Let me use a TV analogy. What systemd is doing to linux is like taking the script from Seinfeld and replacing it with Two Broke Girls, yet keeping the Seinfeld cast and set and claiming that the change is inevitable and for the better -- even though the humor is an utter mismatch. All the while, the producers cheer the fundamental change because now they can appeal to the younger generation where the big advertising money is.
No, what systemd is doing to linux is more like what a package manager does for installing software. If I apt-get install mypackage, it reads all of the dependencies and installs them. Of course, I could just manually go through and install of the dependencies. But, why?
If you want to use a TV analogy, the title of the finale of STNG would be better All Good Thing [must come to an end]. STNG still was going strong at the time and even had contracts with the actors for an 8th season, but the producers realized that there wasn't a future in the series.
Unix is over 40 years old. There are a lot of things done differently today than in the 70s. Computing needs have changed since then. If Linux wants to be relevant in the future, it needs to anticipate what future needs are instead of holding on to the past.
Well, do you actually take on board the concerns of system administrators and enterprise users?
What a lot of people are concerned about is that this entirely new and largely untested (in the 'wild', as it were) and very very large, complex piece of software which runs at a very very privileged level in the operating system is going to become the main source of security vulnerabilities in Linux.
Can we have a cut-down, simplified version of systemd for servers and doesn't try to replace several layers of server side system functionality such as logging?
Its clear that you listen to desktop users. How about listening to the system administrators?
Well, even if he didn't take on board the concerns of system administrators and enterprise users, it's a safe bet that Red Hat and Suse does and yet they were still convinced that the pros of systemd outweigh the cons.
As for a cut-down simplified version, yes you can. Systemd only requires three base modules. All of the rest can be excluded. Really, it they had simply called the base systemd and everything else systemd extensions, this angst would be non-existent.
As for the not listening to the system administrators, again, even if that statement were true, Red Hat and Suse do and they still chose systemd.
"I'm not saying you deserved to be raped, the rapist was definitely the one in the wrong there, but seriously what did you expect going out alone at night dressed like that?"
The Pope is threatening violence if people say bad things about his religion. He is adopting exactly the same position as the scum who attacked Charlie Hebdo.
Ok he tries to weasel out of it, but what the hell does he mean by:
One cannot react violently, but if (someone) says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected
"One cannot react violently but I will"
Fuck him for an appologist for murder.
What he said is that violence against those who mock religion is wrong. He also asked about why are we surprised that when we offend somebody deeply, they strike back? He was not condoning violence in the hypothetical defense of his mother. He was pointing out to the antagonist that there are those who will react extremely if pushed.
The pope upheld people's right to express their opinions but stated that there are limits as to the manner or form of that expression. But maybe he is wrong, as you say, and all forms of expression should be upheld. Even the freedom to express one's frustration by conducting the attack in France. After all, terrorism is just one more form of expression.
Corporate mentality doesn't care about anything but profit.
Nor do car dealerships or gas station owners. The only time we ordinary consumers benefit is when giants compete in a free level field. Right now it is tilted far too much towards the NADA.
Hopefully you don't believe this. The only time ordinary consumers benefit is when there are many small sellers, so supply and demand can actually function. When the field is dominated by a few giants, only the giants (and their shareholders) benefit. A free market depends on nobody, buyer or seller, being able to monopolize the market for their own advantage.
No, no, no! The difference between lobbying and bribing has nothing to do with whether or not the project or bill benefits the public at large. There are many public works programs, which undoubtedly benefit the public at large, but still involved bribery. There are many projects and bills that do not benefit the public at large, at least not without jumping through convoluted logic, that involve no bribery.
The difference between lobbying and bribery is in the matter of degree. Both are, by definition, influence pedaling. If I give you $50,000 in cash to vote a certain way, that would most likely be bribery. What if I fly you out on my corporate jet to spend a week in Paris, all expense paid, while we discuss the project/bill? Bring your family, too. Or what if I don't expel your kid from school for whatever reason? but, oh, by the way, that new highway research grant would sure help convince the curators.
