...things that people want to read are copyrighted, and won't be availble until long after we're dead.
Actually I've found the most value from the project is downloading and reading classics. I've downloaded works by people such as: Adam Smith, Nietzsche, Aristotle, Plato, Karl Marx, Oscar Wilde, Thomas More, and various other classic writers. I've found this resource indispensable. It provides high quality texts for free. I probably wouldn't read many works by these authors if I had to purchase them. I unfortunately, don't have the money to spend on many small works such as these (they're short, but sometimes cost $10-15). I also don't have easy access to a library and I like keeping a copy for my own personal use.
So I find that Project Gutenberg is a very useful resource.
Doesn't (didn't) 2600 have a contest like this? The first person to manage to get a.mil domain gets a free subscription, or something like that?
Their contest says that if you resgister 2600.mil (or any 2600.something) and point it to their website, you get a free lifetime subscription. (I think it's any TLD)
I can't beleive that Lufthansa, one of the crappiest airlines i've ever flown on...
All airlines have shitty airplanes. They put the really nices ones on the high-profit routes. I've flown on Lufthansa, KLM, United Airlines, Delta, Southwest, and some others that don't come to mind immediately. They all have stellar planes like the one you flew on British Airways. Also, they all have crappier, older planes. You just got unlucky on your Lufthansa flight(s).
I forgot to metion this in my previous post, but there is currently a group working on this idea.
The Guerrilla.net project is aiming "to provide a networking fabric outside of Governments, commercial Internet service providers, telecommunications companies, and dubius Internet regulatory bodies."
...in the medium to long term, for replacing most of the internet infrastructure with an amateur-operated wireless net, free of corporate or governmental intrusion?
Actually, before the internet became widespread, there was a large network of packet radio users on the east coast. Although it was slow (300bps to 9k6), it is possible. And there's been some work on 10 gHz broadband radio links. There's also been other bands used, but I don't have links to them.
The main problem with attempting to do this over the ham bands is the fact that encryption isn't allowed on the ham bands. Compression is allowed iirc, but encryption isn't.
I firmly believe that if the welfare system did not exist we would have suffered through at least one if not two or three more depressions sinse then.
Well, we haven't experienced a catastrophic worldwide depression like in the 1930's but we have had recession and economic hardships. The Great Depression of the 1930's was so bad because it was worldwide. So there were no countries that were doing well enough to pull the others out of it.
Consumer spending has been the only thing keeping the economy from spiraling out of control.
Yes, and if we tax people and take their money away to provide for these services, there isn't as much money for people to spend.
At one time there was no welfare. If during that time people gave enough money to charity to help the poor welfare would not have been invented.
Welfare was created as a direct result of the poverty created by the Great Depression. Unheard of numbers of people were out of work, so Welfare was instated as a temporary program to get people on their feet after losing their jobs.
It was never intended to be a permanent program that just gives money to those without jobs.
So maybe the US is different, and it costs more to deliver a CD there...
Yeah, I think it's different, but it's because they don't discount CDs as much. For example, cdnow used to discout $16 CDs to $14 and then charge you $3 or $4 for shipping and then tack on the taxes (if you live in a state that they have an office).
...as a Libetarian surely you believe that things should be fair...
Yes, I think things should be fair, but as another poster pointed out, sales tax is for goods sold in state. Also, another poster pointed to the futility and waste associated with sales tax.
So I think that taxing internet sales is a bad idea.
What are you guys complaining about? In europe we all pay sales tax (VAT)...
In all seriousness, part of it is the general resentment of Americans to taxation. Although european nations have much higher taxes, Americans are often very resentful of the taxes we do pay. And in recent years, it seems as though (with the exception of a few tax cuts) taxes have been continually increased.
And yet with all this tax, still the internet places are cheaper that bricks'n'mortar.
For some products this is true. Large and or expensive items ( > about $350) are most often cheaper on the internet. However, cheaper smaller items (like CDs) would be just as expensive on the internet and possibly more so, if they were taxed.
This is nothing more than a loophole, which deserves to be closed.
Well, I'm of the opinion that it's not a loophole, so much as an economic incentive. I'm a Libertarian, and so I feel that government should be as minimal as possible. Therefore I feel that the American government right now has too many programs. Therefore they should eliminate or reduce some programs to save money instead of adding more taxes or enforcing "the same tax you always had".
That may be true. But still, the Libertarian Party offers alternatives that are often cast aside or never even mentioned. The mere fact that they are voicing these ideas is good for the nation. By providing alternatives and tugging in a direction, they can influence politics (even if only slightly) and effects changes that are (IMHO) for the better.
