Linux supports multiple "personalities" for different types of executable. It has for a very long time. NT made a bigger deal about its implementation of that feature because Microsoft wanted to (a) hurry up and kill OS/2 and (b) make frivolous claims of standards compliance. Even at the time, NT's approach was neither particularly novel nor particularly useful -- how many programs have you ever run that use the OS/2 or the Posix subsystem rather than the Win32 subsystem?
The vast majority of games run on Windows because that is where the market has been. Performance is largely irrelevant in choice of market; gaming performance will follow the money.
Why can one not seriously argue that running large parts of GDI in the kernel was a security problem? New categories of problems cropped up in the wake of that transition. It seems to me that the only basis for saying it was not "a massive introduction of insecurity" is that Windows *already* had rather large security problems.
I do not know if it is codified in Federal law, but when a judge orders you to testify, and you refuse, you are in contempt of court, and the judge may order you jailed you until you comply. That concept predates the United States and exists in all common law countries. (Civil law countries generally give judges even more power.)
The grand jury investigation in the background of all this is a Federal one -- the Federal connection seems rather shaky, but Mr. Wolf does not seem to challenge the investigation's basis. Since it is a Federal investigation, it is in a Federal court, which follows Federal rules, and is not bound by restrictions on California courts. That does not bother me. What would bother me is if California were generally allowed to preempt Federal law.
California has a law which says California judges cannot hold him in contempt. That California law has no hold on Federal judges, so it is frivolous to say that "the Federal government doesn't respect that". Thankfully, no state has no right to unilaterally make laws that affect the rest of the country.
This person filmed a public scene and presumably made no promises or representation of confidentiality to the subjects of this investigation. (If he did make such a promise, he would probably be exposed to a variety of other charges.) The primary reason he withholds the video is out of sympathy with the rioters and a desire to protect violent felons. Any non-news-gatherer doing the same thing would rightly be held in contempt. This aspect of California's shield law is unreasonably and unfairly protective of a particular profession.
You are on crack. If Spamhaus were worried that any of their people might get served in the US, they could have spent the $10,000 or so to have the suit tossed out on jurisdictional grounds. They did not bother, and I see the logic in that. (If they had, Spamhaus would likely have been able to get costs and/or sanctions, either for that effort or for any future improperly-venued actions.) Even if someone from Spamhaus could be properly served while on US territory, this was a civil action -- unless the court had held Spamhaus in contempt and ordered jail time, there would be no grounds to arrest or hold any Spamhaus agent in relation to the lawsuit.
Separately, you are on crack. Common law judges are not supposed to make up arguments, except possibly if one of the parties is representing pro se. The judges are supposed to weight the arguments and evidence presented by the parties. If one party does not present an argument or evidence -- as when that party does not appear before the court -- the judge is supposed to accept the other party's arguments and evidence where they are consistent with law and with the rest of the party's theory of the case. If you do not like that, lobby for a change in the rules, but it is unfair to call the judge a moron for doing what the rules require him to do.
Thank the courts and bar system for that, plus the fact that a lot of people make newb mistakes when it comes to legal issues.
For example, sending a letter admitting that you are responsible for copyright infringement (as the questioner did) is bone-headed. A lawyer knows how to spin things and what to get in writing, and it can hurt a litigant's chances quite a lot if the litigant says or does the wrong things.
Courts and the bar system hold lawyers responsible for advocating in the most effective way possible within the bounds of legality and ethics. As much as it might make sense, a person cannot have "a la carte" representation or assistance of counsel. There was recently a court case in the US (I think in New Jersey) where a judge blasted a pro se litigant who had some filings ghost-written by an attorney.
Skip lists have more than one forward pointer in each node, and are an extremely well-known data structure. Wikipedia says they were invented (Wikipedia's word is "discovered", which seems inaccurate to me) by William Pugh in 1990 and published then.
NQR detectors tend to be relatively slow to examine an area, and a very important factor in Iraq is a fast rate of advance. NQR might work for airports, but other systems -- like metal detectors and backscatter radars -- work better when you need to go fast. The military mostly looks at NQR as a confirmation technology for other detectors and not as the first line of explosive threat detection. (Google "NQR rate of advance" for various papers and studies on the issue.)
