The original point was that Microsoft has to release patches for everything it distributes. Red Hat isn't in quite the same situation. Although they release patches, they don't have to develop or test them. If a patch for Sendmail goes wrong, Red Hat doesn't get the blame.
On the other hand, Microsoft IS much bigger than Red Hat, and should test their patches more.
If you don't trust comments and statistics from actual users that are only linked to from Microsoft, then you're looking for conspiracy where none exists. In that case, you're bound to NEVER trust ANY company that has EVER made a mistake.
I agree. A link categorizing Microsoft's failures, including the one last week, would really help to assess whether or not they have an acceptable rate of failure. Given that there are probably at least 50 updates with WinXP, and maybe 2 are bad, that gives us a 96% success rate. So, a link would be very helpful.
Yes, I am a libertarian, as a matter of fact. The last job I had was unsafe, and nobody had to die before I came to that conclusion. I don't think taking everything to the extreme is a good way to accurately access any situation.
Tell me this: Why should I have to pay money to the government for them to tell stupid people that they're doing something stupid? You would think that the average person knows that having radioactive material laying around probably isn't good. On the other hand, does it REALLY take government intervention to tell us how unsafe a doorknob handle that's 2 inches too high is? Have you ever gotten hurt by a doorknob (that you couldn't attribute to something you instigated)?
Since when do we judge what's morally or fiscally correct by what others are doing? Didn't your mother ever tell you not to jump off a bridge if your friends are? I personally don't care what Canada, France, Mexico, England, Germany, Russia, Australia, etc. do about their tax situation. I don't live there, and I don't pay taxes there. I live in the United States, and I believe that taking the money I earn and giving it to people that continually and consistently do stupid things is an abomination.
Don't misunderstand the libertarian position. We're not for anarchy. I never said to decrease the funding to law enforcement (although they could use some massive changes in their procedures and policies). I said to fund them locally or by the state, not the federal government. Until Lincoln, each state had the ability to leave the Union if the federal government did something contrary to that state's interests... now there's nothing to keep the federal government in check, so they're spiraling far out of control. The only way to take it back is by starving it of the only thing they care about -- money.
And why must the government regulate all those things? It seems fairly obvious to me... if you work for a company that isn't safe, quit. Tax is an abomination, and Alexander Hamilton agreed (at least on income tax). Sales tax can be regulated by each state. Most companies aren't international, so there's nothing to worry about there. And the social issues aren't issues. What social issues should the government regulate that they haven't already screwed up?
I think the answer is no regulation, or regulation by an independent (read: not government) third party. Members of the government are only concerned with getting themselves reelected, or getting raises. Companies that are directly involved have friends and enemies, and because of that, they want their friends to succeed and their enemies to fail. Independent third-parties are the only answer... just have to make sure they're non-profit.
I don't think anybody would argue that Health Care is a mess, although some might say it's only a mess because it's not ALL provided by the government. I think it's a mess because the government is involved FAR too much with rules and regulations and fines and everything else. Look at the IRS... it started with a 2% federal income tax, and now it's amazingly corrupt and inefficient. It wastes $225 billion a year! I digress though.
I can think of London, New York, Tokyo, Los Angeles, most of Hawaii, Orlando, Sydney, etc. So, yeah, a lot of cities would go away... but they wouldn't go away over night. It would take a long, long, long time for them to disappear under the ocean, and during that time, those people could move...
You are the first person to ever make me think twice about being conservative, and you did it not by screaming that the poor need money or how we're hurting the environment. You did it by questioning my logic and reason and suggesting I take an objective view at my beliefs and the beliefs of the opposite side. For that, I appreciate you.
I should clarify that I'm not conservative because Rush Limbaugh entertains me, or because I watch Fox. I do those things because I'm conservative. I'm conservative because many years ago, I first got interested in politics and I examined several of the issues myself and looked up my own data rather than relying on someone else's. My conclusion was that the conservative viewpoint made more sense logically and rationally more times than the liberal viewpoint. I should also point out that I'm not a Republican, so I have no "official" ties to Bush or Powell or the current administration, and they HAVE done things I have not agreed with. (For example, if the department of Homeland Defense is supposed to defend our country, what the HELL is the department of Defense supposed to defend?)
