Michael Behe didn't propose irreducible complexity, idiot. He presented one specific example of irreducible complexity at the molecular level, as an argument, and acknowledged that this was not an end all proof against evolution.
Okay, genius. Care to provide the comprehensive irreducible complexity argument? Or are you just parroting something you heard?
Again, this does not address the question of how life began in the first place.
Again, why are you keep bringing this? Abiogenesis and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. Evolution is a proven theory, Abiogenesis isn't. What is so hard to understand?
they come back stronger than before, with a bigger and better proof, until none can be made. I sense from your attitude that you're about ready to give up and go home.
Scientist HAVE done that. The evidence supporting evolution has grown leaps and bounds over last 150 years. The theory of evolution is perhaps the most tested theory in all of science (it has more proofs than Theory of Gravity - do you not believe in that too?). It has been tested (and passed) over and over again. But all you get from religious nutjobs like you is "oh, I don't think that's it". At which point, scientist turns around and says "this guy is nuts!"
You don't want to acknowledge that you don't know where life came from, do you game boy?
I freely admit that I do not know where life came from. There are some intriguing hypothesis, but they are not rock-solid theories like evolution. There is no scientist who would disagree with that.
This whole argument came from your assertion, or have you forgotten already?
As per your comments, I don't think it is a philosophical argument, ID, it is a scientific one, which is based on observable phenomena. If you were to lay out a philosophical argument for ID, it would probably go something like this (pardon my lack of decent argument structure):
All life on earth which exists in its present form is based on DNA, which requires RNA, and other cell components (summary)
(some huge number) chance of random occurance
According to the law of probability, this is an impossibility
Alternative is that life was constructed at some point, or existed at the formation of the universe, undefined probability.
Michael Behe, THE ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF ID, acknowledged on the stand that based on the law of probability, this is a very easy possibility. And he IS THE ONE who proposed irreducible complexity argument in the first place!
So now that your philosophical argument has been chewed to pieces, will you admit that ID is wrong? Because that is what a real scientists would do when their hypothesis is proven to be wrong.
I think there could be certain traits in nature that couldn't have evolved on their own, and some other things that evolution doesn't explain about the nature of life
Really, that is the whole problem, isn't it. What you "think" doesn't mean JACK SHIT. It is what you can prove. If you can't prove it, what you "think" makes as much sense as Flying Spagetti Monster. Sorry, to break it to ya, the world does not evolve around what you "think".
You do realize that your #3 argument has been disproved in court, by Behe, no less.
Excerpt from the article linked earlier...
the core of Behe's entire argument for ID is that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. Yet what does he admit under oath that his own study actually says? It says that IF you assume a population of bacteria on the entire earth that is 7 orders of magnitude less than the number of bacteria in a single ton of soil...and IF you assume that it undergoes only point mutations...and IF you rule out recombination, transposition, insertion/deletion, frame shift mutations and all of the other documented sources of mutation and genetic variation...and IF you assume that none of the intermediate steps would serve any function that might help them be preserved...THEN it would take 20,000 years (or 1/195,000th of the time bacteria have been on the earth) for a new complex trait requiring multiple interacting mutations - the very definition of an irreducibly complex system according to Behe - to develop and be fixed in a population.
In other words, even under the most absurd and other-worldly assumptions to make it as hard as possible, even while ruling out the most powerful sources of genetic variation, an irreducibly complex new trait requiring multiple unselected mutations can evolve within 20,000 years. And if you use more realistic population figures, in considerably less time than that. It sounds to me like this is a heck of an argument against irreducible complexity, not for it.
ID is not science. It is not even a good philosophy.
You should really read about subjects before you sprout out non-sense. You have obviously not studied much science. Which also explains why your rant against BillG makes so little sense.
EVERYTHING is a derivative of the previous work, but it does not mean it is not wholly unique and revolutionary.
Before Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, NOBODY knew exactly what was controlling the genetics of living things. They had some clues, they had some competing theories, but nothing like what was actually discovered by Dr. Watson. The helix structure of DNA was something that NOBODY EVER THOUGHT OF BEFORE their work.
How is that same as "the wheel which was invented 5000th times before"???
The revolutionary thinking is even MORE evident with Einstein (which is why he is so revered). Before Einstein, NOBODY EVER NEVER EVER thought that time was a variable. NOBODY EVER NEVER EVER thought that space-time can be warped. NOBODY EVER NEVER EVER thought that mass and the energy were the same. NOBODY!!!
How is this the same as "invented 5000th times before"??? Screw 5000, just give me 1 name that proved that the time is a variable before Einstein!!!
For Pete sakes, STUDY a little. You may find that you will actually come up with some original ideas after awhile...