Bribery is about influence pedaling and comes in many forms. It can involve money, things of value, personal favors, sexual favors, etc. It is just where society wants to draw the line that determines whether or not somebody is lobbying or bribing an official. In the US, common lobbying tactics today, would have raised charges of bribery not too many years ago.
Lobbying is the act of telling an official how to vote by making a convincing argument.. Bribery is paying money for a vote or action.
Are you under the dillusion that nothing of value exchanges between a lobbyist and a politician? No favors or future benefits? Bribery is giving something of value for a vote or action.
Sadly, despite all the criticism of the issue 1 release, they've stuck to their guns and released most of their articles as "object files" in PDF. To me, that feels like their being purposefully obstructive -- it is such a faff to extract text from a PDF file, and they must already have the article text in an editable format.
If you go to the download page, all the articles are available individually as PDF, but many also in text or html.
The mission is to deliver cargo to the ISS for their client, NASA. Landing the first stage is a separate internal goal and the data they got from this attempt is progress towards that goal.
And the Apollo mission was to land a man on the moon. There is an implied goal of returning safely. What is the point of SpaceX using a reusuable launch vehicle if it doesn't matter what happens to it on the way back? Again, by that measure, the Shuttle Columbia was a successful mission. They accomplished what they set out to do. Returning safely, was just an internal goal.
For SpaceX to be successful, it needs to be able to achieve it's mission in space and arrive home safely. I understand wanting to put a positive spin on things, but really, if only accompished your mission is space is the measure of success, then the last flight of the Shuttle Columbia was a fantastic success, too. A successful mission requires accomplishing the goals and returning safely.
Even more so with these guys. So what we must do is try to understand the underlying problem.
In my opinion that's religion. It blocks people's ability to think rationally about something because of indoctrination. We should stop supporting religion. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they should pay for it themselves.
You are 100% correct on the need to understand the problem, but you fail on defining it. It is not religion that is the problem. People rise up and do all sorts of violent things and there is no religion involved. It is all about ideology and there are many more ideologies than religions. There's are political ideologies, economic ideologies, social ideologies, philosophical ideologies, to name but a few.
Banning free thought, whether religious or any other kind, is not the answer. Neither is increasing police power.
In terms of religion, the late John XXIII said if you want peace work for justice. That seems pretty rational to me. Obviously when people do such attacks, whether the one in France, or shooting up a school or other acts, they have a deep sense of an injustice having occurred and to them, this is the only available course of action. That doesn't mean they are right, just that to them, their actions are justified.
Instead of spending more time, effort and money on increasing police power, we might be better served if it were directed at the injustices in the world.
I agree with what you are saying, however, "science" has led to similar situations. How many people think you shouldn't go swimming after eating? Are we supposed to eat eggs or not? Should babies be placed face down or on their backs to sleep? Should we take vitamins or not?
Actually, that isn't science's fault, it is people's interpretation of science -- the same as their interpretation of religion. For instance, yes for some Jews, they still observe the prohibition against pork, but many more Jews, do not. Are the ones who don't bad Jews? It depends on who you ask.
The problem with science for most of the public is they accept things blindly on faith, not on reason (such as the questions above). There has been a strong push in the last century to diminish the value of philosophy and that has led to all sorts of problems. Science in and off itself is knowledge, it is amoral. What we do with it, how we use it is shaped by philosophy. Is splitting the atom good or bad? It's neither. Using the science of splitting the atom can be used for energy (good) or bombs (bad).
It seems that science, for science sake, has been elevated to the equivalent of a religion, albeit without a deity. Science can say how to do something, but not should we do something. Religion, when viewed as a philosophical base, provides an answer for answering that question. It doesn't have to be a religion to provide that framework, just about any philosophical system (capitalism vs socialism, for instance).