I am a Libertarian. I believe this country has gotten so far and become such a wonderful place because the Founding Fathers were also Libertarian. The reason we have so many problems now is because the government keeps intruding onto individual's lives. The Founding Fathers knew how terrible a Democracy potentially was, and wanted to avoid creating one... but in the 200 years since, we've slowly been drifting towards it, to the point now that people are STILL upset that the popular vote didn't get Al Gore elected President, but they don't understand that the popular vote isn't SUPPOSED to get anyone elected President, and never was. I don't agree with income tax, income redistribution in the form of Social Security or Welfare (or even Unemployment). I don't think the government should have ANY role in our lives other than to protect our property and person (only from violence, not from disease). I'm still thinking about privitizing the infrastructure. I don't think the government has EVER done anything better, or even as good as, privately held companies. The government is the only organization that can legally take your money, family, and property away from you at gunpoint, so why should we give them more power? Need I remind anyone that Senators are NOT supposed to be elected either? They're supposed to be chosen by the State governments to represent the state.
There are many, many reasons I don't think liberalism has much to offer, but I don't hate everything about it. We need some good debate every now and then, just to keep us on our toes.
You have no idea how much I enjoyed your post... I really wish people would use more common sense before they babble mindlessly like Dr. Dimwit seems to.
The simple act of NOT stealing money directly from your paycheck seems to escape these people's brain capacity. Thank you for putting it all in perspective.
The HIGHER half of the population makes over $26,000 per year.
The LOWER half makes LESS than $26,000 per year.
The HIGHER half pays 96% of the taxes.
The LOWER half pays 4% of the taxes.
The HIGHER half makes 87% of the money.
The LOWER half makes 13% of the money.
Look at the IRS data, you don't have to believe me.
I don't care where you live. The fact is that 50% of the working population make under $26,000 per year. It's the truth. If you don't believe me, LOOK IT UP.
I'll just start with your third agrument. The first two aren't worth debating since they're subjective.
You say more money is being given to Republicans, yet the Democratic Party has admitted that it has more donations amounting to $1,000,000 or more. The Democrats also raised more than $30,000,000 more than the Republicans during the 2002 fund raising. If you're wondering, the Republicans had far, far more donations under $1,000 than the Democrats. Feel free to try to refute those arguments, but please do so with links. I can't locate the article I read that in, so if you have it, please let me know.
Could you explain what your "conservative politics" argument has to do with my point? Oh, and in case you're wondering, you might want to read globalwarming.org. It has quite a few good FACTS about Global Warming and the "Greenhouse effect". Maybe you don't understand the Greenhouse effect, and the global warming issue, but if you're wondering, all you tree-huggers seem to think that the supposed depletion of the O-Zone (the layer of the atmosphere that blocks out harmful rays of the sun) has caused the average temperature of the earth to rise, thus threatening to thaw the polar ice and drown us all. FACT: If all the polar ice would melt, it would raise the ocean a whole 300 feet. No big loss.
1. The Fairness Doctrine.
The "Fairness Doctrine" isn't fair. That's why. It's pathetic and stupid. What's fair about prohibiting people in places of power to speak their mind 2 months before an election? What happened to Freedom of Speech?
2. FCC Vote.
You tell me.
3. Unions.
Unions were a good idea back in the day... now they're a waste of money and time. Look at the airlines! Thousands of people could lose their jobs because the unions were too concerned with themselves to take a 5% paycut that would save THEIR OWN jobs.
4. Talk Radio.
Because the Conservatives are the only ones that can back up their beliefs and ideals with logic and reason.
