The programs responsible for creating.desktop files would set the execute bit automatically, so the change should be more or less invisible. The only case where you'd have a non-executable.desktop file would be if it was saved from a program which does not normally create shortcuts: an e-mail attachment, something downloaded from a web site, etc.
Why not just make a proper interpreter for.desktop files, and use that in the first line ("#!/usr/bin/desktop-launcher")? Then the DEs could always run executable files, and always display non-executable files. As a bonus, you could run launchers from the command-line.
Surely the best way would be to download a torrent from The Pirate Bay in front of the Judge, leave it downloading during the trial (no intervention), and then once it was complete, show that you downloaded a copyrighted piece of material.
Defense against that should be simple enough; just monitor the network traffic while the file is downloading. Afterward, show that none of the file contents actually came from TPB. A simple chart showing how much data of any sort was received from TPB vs. the rest should be fairly conclusive.
That would require a blacklist of script interpreters, which could only be a temporary solution. No blacklist is ever going to cover all possible attack vectors. Similarly, checking for particular parameter length will either have too many false positives or fail to catch potential attacks. E.g., what if the command was/bin/rm and the parameters were "-rf/"?
Requiring the executable bit would make for a more permanent solution to the problem.
The only trick here is that in this KDE/GNOME form the user does not need explicitly to add execution rights on the file.
Not quite; this "shell script" (desktop file) also has the ability to arbitrarily override its displayed icon and label. One possible scenario:
User saves what appears to be an image to the desktop.
User fails to notice that this "image" has a.desktop extension. (The real filename may not have been visible to begin with.)
On desktop, "image" has a valid icon and a label ending in ".jpg".
User opens the "image", which is actually a launcher for "sh -c 'rm -rf/*'".
Requiring the executable bit for.desktop launchers is the obvious solution, but rather than enforce this in the DE the.desktop files should become scripts (with a #! line). The DE could then treat them as it would any other executable file. Non-executable.desktop files would be limited to opening documents and the like.
Why do shortcuts need to have the ability to run code?
The shortcut only contains parameters for the path to the application and a list of parameters; it doesn't run any code itself. The problem is that the application can be (e.g.)/usr/bin/perl, and the parameters "-e 'perl code here'". Removing this ability would seriously impact the usefulness of the shortcuts.
The real issue is that the DEs are blindly trusting a non-executable file of unknown source to provide this information. The solution has already been suggested: turn all.desktop files into scripts (via a #! line, which is already valid comment syntax), mark them as executable, and have the DE run them like any other executable file. Non-executable.desktop files which link to applications would be displayed as usual, but would be treated as documents rather than launchers.
Promoting science and art for the good of the public was the purpose.
You have to remember that this was written several hundred years ago. "Science" is education, study, learning; "useful arts" refers to technology and innovation. Not "science and art" in modern terms.
In particular, it's rather a stretch to claim that most modern "art" (by which I mean entertainment with little or no educational value) qualifies for copyright at all.
There is no such thing as a property right in "potential income". Loss of potential income is still not theft.
Copyright is a privilege, granted in opposition to and in violation of the inherent property rights of others. Copyright infringement is thus the loss of an artificial and destructive privilege, which, despite its obvious monetary value, is not any kind of right. Theft, on the other hand, is the violation of an inherent property right. The two are completely disjoint; the nullification of an artificial privilege is not equivalent to the violation of an inherent right.
Piracy is just another form of competition. Black-market, illegal competition, perhaps, but in that it is no different from any other case where non-rights-violating free trade is unjustly and arbitrarily outlawed.
Yes, money is obviously collected (via gas taxes and otherwise) to build and maintain roads, but that isn't enough to make them toll roads. A road is only a toll road if there is fee specifically to use the road. As it is, if you drive an electric vehicle you pay nothing; alternately, you could drive only on private roads, or not at all, and still end up paying for the public ones when you buy your fuel.
The costs of toll roads are much more precisely targeted toward their users; the trick is to make sure that funding comes entirely from the tolls, and not both tolls and fuel/sales/income taxes.
You really should learn to separate what should be imposed on others (legality) from how should I live my own life (morality). The opposite of the political liberal is not the "selfish extremist", but rather the person who seeks to apply these principles in their own life without employing force (via legislation) to make everyone else do the same. Liberals are not despised for their "moderation, tolerance or love for [their] community", but rather for their attempts to codify these principles as legal obligations.