Your conclusion is fabulously Rumsfeldian -- "As you know, you go to market with the product you have. It's not the product you might want or wish to have at a later time." It is still a useful observation, but that similarity makes it an amusing launching pad for all sorts of half-baked criticisms.
"Every major corporation needs to provide health care to many of its employees -- and those employees view that as a major responsibility. Therefore the corporation is abdicating an important responsibility by outsourcing health care to third party 'nurses' and 'doctors'!"
Do you think that is a valid argument? If not, why not?
The government does a lot of things, and what it does tends to be incredibly expensive regardless of contractor involvement. As shocking as it may seem, there are a number of times that it makes more sense -- in both correctness and in up-front expense -- to outsource work than maintain that expertise in-house. Checking up on success or failure is a large part of why governments have so much bureaucracy.
I guess you don't remember 2000's election.. a large part of the push for electronic voting machines (and the Help America Vote Act, aka HAVA) was claims that older systems were inaccessible or misleading. Southern Florida's butterfly ballots, locales without Braille versions of the ballot, and others were seen as disenfranchising or miscounting votes. Those -- on both sides of the aisle -- who pushed for the change clearly did not think it through when setting deadlines.
How many of those LED "bulbs" do you need to get the same brightness as one incandescent or fluorescent lamp? I'm as hard-core a geek as anyone, but I have been unable to find an LED unit that has even a quarter the luminous flux of an incandescent of the same size. My 40W incandescents claim 470 lumens of output; my 75W bulbs claim 970 lumens. Although some LED manufacturers (like Cree) claim much higher output for their newest LEDs, ThinkGeek's LED spotlight is 120 lumens. They cannot yet fill all the same niches, but perhaps in another five years...
I mentioned a valid dual-licensing offer in my post. The original post said that the GPL version came with a restriction on commercial use, which would be contrary to the terms of the GPL as they are generally understood. Thanks for reading the details before you reply!
This is probably a FAQ, and wandering off-topic, but exactly how the cheese do you have "GPL for non commercial, extra dollars for commercial" and expect it to work? Even InnoDB's licenses page implies that the limitation is "GPL, extra dollars for non-copyleft".
Alternatively, the aftermarket tanked so quickly because Sony's suggested retail price is reasonably close to the true market value of the thing, and so there's not much room for scalpers to make a dime. There likely are more people willing to pay $600 for a PS3 than there are consoles -- at least through the end of 2006 -- and some of those people are willing to pay significantly more.
Before we see how inventory levels and prices work out over the next few months, it is premature to declare that shortages were artificial or natural.
You misunderstand the scale of the problem. I will use Virginia as an example, since it is my home state. Virginia has seven million residents, of which perhaps four million drive. With 1% in the database, that means the template database will contain 40,000 faces. Even with my unusual hair color, I am certain that I closely resemble several people in a random sampling of 40,000 other Virginians.
It is worse than that, though: The database is not populated only from those with suspended or revoked licenses. It includes convicted felons. (Side question: If a conviction is old enough to be sealed under law, how does the ex-felon know all these databases have been updated?) According to at least one estimate, there are 200,000 Virginia residents who have been convicted of a felony at some point in their life. According to the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, there were 22,020 state felony convictions in 2005 alone, so a total of 200,000 sounds reasonable. If you include those living in neighboring states or those convicted in federal cases, the number goes up several times.
You seem to be assuming that the false matching rate will be reasonably low. Unless both your source and target images are extremely high quality, if you want 90+% matching accuracy, you will detect 30+% of other faces as being in your template database. As you add more mug shots to the template database, the false alarm rate will go up.
Think how long you wait in line at the DMV now. Do you want the person behind the counter to spend an extra five, ten, or thirty minutes vetting the past and proof of identity for half the people in front of you? Do you want to be one of the people who are "guilty" of resembling some criminal somewhere in the state and who is harassed for that accident of nature?
There is no false positive problem. Police said so on TV!
Explanation: I was flipping through channels and landed on one that was following a Los Angeles SWAT team. They were serving a warrant on an apartment based upon a tip from a confidential informant that there was a gun in the apartment (and I think that drugs were sold out of the apartment -- I missed the start). Nobody answered the door, so the SWAT team battered down the front and back doors, broke a window to investigate a room that was locked, and ransacked the entire place. They found no drugs and exactly one "weapon": a pistol-shaped BB gun. The conclusion from the SWAT team leader: that the confidential informant had proved his worth *and* that their destruction of the apartment had shut down a drug distribution center.