I'm not apologizing for Fox. I know they're right-wing stance, and as it happens (as if you haven't figured it out), I agree with them most of the time. The only difference between Fox and the rest is that Fox at least gives the other side a chance to speak before shooting down their ideologies and utopian societal concepts.
And before anyone attacks me for being anti-utopia, I'd love a utopia (hence the definition of the word)... problem is, too many people would prefer everyone else doing only what they told them to.
I never said I valued profit over truth. I said that nobody would start a news agency that had no ability to make a profit.
The concept you don't seem to understand is that with competition, each news network will check the rest, thus preventing any incredible failures in communicating truth. If you're an exec at MSNBC and FNC makes a grave error and reports that Osama Bin Laden has been killed, and you can prove they're wrong, don't you think you would? You'd gain an edge over the competition, bringing in more viewers, and more potential customers... eventually equaling more profit. Don't you think that's the point of starting a national news channel?
The big news media, minus Fox, has been bedwetting, treehugging leftist pigs since the 60's, which happens to be the last time the liberals had an original thought. Everything since then has been the same crap they've spewed for 4 decades. "Tax cut? We don't need any tax cut! What you say? JFK was FOR a tax cut? Um... we don't need a tax cut NOW." It's pathetic and sad.
MSNBC, CNN, NBC, and ABC have always been on the left, and there's no way you'll ever admit that until you take a step back and look at it objectively, which you never will, so I'll just stop the argument there.
You mind telling me why Big Corporations are always in bed with conservatives? If Democrats are so good for the economy, why wouldn't the Big Corporations want to be in bed with the party that'll make them the most money? Oh damn, there's that stupid logic again.
Since you obviously care very deeply about the environment, I'll make you a deal. If you pay me $5 per month, I'll start recycling. I'll even write up a contract and everything. In fact, I'll even make a Paypal account that you can pay directly so you don't even have to mail a check. Deal? No? Well then you're no better than Exxon. By the way, I'll keep polluting the atmosphere and waiting on the green house effect... it's 55 degrees here today, and it's JUNE. It's normally 80 or higher. How's that for O-Zone problems?
Money == happiness... at least part of it. If it didn't, why would the liberals always be so concerned about the poor people who never get their "fair share" of other-peoples-taxes back? Obviously it must make them happier. Oh damn, there's that logic again... I have to watch that.
Yeah, and we all know how truthful MSNBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS are, don't we?
Being a news channel also means being a television station, and if you don't give the public what they want (in this case, reliable news), they won't watch and you won't make money.
Obviously, you're suggesting a government-run news channel, right? That's the only instance that profit doesn't come into the mix. Who would run a news agency that never profits? What would be the point? To inform people? People aren't that nobel. Are you daft?
If you're poor, why would you have kids to begin with? It's the same as buying a big-screen TV. Can't afford it? Don't buy it.
As far as the poor paying a greater percentage income tax, can you back that up with ANY data at all? I doubt it. For every $100 that's paid in income tax, $96.09 is paid by people that make over $26,000... which make up 50% of the working population. Anybody that made under $26,000 didn't pay much income tax and shouldn't get much back. Period.
If you went to a store and bought something for $10, would you expect them to increase the cost for someone that made more money than you? How fair is that?
So obviously Warren Buffet is the god economist who's never wrong, right?
Do you realize that the top 1% of income earners (that earn over $293,000 per year) earn only 20.81% of the income and PAY 37.42% of the income taxes? The top 50% of wage earners pay over 96.09% of the income taxes! That means that if you earn over $26,000 or so, you're part of the "elite" that pay 96% of the taxes! If you're still confused about the whole ordeal, what I'm telling you is that according to the IRS, in 2000, half the people in this country paid 96% of the taxes. The other half paid under 4%. If you only pay 4% of the taxes, why should you get back more than 4% of a tax cut? Oh wait, because MOST of the people in the lower 50% don't pay ANY taxes at all!
What is with the bias against large companies? It always amazes me that almost everyone on Slashdot is against any large company simply BECAUSE it's a large company. What's so bad with a large company controlling more of what you see and hear? Think about it logically... which might be tough for some of you government-school-educated youngsters...
