Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
The fed. doesn't keep the poor from barbequeing the rich first of all. Police are provided by state and municiple governments. Further that's not a service provided to the rich, it's a service provided to everyone. If you've lived in both bad and good neighborhoods you'll also know that it's a service that's taken advantage of far more in poor neighborhoods than rich ones.
property rights, both real and artificial benefit whoever takes advantage of them. They benefit the poor person who attempts to create wealth by protecting them against others just as much as they protect the wealthy. Do you pay more for a soda depending on how much you enjoy it? No, so why would you more for a service simply because you were able to better use it than others? And if that IS how you're going to assign taxes, wouldn't that require that low income families who recieve government assistance pay higher taxes? Also, things like mineral and water rights are again generally not federal in nature.
National defense benefits everyone. In fact, it benefits those without means even more than those with. Those with means have the ability to provide for their own protection, and a far greater chance of favorable treatment from an invading force. Poor people are the ones who get raped, murdered, and impressed into service. If you're living in a cardboard box you've a much higher chance of being killed by fighting in the streets. The demographics of those who actually end up getting killed when fighting starts are skewed because the poor take advantage of our need for national defense far more often than middle to upper classes do. The military will provide a)training b)salary c)room and board to just about anyone who wants it. That's quite an improvement over what the ghetto offers (and I know because that's where I live).
I'd like to see a move away from all progressive taxes entirely. Punishing people for producing wealth is asinine. Tally what the government needs to function and apportion it to the states according to their populations. Low income families should be offered partial or full exemption, but I think that if taxation was done equally we'd see a huge drop in taxes as people realized that well, they don't want those services if they actually have to *pay* for them.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
Not quite, laws are written and passed by *representatives*. A bill can't get through both houses without a majority in each and the approval of the president, or a supermajority.
In either case that equates to the support of the majority.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
Ok, so you're basically saying "put up with inequality in the system or get the hell out?"
Gee, do you think that's what black people should have done too? Should they have just moved to another country that was more "black friendly?" Was it any less oppression because it was codified? That's pretty much what your argument comes down too... "you know that it's happening, therefore it's not theft". Huh? how does that work?
Sorry, but "you can always go somewhere else" doesn't fly as an argument. It's equivalent to me saying "well you didn't have to buy that nice car" as a justification for carjacking you, it completley ignores the fact that it's your car and you have every right to it. Well guess what, I'm a citizen and have every right to live in this country without having my income molested by the *majority*. The people at large don't own the US, the land is privately held. Nor to the people at large have a claim to the privately held wealth of it's citizens. Certain services are neccesary for the security and functioning of the country, and they should be paid by all who are capable. However, when people vote for taxes that they will not have to pay, they're voting for theivery. They're ordering food at a restaurant and then deciding that someone else should pay for it.
That's why it was expressly forbidden in the constitution.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
I can't quite tell if you didn't understand the point, or just realized that you couldn't respond to it...
How does that have anything whatsoever to do with the iniquities inherent in the system? I say "It's unfair that a group of people can elect to provide services for which they'll be forcing a different group to pay" and you say "those rich people didn't *have* to be rich".
Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
Most if not all of those taxes are state, not federal taxes, but I do believe you're correct anyway. I think those numbers come from the income tax.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
That argument would work if taxes were payed in proportion to the government services that are rendered, but they're not.
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and when you're done the manager comes over and says "I couldn't help but notice that you make quite a bit of money... The folks over at table 30 don't make very much, so you'll be paying for their meal as well as yours", then when you refuse they hold you down and take the money out of your pocket, yes, that would be theft.
I'm not arguing for the elimination of taxes, I'm pointing out that they're a lot closer to theft than the person I was replying too wanted to admit.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
How convenient, the *majority* get to decide how much a small *minority* pay in taxes... So basically, they get to vote for expensive programs, then when the bill comes they simply vote for someone else to pay it.
Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority?
Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
So? They don't recieve government services in proportion to their salary.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
No, it's really not. It doesn't matter what a thief does with the money, if he takes it without permission it's theft.