I wish I were making this up. Sadly, this is probably typical of cases that Radley Balko has cataloged.
Even for domestic flights, carriers currently do not board anyone whose name shows up on the "no-fly" list. See John Gilmore's lawsuit. Explain, please, how this is any different except for being limited to international flights?
Just for kicks, I decided to look at the proposed rule change as published in the National Register. It is about changing the time that airlines, cruise ship operators, and the like send passenger manifests to the US government (for flights entering or leaving the USA). For example, rather than airplane passenger manifests being sent within 15 minutes of wheels being retracted after takeoff, the rule change says at least 15 or 60 minutes before boarding. It does not mention new requirements for collecting passports or other identification. So what's the big deal? I understand that Slashdot editors are too busy and/or lazy to fact-check the stories they post, but let bygones by bygones, and let us talk about the actual rule change rather than some interpretation spun up by politically motivated hacks.
Border agents need probable cause for highly invasive searches that "implicate dignity and privacy interests" (US v Flores-Montano). As you imply, this gives border agents much more leeway than most US law enforcement officers, but even within the country's borders, police officers can perform warrantless searches based on probable cause or when it is incident to arrest. So the Fourth Amendment does apply when crossing the border, but its protections are lower there due to a different balance of interests than applies inside the country.
The article at least mentions the two recent apposite federal cases, if not by name (Romm and Arnold). If the judge's ruling in US v Arnold is upheld on appeal, the circuit split between 9th and 5th circuits will probably lead the Supreme Court to address the question. I hope -- against hope, given the presence of usually big-government and usually pro-security justices -- that they would agree with the California judge in saying that laptop searches do implicate dignity and privacy interests.
It is probably a reference to Judith Miller. After considering arguments on several sides of U.S. v I. Lewis Libby -- to wit, the prosecution, the defense, the NYT, and a number of amici -- the judge in the case ordered Miller to reveal her sources in the Valerie Plame/Wilson story. Miller refused on the grounds of journalistic privilege; the judge refused to recognize that privilege and jailed Miller for contempt of court.
What is probably the most revealing (and disappointing for those who like the US) about that entire debacle is that the special prosecutor investigating it is apparently discovering that nobody broke any laws. It looks like nobody broke any laws before Fitzgerald opened shop, and after that the only "crimes" were contempt of court related and the not-yet-tried perjury and obstruction of justice trial that gave rise to the contempt.
It's not entirely clear that DRM'ing a GPLv2'ed binary like that is allowed unless you also distribute the keys as part of the work's source code. GPLv2 defines source code to include "the scripts used to control compilation and execution of the executable". Given that the compiler is then listed as a special exception to this requirement, there's a fairly strong line of argument that the necessary DRM keys are part of "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
Why did the government fund the interstate highway system? For the benefit of regular people? I think not. It was a military project. Illustrates the point once again -- I'm just not sure that the point is the one you think it is.
(My interpretation is that the government is willing to spend a lot more money on long-term investments where the long-term benefit is not clear. This pays off big in some cases, and becomes a spectacular money pit in other cases. This correlation between high risk and high reward is well-established in all sorts of fields.)
I did not forget that at all. Since the gentleman in question was the Tribune's Washington correspondent, it did not seem likely that he would comment on (or be measured based on) state elections.
You were the one who introduced aggregates by saying that the tax burden shifted from the upper class or ultra-rich to the middle class. Aggregate numbers are the only way to interpret that statement: no one really cares what share of taxes Bill Gates pays as compared to Larry the trash guy, since those numbers are not representative of other people. (Also, wealth is not directly taxed, so introducing it is either a red herring or a pathetic indication that you are yet another liberal droid out of his depth.)
I pointed out the 7% and 10% growth numbers because they indicate reduced income inequality. The 10% income growth was for the poor, not the rich. If you think liberal should reject income inequality as a rallying point, I won't argue. Otherwise, your argument does not make sense.
You deny that you are moving goalposts, but what you claim is "tax burden" is called by other names by everyone else, since the standard definition of "tax burden" is strictly taxes paid. Clarifying your position by redefining terms is either moving goalposts or being sloppy.