A company is concerned with profit. Profit comes from customers. Customers come from people that are pleased with what you provide. If you don't please people with what you provide, you don't get customers, and you don't make a profit. If you don't make a profit, you go out of business, and someone else takes your place. The Big Corporations aren't the enemy... the public is the enemy. If the public is diversified enough to demand more variety in their television and radio, then the Big Corporations will create more programming to suit those needs. If those needs aren't being filled, a new company will be formed to fill them (and at worst, the Big Corporation will buy the small company when it becomes a menace to their profits, but the Big Corporation will keep the programming that made them successful, thus increasing their profit).
I don't see how politics has anything to do with the FCC's decision, but as long as you bring it up, nobody said anything when ABC, CBS, and NBC were the only stations in the market, so why worry now that Fox (and Rupert Murdoch) are becoming successful? Again, the law of supply and demand kicks in.
Why is this so difficult to understand? With all the coverage it's getting, you can hardly say that the "current regime" is "NOT interested in anything that might produce news media that isn't 100% behind" them. It's the simplest of economic rules and it's been working since the dawn of time, yet you continue to put the political spin on it. Why are you so afraid of a little competition from someone who obviously understand economics?
I'm not sure if a University-owned and run computer lab constitutes a "government project", but if so, then you can chalk one up for Linux.
I run a lab that until about 6 months ago was almost completely SGI. Because it was SGI, the costs for maintaining it, plus adding new hardware, was astronomical. (Originally, the lab had 10 SGI Indy's, 4 SGI O2's, 4 Dell's running Red Hat 7.3, and a Red Hat 7.3 server.) So the decision was made to migrate to a cheaper solution. Also I should mention that the lab was barely used because the SGI's were so old, and nobody knew how to use them, or for what. They decided they needed a Linux administrator. Enter me. We had a budget of $25,000 until July 1 of this year, and we started spending it in November. I got rid of all the SGI's except one of the O2's (I was overruled on that one) and bought 6 Dell Dimension workstations. I installed Red Hat 8 on all of them (again, except the SGI) and loaded all the software we could afford. Within a couple of months it was used fairly regularly. This year we have a budget of $35,000 and we intend to purchase 8 more Dell's, a new B&W printer, color printer, chairs, software, and a couple other minor things.
So, to sum up, there ARE some government employees who see the light at the end of the tunnel and want to get away from the proprietary software that's forced on them by their predecessors who don't know any better. There's hope for us yet...
I hereby acknowledge that I had the thought "Hello World" when I was born, thus granting me intellectual rights on that phrase. Following that assertion to its logical conclusion, I demand full financial responsibility of all the programs, past, present, and future that use the phrase "Hello World" pay royalties to me, in the generous (on my part) amount of $.50 per iteration. Judging from a rough estimate of 30 years of use, and about 1 program per 10 seconds (on average), I estimate I am owed a total of $47,304,000, due in full immediately... or by payments of $2,000,000 per year for the next 30 years.
It's amazing how much anti-Microsoft bias there is on/.... actually, it isn't amazing. It's to be expected. The sad part is that if (insert your favorite distro here) released a bug-fix that also caused some other problem, it would be dismissed pretty quickly, but as soon as Microsoft does it, it's a crime against humanity. I'm not a Microsoft fan, but I think the bias is a bit out of proportion. At least they TRY to fix the bugs now... back in Win95's day, they didn't even bother.
Hey, at least when the network crashes down around you, it's still YOUR network. If you neglect to install a critical update when it's new, it might be someone ELSE'S network by the time you get around to looking at it.
Slashdot Mirror
The original point was that Microsoft has to release patches for everything it distributes. Red Hat isn't in quite the same situation. Although they release patches, they don't have to develop or test them. If a patch for Sendmail goes wrong, Red Hat doesn't get the blame.
On the other hand, Microsoft IS much bigger than Red Hat, and should test their patches more.