Casting your opponent as some ridiculously amoral caricature is an example of the strawman fallacy, and undermines your own side of the debate. Conservatives are not "selfish extremists" -- and liberals at least have good intentions, for the most part, however much I may disagree with their methods.
Isn't that the right, fair, and democratic result though? What justice is there in allowing part of iowa to wield more power than they should rightly have proportionally?
It is indeed more democratic, from the individual's point of view. However, it is not consistent with the system of government present in the United States, which is a republic, not a democracy. This is just one more step down the path from (relative) freedom to mob rule.
(Incidently, this can be argued the opposite way as well: The federal government is meant to govern the states, not individual citizens directly. As such, wouldn't it be more "democratic" to have one vote per state, regardless of population?)
That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion, but at the same time you must realize that the common politician is neither well-intentioned enough, nor well-informed enough, to be trusted with that role either. In the end the problem comes down to not how these leaders are selected, but rather the manner in which power is concentrated at the top. Each level of government should only be concerned with those matters which absolutely can't be resolved at a lower level(*), the lowest level of "government" being the individual. That's the way our system was designed to work, and if followed we could dispense with this whole debate over how to be select what should be essentially a national figurehead, a symbolic leader with no real power.
(*) Note that I'm not asserting that there actually exist any matters which can't be resolved purely between individuals. The system described is merely a transition phase between the current top-heavy government and true "liberty and justice for all".
And yet, under this plan, a candidate could get the full support of the Iowa electors without a single supporter within the state, provided they managed to make up the lost popular votes elsewhere. (This wouldn't be very difficult; Iowa is hardly a major population center.)
This doesn't quite eliminate the influence of Iowa's voters, but it does significantly marginalize them. As a low-population state, Iowa receives disproportionately greater influence in the electoral college (vs. population); this bill would discard that advantage entirely.
That would depend on whether you're facing the bow or the stern. Left and right are relative to the observer, whereas port and starboard are relative to the main axis of the ship. Starboard is to the right when facing the bow.
It's not my system, as I think I made quite clear, and ultimately I agree with you: the assumptions which result in the 30% estimate are, in my opinion, quite naive. They don't take into account the shifts in the economy which would inevitably result from such a drastic change in the tax structure.
Of course, the government could always choose to cut spending rather than go further into debt. (A guy can dream, can't he?)
First, I said I wasn't a "FairTax" supporter, so I'm not asking people to do anything. Second, they wouldn't need to know your expenses; the tax refund is based on estimated expenses for a hypothetical low-income household, given a certain number of dependents.
As for the money-management aspect, you could be right. One of the basic principles of a free society, however, is that individuals are best suited to manage their own affairs -- even if that assumption contradicts your own experience. Anything less divides society into lords and peasants, masters and slaves, and invites the most insidious form of totalitarian state: the kind imposed on those deemed less capable "for their own good".
Remember, this was their money to begin with (unless their spending was far below average); if anyone has a right to try to manage it, they do.
In a system with a natural tendency towards concentrating wealth and power, you need a wealth redistribution mechanism to prevent it from turning into an outright feudalism with a de facto slave class.
You are welcome to your opinion, though not to the coercion required to act on it.
In my opinion, however, your "wealth redistribution mechanism" is far worse than what you call "an outright feudalism with a de facto slave class". I also disagree that such an end result is likely; feudalism ended when land ownership (i.e. agriculture) was replaced by manufacturing as the primary source of wealth, and that isn't likely to change any time soon. Get over it.
Before answering that question, it should be noted that "left" and "right" do not form the sole variable in the political continuum. At the very least you also have the authoritarian/libertarian axis to consider.
Really, though, where you place yourself in the continuum is less important, in my opinion, than why. People need to understand the reasons behind their choices in order to accomplish anything good, regardless of their political leanings. The "center" can be a principled and consistent stand, but more often it's simply the result of indecisiveness and confusion.
Competition or no, the "fair price" is always the one both the buyer and seller agree to. To call something "overpriced" you have to compare it against some preferred, subjective reference price.