Your claim about value received is wrong, to boot: the largest single-program increases in the federal budget under Bush have been for things like Medicare Plan D, which are used by (and benefit) the poor much more than the rich. Going forward, the CBO predicts that redistributionary effect will only increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux supports multiple "personalities" for different types of executable. It has for a very long time. NT made a bigger deal about its implementation of that feature because Microsoft wanted to (a) hurry up and kill OS/2 and (b) make frivolous claims of standards compliance. Even at the time, NT's approach was neither particularly novel nor particularly useful -- how many programs have you ever run that use the OS/2 or the Posix subsystem rather than the Win32 subsystem?
The vast majority of games run on Windows because that is where the market has been. Performance is largely irrelevant in choice of market; gaming performance will follow the money.
Why can one not seriously argue that running large parts of GDI in the kernel was a security problem? New categories of problems cropped up in the wake of that transition. It seems to me that the only basis for saying it was not "a massive introduction of insecurity" is that Windows *already* had rather large security problems.
I do not know if it is codified in Federal law, but when a judge orders you to testify, and you refuse, you are in contempt of court, and the judge may order you jailed you until you comply. That concept predates the United States and exists in all common law countries. (Civil law countries generally give judges even more power.)
The grand jury investigation in the background of all this is a Federal one -- the Federal connection seems rather shaky, but Mr. Wolf does not seem to challenge the investigation's basis. Since it is a Federal investigation, it is in a Federal court, which follows Federal rules, and is not bound by restrictions on California courts. That does not bother me. What would bother me is if California were generally allowed to preempt Federal law.
California has a law which says California judges cannot hold him in contempt. That California law has no hold on Federal judges, so it is frivolous to say that "the Federal government doesn't respect that". Thankfully, no state has no right to unilaterally make laws that affect the rest of the country.
This person filmed a public scene and presumably made no promises or representation of confidentiality to the subjects of this investigation. (If he did make such a promise, he would probably be exposed to a variety of other charges.) The primary reason he withholds the video is out of sympathy with the rioters and a desire to protect violent felons. Any non-news-gatherer doing the same thing would rightly be held in contempt. This aspect of California's shield law is unreasonably and unfairly protective of a particular profession.
You are on crack. If Spamhaus were worried that any of their people might get served in the US, they could have spent the $10,000 or so to have the suit tossed out on jurisdictional grounds. They did not bother, and I see the logic in that. (If they had, Spamhaus would likely have been able to get costs and/or sanctions, either for that effort or for any future improperly-venued actions.) Even if someone from Spamhaus could be properly served while on US territory, this was a civil action -- unless the court had held Spamhaus in contempt and ordered jail time, there would be no grounds to arrest or hold any Spamhaus agent in relation to the lawsuit.
Separately, you are on crack. Common law judges are not supposed to make up arguments, except possibly if one of the parties is representing pro se. The judges are supposed to weight the arguments and evidence presented by the parties. If one party does not present an argument or evidence -- as when that party does not appear before the court -- the judge is supposed to accept the other party's arguments and evidence where they are consistent with law and with the rest of the party's theory of the case. If you do not like that, lobby for a change in the rules, but it is unfair to call the judge a moron for doing what the rules require him to do.
Thank the courts and bar system for that, plus the fact that a lot of people make newb mistakes when it comes to legal issues.
For example, sending a letter admitting that you are responsible for copyright infringement (as the questioner did) is bone-headed. A lawyer knows how to spin things and what to get in writing, and it can hurt a litigant's chances quite a lot if the litigant says or does the wrong things.
Courts and the bar system hold lawyers responsible for advocating in the most effective way possible within the bounds of legality and ethics. As much as it might make sense, a person cannot have "a la carte" representation or assistance of counsel. There was recently a court case in the US (I think in New Jersey) where a judge blasted a pro se litigant who had some filings ghost-written by an attorney.
Skip lists have more than one forward pointer in each node, and are an extremely well-known data structure. Wikipedia says they were invented (Wikipedia's word is "discovered", which seems inaccurate to me) by William Pugh in 1990 and published then.
NQR detectors tend to be relatively slow to examine an area, and a very important factor in Iraq is a fast rate of advance. NQR might work for airports, but other systems -- like metal detectors and backscatter radars -- work better when you need to go fast. The military mostly looks at NQR as a confirmation technology for other detectors and not as the first line of explosive threat detection. (Google "NQR rate of advance" for various papers and studies on the issue.)