If you don't trust comments and statistics from actual users that are only linked to from Microsoft, then you're looking for conspiracy where none exists. In that case, you're bound to NEVER trust ANY company that has EVER made a mistake.
I agree. A link categorizing Microsoft's failures, including the one last week, would really help to assess whether or not they have an acceptable rate of failure. Given that there are probably at least 50 updates with WinXP, and maybe 2 are bad, that gives us a 96% success rate. So, a link would be very helpful.
Yes, I am a libertarian, as a matter of fact. The last job I had was unsafe, and nobody had to die before I came to that conclusion. I don't think taking everything to the extreme is a good way to accurately access any situation.
Tell me this: Why should I have to pay money to the government for them to tell stupid people that they're doing something stupid? You would think that the average person knows that having radioactive material laying around probably isn't good. On the other hand, does it REALLY take government intervention to tell us how unsafe a doorknob handle that's 2 inches too high is? Have you ever gotten hurt by a doorknob (that you couldn't attribute to something you instigated)?
Since when do we judge what's morally or fiscally correct by what others are doing? Didn't your mother ever tell you not to jump off a bridge if your friends are? I personally don't care what Canada, France, Mexico, England, Germany, Russia, Australia, etc. do about their tax situation. I don't live there, and I don't pay taxes there. I live in the United States, and I believe that taking the money I earn and giving it to people that continually and consistently do stupid things is an abomination.
Don't misunderstand the libertarian position. We're not for anarchy. I never said to decrease the funding to law enforcement (although they could use some massive changes in their procedures and policies). I said to fund them locally or by the state, not the federal government. Until Lincoln, each state had the ability to leave the Union if the federal government did something contrary to that state's interests... now there's nothing to keep the federal government in check, so they're spiraling far out of control. The only way to take it back is by starving it of the only thing they care about -- money.
And why must the government regulate all those things? It seems fairly obvious to me... if you work for a company that isn't safe, quit. Tax is an abomination, and Alexander Hamilton agreed (at least on income tax). Sales tax can be regulated by each state. Most companies aren't international, so there's nothing to worry about there. And the social issues aren't issues. What social issues should the government regulate that they haven't already screwed up?
I think the answer is no regulation, or regulation by an independent (read: not government) third party. Members of the government are only concerned with getting themselves reelected, or getting raises. Companies that are directly involved have friends and enemies, and because of that, they want their friends to succeed and their enemies to fail. Independent third-parties are the only answer... just have to make sure they're non-profit.
I don't think anybody would argue that Health Care is a mess, although some might say it's only a mess because it's not ALL provided by the government. I think it's a mess because the government is involved FAR too much with rules and regulations and fines and everything else. Look at the IRS... it started with a 2% federal income tax, and now it's amazingly corrupt and inefficient. It wastes $225 billion a year! I digress though.
I thought Dell was the World's Largest Computer Company...?
Actually, less than 2% of the millionares in the US have inherited their wealth. The other 98% earned it throughout their lifetime.
I can think of London, New York, Tokyo, Los Angeles, most of Hawaii, Orlando, Sydney, etc. So, yeah, a lot of cities would go away... but they wouldn't go away over night. It would take a long, long, long time for them to disappear under the ocean, and during that time, those people could move...
Check out www.globalwarming.org. It's a very informative site.
You are the first person to ever make me think twice about being conservative, and you did it not by screaming that the poor need money or how we're hurting the environment. You did it by questioning my logic and reason and suggesting I take an objective view at my beliefs and the beliefs of the opposite side. For that, I appreciate you.
I should clarify that I'm not conservative because Rush Limbaugh entertains me, or because I watch Fox. I do those things because I'm conservative. I'm conservative because many years ago, I first got interested in politics and I examined several of the issues myself and looked up my own data rather than relying on someone else's. My conclusion was that the conservative viewpoint made more sense logically and rationally more times than the liberal viewpoint. I should also point out that I'm not a Republican, so I have no "official" ties to Bush or Powell or the current administration, and they HAVE done things I have not agreed with. (For example, if the department of Homeland Defense is supposed to defend our country, what the HELL is the department of Defense supposed to defend?)