That's what the government does, under the flimsy justification of a "social contract" that nobody alive today has signed, and which they break regularly and with impugnity.
No simple-mindedness, the government takes your money by threat of force. They don't even do it equitably, just like a common theif, the more you have, the more they take. The wealthiest half of the US population pays 96% of all taxes.
"Who's paying the attorneys?"
a)I'd bet that more than a few attorneys would be willing to take the case for free just on principle.
b)If it got pressed to the point that it was going to court, I'd bet that even more attorneys would be willing to take the case for a percentage of any possible settlements. If this is in fact an issue of Linksys being caught between the GPL on one side and Broadcomm licensing on the other, they're going to have to settle with one or the other, and the number of the settlement will most likely be healthy.
Do you buy stocks randomly? No, you buy stocks based on either recommendations of experts, or your personal opinion of what is going to happen. Why would this be any different? The only way it would be random would be if people felt the uncontrollable desire to throw their money way.
This may not prove effective at predicting terrorist plots, but it would be amazingly effective at measuring the perceptions of the population using it, and provide a method for comparing public perception to reality.
You're getting hung up on the details, and not understanding them.
What he's describing is little more than Kazaa, but with an accounting feature that will track file dowloads and pay the RIAA.07 cents per download. Basically, it's a P2P system in a radio stations clothing.
This way file sharing would be charged at the same rate that radio stations do.
Now for the complete slashdot experience, it should be on the front page again within a week.
Re:How long will it take for hard drives to catch
on
8.6 GB Internet?
·
· Score: 1
Until a network slowdown causes your bandwidth to drop unexpectedly, or a sudden spike causes the server to pause for a minute. While you don't neccesarily need the entire movie cached ahead of time, you need to be well ahead of realtime to make it realistically feasible. To assure uninterupted play (which you'd need to do for it to be acceptable to the market) you'd need a good amount of the movie downloaded before play started.
Re:How long will it take for hard drives to catch
on
8.6 GB Internet?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Are you kidding? The ability to download a full DVD in 5 seconds has tons of practical application. For instance, you could rent movies over the net...
Why bother? An 8 pound sledge hammer is only $20 at home depot, is 100% effective, reuseable, and you don't have to bother with making silly gelatine molds.
If somebody wants to get into your house, they're going to. If you build a better door lock, they can still remove the door entirely. Locks aren't about making your house entry-proof, they're about making it inconvenient to break in. If I want to get past your front door, a cordless drill and a sawz-all will bypass any locking device.
Actually Bungi, that's not true. In fact, it's very wrong.
They went *out of their way* to restrict access to Windows and OS X. They went *out of their way* to disallow use of their website to Linux and BSD users (if in fact they are doing that).
The easiest thing to do for their streaming would be to use an open protocol that had already been developed. It would have been completely free and would have required a minimum of development. Instead they spent MORE money to develope a system that could only be used with approved systems.
Same thing with their website. Websites are by default platform independent. Maybe they won't render exactly the same from system to system, but the server doesn't much care what you're using. You have to go out of your way to make a site that only displays for certain Operating Systems. That had to be a clear goal that they worked towards, it doesn't happen by accident.
I personally don't care, they can make whatever decisions they want. If it mattered to me I just wouldn't buy their product, but as a windows user I couldn't care less. It may not be actual hostility from them, but to say that they aren't actively disallowing the use of linux is incorrect.
As a review, this will serve to help many Slashdotters decide whether or not to purchase this equipment.
Don't you think that somebody running only linux would be a *LITTLE* peeved to purchase this product and find out that the reviewer had neglected to mention that it only works with windows?
The purpose of a review is not to change the world, or even the product. The purpose of a review is to provide the public with information about your experience using a product. Given that this was part of his experience, it is relevant and perfectly reasonable to include.