The real problem is not religion. It is ideology (there are many more ideologies than religions). Nobody really minds the Amish. They don't force their views on anybody. Evangelicals, that's a different story. However, there are as many agnostics and atheists who do the same thing in reverse (and many who don't). We all get frustrated when a person of faith tries to force their ideology on us. Yet, we often fail to see that we frustrate them by pushing our ideology on them. Are they ignorant, maybe. On the other hand, so are we.
Science, in and of itself, is not an ideology. It is neutral. However, what we do it, how we perceive its importance, etc, that is an ideology. People have all sorts of different ideologies they cling to. It seems, however, that these two particular ones, for some people, anyway, are incompatible and those with opposing ideologies must convert the other. That will never work.
If somebody wants to believe in a deity controlling everything, that's fine, let them. If somebody wants to believe that the universe spontaneously came into existence on its own, fine let them. Neither can be proved, nor disproved. Science tries to explain how things happen. Religion/philosophy tries to explain why they happen. Both are very useful in their individual spheres. Conflict arises when they are used outside those spheres.
Screw all that.. Just make them pay the tax like everybody else. Religion is a multi-billion dollar business. If you can't tune out, it is not their problem.
Maybe on the revenue side, but you can go online and look at their various filings to find out that their net income, the only part that is taxable, is not that great. But, why stop with churches. The Red Cross and the United Way are also multi-billion dollar businesses, why not tax them, too?
The only thing that keeps them from being able to say "Vote for Joe Blow or you will go to hell" is their tax exemption... Don't tax the churches, it removes the gag order on what they can say in the public forum!
I guess you don't believe in free speech, huh? I don't see anything forcing you to believe what they say, do you? In other words, are you not free to ignore and mock them? That would be far better than gagging anybody.
I do believe in free speech, however, churches, to keep their tax exempt status with the federal government have restrictions on exercising it. Since they are not required to be a not-for-profit, it isn't considered a violation of their free speech.
There are many times they do enforce it. OTOH, churches are allowed to talk about issues, they aren't allowed to tell you who to vote for. So, depending on how they phrase it, they could pass the IRS test. You aren't supposed to say "Vote for John Doe," But you can definitely say "Vote only for candidates that uphold our belief on marriage or abortion or whatever." It is a gray area, that hasn't been tested in the courts as to whether you can say "Don't vote for John Doe, because his position on is contrary to our faith." Technically, you aren't telling the people who to vote for and technically, the negative endorsement is still about a faith issue. The rules are definitely complicated and somewhat subjective, but that is because churches and their ministers have a right to public discourse, too.
If churches were taxed, they would have the could act like any other corporation.
Meaning churches still wouldn't pay taxes?
Correct. Taxing churches for the most part would be a moral victory but not do any real harm to the churches, but also wouldn't bring in additional revenues. While it might make many people feel good, it would also allow them to act like any other corporation and the public probably doesn't want them to wield their influence unchecked. In short, there is little to gain by taxing them and a lot to lose.
Don't tax the church. Tax the pastors and church elders by limiting their ability to claim their 47 room mansions and fleet of 35 vehicles including private jet as a legitimate religious expenditures. Funny how doing this might actually reveal to all that the purpose of churches and religion is the same as it is for other business, namely to make money.
Pastors and church elders are required to report the fair market value of their room and board, at least for self-employment taxes. For income taxes, however, if their employer requires them to stay there, which is the case, it is just like any other employer/employee requirement and it is not taxable. Clergy are in a unique situation where they are considered employees for income tax but self-employed by the Social Security Administration. If you want to tax the housing for them for income tax purposes, you would have to do it for everybody that any other business pays housing for as part of their job requirements. That probably won't fly with the public because it is a large number of people.
I don't know if it is a fair comparison to say 20% of discretionary spending back in the 1960s and only 3% today. It seems like we could possibly be comparing apples and oranges. Maybe a better statistic would be what was spent in the 1960s adjusted for inflation compared to what is spent today. Even that could be more refined and look at the costs only related to research then and now. I would hope that increases in technology make is so fewer researchers can do more than in the past.
