I don't think people have to understand the logic of a phrase to use it correctly. I certainly don't know the etimology of "begging the question!" Just as one doesn't have to know the origins of "skid row" to know it is the seedy part of town, one doesn't have to know the ins and outs of 'begging the question' to use it correctly.
Although BTQ is probably more of a debating term than anything else, I think it is a fairly common phrase. I don't hear it every day certainly, but I do hear it several times a year when someones attempts to evade a topic or issue and they are called on it (and I'm not even in academia). The only time I have ever heard it used incorrectly is here in slashdot.
However, I suspect that neither you nor I will be doing any scientific polling to find out the percentage of real people who know how to use the phrase correctly, so we'll probably not get that one resolved.
Just like you want us to think your message had a legitimate purpose by misspelling it "legitamate"? If you had RTFA you would have seen that they received hundreds of thousands of responses.
The expense of hiring and bribing a translator who might have turned them in to the police probably didn't justify the risk.
Most of the arguments here in favor of the misuse of the phrase are based on the assumption that common usage overrides the defined usage of a phrase. An example would be instructing someone to "dial the phone". By popular usage this phrase is considered correct even though phones don't have dials any more.
The fallacy in this type of argument is that the phrase is usually used correctly - just not on slashdot. In the real world it is generally used to mean "avoid the question by answering another one", as it should be.
It is conceivable that a non-standard use of a phrase might come to be correct in a small population such as slashdot, in which case it would be classified as jargon. However, "begs the question" isn't even close to that level even on slashdot, much less in the general population.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the small universe of slashdot is the entire universe of people who use the term "beg the question". Most users of the phrase know its correct meaning and use it correctly. Whether a result of youth or a less than stellar education in English skills, slashdotters are likely to misuse the phrase more than the general population.
If a person goes into a meeting and uses "beg the question" in a wrong way he is going to look merely uneducated to the other participants. If he then tries to rationalize his usage by claiming his definition is correct because English is defined by its usage he is going to look uneducated AND foolish.
Of all the posts on this topic this is probably the most useful to all those job-hunters out there, but no one will realize it. Unfortunately it is also likely to be the most predictive.
I second the comment about ambient light control being key for anyone considering one of these. I used to bring home a projector from work too, but simply stopped because it wasn't worth it. I had to darken the room or make the image so small it was pointless. Who wants to sit in the dark all day?
Rear-projection or LCD/Plasma screens eliminate this problem. I use a Samsung 50" DLP rear-projection TV now and I can see it clearly in any light. My living room even has wrap-around windows. Rear-projection TV's have improved much in the past few years. They are no longer the big box taking up floor space. Mine is only 11" deep and 30 lbs (that is only 6 inch deeper than many flat panel LCD screens and lighter to boot) . It is essentially a very big table-top HDTV. Like you I love it as a PC monitor. You would have to use a gun to get it out of my apartment. Although normal video from the PC looks very, very good on my setup, DVI output improves sharpness nd contrast greatly.
In order to get brightness equivalent in a projector you would have to buy one of the commercial models that cost many thousands of dollars.
The other key concern is burn-in. DLP (and I think LCD) don't have burn-in problems. Don't even think of trying to use a monitor that will burn the image onto the screen. A great place for information in this and related areas is avsforum
As I write this I am sitting on my couch with a wireless keyboard and mouse with a Samsung HLN50w Rear Projection DLP sitting about 12 feet in front of me (50" diagonal). It doubles as an HDTV and PC monitor. A new term has been coined for this type of computing - couch computing.
Frankly it is wonderful. I have a 50" 16:9 PC screen that is very bright and sharp. I invest in stocks and use this display during the day to track my accounts and so have some small fonts displayed which are very readable. I could display smaller fonts and still have them sharp, but my aging eyes have trouble with them. The extra screen space of the 16:9 ratio is great, too. I can get more windows on the screen at the same time than with a normal monitor.I am also an artist and use the TV/Monitor do do Photoshop work on my prints.
