To what purpose? I mean, why the hurry? Wait till the hardware is here, I would say.
I can definitely understand the pragmatic approach you seem to be taking. If your concern lies with the possibility that the eventual hardware could change and efforts could be lost, don't be. NetBSD is well written, and even if the hardware turns out to be something completely different, NetBSD should be able to adapt.
I run a different UNIX-like operating system, but very much admire the efforts of the NetBSD team. Congratulations to all involved. Such commitment on behalf of both parties shows the true beauty of the community.
"If you can keep the appropriate people focussing their attention on trying to justify themselves, even against
rather pointless and ineffectual attacks, they don't get quite as many people thinking "what are they up to?"
One side effect of Microsoft's attempt to slander volunteer software production is that they are now making the target of their attacks ever more visible and understood. In that I mean Microsoft is inadvertantly creating debates that can cast critical eyes on their own proprietary software models and can raise awareness of the existance of free/better alternatives. Microsoft has the hurdle of trying to make philanthropy look "bad".
Imagine what would happen if WalMart suddenly attacked and lobbied against thrift stores or charitable institutions. They could quite easily argue that the very exitance of low-cost/zero-cost goods destroys the industy. They would, however, endure a backlash they likely could not comprehend.
Im afraid I don't quite see what he was arguing. "Authentication services" is a pretty loose term and was not adequately defined in the article. I assume Nick meant the term to be used as how we can connect to.NET. If so, the article's conclusion that we need to beat 'Microsoft to the punch' makes little sense with a network/platform in which a single company holds all rights.
Theres the OS-bigot remark we are so used to seeing. As usual, it includes no quantitative information or relevance. Heaven forbid a positive or informative article about Linux security appears on a primarily Linux site.
Also, if you were so secure in your choice of operating systems or your own abilities, you would not feel the need to criticize others without merit. Im willing to bet you have contributed nothing at all to any of the operating systems you just mentioned. Thanks.
I disagree with that sentiment. The entire purpose of the GPL is to provide a means a way to help code stay open. If code is intended to be open and should not have closed works derived from it then the GPL makes perfect sense. Arguing that the GPL is restrictive is basically saying that the "taker" of the code is more important than what the author. Somewhere in this discussion BSD/PD advocates confused authors' wishes and derivitive selfishness. Don't like sharing your code? Don't use other peoples' code.
Also, the GPL doesn't stifle innovation as you suggest. It has sparked the fastest growing operating system in history, and it the chief source of the BSD revival. BSDs owe much more than their compiler to the GPL, but some would rather sweep that under the carpet...
If Microsoft is against the Government using freely-licensed code because it "might constrain innovating", then they leave the alternative un-explained. Would someone please explain to me how using closed code will make me more innovative?
Please do not consider this flame-material, but such a fee-based consortium is not possible under the GPL. Vixie poo-poos the GPL, but as we generally regard closed-BIND as bad, this clearly is a case in favor of GPL'ed source. Thoughts?
Isn't such software entrapment? Just as police in the United States are not allowed to provide the means to commit a crime, this software seems to do just that.
I would love to see an eventual litigation of this topic. A "downloader" could say since the questionable files were placed there with the direct intention of having people download them that he was entrapped. That would put an interesting twist on this topic indeed. -clump
A single Voodoo2 board outperforms even TNT2 cards. To make it worse, Q3 on the highest settings on a single Voodoo2 board _smoke_ low-settings TNT2 cards. Even with these new drivers.
I saw that commercial years ago and am shocked that people on Slashdot would actually side with the kid. Some arguments were "Pepsi didn't say it was a joke" or "Its the kids right".
Whether Pepsi was wrong or not, the kid should not have a military-grade weapon. Pepsi probably couldn't even get a Harrier. Any right-thinking individual would know it was a joke. Anyone that would think otherwise is too impressionable to be watching television.