Sorry but people are not good, generous, and charitable...
I disagree with you on this. Before the Great Depression, welfare was the business of the local community. It worked well.
As I said in another post, I know people that don't give to charities because they pay welfare. They figure that if the government is helping the poor, they don't have to. So they don't give to charity. If welfare were abolished, people would stop feeling like they're helping and more people would be feel obligated to give to charity.
This would be a typical scenario of a voucher-based school system. As you can see, it causes much more problems than it solves.
Unfortunately, I have not done much research into this specific area. What you are saying makes sense. However, I still think that school D would offer a better education.
Unlike today's public schools, school D does not have significant funding.
Well, Idaho (where I attended grade school and high school) doesn't have a very well funded public school system. Most of the schools are under-staffed, over enrolled and in dire need of maintinence. For example, a roof collapsed in one school about two years ago. Don't get me wrong, Idaho has some good schools (especially in Boise), but the public school system has problems.
Also, My aunt teaches in Tennessee. Their school system is also in pretty bad shape. Their system too is underfunded. I think that the school system problem is a little more widespread than people hear about.
Although I idealy would like to see what the Libertarian Party advocates happen, I'm a realist. I think the ideal solution (for public schools and stuff like Welfare) would be to itemize each tax and make them op-out programs. That, IMHO, would be the best solution. It allows people who want to send their children to private schools the financial freedom to do so, while still allowing those who can't afford private schools to recieve education.
Before and during the depression, welfare was provided by private charities, exactly as you propose. It did not work very well; poverty was rampant and welfare money were scarce.
I thought that before the depression, things were fairly good. Poverty was under control due to religious charity groups and other charity groups. The rampant poverty started with the stock market crash.
The Depression was solved only through government intervention and direct government investment in the population through taxes.
I disagree with this assertion. As another poster pointed out - the Depression was solved by World War II. The dramatic increase in industry as we ramped up production for war, gave most people jobs. Welfare was around for a fair number of years and the Depression steadily worsened until World War II.
Another thing that should be noted is the intended lifetimes of Welfare and Social Security. I'm not sure about Social Security, but I know welfare was intended to be only a temporary program until the US exited the depression. It was never intended to be a long-term program that replaced the community's involvement in the common welfare.
In short, my beef with Libertarianism is that it aims to give everyone the same responsibilities.
My opinion is that with the equality that America strives for, should come equality with respect to responsibilities. For example, should I be punished for my good fortune (by being forced to pay tax on a progressive tax scale)? I don't think that's fair to the people who have found success for themselves.
Anyway, I do not want this rant to be insulting or degrading to you or your beliefs...
Not to worry, I enjoy political debates!:D
And everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And I respect the fact that you're willing to share yours with me.
Please reply, as I'm genuinely interested in your take on this.
Sorry about the delayed response, I went to bed just before I got the notice about your reply.
I'm looking forward to hearing your responses as well.
This is a collection of preconceived misconceptions. First, let's discuss "unnecessary government programs." Typically, these don't exist...
Well, that's your opinion. Without trying to get into a flame war... I'll explain my position.
I'm a Libertarian, so I feel that the government should be there to protect the nation, provide basic services (mail, justice system, etc). Not included in the list of necessary services are things such as: Public Schools, Welfare, Social Security and programs of the like. I feel that those government services should be better taken care of by non-government organizations, or eliminated all together. I know these are controversial topics, but that's my opinion.
Now let's address the other issue - the mistaken belief that a private company can save money and provide better services than a government agency. You are 100% mistaken on this count...
I agree that many companies are mismanaged. I realize now that I put down the wrong thing on this issue. I was refering to non-profit corporations. My main focus with this point (which I didn't explain in my original post, sorry about that) was government's role in services such as Welfare. In this area, locally based non-profit (and religious) organizations are much more effective at distributing aid to those in need. Those types of organizations are simply there to do good, and they don't have the type of overhead that government has, because many of the people are volunteers. So they can generally do things for cheaper.
The most common opposition to this point is that people are too selfish to give to these types of organizations. While it's true that no everyone would donate, there are many people (I have met many) who don't give at the current time because they are under the illusion that Welfare is enough. And as one can see, welfare hasn't exactly solved the problem. So, if Welfare was elminiated, people would be giving money to these more efficient, charity organizations. They would be motivated to do so because it's a tax deduction as well as the fact that it's the "right" thing to do (forgive the sweeping generalization).