Of course one could argue that the Apollo program skewed the spending and research and the amount spent in the 1960s was unusual. Similarly, if we look at the cost spent on the military today, versus during WWII, it is less than what it was. Does that mean we should increase military spending?
You have to be careful with how you quantify how the government spends money. Take a fire department for instance. Traditionally, they have been budgeted by the number of fire calls they made. The more fires, the more fireman needed and the bigger the budget. But, using the number of fires put out doesn't take into account efforts made to prevent them in the first place, through inspections, education of the public, etc. If the fire departments increases its efforts by shifting more resources to prevention and the number of fires go down, should their budget for staff be cut? If yes, then they do less prevention and the fire rate goes back up.
My point in all of this is that the mission of NASA was very different in the 1960s than it is today. And you simply cannot compare the two just looking at spending as a percentage of total budget. More data is needed to make informed decisions.
It would be better to tax people that have 8 years or less of formal religious training. Jesus told us we would always have the poor. He didn't say to make a career out of it. Do you really know anyone that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old? Compare that to the number of people walking around with their hand out. What we really need is a tax on stupidity.
Or just tax the job creators who are increasing their wealth instead of creating jobs.
You don't really want that. If churches were taxed, they would have the could act like any other corporation. The only thing that keeps them from being able to say "Vote for Joe Blow or you will go to hell" is their tax exemption. If you look at the books of most churches, they really don't have a lot of income after expenses, so the taxes would be low. The only taxes you would gain would be property taxes and sales taxes, but since most of their expenses are in employee payroll, it would really just be property taxes.
Don't tax the churches, it removes the gag order on what they can say in the public forum!
Slashdot Mirror
Let me use a TV analogy. What systemd is doing to linux is like taking the script from Seinfeld and replacing it with Two Broke Girls, yet keeping the Seinfeld cast and set and claiming that the change is inevitable and for the better -- even though the humor is an utter mismatch. All the while, the producers cheer the fundamental change because now they can appeal to the younger generation where the big advertising money is.
No, what systemd is doing to linux is more like what a package manager does for installing software. If I apt-get install mypackage, it reads all of the dependencies and installs them. Of course, I could just manually go through and install of the dependencies. But, why?
If you want to use a TV analogy, the title of the finale of STNG would be better All Good Thing [must come to an end]. STNG still was going strong at the time and even had contracts with the actors for an 8th season, but the producers realized that there wasn't a future in the series.
Unix is over 40 years old. There are a lot of things done differently today than in the 70s. Computing needs have changed since then. If Linux wants to be relevant in the future, it needs to anticipate what future needs are instead of holding on to the past.
I wish I hadn't responded already, or I would mod you up!
Well, do you actually take on board the concerns of system administrators and enterprise users?
What a lot of people are concerned about is that this entirely new and largely untested (in the 'wild', as it were) and very very large, complex piece of software which runs at a very very privileged level in the operating system is going to become the main source of security vulnerabilities in Linux.
Can we have a cut-down, simplified version of systemd for servers and doesn't try to replace several layers of server side system functionality such as logging?
Its clear that you listen to desktop users. How about listening to the system administrators?
Well, even if he didn't take on board the concerns of system administrators and enterprise users, it's a safe bet that Red Hat and Suse does and yet they were still convinced that the pros of systemd outweigh the cons.
As for a cut-down simplified version, yes you can. Systemd only requires three base modules. All of the rest can be excluded. Really, it they had simply called the base systemd and everything else systemd extensions, this angst would be non-existent.
As for the not listening to the system administrators, again, even if that statement were true, Red Hat and Suse do and they still chose systemd.
As a small child I was taught that "Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never hurt you."
Are the religious unable to comprehend this simple truth?
I think that the events in France show that words can hurt you. Every choice one makes, right or wrong, has consequences.
"I'm not saying you deserved to be raped, the rapist was definitely the one in the wrong there, but seriously what did you expect going out alone at night dressed like that?"
Non sequiter
The Pope is threatening violence if people say bad things about his religion. He is adopting exactly the same position as the scum who attacked Charlie Hebdo.