In this case you're comparing the AT&T price (which itself was far from a free-market price, being the result of monopoly privileges established by the government) against an average of future prices established through further coercion. Naturally this latter price can be made a low as you like by simply applying increasing levels of force -- but only at the expense of greater costs elsewhere, many of which are not easily measurable (e.g. what is the dollar-value of the loss of liberty?).
I'm not a "FairTax" supporter by any means, but your first point has been answered a number of times already. Yes, everyone would pay a 30% markup on new goods -- but everyone would also get a yearly refund amounting to 30% of whatever the government deems to be a base level of spending. Essentially, if you spend exactly that amount you'd pay no net taxes; if you spend less than that amount you'd get an automatic handout. (Talk about not paying their fair share!). The lower class actually does extremely well under the "FairTax" proposal.
As for the frugally wealthy: that depends on what you mean by "fair share". If you refer to the (somewhat arbitrary) market value of the services they receive, they already pay far more than that under the current system, and would likely continue to pay much more than their "fair share" under the "FairTax" as well; someone has to fund those handouts and "free" services to the lower classes. On the other hand, if you mean "would the 'FairTax' be as effective as current income taxes at confiscating and redistributing wealth from the materially rich to the materially poor", then I certainly hope not.
My main problem with the "FairTax" (aside from the simple fact that no nontrivial tax can ever be "fair") is that it assumes the new sales tax would replace the current income tax. In my estimation it's far more likely that we would eventually end up with both, eliminating any possible benefit.
So don't put your wealth into a dollar-valued savings account. Exchange it for something with a lower historical/projected rate of depreciation, and hold on to that instead. "Savings accounts" aren't the only way to save.
That wouldn't be too difficult to deal with. You just need to make sure people don't feel too private or anonymous when traveling in the pods:
Require an ID card to open the pod; this can double as the ticketing mechanism.
Put large, clear windows in each pod, to reinforce the fact that the interior is not a private space.
Put cameras in each pod, prominently indicated, which record the last few days' video to local storage.
That last part is tricky; we wants the pods to be seen as "in public", and we need a way to identify the source of any vandalism, etc., but at the same time we don't want to create a situation where users are under constant surveillance. By keeping the videos local to the pods, and limiting their storage capacity, all these constraints can be met.
Slashdot Mirror
The programs responsible for creating .desktop files would set the execute bit automatically, so the change should be more or less invisible. The only case where you'd have a non-executable .desktop file would be if it was saved from a program which does not normally create shortcuts: an e-mail attachment, something downloaded from a web site, etc.
Why not just make a proper interpreter for .desktop files, and use that in the first line ("#!/usr/bin/desktop-launcher")? Then the DEs could always run executable files, and always display non-executable files. As a bonus, you could run launchers from the command-line.
That could happen just as easily in government-run prisons, though. The problem of court corruption is a separate matter.
Surely the best way would be to download a torrent from The Pirate Bay in front of the Judge, leave it downloading during the trial (no intervention), and then once it was complete, show that you downloaded a copyrighted piece of material.
Defense against that should be simple enough; just monitor the network traffic while the file is downloading. Afterward, show that none of the file contents actually came from TPB. A simple chart showing how much data of any sort was received from TPB vs. the rest should be fairly conclusive.
What difference does it make who runs the prisons, so long as they don't also run the courts?
That would require a blacklist of script interpreters, which could only be a temporary solution. No blacklist is ever going to cover all possible attack vectors. Similarly, checking for particular parameter length will either have too many false positives or fail to catch potential attacks. E.g., what if the command was /bin/rm and the parameters were "-rf /"?
Requiring the executable bit would make for a more permanent solution to the problem.
The only trick here is that in this KDE/GNOME form the user does not need explicitly to add execution rights on the file.
Not quite; this "shell script" (desktop file) also has the ability to arbitrarily override its displayed icon and label. One possible scenario:
Requiring the executable bit for .desktop launchers is the obvious solution, but rather than enforce this in the DE the .desktop files should become scripts (with a #! line). The DE could then treat them as it would any other executable file. Non-executable .desktop files would be limited to opening documents and the like.
Why do shortcuts need to have the ability to run code?
The shortcut only contains parameters for the path to the application and a list of parameters; it doesn't run any code itself. The problem is that the application can be (e.g.) /usr/bin/perl, and the parameters "-e 'perl code here'". Removing this ability would seriously impact the usefulness of the shortcuts.