To say the kid should get a jet is saying "Lets have the Government decide what constitutes our sense of humor." -Clump
I agree fully. I run Linux because I am a control freak and I like to learn more about computers. The article fails to account for folks like us, that want more from our computer. Whether Linux become de fact or not is irrelevant. As long as I can do/run what I want, who cares who is on top.
Plus, this article fails to mention different distros. Look how different RedHat is from Slackware. Will that change with a 51% market share? I don't think so. Linux is variety in itself. It won't magically become #1 and become galvanized as a one-method OS. -Clump
"Where are all the applications? In nearly all cases, same place you find Linux applications. FreeBSD has excellent Linux emulation." You see that as acceptable? You call emulating Linux an excuse for there being few applications. If such is the case, why make things difficult? Why not run a real Linux?
"As for source-based applications, as long as the developer hasn't been sucked into writing Linux-specific trash..." Here is a big problem. Both camps like to accuse each other and bicker over licenses. Your above statement is the perfect thing not to say. Why not make informed and anti-inflammatory remarks? -Clump
Actually, the only thing Linux is the kernel. Distros are free to do whatever they want. Since all Linux consists of is a kernel and there is only one kernel, there is no fragmenting. There is something stupid and untested here, but it isn't licensing...
Pardon me differing from your assertions, but I highly disagree with your point. Basically you are arguing by emotion and opinion and counterpoints to your assertions can be found.
"where i come from thats the way upgrading your base C library _should_ be done." That opinion overlooks the most valuable natural resource. Time. Many, including myself, will agree that source updates are superior but what if you lack the time? You have 100 PCs that need to be fixed. Do you unzip and recompile on each one of them? A simple rpm -Uvh could do the work with half the time. Does that make it better? Possibly for that situation.
"if you're going to break it, why not break everything at once instead of doing it little by little?" Once again, that is opinion. Lets say that you have a 50 user system and uptime is critical. Do you want to make a change and immediately kill your system? Obviously things being broken is a bad situation but wouldn't it be better if the entire system wasn't broken?
My problem here is that you could raise many good points but are getting caught in your own emotions. Since you are belligerent in your argument it makes people want to prove you wrong rather than support or learn from you. -Clump
My core disagreement with you is that you fail to take the past into account. Look at Unix. When more people adopted it, it became more supported and more powerful. The problem set in when it fragmented and became proprietary.
Linux is open-source and will remain as such. Myself and others certainly will not stand by and let companies get out of control. As long as the source code is there, nobody can monopolize Linux.
Further, paranoia over more people accepting Linux will get us nowhere. We can't say "I am afraid of your modem. Please keep it working only for Win32. I am afraid the Government will own Linux." Seriously, we need to realize that if we have the code, we have control. Anything too restrictive will be rejected or changed by the community. -Clump
Really, this is a good thing. What is so great about Linux is the plethora of alternatives we can afford. Software modems are taking a heavy beating on Slashdot mostly beacuse people prefer not to use them. However, why is it that those same people are not complaining about Linux running other inferior hardware? Example: Why are attempts to run Linux on 386s not flamed? Why are we not all running Linux on Alphas when that is an architecture regarded by many as superior to x86?
My impression is that a company that wants to give another option to us is a good thing. Look at the fight we gave Nvidia to release Linux drivers. We fought and we won. We didn't say "I hate hardware acceleration." Now a company comes along to give us a product and we meet it with criticism.
Personally, I would rather chew sand than buy a software modem but who am I to decide what is best for all of us? As long as I have a choice, anyone that wants to give us more hardware is good. -Clump
I think many of us are missing the point here. The point of the article was very clear, as was the conclusion. C (pardon the abbreviation) looked at this as a way to almost validate his hard work. It was more of a symbol than buying stock. Then that symbol was taken away for beaurocratic reasons.
C wasn't the only one. Many unsung Linux developers who tirelessly invested countless hours into the OS they love also saw Red Hat's offering as a symbol of appreciation. Here was a company that succeeded at doing the impossible: Making money in open source development and investing back to the community.