I am a Libertarian. I believe this country has gotten so far and become such a wonderful place because the Founding Fathers were also Libertarian. The reason we have so many problems now is because the government keeps intruding onto individual's lives. The Founding Fathers knew how terrible a Democracy potentially was, and wanted to avoid creating one... but in the 200 years since, we've slowly been drifting towards it, to the point now that people are STILL upset that the popular vote didn't get Al Gore elected President, but they don't understand that the popular vote isn't SUPPOSED to get anyone elected President, and never was. I don't agree with income tax, income redistribution in the form of Social Security or Welfare (or even Unemployment). I don't think the government should have ANY role in our lives other than to protect our property and person (only from violence, not from disease). I'm still thinking about privitizing the infrastructure. I don't think the government has EVER done anything better, or even as good as, privately held companies. The government is the only organization that can legally take your money, family, and property away from you at gunpoint, so why should we give them more power? Need I remind anyone that Senators are NOT supposed to be elected either? They're supposed to be chosen by the State governments to represent the state.
There are many, many reasons I don't think liberalism has much to offer, but I don't hate everything about it. We need some good debate every now and then, just to keep us on our toes.
You have no idea how much I enjoyed your post... I really wish people would use more common sense before they babble mindlessly like Dr. Dimwit seems to.
The simple act of NOT stealing money directly from your paycheck seems to escape these people's brain capacity. Thank you for putting it all in perspective.
(No sarcasm here... and I mean it.)
What are you talking about?
The HIGHER half of the population makes over $26,000 per year.
The LOWER half makes LESS than $26,000 per year.
The HIGHER half pays 96% of the taxes.
The LOWER half pays 4% of the taxes.
The HIGHER half makes 87% of the money.
The LOWER half makes 13% of the money.
Look at the IRS data, you don't have to believe me.
I don't care where you live. The fact is that 50% of the working population make under $26,000 per year. It's the truth. If you don't believe me, LOOK IT UP.
I'll just start with your third agrument. The first two aren't worth debating since they're subjective.
You say more money is being given to Republicans, yet the Democratic Party has admitted that it has more donations amounting to $1,000,000 or more. The Democrats also raised more than $30,000,000 more than the Republicans during the 2002 fund raising. If you're wondering, the Republicans had far, far more donations under $1,000 than the Democrats. Feel free to try to refute those arguments, but please do so with links. I can't locate the article I read that in, so if you have it, please let me know.
Could you explain what your "conservative politics" argument has to do with my point? Oh, and in case you're wondering, you might want to read globalwarming.org. It has quite a few good FACTS about Global Warming and the "Greenhouse effect". Maybe you don't understand the Greenhouse effect, and the global warming issue, but if you're wondering, all you tree-huggers seem to think that the supposed depletion of the O-Zone (the layer of the atmosphere that blocks out harmful rays of the sun) has caused the average temperature of the earth to rise, thus threatening to thaw the polar ice and drown us all. FACT: If all the polar ice would melt, it would raise the ocean a whole 300 feet. No big loss.
1. The Fairness Doctrine.
The "Fairness Doctrine" isn't fair. That's why. It's pathetic and stupid. What's fair about prohibiting people in places of power to speak their mind 2 months before an election? What happened to Freedom of Speech?
2. FCC Vote.
You tell me.
3. Unions.
Unions were a good idea back in the day... now they're a waste of money and time. Look at the airlines! Thousands of people could lose their jobs because the unions were too concerned with themselves to take a 5% paycut that would save THEIR OWN jobs.
4. Talk Radio.
Because the Conservatives are the only ones that can back up their beliefs and ideals with logic and reason.