This is the way to go for computing unless you have to sit at a desk. It is a bit hard to write and take notes from the couch, but a desk would fix that. I do not think a projector would work very well in this situation since the light loss and lack of contrast in my very well-lit room would be a problem. I don't want to sit in the dark when I work. The DLP also prevents burn-in on the monitor. If you plan to couch-compute I would strongly recommend DLP or LCD which do not have burn-in problems.
As an added bonus I can have my Excel-based accounts displayed on screen during the day while I have a PIP of financial news services in the lower corner simultaneously (or a DVD or whatever). I use a HTPC (home theater PC) to run the monitor and can stream music, world radio, or digital music from my cable while I work.
I am really getting tired of this silly argument that there has to be a physical item involved for there to be theft. Property is property, whether it is physical or intellectual. If, for example, a photographer makes his living selling a photo, and you scan it and sell the copies yourself as digiatl files you have stolen his work. You did not buy the equipment, take the picture, process the prints nor have the creativity to do it yourself, but you are depriving him of the income his work would have produced. That is theft. Even if you just give them away, you still stole his work.
By the way, theft of intellectual property *can* be a criminal offense - you can very definately end up in jail for doing it.
If you stole the code for a new video game that a company had spent millions to develop and then packaged it and sold it yourself you think that wouldn't be theft? Get real.
This isn't just my opinion, this is the law in every civilized country. I don't support the DMCA or the RIAA - their positions are too extreme and infringe on my fair-use rights. But just as extreme are the people like you who justify their theft of [insert copyrighted material here] by claiming there was no physical objects involved and therefore no crime. Frankly you remind be of the people who claim they don't have to pay taxes because the IRS misspelled "exemption" on page thirty-four of the tax code. That, too, is a silly rationalized argument that flies in the face of reality.
Of course when the shoe is on the other foot and people are complaining about spammers they are up in arms about the "theft" of bandwidth. There is no physical object involved there - so which is it? Is it when its someone else's property being stolen it *isn't* theft but when its your property it *is* theft?
The wheel would not accelerate to brake - if so you couldn't brake if you were at full throttle. The gyros would tilt the rider back as the wheel begins to brake, transferring the force into the seat rather than forward, over the handlebars onto the pavement. I imagine that if done properly the sensation would be very comfortable and stable-feeling. You are correct when you compare it to a runner stopping, but again, the runner leans back to put his feet in front of him. Stopping does not involve accelerating feet.
This also answers the question about what advantages this design has over a traditional motcycle. Gryo-controlled compensation for velocity changes would probably make this very cool and safe to ride.
Interesting post about the history of this company and its CEO. When I looked at the site the first thing that came to my mind was that it was deceptive. "Recyclable" it claims in big letters - well of course it is, just like every other cell phone, telephone, radio, and automobile is mostly recyclable in theory. The problem is that it won't be. The recycling logo (the chasing arrows printed on the back) is being misused. It is not legal to use it for a mixed product such as this and it is also illegal for them to claim recyclability for a product that, although technically able to be recycled, is unlikely to be.
Here is a small excerpt from the Federal regulations regarding inapropriate claims of recylability (19 CFR 260 for those who want to read the whole thing):
Example 2: A trash bag is labeled ??recyclable?? without qualification. Because trash bags will ordinarily not be separated out from other trash at the landfill or incinerator for recycling, they are highly unlikely to be used again for any purpose. Even if the bag is technically capable of being recycled, the claim is deceptive
There are also regulations in 29 CFR 260 prohibiting the claim of recyclability if there are non-minor unrecyclable components of the product, which this phone has. This means that even if this phone is brought back for the $5 rebate it STILL won't be recycled and therefore CANNOT be marketed as such.
The millions of cell phones that are simply thrown into the trash today are becoming a big environmental concern. This produxt will only make that worse, and the company planning to make them is clearly just trying to spin away that problem. If they were serious about the environmental impact of the phone they would have a real turn-in and reconditioning program rather than deceptive claims of recyclability.
Although ATM programming is different than for voting machines; and, as you pointed out, simplified by the ATM Card, the underlying problem is Deibold's incompetent corporate management of the software development process. Their process works its black-magic on ATMs as well as voting machines. Anyone who has developed software recognizes the signs of incompetence in Deibold - no version tracking, undocumented changes, off the cuff programmings changes without considering its implications, inadequate testing, etc. Read the Salon article from June to get an idea of how bad their development process really is.