Ok he tries to weasel out of it, but what the hell does he mean by:
One cannot react violently, but if (someone) says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected
"One cannot react violently but I will"
Fuck him for an appologist for murder.
What he said is that violence against those who mock religion is wrong. He also asked about why are we surprised that when we offend somebody deeply, they strike back? He was not condoning violence in the hypothetical defense of his mother. He was pointing out to the antagonist that there are those who will react extremely if pushed.
The pope upheld people's right to express their opinions but stated that there are limits as to the manner or form of that expression. But maybe he is wrong, as you say, and all forms of expression should be upheld. Even the freedom to express one's frustration by conducting the attack in France. After all, terrorism is just one more form of expression.
Corporate mentality doesn't care about anything but profit.
Nor do car dealerships or gas station owners. The only time we ordinary consumers benefit is when giants compete in a free level field. Right now it is tilted far too much towards the NADA.
Hopefully you don't believe this. The only time ordinary consumers benefit is when there are many small sellers, so supply and demand can actually function. When the field is dominated by a few giants, only the giants (and their shareholders) benefit. A free market depends on nobody, buyer or seller, being able to monopolize the market for their own advantage.
Why not use their resources and efforts to extend life so the youth in most parts of the world can reach adulthood without dying or being killed?
No, no, no! The difference between lobbying and bribing has nothing to do with whether or not the project or bill benefits the public at large. There are many public works programs, which undoubtedly benefit the public at large, but still involved bribery. There are many projects and bills that do not benefit the public at large, at least not without jumping through convoluted logic, that involve no bribery.
The difference between lobbying and bribery is in the matter of degree. Both are, by definition, influence pedaling. If I give you $50,000 in cash to vote a certain way, that would most likely be bribery. What if I fly you out on my corporate jet to spend a week in Paris, all expense paid, while we discuss the project/bill? Bring your family, too. Or what if I don't expel your kid from school for whatever reason? but, oh, by the way, that new highway research grant would sure help convince the curators.
Bribery is about influence pedaling and comes in many forms. It can involve money, things of value, personal favors, sexual favors, etc. It is just where society wants to draw the line that determines whether or not somebody is lobbying or bribing an official. In the US, common lobbying tactics today, would have raised charges of bribery not too many years ago.
Lobbying is the act of telling an official how to vote by making a convincing argument.. Bribery is paying money for a vote or action.
Are you under the dillusion that nothing of value exchanges between a lobbyist and a politician? No favors or future benefits? Bribery is giving something of value for a vote or action.
Lobbying, is corruption clear and simple. They should jail everybody connected to it.
When you do it in the US, we call it lobbying. When you do it in a foreign country, we call it bribery.
Sadly, despite all the criticism of the issue 1 release, they've stuck to their guns and released most of their articles as "object files" in PDF. To me, that feels like their being purposefully obstructive -- it is such a faff to extract text from a PDF file, and they must already have the article text in an editable format.
If you go to the download page, all the articles are available individually as PDF, but many also in text or html.
The mission is to deliver cargo to the ISS for their client, NASA.
Landing the first stage is a separate internal goal and the data they got from this attempt is progress towards that goal.
And the Apollo mission was to land a man on the moon. There is an implied goal of returning safely. What is the point of SpaceX using a reusuable launch vehicle if it doesn't matter what happens to it on the way back? Again, by that measure, the Shuttle Columbia was a successful mission. They accomplished what they set out to do. Returning safely, was just an internal goal.
For SpaceX to be successful, it needs to be able to achieve it's mission in space and arrive home safely. I understand wanting to put a positive spin on things, but really, if only accompished your mission is space is the measure of success, then the last flight of the Shuttle Columbia was a fantastic success, too. A successful mission requires accomplishing the goals and returning safely.
Just deface their twitter/blogs/Facebook accounts and fill them with images on "The Prophet" getting ass rapped.
End these people bigotry please.
You probably mean "raped" not rapped, but regardless, how would promoting your form of bigotry towards a group solve anything?