I'm not apologizing for Fox. I know they're right-wing stance, and as it happens (as if you haven't figured it out), I agree with them most of the time. The only difference between Fox and the rest is that Fox at least gives the other side a chance to speak before shooting down their ideologies and utopian societal concepts.
And before anyone attacks me for being anti-utopia, I'd love a utopia (hence the definition of the word)... problem is, too many people would prefer everyone else doing only what they told them to.
I never said I valued profit over truth. I said that nobody would start a news agency that had no ability to make a profit.
The concept you don't seem to understand is that with competition, each news network will check the rest, thus preventing any incredible failures in communicating truth. If you're an exec at MSNBC and FNC makes a grave error and reports that Osama Bin Laden has been killed, and you can prove they're wrong, don't you think you would? You'd gain an edge over the competition, bringing in more viewers, and more potential customers... eventually equaling more profit. Don't you think that's the point of starting a national news channel?
I hardly know where to start with this one...
The big news media, minus Fox, has been bedwetting, treehugging leftist pigs since the 60's, which happens to be the last time the liberals had an original thought. Everything since then has been the same crap they've spewed for 4 decades. "Tax cut? We don't need any tax cut! What you say? JFK was FOR a tax cut? Um... we don't need a tax cut NOW." It's pathetic and sad.
MSNBC, CNN, NBC, and ABC have always been on the left, and there's no way you'll ever admit that until you take a step back and look at it objectively, which you never will, so I'll just stop the argument there.
You mind telling me why Big Corporations are always in bed with conservatives? If Democrats are so good for the economy, why wouldn't the Big Corporations want to be in bed with the party that'll make them the most money? Oh damn, there's that stupid logic again.
Since you obviously care very deeply about the environment, I'll make you a deal. If you pay me $5 per month, I'll start recycling. I'll even write up a contract and everything. In fact, I'll even make a Paypal account that you can pay directly so you don't even have to mail a check. Deal? No? Well then you're no better than Exxon. By the way, I'll keep polluting the atmosphere and waiting on the green house effect... it's 55 degrees here today, and it's JUNE. It's normally 80 or higher. How's that for O-Zone problems?
Money == happiness... at least part of it. If it didn't, why would the liberals always be so concerned about the poor people who never get their "fair share" of other-peoples-taxes back? Obviously it must make them happier. Oh damn, there's that logic again... I have to watch that.
Yeah, and we all know how truthful MSNBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS are, don't we?
Being a news channel also means being a television station, and if you don't give the public what they want (in this case, reliable news), they won't watch and you won't make money.
Obviously, you're suggesting a government-run news channel, right? That's the only instance that profit doesn't come into the mix. Who would run a news agency that never profits? What would be the point? To inform people? People aren't that nobel. Are you daft?
If you're poor, why would you have kids to begin with? It's the same as buying a big-screen TV. Can't afford it? Don't buy it.
As far as the poor paying a greater percentage income tax, can you back that up with ANY data at all? I doubt it. For every $100 that's paid in income tax, $96.09 is paid by people that make over $26,000... which make up 50% of the working population. Anybody that made under $26,000 didn't pay much income tax and shouldn't get much back. Period.
If you went to a store and bought something for $10, would you expect them to increase the cost for someone that made more money than you? How fair is that?
So obviously Warren Buffet is the god economist who's never wrong, right?
Do you realize that the top 1% of income earners (that earn over $293,000 per year) earn only 20.81% of the income and PAY 37.42% of the income taxes? The top 50% of wage earners pay over 96.09% of the income taxes! That means that if you earn over $26,000 or so, you're part of the "elite" that pay 96% of the taxes! If you're still confused about the whole ordeal, what I'm telling you is that according to the IRS, in 2000, half the people in this country paid 96% of the taxes. The other half paid under 4%. If you only pay 4% of the taxes, why should you get back more than 4% of a tax cut? Oh wait, because MOST of the people in the lower 50% don't pay ANY taxes at all!