Now they had their chance. They knew their money could be lost. That was not the issue. Many wanted just to support Red Hat or be a part of this incredible event.
Small wonder their dissapointment.
Seldom will be found a person that likes to be teased. I most certainly wouldn't like to hear: "For all your countless hours working on Linux, I want you to receive recognition. Oh wait, never mind."
People getting rejected from E*Trade is not uncommon. About 10% are declined out of ever instance. Red Hat was different. This wasn't another company that did an IPO. This wasn't something without ideals. This was a symbol of Linux.
The author's point was about what it was like to experience sheer joy of recognition then to have it removed. His point wasn't to make money. The community is based on sharing and openness. We hate to have those who do not feel as such tell us what we can and cannot do. -Clump
I disagree. I am a web developer who uses both. I use Gimp at home in Linux, and I use Photoshop in Win32 also at home. At work, I use Gimp for Win32. I have been using Photoshop for a couple of years and Gimp for a little over one.
I prefer to use Gimp for a few reasons. One, it loads faster and is stabler on BOTH Win32 and Linux. Thats says much because the Win32 port is a developer version. Two, I can use it on both platforms that I work and play on. Three, I can DL Gimp and rock away, as well as give it to other web devs and not have to pay a dime. Try that with Photoshop.
Don't get me wrong. Photoshop is a great product, but to so seriously discredit Gimp without any merit is counterproductive.
As per this article, my respect for Adobe is almost nill. Their CEO views open source as a tool to help them when time and time again there have been requests for a port, even a commercial port, for Photoshop. Why should I use Photoshop when Gimp is almost as good and is far more flexible? Gimp can even read Photoshop-native files! So I now don't care for Adobe, and wouldn't pay for their software regardless of the platform it runs on. -Clump
I believe the author to have made an excellent case, however I do feel that the case is fundamentally incorrect. Microsoft's handling of Office is definitely indicitive of monopoly power but it is not their only measure, and is not the most important.
The core of the anti-trust litigation is whether the consumer has been harmed. Windows runs on over 90% of the world's PCs and it is difficult to purchase a system from an OEM without it preloaded. As a result of this power, Microsoft has ensured that OS/2, DOS(MS as well as others), Intel Unixes(including Linux), and others all have to fight for less than 10% of the market. With the price of computers constantly decreasing, Windows prices have skyrocketed exponentially and continue to do so.
"if there is one thing to be learned from what happened to internet browsers is that Microsoft is willing to engage in predatory pricing to drive out competitors."
This notion seems to contradict the prime assertion of the essay. Microsoft's bundling of I.E. has clearly resulted in a destryed browser market and the corporate sale of Netscape. One could argue Opera is not free but Opera has a minute market share and is very limited as to what platforms it supports. If the barriers to entry are severe for browser sellers, there won't be browser sellers. Clearly that has harmed consumers--not in the availability of free browsers but that there are only 2 browsers that support modern web standards.
Granted, there are many examples we can point to about the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft. Office is among those examples. However, what the government is asserting and what seems most valid is that Microsoft used unfair tactics to gain the power it had. Had it not used those tactics, Office, Internet Explorer, Windows, and other examples of anti-competitive behavior would not have profited at the expense of the consumer and competition. In other words, had Microsoft not destroyed consumer choice and competition these issues would not exist. We can go after little flames of monopoly--like Office and IE, but until we address the root of the problem, more flames will appear. Therefore, it would be wrong to assert that the government is fighting for the wrong reasons, however poorly or greatly they do so. -Clump
Please don't think I am nitpicking but you conjured up some interest when you said "every-taxation-must-have-a-purpose-that-directly- benefits-the-taxee theory"
People, Americans especially, _loathe_ taxes. We usually hate anything where we can't see an immediate effect. Small wonder why welfare is such a big issue--on a side note, the welfare issue is retarded as welfare accounts for about 1% of the budget while medical costs account for much more and are skyrocketing.