Either Deibold has incompetent Project Managers or the PM's are being over-ruled by management to save time or costs. To have Deibold's sort of lame development process in financial and voting areas is looney. I don't trust Deibold's work but there isn't much I can do about their ATMs - there IS still something I can do about their crappy voting machines. Since the banking industry keeps electronic scams and thefts secret we have no idea how many Deibold ATM systems have been compromised for untold millions. Speak out before Deibold's electronic voting machine system without paper trails is chosen to pick your elected officials - call your local election board and state your opinion about requiring paper-trail voting records.
My original reply was more to address the "why does everyone cry to the government" part of your message - I thought sking the government to control spam was a legitimate thing to do.
In another post in this thread I suggested a modification to a suggested tax on email to be a tax on *commercial* email. That would free common folk of an email tax. However, I also noted that if we can't get spammers to obey the few anti-spam laws that are on the books now how are we going to get them to pay their taxes (or the charges from individuals in your plan?)
Sure, taxes are blunt, but they are also relatively simple. I can't even imagine the complexity of administering millions upon millions of penny transactions for emails, the amount per email set by each and every recipient. Doesn't it make sense to have the people who are making use of most of the bandwidth of the internet simply pay taxes to support its infrastructure? I could also see people setting up hundreds of inviting email addresses to harvest all the spam micro-payments. I think that would actually increase spam rather than decrease spam.
I don't think charging for spam, whether in a tax or in micropayments will ever stop it. Taxes on commercial email however, will provide valuable funds for supporting the email infrastructure. Right now I think the best way to stop spam is a national do-not-spam list which is vigourously enforced. Frankly, I don't see a solution for international spam.
Incidently, that junk mail in your mailbox costs the sender a lot more than 50 cents.
Re:What are our options on election day?
on
CNN Reports on Diebold
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
NO! The way to get your point across is to call your local elections board now, before they make the decision to use Diebold. Tell them you want machines that provide a paper trail!
The selection of voting machines is on a state and local level. It IS very possible to sway these decisions by speaking up now rather than waiting to make a meaningless gesture.
Re:And what exactly is the official, from Diebold
on
CNN Reports on Diebold
·
· Score: 1
The wierd part is - that pretty accurately sums up Diebold's position on the matter.
nstead of a tax (why do some people always look to government for everything),
The main purpose of taxes are the redistribution of wealth to provide for the common good. No one could afford to hire trash collectors, firemen, police, build roads or get mail delivery without the collection of taxes and the redistribution of wealth to provide those services to all.
The other main purpose of taxes tax isn't the government *doing* anything really except encouraging behaviors or industries and discouraging others (in this case spamming). Just as in trash collection and police services it would be impossible to make a dent in the spam industry if it were up to each individual citizen to collect a few cents per message.
Remember that the government isn't some separate entity, but is made up of our representatives elected by us. We then let them know what we want. It is perfectly legitimate to want the government to "do" something about a problem that effects everyone.
On the other hand you better hurry up and use your democracy before the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triumvirate nullifies the Constitution and starts telling you what THEY want.
Maybe a better slant would be to tax commercial email. That way we poor emailers who don't try to make money from it won't have to pay.
However, if you can't get these guys to work within the laws now (hijacked addresses, porn spam, Nigerian scams, etc.) how are you gonna get 'em to pay taxes? Plus how do you charge offshore spammers which probably make up the majority of spammers.
To paraphrase the gun industry - "When you have an email tax, only criminals will have free email."
All you slashdotters who scream "Darwin Aawrd" whenever someone get scammed have to remember that you have the advantage in knowing that it was a scam. Seems obvious to you because it IS obvious to you - you were told.
Professional scammers are often extremely smart, would make good psychologists, appear very honest and trustworthy, and are very, very good at separating people and their money. Scammers will do things like record office noise to play in the background to make their call sound like it is coming from an official call-center. They don't say "Hey, yuk,yuk will you give me your heh,heh credit card number? I'm from uh...oh yeah...the credit card company".