If you are interested in learning more about my position, I'd recommend taking a look at the Libertarian Party Issues Page. They explain things much better than I ever could.
Yeah. I like the artwork. And I also like to support bands I really like.
/me looks around to make sure there's no RIAA spies
Unless it's a band I really like, I first download some songs to see if they're good. And if they're good, I'll buy the album, just to support the band. And if it's not good enough to buy, the songs aren't worth the space they take up on my HDD. So they get deleted.
I think it's a big mistake at this point to specifically tax internet sales. I purchase goods off the internet because they're cheaper than in retail stores. The prices are usually just barely cheaper after shipping. However, they are cheap enough to more than offset the delay in receiving the product.
Since I'm currently in New York State (which has outrageous taxes, at least compared to Idaho), I am often taxed for internet purchaes. For example, ordering from CDNow (which I did before they were 'swallowed' *cough cough* by Amazon.com it was about the same price ordering from them (after shipping and taxes) as buying the same $18-$20 CD from a retailer. It simply wasn't cost effective. I only continued because I don't have a car to drive to stores:(. If they start taxing internet sales, it won't be worth waiting a week to get a product that I'll end up paying full retail for. It will destroy online stores. I for one won't buy from them, because it won't be cost-effective for me.
<soapbox>
IMHO, states should think about eliminating unnecessary government programs instead of looking for more revenue. That's the best in the long run. It ensures a fiscially responsible government that isn't bloated. It also allows private companies (who can do the jobs for cheaper) to save money and provide better services.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmm... surf to the new (! WalMart/google engine) www.wal-gle.com, enter "privacy" into the search box, and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky"
or you'll get a huge explosion that will rain ... and other junk.
You mean cyrix-eos?
*sees the little bee buzzing around, (his wings performing at very low clock speeds) *
$5k!! I hope your processor has gold connectors on it or something!
Damn.
Actually I've found the most value from the project is downloading and reading classics. I've downloaded works by people such as: Adam Smith, Nietzsche, Aristotle, Plato, Karl Marx, Oscar Wilde, Thomas More, and various other classic writers. I've found this resource indispensable. It provides high quality texts for free. I probably wouldn't read many works by these authors if I had to purchase them. I unfortunately, don't have the money to spend on many small works such as these (they're short, but sometimes cost $10-15). I also don't have easy access to a library and I like keeping a copy for my own personal use.
So I find that Project Gutenberg is a very useful resource.
neurostarDoesn't (didn't) 2600 have a contest like this? The first person to manage to get a .mil domain gets a free subscription, or something like that?
Their contest says that if you resgister 2600.mil (or any 2600.something) and point it to their website, you get a free lifetime subscription. (I think it's any TLD)
neurostarIT's a bit like the sign at the Idaho border:
"NO COMMON SENSE"
I think you've mistaken Idaho for Iowa.
neurostarIf you want lawyers banned from bars, go to Idaho. I know of a couple bars that have the words "No Lawyers" on their signs (in very large print).
neurostarI can't beleive that Lufthansa, one of the crappiest airlines i've ever flown on...
All airlines have shitty airplanes. They put the really nices ones on the high-profit routes. I've flown on Lufthansa, KLM, United Airlines, Delta, Southwest, and some others that don't come to mind immediately. They all have stellar planes like the one you flew on British Airways. Also, they all have crappier, older planes. You just got unlucky on your Lufthansa flight(s).
It seems that you don't fly much...
neurostarI forgot to metion this in my previous post, but there is currently a group working on this idea.
The Guerrilla.net project is aiming "to provide a networking fabric outside of Governments, commercial Internet service providers, telecommunications companies, and dubius Internet regulatory bodies."
neurostarActually, before the internet became widespread, there was a large network of packet radio users on the east coast. Although it was slow (300bps to 9k6), it is possible. And there's been some work on 10 gHz broadband radio links. There's also been other bands used, but I don't have links to them.
The main problem with attempting to do this over the ham bands is the fact that encryption isn't allowed on the ham bands. Compression is allowed iirc, but encryption isn't.
neurostarI firmly believe that if the welfare system did not exist we would have suffered through at least one if not two or three more depressions sinse then.
Well, we haven't experienced a catastrophic worldwide depression like in the 1930's but we have had recession and economic hardships. The Great Depression of the 1930's was so bad because it was worldwide. So there were no countries that were doing well enough to pull the others out of it.
Consumer spending has been the only thing keeping the economy from spiraling out of control.
Yes, and if we tax people and take their money away to provide for these services, there isn't as much money for people to spend.
neurostarAt one time there was no welfare. If during that time people gave enough money to charity to help the poor welfare would not have been invented.