So in order to get Joe American to agree to pay something, it has to be proved that what he is paying is valid. I tend to see that as good. If people are concerned where their money goes it creates a good system of checks and balances. -Clump
One thing I never clarified was that I am not arguing this point to prove you wrong or to express utter disagreement. You are presenting very valid points and I mean just to present the other side. I find your Internet example to be very relevant and was something I had not thought of.
Basically the core of our argument is whether online commerce should be taxed. I feel that it shouldn't; as long as the only way people are looking at this issue is the same way they look at Joe going to Mike's store and buying something. I would reconsider if it meant repaying for the Internet I have so been addicted to for years. You see online-purchasing as something that should not be treated differently simply because of how it is done, making it taxable like the rest of purchases.
As to UPS, I couldn't tell you the specifics, but I know they get no preferential treatment (i hope), therefore they pay taxes like the rest of us. Moving a package to them is moving a package. The government sees it the same way. -Clump
"Even at the most basic level - someone has to bring you your precious little gadget - probably on a truck over public roads."
There already exists a tax system that pays for all of what you mentioned. The people who bring me my gadget pay taxes regardless of the medium, and we all pay taxes for the roads.
My problem with this is there has been no good justification. The tax system is already in place and further taxation would be charging two times on the same product. Further, this matter is being decided by everyone but the correct authorities. -Clump
"Well, it's not as if UPS doesn't use Federal interstates and air traffic control systems and fossil fuels made cheap by the US military and buy.com doesn't use big chunks of Internet funded by the government."
To that I will say very good point. I somewhat disagree about the UPS, as they pay taxes on the resources they consume regardless of how the transaction was conceived. Using the Internet that was funded by the government is a very valid point. However, it was not stated that such funding would be reimbursed through an "Internet Tax". If any political body should have a say in whether there should be a tax or not it should be the organizations that funded the Internet, not something newly-formed and unrelated to the subject.
As to me being a Libertarian or not--I am not. I have not even purchased a single thing online and not once benefited from not paying a tax. I do, however, value my rights and the rights of others. I have no problem paying taxes, however this tax is rediculous and I can see the negative implications if this were to come to fruition.
Slashdot Mirror
I run a different UNIX-like operating system, but very much admire the efforts of the NetBSD team. Congratulations to all involved. Such commitment on behalf of both parties shows the true beauty of the community.
Imagine what would happen if WalMart suddenly attacked and lobbied against thrift stores or charitable institutions. They could quite easily argue that the very exitance of low-cost/zero-cost goods destroys the industy. They would, however, endure a backlash they likely could not comprehend.
Im afraid I don't quite see what he was arguing. "Authentication services" is a pretty loose term and was not adequately defined in the article. I assume Nick meant the term to be used as how we can connect to .NET. If so, the article's conclusion that we need to beat 'Microsoft to the punch' makes little sense with a network/platform in which a single company holds all rights.
Theres the OS-bigot remark we are so used to seeing. As usual, it includes no quantitative information or relevance. Heaven forbid a positive or informative article about Linux security appears on a primarily Linux site.
Also, if you were so secure in your choice of operating systems or your own abilities, you would not feel the need to criticize others without merit. Im willing to bet you have contributed nothing at all to any of the operating systems you just mentioned. Thanks.
I disagree with that sentiment. The entire purpose of the GPL is to provide a means a way to help code stay open. If code is intended to be open and should not have closed works derived from it then the GPL makes perfect sense. Arguing that the GPL is restrictive is basically saying that the "taker" of the code is more important than what the author. Somewhere in this discussion BSD/PD advocates confused authors' wishes and derivitive selfishness. Don't like sharing your code? Don't use other peoples' code.
Also, the GPL doesn't stifle innovation as you suggest. It has sparked the fastest growing operating system in history, and it the chief source of the BSD revival. BSDs owe much more than their compiler to the GPL, but some would rather sweep that under the carpet...