The wheel was forgotten the first time it was invented. It...It was forgotten the 100th time. It wasn't about somewhere around the 5000th time that the wheel was invented that it was invented...
The ideas which result in Nobel Prizes are the same way.
First, WHAT THE F&)* DOES THAT MEAN? And what does that have anything to do with the fact that you are a loser with no money or any noticeable accomplishments calling a self-made billionaire a "retard" (and saying how easy it was for him to build his empire).
Second, I didn't realize that Dr. Watson was just retreading an idea that was invented "5000th" time before he discovered the structure of DNA (that won him his Nobel prize).
And we all know that Einstein was just a hack who just retreaded the same old tired idea of space-time continuum before he lucked out and won the Nobel prize.
He started a "me too!" software company, swindled a hot deal which landed him a candy contract, and then baffled all the non-techie VCs with enormous amounts of bullshit. After that it was a cycle of release early, release often, and let the users cope with the bugs by denying any responsibility in an EULA. That's hardly an accomplishment worth praise.
So, what the Nobel prize have you won, exactly? If making billions is so easy, why haven't you done so?
Hmm. Maybe we could index all items and charge people by a percentage of what they make. So if a person making $100,000/yr pays $30,000 for a car, then a person making $10,000 would be charged only $3,000 for the same car. That might seem fair to you, but I bet the auto dealers would scream loudly.
Last time I checked, "one making $10,000 would pay $1,000 and one making $100,000 would pay $10,000" is the same argument as your (logically flawed)
"person making $100,000/yr pays $30,000 for a car, then a person making $10,000 would be charged only $3,000 for the same car" argument.
What are you trying to say?
Oh wait, that didn't work out very well did it?
P.S. After the poor schleps steal what they want, and chaos reigns, someone will move in and fill the void to become the oppressing class...
People who live in poverty don't go think much past "steal waht they want". Because there is not much to protect (for them) in the status quo.
Now that is the most idiotic argument against taxation I have ever heard.
Government is there to ensure social stability. They achieve this goal by:
1. Provide security (so people feel safe)
2. Promote economic development (so people are fed)
Tax is not a USE FEE!!! Taxation is there to support the government which in turn support the above stated goal.
And guess who benefits the most from this arrangement? THE RICH PEOPLE!!! If I only have $50 in the bank and am going hungry, I wouldn't care about the government and a stable society as much as the guy with $100 million in the bank account. The poor schleps would be perfectly fine if the social order broke down so they can just take stuff that they need.
Do you think the guy who is making the minimum wage and barely making by will be happy to know that he paid exactly same amount of money (as the rich people) to build the road to the new luxury development that will make the developer rich and provide cheaper homes for people who make 10 times more than he does?
But that gets complicated, so perhaps the government should charge exactly same tax to all citizens. And jail all the poor people who can't pay, just like the French monarchy did before the revolution.
If the rich are paying no taxes today because of their fancy tax lawyers, and they don't pay any taxes under FairTax (actually impossible but I'll grant it as a hypothetical right now) then where is the harm?
Better question is, why should I switch if I don't get any benefit?
Seriously, FairTax is not fair at all. It may spare poor from some tax burdens (like the current system), but lower middle class and middle class will be whipped.
Why? Because it will be even easier for rich to cheat. Rich people can buy stuff over seas much easier than middle class can. There are also loopholes in FairTax that you can drive your Hummer through (say, a company buys a brand new Mercedes, use it for a week for mail delivery and sell it to the executives as "used" vehicle - and avoid the tax all together).
Thus, the 23% rate will come woefully short of replacing the current revenue and will have to be raised significantly (which most studies say more like 40%) which will create significant psychological impact on consumer spending.
Most of which will be paid by the middle class while Sam Walton's of the world pay pittance.
Actually, the scenario that I described with the jets occurs today. It is one of the most abused tax evasion scheme.
Today, if you take a ride on a "corporate jet" for a private purpose, all you have to report on your income tax is the equivalent cost of a commercial flight. It is a specific benefit written into the tax code by your Congress.
This means that if I am Jack Welch, I can use GE corporate jet to go vacation in Hawaii (which probably cost the company about $100k), and the tax I have to pay on that benefit is the equivalent commercial flight, which is about $500 to $1000 (tax of $100 to $400 for $100k benefit).
It doesn't stop there. The company that lent the jet can deduct the depreciation occurred on that flight.
Just look at all the guys on fortune 100 list. Almost NONE of them own their own jets. They all "borrow" the jets from the company they work for or companies they control.
Fair Tax is for poor (actually, middle class) people. Rich don't pay (unless the have no other option).
There is a reason why prominent tax attorneys make tens of millions of dollars a year. People don't pay that kind of money just to prepare 1040's...