Welfare was created as a direct result of the poverty created by the Great Depression. Unheard of numbers of people were out of work, so Welfare was instated as a temporary program to get people on their feet after losing their jobs.
It was never intended to be a permanent program that just gives money to those without jobs.
neurostarSo maybe the US is different, and it costs more to deliver a CD there...
Yeah, I think it's different, but it's because they don't discount CDs as much. For example, cdnow used to discout $16 CDs to $14 and then charge you $3 or $4 for shipping and then tack on the taxes (if you live in a state that they have an office).
Yes, I think things should be fair, but as another poster pointed out, sales tax is for goods sold in state. Also, another poster pointed to the futility and waste associated with sales tax.
So I think that taxing internet sales is a bad idea.
neurostarWhat are you guys complaining about? In europe we all pay sales tax (VAT)...
In all seriousness, part of it is the general resentment of Americans to taxation. Although european nations have much higher taxes, Americans are often very resentful of the taxes we do pay. And in recent years, it seems as though (with the exception of a few tax cuts) taxes have been continually increased.
And yet with all this tax, still the internet places are cheaper that bricks'n'mortar.
For some products this is true. Large and or expensive items ( > about $350) are most often cheaper on the internet. However, cheaper smaller items (like CDs) would be just as expensive on the internet and possibly more so, if they were taxed.
This is nothing more than a loophole, which deserves to be closed.
Well, I'm of the opinion that it's not a loophole, so much as an economic incentive. I'm a Libertarian, and so I feel that government should be as minimal as possible. Therefore I feel that the American government right now has too many programs. Therefore they should eliminate or reduce some programs to save money instead of adding more taxes or enforcing "the same tax you always had".
neurostarLiberterians are too idealistic...
That may be true. But still, the Libertarian Party offers alternatives that are often cast aside or never even mentioned. The mere fact that they are voicing these ideas is good for the nation. By providing alternatives and tugging in a direction, they can influence politics (even if only slightly) and effects changes that are (IMHO) for the better.
Sorry but people are not good, generous, and charitable...
I disagree with you on this. Before the Great Depression, welfare was the business of the local community. It worked well.
As I said in another post, I know people that don't give to charities because they pay welfare. They figure that if the government is helping the poor, they don't have to. So they don't give to charity. If welfare were abolished, people would stop feeling like they're helping and more people would be feel obligated to give to charity.
neurostarThank you for your polite reply to my post.
I thank you for your polite responses as well.
This would be a typical scenario of a voucher-based school system. As you can see, it causes much more problems than it solves.
Unfortunately, I have not done much research into this specific area. What you are saying makes sense. However, I still think that school D would offer a better education.
Unlike today's public schools, school D does not have significant funding.
Well, Idaho (where I attended grade school and high school) doesn't have a very well funded public school system. Most of the schools are under-staffed, over enrolled and in dire need of maintinence. For example, a roof collapsed in one school about two years ago. Don't get me wrong, Idaho has some good schools (especially in Boise), but the public school system has problems.
Also, My aunt teaches in Tennessee. Their school system is also in pretty bad shape. Their system too is underfunded. I think that the school system problem is a little more widespread than people hear about.
Although I idealy would like to see what the Libertarian Party advocates happen, I'm a realist. I think the ideal solution (for public schools and stuff like Welfare) would be to itemize each tax and make them op-out programs. That, IMHO, would be the best solution. It allows people who want to send their children to private schools the financial freedom to do so, while still allowing those who can't afford private schools to recieve education.
Before and during the depression, welfare was provided by private charities, exactly as you propose. It did not work very well; poverty was rampant and welfare money were scarce.
I thought that before the depression, things were fairly good. Poverty was under control due to religious charity groups and other charity groups. The rampant poverty started with the stock market crash.
The Depression was solved only through government intervention and direct government investment in the population through taxes.
I disagree with this assertion. As another poster pointed out - the Depression was solved by World War II. The dramatic increase in industry as we ramped up production for war, gave most people jobs. Welfare was around for a fair number of years and the Depression steadily worsened until World War II.
Another thing that should be noted is the intended lifetimes of Welfare and Social Security. I'm not sure about Social Security, but I know welfare was intended to be only a temporary program until the US exited the depression. It was never intended to be a long-term program that replaced the community's involvement in the common welfare.
In short, my beef with Libertarianism is that it aims to give everyone the same responsibilities.