Even more so with these guys. So what we must do is try to understand the underlying problem.
In my opinion that's religion. It blocks people's ability to think rationally about something because of indoctrination.
We should stop supporting religion. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they should pay for it themselves.
You are 100% correct on the need to understand the problem, but you fail on defining it. It is not religion that is the problem. People rise up and do all sorts of violent things and there is no religion involved. It is all about ideology and there are many more ideologies than religions. There's are political ideologies, economic ideologies, social ideologies, philosophical ideologies, to name but a few.
Banning free thought, whether religious or any other kind, is not the answer. Neither is increasing police power.
In terms of religion, the late John XXIII said if you want peace work for justice. That seems pretty rational to me. Obviously when people do such attacks, whether the one in France, or shooting up a school or other acts, they have a deep sense of an injustice having occurred and to them, this is the only available course of action. That doesn't mean they are right, just that to them, their actions are justified.
Instead of spending more time, effort and money on increasing police power, we might be better served if it were directed at the injustices in the world.
I agree with what you are saying, however, "science" has led to similar situations. How many people think you shouldn't go swimming after eating? Are we supposed to eat eggs or not? Should babies be placed face down or on their backs to sleep? Should we take vitamins or not?
Actually, that isn't science's fault, it is people's interpretation of science -- the same as their interpretation of religion. For instance, yes for some Jews, they still observe the prohibition against pork, but many more Jews, do not. Are the ones who don't bad Jews? It depends on who you ask.
The problem with science for most of the public is they accept things blindly on faith, not on reason (such as the questions above). There has been a strong push in the last century to diminish the value of philosophy and that has led to all sorts of problems. Science in and off itself is knowledge, it is amoral. What we do with it, how we use it is shaped by philosophy. Is splitting the atom good or bad? It's neither. Using the science of splitting the atom can be used for energy (good) or bombs (bad).
It seems that science, for science sake, has been elevated to the equivalent of a religion, albeit without a deity. Science can say how to do something, but not should we do something. Religion, when viewed as a philosophical base, provides an answer for answering that question. It doesn't have to be a religion to provide that framework, just about any philosophical system (capitalism vs socialism, for instance).
The real problem is not religion. It is ideology (there are many more ideologies than religions). Nobody really minds the Amish. They don't force their views on anybody. Evangelicals, that's a different story. However, there are as many agnostics and atheists who do the same thing in reverse (and many who don't). We all get frustrated when a person of faith tries to force their ideology on us. Yet, we often fail to see that we frustrate them by pushing our ideology on them. Are they ignorant, maybe. On the other hand, so are we.
Science, in and of itself, is not an ideology. It is neutral. However, what we do it, how we perceive its importance, etc, that is an ideology. People have all sorts of different ideologies they cling to. It seems, however, that these two particular ones, for some people, anyway, are incompatible and those with opposing ideologies must convert the other. That will never work.
If somebody wants to believe in a deity controlling everything, that's fine, let them. If somebody wants to believe that the universe spontaneously came into existence on its own, fine let them. Neither can be proved, nor disproved. Science tries to explain how things happen. Religion/philosophy tries to explain why they happen. Both are very useful in their individual spheres. Conflict arises when they are used outside those spheres.
Screw all that.. Just make them pay the tax like everybody else. Religion is a multi-billion dollar business. If you can't tune out, it is not their problem.
Maybe on the revenue side, but you can go online and look at their various filings to find out that their net income, the only part that is taxable, is not that great. But, why stop with churches. The Red Cross and the United Way are also multi-billion dollar businesses, why not tax them, too?
The only thing that keeps them from being able to say "Vote for Joe Blow or you will go to hell" is their tax exemption... Don't tax the churches, it removes the gag order on what they can say in the public forum!
I guess you don't believe in free speech, huh? I don't see anything forcing you to believe what they say, do you? In other words, are you not free to ignore and mock them? That would be far better than gagging anybody.