Since that's not what happens in the so-called "fair tax" scheme, why bring it up?
That is pretty funny. Just because something is labeled "fair tax" does not mean it is fair (if I call my tax scheme "super duper fair tax system", will you support it?). All sales tax based schemes are regressive (unless you start including huge exemptions and income calculations, which defeats the whole purpose of a "simpler tax code").
This should not be used as an excuse to avoid improvement.
I didn't say that the current tax system cannot be improved upon. All I am trying to say is that no system is fool-proof. Just because we switch from income tax to sales tax does not mean that all the ills of the current tax system go away.
EVERY TAX SYSTEM can be gamed. Before throwing out the current system, you should PROVE that the future system is more equitable.
Only problem is that percentage of poor people's income spent on buying goods (necessary goods like food, clothing, etc.) is MUCH higher than rich people's income spent on buying goods (even when you factor in $35 million for Gulf Stream Jet).
Why should poor people pay more (in relative scale) than rich?
Even if you can address the equality issue, when you are rich, you have multitude of ways to avoid paying it.
Let's take the Gulf Stream example.
Let's say income tax has been replaced by 30% sales tax on everything you buy. "Well, no problem", says the rich. He just buys the Gulf Stream in France instead of US.
Let's say you somehow close that loop hole (I don't know of any easy ways), "well, no problem" says the rich. He creates a charitable organization which goes out and buys the Gulf Stream tax free and leases it back to the rich guy for pittance.
There is no tax system that cannot be gamed by people with resources to game it.
The CPU comparison was done with NO DATA. With just apps launching and doing nothing else. If you still think he is doing something with statistics, try it yourself. Just open the apps and check the available resources.
The comparison between opening documents is as trasparent as they get. He even POSTED THE SAMPLE FILES HE TESTED WITH!
Read the files. Find out if the documents are fixed. If you think he did, provide documents that OO will open faster than Office.
C'mon. Conspiracy charges may work with assasinations, but this so easy to test yourself, you have no excuse to charge bias without providing some facts.
Are you REALLY that lazy? OR whatever you don't agree with, you just label "biased"? May be you should go work for FOXNews...
Gosh, this is one of the stupidest thread I have ever seen.
I can understand yours and the parent poster's reservation about the article's authors bias IF the article was just stating his opinions, which would be impossible to prove false, but...
BUT HE ACTUALLY POSTED NUMBERS!!!
You don't like the results? Just do the tests yourself. We are not talking about global warming here. Just load both apps, creates some files and see how long it takes to open it.
If you think he is biased and is wrong, just go ahead and PROVE IT!!!
Gosh, don't we have enough people right now (re: media) who confuse facts with opinions? I think we can do better than that hear at Slashdot.
Also, a challenge for you - please find anywhere I have mentioned anything about doing a "presentation". I have not and frankly it's pretty wierd you keep going back to that point. Perhaps you should read things more carefully and figure out who was really doing a presentation.
Sorry, my bad. Too many threads going at the same time. I apologize on that.
But everything else you say is still wrong.
As a for instance, you prclaimed how proud you were you could run Word on your TV with MCE. Can you run OpenOffice using the default TiVO?
You may not be able to run OpenOffice out of the box, but you can do it with a very slight mod. Just because they hide some interfaces, does not mean it is not a PC. By your logic, if MS hid the "Start" button on MCE, it will cease to be a PC. I don't think so.
Go up to ten people with iPods and tell them they are really computers and see what they say. To users the iPod is not a computer. That is in fact why they are popular.
I hate to break it to ya. Just because some people (who know nothing about computers) tell you its not a computer, does not mean its not a computer. I can go to same 10 people and show them a nice graphics Linux UI and they will say it is Windows. Does that make it Windows? Hell NO! iPod as a general purpose CPU, it is programmable, has input, output and display. It is a computer. It has been hacked. Go read about it on Slashdot.
And let's not kid ourselves, if you knew anything about computers or programming, we would not even be arguing about this.
"Jobs doesn't think things are going digital". Please give us more of your original inight along those lines.
You have quoted the original insight yourself when you quoted Jobs - "People will never watch TV on PC". That shows that he did not understand (at least when he said it). Otherwise, why bother pushing iDVD and remote controlled Macs all of a sudden? What, people won't watch TV on PC but they will watch DVD on PC? What kind of logic is that? Jobs was WRONG when he said it and only recently did he change his mind after the fabulous success he has had with iTunes and iPod. ONLY THEN did he realize that PC WAS the way to the digital hub. Only now are you seeing Apple making strategic moves in that direction.
Which is all find and dandy, but you have to give credit that Microsoft was on this path long before Jobs changed his mind.