If Microsoft is against the Government using freely-licensed code because it "might constrain innovating", then they leave the alternative un-explained. Would someone please explain to me how using closed code will make me more innovative?
Please do not consider this flame-material, but such a fee-based consortium is not possible under the GPL. Vixie poo-poos the GPL, but as we generally regard closed-BIND as bad, this clearly is a case in favor of GPL'ed source. Thoughts?
"47 meellion votes?!?! I'M THE BUSH!!!!!"
Thats from Ren and Stimpy!!! I love you!!!
Isn't such software entrapment? Just as police in the United States are not allowed to provide the means to commit a crime, this software seems to do just that.
I would love to see an eventual litigation of this topic. A "downloader" could say since the questionable files were placed there with the direct intention of having people download them that he was entrapped. That would put an interesting twist on this topic indeed.
-clump
A single Voodoo2 board outperforms even TNT2 cards. To make it worse, Q3 on the highest settings on a single Voodoo2 board _smoke_ low-settings TNT2 cards. Even with these new drivers.
I saw that commercial years ago and am shocked that people on Slashdot would actually side with the kid. Some arguments were "Pepsi didn't say it was a joke" or "Its the kids right".
Whether Pepsi was wrong or not, the kid should not have a military-grade weapon. Pepsi probably couldn't even get a Harrier. Any right-thinking individual would know it was a joke. Anyone that would think otherwise is too impressionable to be watching television.
To say the kid should get a jet is saying "Lets have the Government decide what constitutes our sense of humor."
-Clump
I agree fully. I run Linux because I am a control freak and I like to learn more about computers. The article fails to account for folks like us, that want more from our computer. Whether Linux become de fact or not is irrelevant. As long as I can do/run what I want, who cares who is on top.
Plus, this article fails to mention different distros. Look how different RedHat is from Slackware. Will that change with a 51% market share? I don't think so. Linux is variety in itself. It won't magically become #1 and become galvanized as a one-method OS.
-Clump
"Where are all the applications? In nearly all cases, same place you find Linux applications. FreeBSD has excellent Linux emulation."
You see that as acceptable? You call emulating Linux an excuse for there being few applications. If such is the case, why make things difficult? Why not run a real Linux?
"As for source-based applications, as long as the developer hasn't been sucked into writing Linux-specific trash..."
Here is a big problem. Both camps like to accuse each other and bicker over licenses. Your above statement is the perfect thing not to say. Why not make informed and anti-inflammatory remarks?
-Clump
Actually, the only thing Linux is the kernel. Distros are free to do whatever they want. Since all Linux consists of is a kernel and there is only one kernel, there is no fragmenting. There is something stupid and untested here, but it isn't licensing...
-Clump
Pardon me differing from your assertions, but I highly disagree with your point. Basically you are arguing by emotion and opinion and counterpoints to your assertions can be found.
"where i come from thats the way upgrading your base C library _should_ be done."
That opinion overlooks the most valuable natural resource. Time. Many, including myself, will agree that source updates are superior but what if you lack the time? You have 100 PCs that need to be fixed. Do you unzip and recompile on each one of them? A simple rpm -Uvh could do the work with half the time. Does that make it better? Possibly for that situation.
"if you're going to break it, why not break everything at once instead of doing it little by little?"
Once again, that is opinion. Lets say that you have a 50 user system and uptime is critical. Do you want to make a change and immediately kill your system? Obviously things being broken is a bad situation but wouldn't it be better if the entire system wasn't broken?
My problem here is that you could raise many good points but are getting caught in your own emotions. Since you are belligerent in your argument it makes people want to prove you wrong rather than support or learn from you.
-Clump
My core disagreement with you is that you fail to take the past into account. Look at Unix. When more people adopted it, it became more supported and more powerful. The problem set in when it fragmented and became proprietary.