Slashdot Mirror
The fed. doesn't keep the poor from barbequeing the rich first of all. Police are provided by state and municiple governments. Further that's not a service provided to the rich, it's a service provided to everyone. If you've lived in both bad and good neighborhoods you'll also know that it's a service that's taken advantage of far more in poor neighborhoods than rich ones.
property rights, both real and artificial benefit whoever takes advantage of them. They benefit the poor person who attempts to create wealth by protecting them against others just as much as they protect the wealthy. Do you pay more for a soda depending on how much you enjoy it? No, so why would you more for a service simply because you were able to better use it than others? And if that IS how you're going to assign taxes, wouldn't that require that low income families who recieve government assistance pay higher taxes? Also, things like mineral and water rights are again generally not federal in nature.
National defense benefits everyone. In fact, it benefits those without means even more than those with. Those with means have the ability to provide for their own protection, and a far greater chance of favorable treatment from an invading force. Poor people are the ones who get raped, murdered, and impressed into service. If you're living in a cardboard box you've a much higher chance of being killed by fighting in the streets. The demographics of those who actually end up getting killed when fighting starts are skewed because the poor take advantage of our need for national defense far more often than middle to upper classes do. The military will provide a)training b)salary c)room and board to just about anyone who wants it. That's quite an improvement over what the ghetto offers (and I know because that's where I live).
I'd like to see a move away from all progressive taxes entirely. Punishing people for producing wealth is asinine. Tally what the government needs to function and apportion it to the states according to their populations. Low income families should be offered partial or full exemption, but I think that if taxation was done equally we'd see a huge drop in taxes as people realized that well, they don't want those services if they actually have to *pay* for them.
Not quite, laws are written and passed by *representatives*. A bill can't get through both houses without a majority in each and the approval of the president, or a supermajority. In either case that equates to the support of the majority.
Ok, so you're basically saying "put up with inequality in the system or get the hell out?"
Gee, do you think that's what black people should have done too? Should they have just moved to another country that was more "black friendly?" Was it any less oppression because it was codified? That's pretty much what your argument comes down too... "you know that it's happening, therefore it's not theft". Huh? how does that work?
Sorry, but "you can always go somewhere else" doesn't fly as an argument. It's equivalent to me saying "well you didn't have to buy that nice car" as a justification for carjacking you, it completley ignores the fact that it's your car and you have every right to it. Well guess what, I'm a citizen and have every right to live in this country without having my income molested by the *majority*. The people at large don't own the US, the land is privately held. Nor to the people at large have a claim to the privately held wealth of it's citizens. Certain services are neccesary for the security and functioning of the country, and they should be paid by all who are capable. However, when people vote for taxes that they will not have to pay, they're voting for theivery. They're ordering food at a restaurant and then deciding that someone else should pay for it.
That's why it was expressly forbidden in the constitution.
I can't quite tell if you didn't understand the point, or just realized that you couldn't respond to it...
How does that have anything whatsoever to do with the iniquities inherent in the system? I say "It's unfair that a group of people can elect to provide services for which they'll be forcing a different group to pay" and you say "those rich people didn't *have* to be rich".
Most if not all of those taxes are state, not federal taxes, but I do believe you're correct anyway. I think those numbers come from the income tax.
That argument would work if taxes were payed in proportion to the government services that are rendered, but they're not.
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and when you're done the manager comes over and says "I couldn't help but notice that you make quite a bit of money... The folks over at table 30 don't make very much, so you'll be paying for their meal as well as yours", then when you refuse they hold you down and take the money out of your pocket, yes, that would be theft.
I'm not arguing for the elimination of taxes, I'm pointing out that they're a lot closer to theft than the person I was replying too wanted to admit.
How convenient, the *majority* get to decide how much a small *minority* pay in taxes... So basically, they get to vote for expensive programs, then when the bill comes they simply vote for someone else to pay it.
Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority?
So? They don't recieve government services in proportion to their salary.
No, it's really not. It doesn't matter what a thief does with the money, if he takes it without permission it's theft.
That's what the government does, under the flimsy justification of a "social contract" that nobody alive today has signed, and which they break regularly and with impugnity.