My opinion is that with the equality that America strives for, should come equality with respect to responsibilities. For example, should I be punished for my good fortune (by being forced to pay tax on a progressive tax scale)? I don't think that's fair to the people who have found success for themselves.
Anyway, I do not want this rant to be insulting or degrading to you or your beliefs...
Not to worry, I enjoy political debates! :D
And everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And I respect the fact that you're willing to share yours with me.
Please reply, as I'm genuinely interested in your take on this.
Sorry about the delayed response, I went to bed just before I got the notice about your reply.
I'm looking forward to hearing your responses as well.
neurostarThis is a collection of preconceived misconceptions. First, let's discuss "unnecessary government programs." Typically, these don't exist...
Well, that's your opinion. Without trying to get into a flame war... I'll explain my position.
I'm a Libertarian, so I feel that the government should be there to protect the nation, provide basic services (mail, justice system, etc). Not included in the list of necessary services are things such as: Public Schools, Welfare, Social Security and programs of the like. I feel that those government services should be better taken care of by non-government organizations, or eliminated all together. I know these are controversial topics, but that's my opinion.
Now let's address the other issue - the mistaken belief that a private company can save money and provide better services than a government agency. You are 100% mistaken on this count...
I agree that many companies are mismanaged. I realize now that I put down the wrong thing on this issue. I was refering to non-profit corporations. My main focus with this point (which I didn't explain in my original post, sorry about that) was government's role in services such as Welfare. In this area, locally based non-profit (and religious) organizations are much more effective at distributing aid to those in need. Those types of organizations are simply there to do good, and they don't have the type of overhead that government has, because many of the people are volunteers. So they can generally do things for cheaper.
The most common opposition to this point is that people are too selfish to give to these types of organizations. While it's true that no everyone would donate, there are many people (I have met many) who don't give at the current time because they are under the illusion that Welfare is enough. And as one can see, welfare hasn't exactly solved the problem. So, if Welfare was elminiated, people would be giving money to these more efficient, charity organizations. They would be motivated to do so because it's a tax deduction as well as the fact that it's the "right" thing to do (forgive the sweeping generalization).
If you are interested in learning more about my position, I'd recommend taking a look at the Libertarian Party Issues Page. They explain things much better than I ever could.Sorry for the confusion in my earlier post.
neurostarThen vote Libertian whenever you can...
Done!
I tell everyone about the Libertarian party whenever I get the chance.
neurostarYou still buy CD's?
LOL!
Yeah. I like the artwork. And I also like to support bands I really like.
Unless it's a band I really like, I first download some songs to see if they're good. And if they're good, I'll buy the album, just to support the band. And if it's not good enough to buy, the songs aren't worth the space they take up on my HDD. So they get deleted.
neurostarI think it's a big mistake at this point to specifically tax internet sales. I purchase goods off the internet because they're cheaper than in retail stores. The prices are usually just barely cheaper after shipping. However, they are cheap enough to more than offset the delay in receiving the product.
Since I'm currently in New York State (which has outrageous taxes, at least compared to Idaho), I am often taxed for internet purchaes. For example, ordering from CDNow (which I did before they were 'swallowed' *cough cough* by Amazon.com it was about the same price ordering from them (after shipping and taxes) as buying the same $18-$20 CD from a retailer. It simply wasn't cost effective. I only continued because I don't have a car to drive to stores :(. If they start taxing internet sales, it won't be worth waiting a week to get a product that I'll end up paying full retail for. It will destroy online stores. I for one won't buy from them, because it won't be cost-effective for me.
<soapbox>
IMHO, states should think about eliminating unnecessary government programs instead of looking for more revenue. That's the best in the long run. It ensures a fiscially responsible government that isn't bloated. It also allows private companies (who can do the jobs for cheaper) to save money and provide better services.
</soapbox>
neurostarYikes! That's a bummer. : (
Yeah, it is. But it's all good now. I have a girlfriend back home. She's awesome!
neurostarYou're obviously not using them, so I don't see where the problem is.
At my school: "Girls are like parking spots. The good ones are already taken, and the rest are handicapped."
Unfortunately, it's beyond my control. :D
neurostarNot 72 virgins I hope.
I should hope not! I would be up in arms, if they (the 'enemy') were being offered virgins! Especially since my school is only 1/3 girls.
:D
neurostarRight, all we have to do is monitor it for a few hundred million years and we'll have the whole story!! :)
Wait! You're forgetting the DMCA. Those scientists better stop researching that galaxy. After all, it's illegal to reverse engineer galaxy-formation.
I thought half the email on the planet was spam though!