Linux is open-source and will remain as such. Myself and others certainly will not stand by and let companies get out of control. As long as the source code is there, nobody can monopolize Linux.
Further, paranoia over more people accepting Linux will get us nowhere. We can't say "I am afraid of your modem. Please keep it working only for Win32. I am afraid the Government will own Linux." Seriously, we need to realize that if we have the code, we have control. Anything too restrictive will be rejected or changed by the community.
-Clump
Really, this is a good thing. What is so great about Linux is the plethora of alternatives we can afford. Software modems are taking a heavy beating on Slashdot mostly beacuse people prefer not to use them. However, why is it that those same people are not complaining about Linux running other inferior hardware? Example: Why are attempts to run Linux on 386s not flamed? Why are we not all running Linux on Alphas when that is an architecture regarded by many as superior to x86?
My impression is that a company that wants to give another option to us is a good thing. Look at the fight we gave Nvidia to release Linux drivers. We fought and we won. We didn't say "I hate hardware acceleration." Now a company comes along to give us a product and we meet it with criticism.
Personally, I would rather chew sand than buy a software modem but who am I to decide what is best for all of us? As long as I have a choice, anyone that wants to give us more hardware is good.
-Clump
Pardon me, but this doesn't sound too official. There was no link to an article and no real names or evidence was given.
-Clump
I think many of us are missing the point here. The point of the article was very clear, as was the conclusion. C (pardon the abbreviation) looked at this as a way to almost validate his hard work. It was more of a symbol than buying stock. Then that symbol was taken away for beaurocratic reasons.
C wasn't the only one. Many unsung Linux developers who tirelessly invested countless hours into the OS they love also saw Red Hat's offering as a symbol of appreciation. Here was a company that succeeded at doing the impossible: Making money in open source development and investing back to the community.
Now they had their chance. They knew their money could be lost. That was not the issue. Many wanted just to support Red Hat or be a part of this incredible event.
Small wonder their dissapointment.
Seldom will be found a person that likes to be teased. I most certainly wouldn't like to hear: "For all your countless hours working on Linux, I want you to receive recognition. Oh wait, never mind."
People getting rejected from E*Trade is not uncommon. About 10% are declined out of ever instance. Red Hat was different. This wasn't another company that did an IPO. This wasn't something without ideals. This was a symbol of Linux.
The author's point was about what it was like to experience sheer joy of recognition then to have it removed. His point wasn't to make money. The community is based on sharing and openness. We hate to have those who do not feel as such tell us what we can and cannot do.
-Clump
I disagree. I am a web developer who uses both. I use Gimp at home in Linux, and I use Photoshop in Win32 also at home. At work, I use Gimp for Win32. I have been using Photoshop for a couple of years and Gimp for a little over one.
I prefer to use Gimp for a few reasons. One, it loads faster and is stabler on BOTH Win32 and Linux. Thats says much because the Win32 port is a developer version. Two, I can use it on both platforms that I work and play on. Three, I can DL Gimp and rock away, as well as give it to other web devs and not have to pay a dime. Try that with Photoshop.
Don't get me wrong. Photoshop is a great product, but to so seriously discredit Gimp without any merit is counterproductive.
As per this article, my respect for Adobe is almost nill. Their CEO views open source as a tool to help them when time and time again there have been requests for a port, even a commercial port, for Photoshop. Why should I use Photoshop when Gimp is almost as good and is far more flexible? Gimp can even read Photoshop-native files! So I now don't care for Adobe, and wouldn't pay for their software regardless of the platform it runs on.
-Clump
I believe the author to have made an excellent case, however I do feel that the case is fundamentally incorrect. Microsoft's handling of Office is definitely indicitive of monopoly power but it is not their only measure, and is not the most important.
The core of the anti-trust litigation is whether the consumer has been harmed. Windows runs on over 90% of the world's PCs and it is difficult to purchase a system from an OEM without it preloaded. As a result of this power, Microsoft has ensured that OS/2, DOS(MS as well as others), Intel Unixes(including Linux), and others all have to fight for less than 10% of the market. With the price of computers constantly decreasing, Windows prices have skyrocketed exponentially and continue to do so.