Think so? How about people simply disappearing into the 'justice" system, picked up in the dead of night by government agents, not allowed visitors, not allowed to see an attorney, held without trial and without charge? Earlier this year I saw pictures of mothers holding signs outside a federal prison in Washington State with pictures of thier sons, trying to find out if they were being held there! AND THIS WAS IN AMERICA!
What about torture of human beings? Treatment of some "suspects" in Afghanastan and Iraq as well as detainees in Guantonimo falls well within the definition of torture of these organizations even if it isn't electric shock to the genitals. And those a AMERICANS doing the torturing.
What about the new policy of political assasination? Officially prohibited to US agencies for decades it is now acceptable. So far its only foreigners that can be assasinated, but its not that big a jump to internal politcal opponents is it? That used to be one of the things that we could point at that made the US better than dictatorships, but no more.
What about the government playing the legal system to get what they want no matter the courts? For example declaring a defendant an enemy combatant so they could imprison him when the trial wasn't going the government's way? What about holding hundreds of people indefinately without charge and without trial by mis-using the Material Witness laws?
People detained in Guantonimo have NO rights, even those given to non-citizens. The administration justifies this by claiming that they are not on US soil and therefore aren't entitled to the protection of any US laws, including the rights given to them by the constitution. In the past US bases, embassies, and ships have always been considered US soil. Face it - we have an admnistration that thinks it is justified in cancelling the Constitution whenever it gets in their way.
The people in this country who think that we haven't digressed from a country where citizens are protected from government by the Constitution really need to look hard at the reality of the situation rather than exercise their wishful-thinking genes and claim we're fine.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think people have to understand the logic of a phrase to use it correctly. I certainly don't know the etimology of "begging the question!" Just as one doesn't have to know the origins of "skid row" to know it is the seedy part of town, one doesn't have to know the ins and outs of 'begging the question' to use it correctly.
Although BTQ is probably more of a debating term than anything else, I think it is a fairly common phrase. I don't hear it every day certainly, but I do hear it several times a year when someones attempts to evade a topic or issue and they are called on it (and I'm not even in academia). The only time I have ever heard it used incorrectly is here in slashdot.
However, I suspect that neither you nor I will be doing any scientific polling to find out the percentage of real people who know how to use the phrase correctly, so we'll probably not get that one resolved.
Thanks for the comment.
Well I'm not Republican and I don't want to hear Bush or Cheney screaming All your votes are belong to us! in 2004. :-)
Just like you want us to think your message had a legitimate purpose by misspelling it "legitamate"? If you had RTFA you would have seen that they received hundreds of thousands of responses.
The expense of hiring and bribing a translator who might have turned them in to the police probably didn't justify the risk.
Most of the arguments here in favor of the misuse of the phrase are based on the assumption that common usage overrides the defined usage of a phrase. An example would be instructing someone to "dial the phone". By popular usage this phrase is considered correct even though phones don't have dials any more.
The fallacy in this type of argument is that the phrase is usually used correctly - just not on slashdot. In the real world it is generally used to mean "avoid the question by answering another one", as it should be.
It is conceivable that a non-standard use of a phrase might come to be correct in a small population such as slashdot, in which case it would be classified as jargon. However, "begs the question" isn't even close to that level even on slashdot, much less in the general population.
I work with educated people and I work with lawyers. Believe me, "educated" is NOT synonymous with "pedantic".
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the small universe of slashdot is the entire universe of people who use the term "beg the question". Most users of the phrase know its correct meaning and use it correctly. Whether a result of youth or a less than stellar education in English skills, slashdotters are likely to misuse the phrase more than the general population.
If a person goes into a meeting and uses "beg the question" in a wrong way he is going to look merely uneducated to the other participants. If he then tries to rationalize his usage by claiming his definition is correct because English is defined by its usage he is going to look uneducated AND foolish.
Of all the posts on this topic this is probably the most useful to all those job-hunters out there, but no one will realize it. Unfortunately it is also likely to be the most predictive.