Ummmm... Sorry to break it to you again. I have dealt with other phone manufacturers (Samsung, Ericsson, etc.) who would LOVE to produce their own iPod phone. But Apple is not interested (or the license fee quoted was obscene).
This is CERTAINLY not like FireWire where as long as you pay the license fee and abide by the pre-set conditions, anyone can access the technology. With FairPlay, only those specifically chosen by Apple can use it. Ask Real. Ask Creative. Ask ANY DEVICE MANUFACTURER!
At least with WMA, although its a closed standard, anyone can get the license.
Yes, the TiVO is not a PC. And MCE is a PC. You got that part right. But have you noticed that TiVO is hugley popular while MCE is simply not?
Please, stop. With every post you are exposing how little you know. You should actually do some research before you post. Little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Tivo IS a PC!!! It has a Linux OS and can be modified into do a lot more than just PVR. Which is exactly what Tivo IS DOING as they are adding mods that lets you store music and video on your Tivo. When Tivo does music, dvd, picture management as well as MCE (probably another year or two), I may even switch.
They use computing devices but I'm sorry t say the accepted definition of "computer" is a general-purpose computing device. The iPod (did you remember that was an Apple product before claiming Jobs thinks things are not going digital?) is in fact a specialized digital music player
Again, a very dim-witted view of the technology. All of these devices have CPU, storage (hard-drive or flash), Display, and Input. They have specialized software that hides its full capabilities, but you can mod them (do you even read Slashdot?). People were putting photos on to modded iPods long before Video iPods came out.
No, I have ntohing to do with Microsoft R&D - I actually do real work.
No, let's state the fact. You are not smart enough to work at ANY R&D houses. Even at the famed Xerox R&D center, 90% of the stuff they worked on never saw the light of day. That is how research works. But you probably have no clue as you are not obviously not smart enough to do research work.
Keep pushing those button, cube boy. And again, doing a "presentation" does not give you ANY insight into that organization. Man, that was one of the FUNNIEST thing I have read in awhile.
Microsoft has many other things that have been percolating for years on end in the R&D center, than never see the light of day.
And I should believe you because...? Let me guess, you did a "presentation" to MS Research group, so now you know everything happening in that group.
If you are making a general statement that most of the things people work on in a typical research center, yes, that is true. So what's your point?
Tivo is great. I like Tivo, but Tivo is just a PVR. It doesn't store all of my music, my photos, DVD's, and let me surf the Internet on a big screen. Which is what a REAL digital hub should do.
Steve Jobs is correct that (most) people do not want to watch TV on the PC - thus the whole idea of the media hub that lets you watch TV on a larger screen in the living room. It would appear Microsoft agrees generally or else they would not be making the MCE software so TV firendly.
Um... sorry to break it to ya. MCE IS A PC!!! What? if I run my desktop through my Plasma screen (which has DVI input), it is no longer a desktop, but becomes a TV? Even when I use Word on it? Wow, who would have thought???
Gates was right and Jobs was wrong. Everything is going digital. Once all of the TV programs become digital, it becomes just another type of media that PC can deliver. Look at how popular listening to music on portable device is (and they are just a specialized computers) once digital music format became popular. It is only a matter of time before TV goes the same way and PC devices like MCE (PS3 can fit the bill too) will become the entertainment center for home.
You are not allowed to sell MCE without hardware. Many vendors are getting around that restriction by selling a remote with it (thus meeting the hardware requirement). That is not something MS recommends. They want vendors to sell a system not just a component precisely because it can be a lot of pain to make sure everything works smoothly.
I tinker with my MCE box alot. And through the years (and 3 motherboards) I have found out that the way VIA hanldes IRQ's breaks a lot of things. Intel-chipset motherboards never give me problems.
Um... sorry to break it to ya. They are paying license to Apple to manufacture that device. Just like HP-branded iPod player.
When Apple can control whether or not your device can exist, I wouldn't call that independent.
Also as an aside I can watch HD content on my Mac as well right now as well with my HD tuner. I'm really hadn't thought the MCE was anny worse at it, but you sure seem awfully defensive. Not having glitches you don't wish to admit to are you?
When your Mac HDTV works as smoothly as Tivo/MCE, you let me know.
When you can watch HD Football while recording Desparate Housewives AND Iron Chef at the same time, you let me know.
When you can schedule all those programs (for the entire season) from an intuitive TV Guide that you can control from 30 feet away (with a remote), you let me know.