I do believe in free speech, however, churches, to keep their tax exempt status with the federal government have restrictions on exercising it. Since they are not required to be a not-for-profit, it isn't considered a violation of their free speech.
The IRS hasn't really been enforcing that rule.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/pr...
There are many times they do enforce it. OTOH, churches are allowed to talk about issues, they aren't allowed to tell you who to vote for. So, depending on how they phrase it, they could pass the IRS test. You aren't supposed to say "Vote for John Doe," But you can definitely say "Vote only for candidates that uphold our belief on marriage or abortion or whatever." It is a gray area, that hasn't been tested in the courts as to whether you can say "Don't vote for John Doe, because his position on is contrary to our faith." Technically, you aren't telling the people who to vote for and technically, the negative endorsement is still about a faith issue. The rules are definitely complicated and somewhat subjective, but that is because churches and their ministers have a right to public discourse, too.
If churches were taxed, they would have the could act like any other corporation.
Meaning churches still wouldn't pay taxes?
Correct. Taxing churches for the most part would be a moral victory but not do any real harm to the churches, but also wouldn't bring in additional revenues. While it might make many people feel good, it would also allow them to act like any other corporation and the public probably doesn't want them to wield their influence unchecked. In short, there is little to gain by taxing them and a lot to lose.
Don't tax the church. Tax the pastors and church elders by limiting their ability to claim their 47 room mansions and fleet of 35 vehicles including private jet as a legitimate religious expenditures. Funny how doing this might actually reveal to all that the purpose of churches and religion is the same as it is for other business, namely to make money.
Pastors and church elders are required to report the fair market value of their room and board, at least for self-employment taxes. For income taxes, however, if their employer requires them to stay there, which is the case, it is just like any other employer/employee requirement and it is not taxable. Clergy are in a unique situation where they are considered employees for income tax but self-employed by the Social Security Administration. If you want to tax the housing for them for income tax purposes, you would have to do it for everybody that any other business pays housing for as part of their job requirements. That probably won't fly with the public because it is a large number of people.
I don't know if it is a fair comparison to say 20% of discretionary spending back in the 1960s and only 3% today. It seems like we could possibly be comparing apples and oranges. Maybe a better statistic would be what was spent in the 1960s adjusted for inflation compared to what is spent today. Even that could be more refined and look at the costs only related to research then and now. I would hope that increases in technology make is so fewer researchers can do more than in the past.
Of course one could argue that the Apollo program skewed the spending and research and the amount spent in the 1960s was unusual. Similarly, if we look at the cost spent on the military today, versus during WWII, it is less than what it was. Does that mean we should increase military spending?
You have to be careful with how you quantify how the government spends money. Take a fire department for instance. Traditionally, they have been budgeted by the number of fire calls they made. The more fires, the more fireman needed and the bigger the budget. But, using the number of fires put out doesn't take into account efforts made to prevent them in the first place, through inspections, education of the public, etc. If the fire departments increases its efforts by shifting more resources to prevention and the number of fires go down, should their budget for staff be cut? If yes, then they do less prevention and the fire rate goes back up.
My point in all of this is that the mission of NASA was very different in the 1960s than it is today. And you simply cannot compare the two just looking at spending as a percentage of total budget. More data is needed to make informed decisions.
It would be better to tax people that have 8 years or less of formal religious training. Jesus told us we would always have the poor. He didn't say to make a career out of it. Do you really know anyone that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old? Compare that to the number of people walking around with their hand out.
What we really need is a tax on stupidity.
Or just tax the job creators who are increasing their wealth instead of creating jobs.
Tax religions. Give the proceeds to science.
You don't really want that. If churches were taxed, they would have the could act like any other corporation. The only thing that keeps them from being able to say "Vote for Joe Blow or you will go to hell" is their tax exemption. If you look at the books of most churches, they really don't have a lot of income after expenses, so the taxes would be low. The only taxes you would gain would be property taxes and sales taxes, but since most of their expenses are in employee payroll, it would really just be property taxes.
Don't tax the churches, it removes the gag order on what they can say in the public forum!