I second the comment about ambient light control being key for anyone considering one of these. I used to bring home a projector from work too, but simply stopped because it wasn't worth it. I had to darken the room or make the image so small it was pointless. Who wants to sit in the dark all day?
Rear-projection or LCD/Plasma screens eliminate this problem. I use a Samsung 50" DLP rear-projection TV now and I can see it clearly in any light. My living room even has wrap-around windows. Rear-projection TV's have improved much in the past few years. They are no longer the big box taking up floor space. Mine is only 11" deep and 30 lbs (that is only 6 inch deeper than many flat panel LCD screens and lighter to boot) . It is essentially a very big table-top HDTV. Like you I love it as a PC monitor. You would have to use a gun to get it out of my apartment. Although normal video from the PC looks very, very good on my setup, DVI output improves sharpness nd contrast greatly.
In order to get brightness equivalent in a projector you would have to buy one of the commercial models that cost many thousands of dollars.
The other key concern is burn-in. DLP (and I think LCD) don't have burn-in problems. Don't even think of trying to use a monitor that will burn the image onto the screen. A great place for information in this and related areas is avsforum
As I write this I am sitting on my couch with a wireless keyboard and mouse with a Samsung HLN50w Rear Projection DLP sitting about 12 feet in front of me (50" diagonal). It doubles as an HDTV and PC monitor. A new term has been coined for this type of computing - couch computing.
Frankly it is wonderful. I have a 50" 16:9 PC screen that is very bright and sharp. I invest in stocks and use this display during the day to track my accounts and so have some small fonts displayed which are very readable. I could display smaller fonts and still have them sharp, but my aging eyes have trouble with them. The extra screen space of the 16:9 ratio is great, too. I can get more windows on the screen at the same time than with a normal monitor.I am also an artist and use the TV/Monitor do do Photoshop work on my prints.
This is the way to go for computing unless you have to sit at a desk. It is a bit hard to write and take notes from the couch, but a desk would fix that. I do not think a projector would work very well in this situation since the light loss and lack of contrast in my very well-lit room would be a problem. I don't want to sit in the dark when I work. The DLP also prevents burn-in on the monitor. If you plan to couch-compute I would strongly recommend DLP or LCD which do not have burn-in problems.
As an added bonus I can have my Excel-based accounts displayed on screen during the day while I have a PIP of financial news services in the lower corner simultaneously (or a DVD or whatever). I use a HTPC (home theater PC) to run the monitor and can stream music, world radio, or digital music from my cable while I work.
This is close to computing heaven for me.
I am really getting tired of this silly argument that there has to be a physical item involved for there to be theft. Property is property, whether it is physical or intellectual. If, for example, a photographer makes his living selling a photo, and you scan it and sell the copies yourself as digiatl files you have stolen his work. You did not buy the equipment, take the picture, process the prints nor have the creativity to do it yourself, but you are depriving him of the income his work would have produced. That is theft. Even if you just give them away, you still stole his work.
By the way, theft of intellectual property *can* be a criminal offense - you can very definately end up in jail for doing it.
If you stole the code for a new video game that a company had spent millions to develop and then packaged it and sold it yourself you think that wouldn't be theft? Get real.
This isn't just my opinion, this is the law in every civilized country. I don't support the DMCA or the RIAA - their positions are too extreme and infringe on my fair-use rights. But just as extreme are the people like you who justify their theft of [insert copyrighted material here] by claiming there was no physical objects involved and therefore no crime. Frankly you remind be of the people who claim they don't have to pay taxes because the IRS misspelled "exemption" on page thirty-four of the tax code. That, too, is a silly rationalized argument that flies in the face of reality.
Of course when the shoe is on the other foot and people are complaining about spammers they are up in arms about the "theft" of bandwidth. There is no physical object involved there - so which is it? Is it when its someone else's property being stolen it *isn't* theft but when its your property it *is* theft?
oh. I thought I was being trolled and you were bing funny. You actually are a moron.
Har de har, har. I get it - I've been trolled.
:-)
JohnPM, if by any chance you really are a physicist I wouldn't advise putting your real name on any of this. It might not be a good career move.
If you are a physicist I'm the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
Tilting a gyro *does* impart rotational force around an axis.