I've had TV tuners on my PC for 4 or 5 years before MCE. Having a TV tuner on your PC is not the same thing as having a PVR. If you don't know the difference, go try it out
I've worked with those content providers. Did many deals, in fact. And I can tell you it will be at least another 10 years before you see HD content on on-line services. If you haven't noticed, you can't even get any MUSIC (from major labels) at higher than 192kbps (I've tried, they won't give the license). And I will be an old, old man before you ANY music at higher fidelity (>48Khz, surround sound). Do you seriously think you will see hi-def video content before audio???
And like I said before, if you like random content and the enjoy downloading 7 to 30GB files via torrent, go right ahead. Life is too short for me.
I went through 3 VIA-chip based motherboards (different manufacturers) with various compatibility and stuttering issues. They all went away when I got the Intel-chip based boards.
There is something about how VIA handles Virtual IRQ that messes with your hardware.
There are countless VIA horror stories on avsforum.com and thegreenbutton.com.
I think that will happen about the same time when iTunes allows non-Apple devices (and no, iTunes running on PC is not the same thing) to work with iTunes (FairPlay)...
You do realize these are the same people who tried to kill VCR, DVD, HDTV, etc. What makes you believe that they will make their HD content available on-line any time soon?
I can watch HD Football NOW, without spending 3 days downloading on Torrent (EVEN IF the game I wanted was available). And MCE FAR superior and smoother than any TV viewing on Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, genius. Care to provide the comprehensive irreducible complexity argument? Or are you just parroting something you heard?
Again, this does not address the question of how life began in the first place.
Again, why are you keep bringing this? Abiogenesis and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. Evolution is a proven theory, Abiogenesis isn't. What is so hard to understand?
they come back stronger than before, with a bigger and better proof, until none can be made. I sense from your attitude that you're about ready to give up and go home.
Scientist HAVE done that. The evidence supporting evolution has grown leaps and bounds over last 150 years. The theory of evolution is perhaps the most tested theory in all of science (it has more proofs than Theory of Gravity - do you not believe in that too?). It has been tested (and passed) over and over again. But all you get from religious nutjobs like you is "oh, I don't think that's it". At which point, scientist turns around and says "this guy is nuts!"
The world revolves around what I think
This guys is NUTS!!!
I freely admit that I do not know where life came from. There are some intriguing hypothesis, but they are not rock-solid theories like evolution. There is no scientist who would disagree with that.
This whole argument came from your assertion, or have you forgotten already?
As per your comments, I don't think it is a philosophical argument, ID, it is a scientific one, which is based on observable phenomena. If you were to lay out a philosophical argument for ID, it would probably go something like this (pardon my lack of decent argument structure):
Michael Behe, THE ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF ID, acknowledged on the stand that based on the law of probability, this is a very easy possibility. And he IS THE ONE who proposed irreducible complexity argument in the first place!
So now that your philosophical argument has been chewed to pieces, will you admit that ID is wrong? Because that is what a real scientists would do when their hypothesis is proven to be wrong.
I think there could be certain traits in nature that couldn't have evolved on their own, and some other things that evolution doesn't explain about the nature of life
Really, that is the whole problem, isn't it. What you "think" doesn't mean JACK SHIT. It is what you can prove. If you can't prove it, what you "think" makes as much sense as Flying Spagetti Monster. Sorry, to break it to ya, the world does not evolve around what you "think".
You do realize that your #3 argument has been disproved in court, by Behe, no less. Excerpt from the article linked earlier... the core of Behe's entire argument for ID is that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. Yet what does he admit under oath that his own study actually says? It says that IF you assume a population of bacteria on the entire earth that is 7 orders of magnitude less than the number of bacteria in a single ton of soil...and IF you assume that it undergoes only point mutations...and IF you rule out recombination, transposition, insertion/deletion, frame shift mutations and all of the other documented sources of mutation and genetic variation...and IF you assume that none of the intermediate steps would serve any function that might help them be preserved...THEN it would take 20,000 years (or 1/195,000th of the time bacteria have been on the earth) for a new complex trait requiring multiple interacting mutations - the very definition of an irreducibly complex system according to Behe - to develop and be fixed in a population. In other words, even under the most absurd and other-worldly assumptions to make it as hard as possible, even while ruling out the most powerful sources of genetic variation, an irreducibly complex new trait requiring multiple unselected mutations can evolve within 20,000 years. And if you use more realistic population figures, in considerably less time than that. It sounds to me like this is a heck of an argument against irreducible complexity, not for it. ID is not science. It is not even a good philosophy.
SWEET! You have give up and resorted wisecracking. I would say "keep going", but I think you are "on" something...
EVERYTHING is a derivative of the previous work, but it does not mean it is not wholly unique and revolutionary.
Before Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, NOBODY knew exactly what was controlling the genetics of living things. They had some clues, they had some competing theories, but nothing like what was actually discovered by Dr. Watson. The helix structure of DNA was something that NOBODY EVER THOUGHT OF BEFORE their work.
