really no difference, except in the location, methods, group aspect, etc (ceremonial and physical aspects differ, but are not the determining factor). With a religious cult, their "religion" is usually their leader. Their world revolves around their leader. To a fanatical scientist, their religion is science. Their world revolves around science. The problem is that science can only be used to observe and study aspects of nature and everything that is physically measurable, while it cannot study the unmeasurable (such as the human mind, not the physical brain; or the absolute speed and location of a spacecraft or planet going through space, not a relative speed/location which would be measured in relation to another object, but an absolute one found by not using comparative measurements at all).
Science even has only begun to find that the speed of light is not constant, which would basically render almost every single measurement that used C as a constant, invalid.
I've got another post in this discussion, in which I posted excerpts from a reference paper that I wrote (with help from another guy), which directly quotes Darwin and uses that as a basis to question Darwin's theories. I even quoted those (the quotes) to a political science teacher who was literally *preaching* about Darwin (for months), and his face turned bright red when he heard those, and could barely come up with a response.
I try to listen and understand the other person's viewpoints completely when I discuss stuff; but other people have never tried to understand me first.
eventhorizon
Happens almost every time lol. Almost every thing I've posted has only gotten a score of 1. One time I posted good information, and got modded flamebait, so I complained in another post and reposted the material, and got modded up luckily.
I've recently been adding to another list about the flaws in the theory of evolution (which includes facts and incidents that disproved areas of it).
If you want more information on this stuff on Darwin, go to a friend of mine's site:
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com
(my paper which I'll publish on the internet soon, is a comprehensive summary of Darwin's racist material, while the Darwin Papers goes much more in-depth).
Eventhorizon5
>I'm looking forward to the next article about
...
.The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, fo
> somebody trying to "prove" biblical "facts".
I'm looking forward to your next post where you try to to "disprove" Darwin's genocidal, white-supremacist racism (what? how could you say that about Darwin eventhorizon5??). If you somehow think Newton's theological stuff is crazy, you should start reading some of Darwin's writings. Funny how Darwin's beliefs are the exact opposite of mine, and how his beliefs reflect almost perfectly with Carl Marx, Adolf Hitler, etc.
Here's some examples:
(encouraging the extinction of Blacks to advance the white "master race")
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." - Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man
Describes that the human race is divided into sub-species, which have inferior and even mentally-incapable races:
"In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate."
"The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties." - Descent, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man, pp.343
-States that it would be very good if wealthy nations replaces the less privileged races in his above quoted power struggle
"But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilized races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."
states that "lower class" races should not normally be cared for (but yes if they absolutely must); that they should not multiply and should become extinct
"I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilized nations may be worth adding . . . With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. . .