Why don't you go outside, run and stop. Then come back and tell me you "accelerated your feet". I can't stop laughing.
...not to mention screwing up our electric power grid. Both northeastern power blackouts came from Canada.
Ok, ok the second one only went *through* Canada, but you guys shoulda stopped it!
Close, but no cigar.
The wheel would not accelerate to brake - if so you couldn't brake if you were at full throttle. The gyros would tilt the rider back as the wheel begins to brake, transferring the force into the seat rather than forward, over the handlebars onto the pavement. I imagine that if done properly the sensation would be very comfortable and stable-feeling. You are correct when you compare it to a runner stopping, but again, the runner leans back to put his feet in front of him. Stopping does not involve accelerating feet.
This also answers the question about what advantages this design has over a traditional motcycle. Gryo-controlled compensation for velocity changes would probably make this very cool and safe to ride.
Interesting post about the history of this company and its CEO. When I looked at the site the first thing that came to my mind was that it was deceptive. "Recyclable" it claims in big letters - well of course it is, just like every other cell phone, telephone, radio, and automobile is mostly recyclable in theory. The problem is that it won't be. The recycling logo (the chasing arrows printed on the back) is being misused. It is not legal to use it for a mixed product such as this and it is also illegal for them to claim recyclability for a product that, although technically able to be recycled, is unlikely to be.
Here is a small excerpt from the Federal regulations regarding inapropriate claims of recylability (19 CFR 260 for those who want to read the whole thing):
Example 2: A trash bag is labeled ??recyclable??
without qualification. Because trash
bags will ordinarily not be separated out
from other trash at the landfill or incinerator
for recycling, they are highly unlikely
to be used again for any purpose. Even if the
bag is technically capable of being recycled,
the claim is deceptive
There are also regulations in 29 CFR 260 prohibiting the claim of recyclability if there are non-minor unrecyclable components of the product, which this phone has. This means that even if this phone is brought back for the $5 rebate it STILL won't be recycled and therefore CANNOT be marketed as such.
The millions of cell phones that are simply thrown into the trash today are becoming a big environmental concern. This produxt will only make that worse, and the company planning to make them is clearly just trying to spin away that problem. If they were serious about the environmental impact of the phone they would have a real turn-in and reconditioning program rather than deceptive claims of recyclability.
I don't have a glue as to what you are talking about...
Although ATM programming is different than for voting machines; and, as you pointed out, simplified by the ATM Card, the underlying problem is Deibold's incompetent corporate management of the software development process. Their process works its black-magic on ATMs as well as voting machines. Anyone who has developed software recognizes the signs of incompetence in Deibold - no version tracking, undocumented changes, off the cuff programmings changes without considering its implications, inadequate testing, etc. Read the Salon article from June to get an idea of how bad their development process really is.
Either Deibold has incompetent Project Managers or the PM's are being over-ruled by management to save time or costs. To have Deibold's sort of lame development process in financial and voting areas is looney. I don't trust Deibold's work but there isn't much I can do about their ATMs - there IS still something I can do about their crappy voting machines. Since the banking industry keeps electronic scams and thefts secret we have no idea how many Deibold ATM systems have been compromised for untold millions. Speak out before Deibold's electronic voting machine system without paper trails is chosen to pick your elected officials - call your local election board and state your opinion about requiring paper-trail voting records.
My original reply was more to address the "why does everyone cry to the government" part of your message - I thought sking the government to control spam was a legitimate thing to do.
In another post in this thread I suggested a modification to a suggested tax on email to be a tax on *commercial* email. That would free common folk of an email tax. However, I also noted that if we can't get spammers to obey the few anti-spam laws that are on the books now how are we going to get them to pay their taxes (or the charges from individuals in your plan?)
Sure, taxes are blunt, but they are also relatively simple. I can't even imagine the complexity of administering millions upon millions of penny transactions for emails, the amount per email set by each and every recipient. Doesn't it make sense to have the people who are making use of most of the bandwidth of the internet simply pay taxes to support its infrastructure? I could also see people setting up hundreds of inviting email addresses to harvest all the spam micro-payments. I think that would actually increase spam rather than decrease spam.