How is that same as "the wheel which was invented 5000th times before"???
The revolutionary thinking is even MORE evident with Einstein (which is why he is so revered). Before Einstein, NOBODY EVER NEVER EVER thought that time was a variable. NOBODY EVER NEVER EVER thought that space-time can be warped. NOBODY EVER NEVER EVER thought that mass and the energy were the same. NOBODY!!!
How is this the same as "invented 5000th times before"??? Screw 5000, just give me 1 name that proved that the time is a variable before Einstein!!!
For Pete sakes, STUDY a little. You may find that you will actually come up with some original ideas after awhile...
The ideas which result in Nobel Prizes are the same way.
First, WHAT THE F&)* DOES THAT MEAN? And what does that have anything to do with the fact that you are a loser with no money or any noticeable accomplishments calling a self-made billionaire a "retard" (and saying how easy it was for him to build his empire).
Second, I didn't realize that Dr. Watson was just retreading an idea that was invented "5000th" time before he discovered the structure of DNA (that won him his Nobel prize).
And we all know that Einstein was just a hack who just retreaded the same old tired idea of space-time continuum before he lucked out and won the Nobel prize.
What a retard...
So, what the Nobel prize have you won, exactly? If making billions is so easy, why haven't you done so?
Hmm. Maybe we could index all items and charge people by a percentage of what they make. So if a person making $100,000/yr pays $30,000 for a car, then a person making $10,000 would be charged only $3,000 for the same car. That might seem fair to you, but I bet the auto dealers would scream loudly.
Last time I checked, "one making $10,000 would pay $1,000 and one making $100,000 would pay $10,000" is the same argument as your (logically flawed) "person making $100,000/yr pays $30,000 for a car, then a person making $10,000 would be charged only $3,000 for the same car" argument.
What are you trying to say?
Oh wait, that didn't work out very well did it?
P.S. After the poor schleps steal what they want, and chaos reigns, someone will move in and fill the void to become the oppressing class...
People who live in poverty don't go think much past "steal waht they want". Because there is not much to protect (for them) in the status quo.
Government is there to ensure social stability. They achieve this goal by:
1. Provide security (so people feel safe)
2. Promote economic development (so people are fed)
Tax is not a USE FEE!!! Taxation is there to support the government which in turn support the above stated goal.
And guess who benefits the most from this arrangement? THE RICH PEOPLE!!! If I only have $50 in the bank and am going hungry, I wouldn't care about the government and a stable society as much as the guy with $100 million in the bank account. The poor schleps would be perfectly fine if the social order broke down so they can just take stuff that they need.
Do you think the guy who is making the minimum wage and barely making by will be happy to know that he paid exactly same amount of money (as the rich people) to build the road to the new luxury development that will make the developer rich and provide cheaper homes for people who make 10 times more than he does?
But that gets complicated, so perhaps the government should charge exactly same tax to all citizens. And jail all the poor people who can't pay, just like the French monarchy did before the revolution.
Oh wait. That didn't work out very well, did it?
Better question is, why should I switch if I don't get any benefit?
Seriously, FairTax is not fair at all. It may spare poor from some tax burdens (like the current system), but lower middle class and middle class will be whipped.
Why? Because it will be even easier for rich to cheat. Rich people can buy stuff over seas much easier than middle class can. There are also loopholes in FairTax that you can drive your Hummer through (say, a company buys a brand new Mercedes, use it for a week for mail delivery and sell it to the executives as "used" vehicle - and avoid the tax all together).
Thus, the 23% rate will come woefully short of replacing the current revenue and will have to be raised significantly (which most studies say more like 40%) which will create significant psychological impact on consumer spending.
Most of which will be paid by the middle class while Sam Walton's of the world pay pittance.
No Thanks.
Actually, the scenario that I described with the jets occurs today. It is one of the most abused tax evasion scheme.
Today, if you take a ride on a "corporate jet" for a private purpose, all you have to report on your income tax is the equivalent cost of a commercial flight. It is a specific benefit written into the tax code by your Congress.
This means that if I am Jack Welch, I can use GE corporate jet to go vacation in Hawaii (which probably cost the company about $100k), and the tax I have to pay on that benefit is the equivalent commercial flight, which is about $500 to $1000 (tax of $100 to $400 for $100k benefit).
It doesn't stop there. The company that lent the jet can deduct the depreciation occurred on that flight.
Just look at all the guys on fortune 100 list. Almost NONE of them own their own jets. They all "borrow" the jets from the company they work for or companies they control.
Fair Tax is for poor (actually, middle class) people. Rich don't pay (unless the have no other option).