No simple-mindedness, the government takes your money by threat of force. They don't even do it equitably, just like a common theif, the more you have, the more they take. The wealthiest half of the US population pays 96% of all taxes.
"Who's paying the attorneys?" a)I'd bet that more than a few attorneys would be willing to take the case for free just on principle. b)If it got pressed to the point that it was going to court, I'd bet that even more attorneys would be willing to take the case for a percentage of any possible settlements. If this is in fact an issue of Linksys being caught between the GPL on one side and Broadcomm licensing on the other, they're going to have to settle with one or the other, and the number of the settlement will most likely be healthy.
explanation and justification are not the same thing.
So can a boxcutter, want to ban those too?
Randomly selected plots?
Do you buy stocks randomly? No, you buy stocks based on either recommendations of experts, or your personal opinion of what is going to happen. Why would this be any different? The only way it would be random would be if people felt the uncontrollable desire to throw their money way.
This may not prove effective at predicting terrorist plots, but it would be amazingly effective at measuring the perceptions of the population using it, and provide a method for comparing public perception to reality.
You're getting hung up on the details, and not understanding them.
.07 cents per download. Basically, it's a P2P system in a radio stations clothing.
What he's describing is little more than Kazaa, but with an accounting feature that will track file dowloads and pay the RIAA
This way file sharing would be charged at the same rate that radio stations do.
Now for the complete slashdot experience, it should be on the front page again within a week.
Until a network slowdown causes your bandwidth to drop unexpectedly, or a sudden spike causes the server to pause for a minute. While you don't neccesarily need the entire movie cached ahead of time, you need to be well ahead of realtime to make it realistically feasible. To assure uninterupted play (which you'd need to do for it to be acceptable to the market) you'd need a good amount of the movie downloaded before play started.
Are you kidding? The ability to download a full DVD in 5 seconds has tons of practical application. For instance, you could rent movies over the net...
Ummmmm, that's $33 EACH if you're buying in quantities of 10k.
and the shebang becomes irrelevant.
I'm not a great programmer, but why would you need destructors in php?
Doesn't it release resources upon each page completion?
It sure as hell would make them think twice before sending out spam though...
Why bother? An 8 pound sledge hammer is only $20 at home depot, is 100% effective, reuseable, and you don't have to bother with making silly gelatine molds.
If somebody wants to get into your house, they're going to. If you build a better door lock, they can still remove the door entirely. Locks aren't about making your house entry-proof, they're about making it inconvenient to break in. If I want to get past your front door, a cordless drill and a sawz-all will bypass any locking device.
But more importantly, it's time for someone to replace them.
Where do you buy discrete components, radio equipment, test gear and electronics kits from these days?
Actually Bungi, that's not true. In fact, it's very wrong.
They went *out of their way* to restrict access to Windows and OS X. They went *out of their way* to disallow use of their website to Linux and BSD users (if in fact they are doing that).
The easiest thing to do for their streaming would be to use an open protocol that had already been developed. It would have been completely free and would have required a minimum of development. Instead they spent MORE money to develope a system that could only be used with approved systems.
Same thing with their website. Websites are by default platform independent. Maybe they won't render exactly the same from system to system, but the server doesn't much care what you're using. You have to go out of your way to make a site that only displays for certain Operating Systems. That had to be a clear goal that they worked towards, it doesn't happen by accident.
I personally don't care, they can make whatever decisions they want. If it mattered to me I just wouldn't buy their product, but as a windows user I couldn't care less. It may not be actual hostility from them, but to say that they aren't actively disallowing the use of linux is incorrect.
As a review, this will serve to help many Slashdotters decide whether or not to purchase this equipment.
Don't you think that somebody running only linux would be a *LITTLE* peeved to purchase this product and find out that the reviewer had neglected to mention that it only works with windows?
The purpose of a review is not to change the world, or even the product. The purpose of a review is to provide the public with information about your experience using a product. Given that this was part of his experience, it is relevant and perfectly reasonable to include.