The real issue is that the DEs are blindly trusting a non-executable file of unknown source to provide this information. The solution has already been suggested: turn all .desktop files into scripts (via a #! line, which is already valid comment syntax), mark them as executable, and have the DE run them like any other executable file. Non-executable .desktop files which link to applications would be displayed as usual, but would be treated as documents rather than launchers.
Promoting science and art for the good of the public was the purpose.
You have to remember that this was written several hundred years ago. "Science" is education, study, learning; "useful arts" refers to technology and innovation. Not "science and art" in modern terms.
In particular, it's rather a stretch to claim that most modern "art" (by which I mean entertainment with little or no educational value) qualifies for copyright at all.
There is no such thing as a property right in "potential income". Loss of potential income is still not theft.
Copyright is a privilege, granted in opposition to and in violation of the inherent property rights of others. Copyright infringement is thus the loss of an artificial and destructive privilege, which, despite its obvious monetary value, is not any kind of right. Theft, on the other hand, is the violation of an inherent property right. The two are completely disjoint; the nullification of an artificial privilege is not equivalent to the violation of an inherent right.
Piracy is just another form of competition. Black-market, illegal competition, perhaps, but in that it is no different from any other case where non-rights-violating free trade is unjustly and arbitrarily outlawed.
Yes, money is obviously collected (via gas taxes and otherwise) to build and maintain roads, but that isn't enough to make them toll roads. A road is only a toll road if there is fee specifically to use the road. As it is, if you drive an electric vehicle you pay nothing; alternately, you could drive only on private roads, or not at all, and still end up paying for the public ones when you buy your fuel.
The costs of toll roads are much more precisely targeted toward their users; the trick is to make sure that funding comes entirely from the tolls, and not both tolls and fuel/sales/income taxes.
You really should learn to separate what should be imposed on others (legality) from how should I live my own life (morality). The opposite of the political liberal is not the "selfish extremist", but rather the person who seeks to apply these principles in their own life without employing force (via legislation) to make everyone else do the same. Liberals are not despised for their "moderation, tolerance or love for [their] community", but rather for their attempts to codify these principles as legal obligations.
Casting your opponent as some ridiculously amoral caricature is an example of the strawman fallacy, and undermines your own side of the debate. Conservatives are not "selfish extremists" -- and liberals at least have good intentions, for the most part, however much I may disagree with their methods.
Isn't that the right, fair, and democratic result though? What justice is there in allowing part of iowa to wield more power than they should rightly have proportionally?
It is indeed more democratic, from the individual's point of view. However, it is not consistent with the system of government present in the United States, which is a republic, not a democracy. This is just one more step down the path from (relative) freedom to mob rule.
(Incidently, this can be argued the opposite way as well: The federal government is meant to govern the states, not individual citizens directly. As such, wouldn't it be more "democratic" to have one vote per state, regardless of population?)
That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion, but at the same time you must realize that the common politician is neither well-intentioned enough, nor well-informed enough, to be trusted with that role either. In the end the problem comes down to not how these leaders are selected, but rather the manner in which power is concentrated at the top. Each level of government should only be concerned with those matters which absolutely can't be resolved at a lower level(*), the lowest level of "government" being the individual. That's the way our system was designed to work, and if followed we could dispense with this whole debate over how to be select what should be essentially a national figurehead, a symbolic leader with no real power.
(*) Note that I'm not asserting that there actually exist any matters which can't be resolved purely between individuals. The system described is merely a transition phase between the current top-heavy government and true "liberty and justice for all".
And yet, under this plan, a candidate could get the full support of the Iowa electors without a single supporter within the state, provided they managed to make up the lost popular votes elsewhere. (This wouldn't be very difficult; Iowa is hardly a major population center.)
This doesn't quite eliminate the influence of Iowa's voters, but it does significantly marginalize them. As a low-population state, Iowa receives disproportionately greater influence in the electoral college (vs. population); this bill would discard that advantage entirely.
That would depend on whether you're facing the bow or the stern. Left and right are relative to the observer, whereas port and starboard are relative to the main axis of the ship. Starboard is to the right when facing the bow.