There is a reason why prominent tax attorneys make tens of millions of dollars a year. People don't pay that kind of money just to prepare 1040's...
That is pretty funny. Just because something is labeled "fair tax" does not mean it is fair (if I call my tax scheme "super duper fair tax system", will you support it?). All sales tax based schemes are regressive (unless you start including huge exemptions and income calculations, which defeats the whole purpose of a "simpler tax code").
This should not be used as an excuse to avoid improvement.
I didn't say that the current tax system cannot be improved upon. All I am trying to say is that no system is fool-proof. Just because we switch from income tax to sales tax does not mean that all the ills of the current tax system go away.
EVERY TAX SYSTEM can be gamed. Before throwing out the current system, you should PROVE that the future system is more equitable.
Why should poor people pay more (in relative scale) than rich?
Even if you can address the equality issue, when you are rich, you have multitude of ways to avoid paying it.
Let's take the Gulf Stream example.
Let's say income tax has been replaced by 30% sales tax on everything you buy. "Well, no problem", says the rich. He just buys the Gulf Stream in France instead of US.
Let's say you somehow close that loop hole (I don't know of any easy ways), "well, no problem" says the rich. He creates a charitable organization which goes out and buys the Gulf Stream tax free and leases it back to the rich guy for pittance.
There is no tax system that cannot be gamed by people with resources to game it.
The CPU comparison was done with NO DATA. With just apps launching and doing nothing else. If you still think he is doing something with statistics, try it yourself. Just open the apps and check the available resources.
The comparison between opening documents is as trasparent as they get. He even POSTED THE SAMPLE FILES HE TESTED WITH!
SXC - http://www.lanarchitect.net/Examples/200264-l.sxc
XML - http://www.lanarchitect.net/Examples/200264-l.zip
Read the files. Find out if the documents are fixed. If you think he did, provide documents that OO will open faster than Office.
C'mon. Conspiracy charges may work with assasinations, but this so easy to test yourself, you have no excuse to charge bias without providing some facts.
Are you REALLY that lazy? OR whatever you don't agree with, you just label "biased"? May be you should go work for FOXNews...
I can understand yours and the parent poster's reservation about the article's authors bias IF the article was just stating his opinions, which would be impossible to prove false, but...
BUT HE ACTUALLY POSTED NUMBERS!!!
You don't like the results? Just do the tests yourself. We are not talking about global warming here. Just load both apps, creates some files and see how long it takes to open it.
If you think he is biased and is wrong, just go ahead and PROVE IT!!!
Gosh, don't we have enough people right now (re: media) who confuse facts with opinions? I think we can do better than that hear at Slashdot.
Sorry, my bad. Too many threads going at the same time. I apologize on that.
But everything else you say is still wrong.
As a for instance, you prclaimed how proud you were you could run Word on your TV with MCE. Can you run OpenOffice using the default TiVO?
You may not be able to run OpenOffice out of the box, but you can do it with a very slight mod. Just because they hide some interfaces, does not mean it is not a PC. By your logic, if MS hid the "Start" button on MCE, it will cease to be a PC. I don't think so.
Go up to ten people with iPods and tell them they are really computers and see what they say. To users the iPod is not a computer. That is in fact why they are popular.
I hate to break it to ya. Just because some people (who know nothing about computers) tell you its not a computer, does not mean its not a computer. I can go to same 10 people and show them a nice graphics Linux UI and they will say it is Windows. Does that make it Windows? Hell NO! iPod as a general purpose CPU, it is programmable, has input, output and display. It is a computer. It has been hacked. Go read about it on Slashdot.
And let's not kid ourselves, if you knew anything about computers or programming, we would not even be arguing about this.
"Jobs doesn't think things are going digital". Please give us more of your original inight along those lines.
You have quoted the original insight yourself when you quoted Jobs - "People will never watch TV on PC". That shows that he did not understand (at least when he said it). Otherwise, why bother pushing iDVD and remote controlled Macs all of a sudden? What, people won't watch TV on PC but they will watch DVD on PC? What kind of logic is that? Jobs was WRONG when he said it and only recently did he change his mind after the fabulous success he has had with iTunes and iPod. ONLY THEN did he realize that PC WAS the way to the digital hub. Only now are you seeing Apple making strategic moves in that direction.
Which is all find and dandy, but you have to give credit that Microsoft was on this path long before Jobs changed his mind.
This is CERTAINLY not like FireWire where as long as you pay the license fee and abide by the pre-set conditions, anyone can access the technology. With FairPlay, only those specifically chosen by Apple can use it. Ask Real. Ask Creative. Ask ANY DEVICE MANUFACTURER!
At least with WMA, although its a closed standard, anyone can get the license.