I don't think charging for spam, whether in a tax or in micropayments will ever stop it. Taxes on commercial email however, will provide valuable funds for supporting the email infrastructure. Right now I think the best way to stop spam is a national do-not-spam list which is vigourously enforced. Frankly, I don't see a solution for international spam.
Incidently, that junk mail in your mailbox costs the sender a lot more than 50 cents.
NO! The way to get your point across is to call your local elections board now, before they make the decision to use Diebold. Tell them you want machines that provide a paper trail!
The selection of voting machines is on a state and local level. It IS very possible to sway these decisions by speaking up now rather than waiting to make a meaningless gesture.
The wierd part is - that pretty accurately sums up Diebold's position on the matter.
nstead of a tax (why do some people always look to government for everything),
The main purpose of taxes are the redistribution of wealth to provide for the common good. No one could afford to hire trash collectors, firemen, police, build roads or get mail delivery without the collection of taxes and the redistribution of wealth to provide those services to all.
The other main purpose of taxes tax isn't the government *doing* anything really except encouraging behaviors or industries and discouraging others (in this case spamming). Just as in trash collection and police services it would be impossible to make a dent in the spam industry if it were up to each individual citizen to collect a few cents per message.
Remember that the government isn't some separate entity, but is made up of our representatives elected by us. We then let them know what we want. It is perfectly legitimate to want the government to "do" something about a problem that effects everyone.
On the other hand you better hurry up and use your democracy before the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triumvirate nullifies the Constitution and starts telling you what THEY want.
Maybe a better slant would be to tax commercial email. That way we poor emailers who don't try to make money from it won't have to pay.
However, if you can't get these guys to work within the laws now (hijacked addresses, porn spam, Nigerian scams, etc.) how are you gonna get 'em to pay taxes? Plus how do you charge offshore spammers which probably make up the majority of spammers.
To paraphrase the gun industry - "When you have an email tax, only criminals will have free email."
All you slashdotters who scream "Darwin Aawrd" whenever someone get scammed have to remember that you have the advantage in knowing that it was a scam. Seems obvious to you because it IS obvious to you - you were told.
Professional scammers are often extremely smart, would make good psychologists, appear very honest and trustworthy, and are very, very good at separating people and their money. Scammers will do things like record office noise to play in the background to make their call sound like it is coming from an official call-center. They don't say "Hey, yuk,yuk will you give me your heh,heh credit card number? I'm from uh...oh yeah...the credit card company".
Think so? How about people simply disappearing into the 'justice" system, picked up in the dead of night by government agents, not allowed visitors, not allowed to see an attorney, held without trial and without charge? Earlier this year I saw pictures of mothers holding signs outside a federal prison in Washington State with pictures of thier sons, trying to find out if they were being held there! AND THIS WAS IN AMERICA!
What about torture of human beings? Treatment of some "suspects" in Afghanastan and Iraq as well as detainees in Guantonimo falls well within the definition of torture of these organizations even if it isn't electric shock to the genitals. And those a AMERICANS doing the torturing.
What about the new policy of political assasination? Officially prohibited to US agencies for decades it is now acceptable. So far its only foreigners that can be assasinated, but its not that big a jump to internal politcal opponents is it? That used to be one of the things that we could point at that made the US better than dictatorships, but no more.
What about the government playing the legal system to get what they want no matter the courts? For example declaring a defendant an enemy combatant so they could imprison him when the trial wasn't going the government's way? What about holding hundreds of people indefinately without charge and without trial by mis-using the Material Witness laws?
People detained in Guantonimo have NO rights, even those given to non-citizens. The administration justifies this by claiming that they are not on US soil and therefore aren't entitled to the protection of any US laws, including the rights given to them by the constitution. In the past US bases, embassies, and ships have always been considered US soil. Face it - we have an admnistration that thinks it is justified in cancelling the Constitution whenever it gets in their way.
The people in this country who think that we haven't digressed from a country where citizens are protected from government by the Constitution really need to look hard at the reality of the situation rather than exercise their wishful-thinking genes and claim we're fine.