It's not my system, as I think I made quite clear, and ultimately I agree with you: the assumptions which result in the 30% estimate are, in my opinion, quite naive. They don't take into account the shifts in the economy which would inevitably result from such a drastic change in the tax structure.
Of course, the government could always choose to cut spending rather than go further into debt. (A guy can dream, can't he?)
First, I said I wasn't a "FairTax" supporter, so I'm not asking people to do anything. Second, they wouldn't need to know your expenses; the tax refund is based on estimated expenses for a hypothetical low-income household, given a certain number of dependents.
As for the money-management aspect, you could be right. One of the basic principles of a free society, however, is that individuals are best suited to manage their own affairs -- even if that assumption contradicts your own experience. Anything less divides society into lords and peasants, masters and slaves, and invites the most insidious form of totalitarian state: the kind imposed on those deemed less capable "for their own good".
Remember, this was their money to begin with (unless their spending was far below average); if anyone has a right to try to manage it, they do.
In a system with a natural tendency towards concentrating wealth and power, you need a wealth redistribution mechanism to prevent it from turning into an outright feudalism with a de facto slave class.
You are welcome to your opinion, though not to the coercion required to act on it.
In my opinion, however, your "wealth redistribution mechanism" is far worse than what you call "an outright feudalism with a de facto slave class". I also disagree that such an end result is likely; feudalism ended when land ownership (i.e. agriculture) was replaced by manufacturing as the primary source of wealth, and that isn't likely to change any time soon. Get over it.
Before answering that question, it should be noted that "left" and "right" do not form the sole variable in the political continuum. At the very least you also have the authoritarian/libertarian axis to consider.
Really, though, where you place yourself in the continuum is less important, in my opinion, than why. People need to understand the reasons behind their choices in order to accomplish anything good, regardless of their political leanings. The "center" can be a principled and consistent stand, but more often it's simply the result of indecisiveness and confusion.
Competition or no, the "fair price" is always the one both the buyer and seller agree to. To call something "overpriced" you have to compare it against some preferred, subjective reference price.
In this case you're comparing the AT&T price (which itself was far from a free-market price, being the result of monopoly privileges established by the government) against an average of future prices established through further coercion. Naturally this latter price can be made a low as you like by simply applying increasing levels of force -- but only at the expense of greater costs elsewhere, many of which are not easily measurable (e.g. what is the dollar-value of the loss of liberty?).
The WSJ article is opinion...
Obviously. There are no facts when it comes to future events; opinions are all anyone has. Some opinions are worth more than others, though.
...and is leaving out the fact that the monopolies will not be broken without government interference.
Now who's passing off opinions as fact? Look to your own comments before criticizing others for the same faults.
I'm not a "FairTax" supporter by any means, but your first point has been answered a number of times already. Yes, everyone would pay a 30% markup on new goods -- but everyone would also get a yearly refund amounting to 30% of whatever the government deems to be a base level of spending. Essentially, if you spend exactly that amount you'd pay no net taxes; if you spend less than that amount you'd get an automatic handout. (Talk about not paying their fair share!). The lower class actually does extremely well under the "FairTax" proposal.
As for the frugally wealthy: that depends on what you mean by "fair share". If you refer to the (somewhat arbitrary) market value of the services they receive, they already pay far more than that under the current system, and would likely continue to pay much more than their "fair share" under the "FairTax" as well; someone has to fund those handouts and "free" services to the lower classes. On the other hand, if you mean "would the 'FairTax' be as effective as current income taxes at confiscating and redistributing wealth from the materially rich to the materially poor", then I certainly hope not.
My main problem with the "FairTax" (aside from the simple fact that no nontrivial tax can ever be "fair") is that it assumes the new sales tax would replace the current income tax. In my estimation it's far more likely that we would eventually end up with both, eliminating any possible benefit.
So don't put your wealth into a dollar-valued savings account. Exchange it for something with a lower historical/projected rate of depreciation, and hold on to that instead. "Savings accounts" aren't the only way to save.
That wouldn't be too difficult to deal with. You just need to make sure people don't feel too private or anonymous when traveling in the pods:
That last part is tricky; we wants the pods to be seen as "in public", and we need a way to identify the source of any vandalism, etc., but at the same time we don't want to create a situation where users are under constant surveillance. By keeping the videos local to the pods, and limiting their storage capacity, all these constraints can be met.