"if there is one thing to be learned from what happened to internet browsers is that Microsoft is willing to engage in predatory pricing to drive out competitors."
This notion seems to contradict the prime assertion of the essay. Microsoft's bundling of I.E. has clearly resulted in a destryed browser market and the corporate sale of Netscape. One could argue Opera is not free but Opera has a minute market share and is very limited as to what platforms it supports. If the barriers to entry are severe for browser sellers, there won't be browser sellers. Clearly that has harmed consumers--not in the availability of free browsers but that there are only 2 browsers that support modern web standards.
Granted, there are many examples we can point to about the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft. Office is among those examples. However, what the government is asserting and what seems most valid is that Microsoft used unfair tactics to gain the power it had. Had it not used those tactics, Office, Internet Explorer, Windows, and other examples of anti-competitive behavior would not have profited at the expense of the consumer and competition. In other words, had Microsoft not destroyed consumer choice and competition these issues would not exist. We can go after little flames of monopoly--like Office and IE, but until we address the root of the problem, more flames will appear. Therefore, it would be wrong to assert that the government is fighting for the wrong reasons, however poorly or greatly they do so.
-Clump
Please don't think I am nitpicking but you conjured up some interest when you said "every-taxation-must-have-a-purpose-that-directly- benefits-the-taxee theory"
People, Americans especially, _loathe_ taxes. We usually hate anything where we can't see an immediate effect. Small wonder why welfare is such a big issue--on a side note, the welfare issue is retarded as welfare accounts for about 1% of the budget while medical costs account for much more and are skyrocketing.
So in order to get Joe American to agree to pay something, it has to be proved that what he is paying is valid. I tend to see that as good. If people are concerned where their money goes it creates a good system of checks and balances.
-Clump
One thing I never clarified was that I am not arguing this point to prove you wrong or to express utter disagreement. You are presenting very valid points and I mean just to present the other side. I find your Internet example to be very relevant and was something I had not thought of.
Basically the core of our argument is whether online commerce should be taxed. I feel that it shouldn't; as long as the only way people are looking at this issue is the same way they look at Joe going to Mike's store and buying something. I would reconsider if it meant repaying for the Internet I have so been addicted to for years. You see online-purchasing as something that should not be treated differently simply because of how it is done, making it taxable like the rest of purchases.
As to UPS, I couldn't tell you the specifics, but I know they get no preferential treatment (i hope), therefore they pay taxes like the rest of us. Moving a package to them is moving a package. The government sees it the same way.
-Clump
"Even at the most basic level - someone has to bring you your precious little gadget - probably on a truck over public roads."
There already exists a tax system that pays for all of what you mentioned. The people who bring me my gadget pay taxes regardless of the medium, and we all pay taxes for the roads.
My problem with this is there has been no good justification. The tax system is already in place and further taxation would be charging two times on the same product. Further, this matter is being decided by everyone but the correct authorities.
-Clump
"Well, it's not as if UPS doesn't use Federal interstates and air traffic control systems and fossil fuels made cheap by the US military and buy.com doesn't use big chunks of Internet funded by the government."
To that I will say very good point. I somewhat disagree about the UPS, as they pay taxes on the resources they consume regardless of how the transaction was conceived. Using the Internet that was funded by the government is a very valid point. However, it was not stated that such funding would be reimbursed through an "Internet Tax". If any political body should have a say in whether there should be a tax or not it should be the organizations that funded the Internet, not something newly-formed and unrelated to the subject.
As to me being a Libertarian or not--I am not. I have not even purchased a single thing online and not once benefited from not paying a tax. I do, however, value my rights and the rights of others. I have no problem paying taxes, however this tax is rediculous and I can see the negative implications if this were to come to fruition.
-Clump