Don't believe me? Check with the IRS yourself:
IRS Statistics for 1996 - 2000 Excel Spreadsheet
What is with the bias against large companies? It always amazes me that almost everyone on Slashdot is against any large company simply BECAUSE it's a large company. What's so bad with a large company controlling more of what you see and hear? Think about it logically... which might be tough for some of you government-school-educated youngsters...
A company is concerned with profit. Profit comes from customers. Customers come from people that are pleased with what you provide. If you don't please people with what you provide, you don't get customers, and you don't make a profit. If you don't make a profit, you go out of business, and someone else takes your place. The Big Corporations aren't the enemy... the public is the enemy. If the public is diversified enough to demand more variety in their television and radio, then the Big Corporations will create more programming to suit those needs. If those needs aren't being filled, a new company will be formed to fill them (and at worst, the Big Corporation will buy the small company when it becomes a menace to their profits, but the Big Corporation will keep the programming that made them successful, thus increasing their profit).
I don't see how politics has anything to do with the FCC's decision, but as long as you bring it up, nobody said anything when ABC, CBS, and NBC were the only stations in the market, so why worry now that Fox (and Rupert Murdoch) are becoming successful? Again, the law of supply and demand kicks in.
Step 1: Demand conservative-biased news reporting.
Step 2: Supply conservative-biased news reporting.
Step 3: Profit!
Why is this so difficult to understand? With all the coverage it's getting, you can hardly say that the "current regime" is "NOT interested in anything that might produce news media that isn't 100% behind" them. It's the simplest of economic rules and it's been working since the dawn of time, yet you continue to put the political spin on it. Why are you so afraid of a little competition from someone who obviously understand economics?
I'm not sure if a University-owned and run computer lab constitutes a "government project", but if so, then you can chalk one up for Linux.
I run a lab that until about 6 months ago was almost completely SGI. Because it was SGI, the costs for maintaining it, plus adding new hardware, was astronomical. (Originally, the lab had 10 SGI Indy's, 4 SGI O2's, 4 Dell's running Red Hat 7.3, and a Red Hat 7.3 server.) So the decision was made to migrate to a cheaper solution. Also I should mention that the lab was barely used because the SGI's were so old, and nobody knew how to use them, or for what. They decided they needed a Linux administrator. Enter me. We had a budget of $25,000 until July 1 of this year, and we started spending it in November. I got rid of all the SGI's except one of the O2's (I was overruled on that one) and bought 6 Dell Dimension workstations. I installed Red Hat 8 on all of them (again, except the SGI) and loaded all the software we could afford. Within a couple of months it was used fairly regularly. This year we have a budget of $35,000 and we intend to purchase 8 more Dell's, a new B&W printer, color printer, chairs, software, and a couple other minor things.
So, to sum up, there ARE some government employees who see the light at the end of the tunnel and want to get away from the proprietary software that's forced on them by their predecessors who don't know any better. There's hope for us yet...
ANNOUNCEMENT:
I hereby acknowledge that I had the thought "Hello World" when I was born, thus granting me intellectual rights on that phrase. Following that assertion to its logical conclusion, I demand full financial responsibility of all the programs, past, present, and future that use the phrase "Hello World" pay royalties to me, in the generous (on my part) amount of $.50 per iteration. Judging from a rough estimate of 30 years of use, and about 1 program per 10 seconds (on average), I estimate I am owed a total of $47,304,000, due in full immediately... or by payments of $2,000,000 per year for the next 30 years.
It's amazing how much anti-Microsoft bias there is on /.... actually, it isn't amazing. It's to be expected. The sad part is that if (insert your favorite distro here) released a bug-fix that also caused some other problem, it would be dismissed pretty quickly, but as soon as Microsoft does it, it's a crime against humanity. I'm not a Microsoft fan, but I think the bias is a bit out of proportion. At least they TRY to fix the bugs now... back in Win95's day, they didn't even bother.
Hey, at least when the network crashes down around you, it's still YOUR network. If you neglect to install a critical update when it's new, it might be someone ELSE'S network by the time you get around to looking at it.