Please, stop. With every post you are exposing how little you know. You should actually do some research before you post. Little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Tivo IS a PC!!! It has a Linux OS and can be modified into do a lot more than just PVR. Which is exactly what Tivo IS DOING as they are adding mods that lets you store music and video on your Tivo. When Tivo does music, dvd, picture management as well as MCE (probably another year or two), I may even switch.
They use computing devices but I'm sorry t say the accepted definition of "computer" is a general-purpose computing device. The iPod (did you remember that was an Apple product before claiming Jobs thinks things are not going digital?) is in fact a specialized digital music player
Again, a very dim-witted view of the technology. All of these devices have CPU, storage (hard-drive or flash), Display, and Input. They have specialized software that hides its full capabilities, but you can mod them (do you even read Slashdot?). People were putting photos on to modded iPods long before Video iPods came out.
No, I have ntohing to do with Microsoft R&D - I actually do real work.
No, let's state the fact. You are not smart enough to work at ANY R&D houses. Even at the famed Xerox R&D center, 90% of the stuff they worked on never saw the light of day. That is how research works. But you probably have no clue as you are not obviously not smart enough to do research work.
Keep pushing those button, cube boy. And again, doing a "presentation" does not give you ANY insight into that organization. Man, that was one of the FUNNIEST thing I have read in awhile.
And I should believe you because...? Let me guess, you did a "presentation" to MS Research group, so now you know everything happening in that group.
If you are making a general statement that most of the things people work on in a typical research center, yes, that is true. So what's your point?
Tivo is great. I like Tivo, but Tivo is just a PVR. It doesn't store all of my music, my photos, DVD's, and let me surf the Internet on a big screen. Which is what a REAL digital hub should do.
Steve Jobs is correct that (most) people do not want to watch TV on the PC - thus the whole idea of the media hub that lets you watch TV on a larger screen in the living room. It would appear Microsoft agrees generally or else they would not be making the MCE software so TV firendly.
Um... sorry to break it to ya. MCE IS A PC!!! What? if I run my desktop through my Plasma screen (which has DVI input), it is no longer a desktop, but becomes a TV? Even when I use Word on it? Wow, who would have thought???
Gates was right and Jobs was wrong. Everything is going digital. Once all of the TV programs become digital, it becomes just another type of media that PC can deliver. Look at how popular listening to music on portable device is (and they are just a specialized computers) once digital music format became popular. It is only a matter of time before TV goes the same way and PC devices like MCE (PS3 can fit the bill too) will become the entertainment center for home.
You are not allowed to sell MCE without hardware. Many vendors are getting around that restriction by selling a remote with it (thus meeting the hardware requirement). That is not something MS recommends. They want vendors to sell a system not just a component precisely because it can be a lot of pain to make sure everything works smoothly. I tinker with my MCE box alot. And through the years (and 3 motherboards) I have found out that the way VIA hanldes IRQ's breaks a lot of things. Intel-chipset motherboards never give me problems.
Um... sorry to break it to ya. They are paying license to Apple to manufacture that device. Just like HP-branded iPod player. When Apple can control whether or not your device can exist, I wouldn't call that independent.
When your Mac HDTV works as smoothly as Tivo/MCE, you let me know.
When you can watch HD Football while recording Desparate Housewives AND Iron Chef at the same time, you let me know.
When you can schedule all those programs (for the entire season) from an intuitive TV Guide that you can control from 30 feet away (with a remote), you let me know.
I've had TV tuners on my PC for 4 or 5 years before MCE. Having a TV tuner on your PC is not the same thing as having a PVR. If you don't know the difference, go try it out
I've worked with those content providers. Did many deals, in fact. And I can tell you it will be at least another 10 years before you see HD content on on-line services. If you haven't noticed, you can't even get any MUSIC (from major labels) at higher than 192kbps (I've tried, they won't give the license). And I will be an old, old man before you ANY music at higher fidelity (>48Khz, surround sound). Do you seriously think you will see hi-def video content before audio???
And like I said before, if you like random content and the enjoy downloading 7 to 30GB files via torrent, go right ahead. Life is too short for me.
There is something about how VIA handles Virtual IRQ that messes with your hardware.
There are countless VIA horror stories on avsforum.com and thegreenbutton.com.
Cable card support should be coming next year...
I think that will happen about the same time when iTunes allows non-Apple devices (and no, iTunes running on PC is not the same thing) to work with iTunes (FairPlay)...
You do realize these are the same people who tried to kill VCR, DVD, HDTV, etc. What makes you believe that they will make their HD content available on-line any time soon?
I can watch HD Football NOW, without spending 3 days downloading on Torrent (EVEN IF the game I wanted was available). And MCE FAR superior and smoother than any TV viewing on Mac.