Your conclusion is fabulously Rumsfeldian -- "As you know, you go to market with the product you have. It's not the product you might want or wish to have at a later time." It is still a useful observation, but that similarity makes it an amusing launching pad for all sorts of half-baked criticisms.
"Every major corporation needs to provide health care to many of its employees -- and those employees view that as a major responsibility. Therefore the corporation is abdicating an important responsibility by outsourcing health care to third party 'nurses' and 'doctors'!"
Do you think that is a valid argument? If not, why not?
The government does a lot of things, and what it does tends to be incredibly expensive regardless of contractor involvement. As shocking as it may seem, there are a number of times that it makes more sense -- in both correctness and in up-front expense -- to outsource work than maintain that expertise in-house. Checking up on success or failure is a large part of why governments have so much bureaucracy.
I guess you don't remember 2000's election.. a large part of the push for electronic voting machines (and the Help America Vote Act, aka HAVA) was claims that older systems were inaccessible or misleading. Southern Florida's butterfly ballots, locales without Braille versions of the ballot, and others were seen as disenfranchising or miscounting votes. Those -- on both sides of the aisle -- who pushed for the change clearly did not think it through when setting deadlines.
How many of those LED "bulbs" do you need to get the same brightness as one incandescent or fluorescent lamp? I'm as hard-core a geek as anyone, but I have been unable to find an LED unit that has even a quarter the luminous flux of an incandescent of the same size. My 40W incandescents claim 470 lumens of output; my 75W bulbs claim 970 lumens. Although some LED manufacturers (like Cree) claim much higher output for their newest LEDs, ThinkGeek's LED spotlight is 120 lumens. They cannot yet fill all the same niches, but perhaps in another five years...
I mentioned a valid dual-licensing offer in my post. The original post said that the GPL version came with a restriction on commercial use, which would be contrary to the terms of the GPL as they are generally understood. Thanks for reading the details before you reply!
This is probably a FAQ, and wandering off-topic, but exactly how the cheese do you have "GPL for non commercial, extra dollars for commercial" and expect it to work? Even InnoDB's licenses page implies that the limitation is "GPL, extra dollars for non-copyleft".
Alternatively, the aftermarket tanked so quickly because Sony's suggested retail price is reasonably close to the true market value of the thing, and so there's not much room for scalpers to make a dime. There likely are more people willing to pay $600 for a PS3 than there are consoles -- at least through the end of 2006 -- and some of those people are willing to pay significantly more.
Before we see how inventory levels and prices work out over the next few months, it is premature to declare that shortages were artificial or natural.
You misunderstand the scale of the problem. I will use Virginia as an example, since it is my home state. Virginia has seven million residents, of which perhaps four million drive. With 1% in the database, that means the template database will contain 40,000 faces. Even with my unusual hair color, I am certain that I closely resemble several people in a random sampling of 40,000 other Virginians.
It is worse than that, though: The database is not populated only from those with suspended or revoked licenses. It includes convicted felons. (Side question: If a conviction is old enough to be sealed under law, how does the ex-felon know all these databases have been updated?) According to at least one estimate, there are 200,000 Virginia residents who have been convicted of a felony at some point in their life. According to the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, there were 22,020 state felony convictions in 2005 alone, so a total of 200,000 sounds reasonable. If you include those living in neighboring states or those convicted in federal cases, the number goes up several times.
You seem to be assuming that the false matching rate will be reasonably low. Unless both your source and target images are extremely high quality, if you want 90+% matching accuracy, you will detect 30+% of other faces as being in your template database. As you add more mug shots to the template database, the false alarm rate will go up.
Think how long you wait in line at the DMV now. Do you want the person behind the counter to spend an extra five, ten, or thirty minutes vetting the past and proof of identity for half the people in front of you? Do you want to be one of the people who are "guilty" of resembling some criminal somewhere in the state and who is harassed for that accident of nature?
There is no false positive problem. Police said so on TV!
Explanation: I was flipping through channels and landed on one that was following a Los Angeles SWAT team. They were serving a warrant on an apartment based upon a tip from a confidential informant that there was a gun in the apartment (and I think that drugs were sold out of the apartment -- I missed the start). Nobody answered the door, so the SWAT team battered down the front and back doors, broke a window to investigate a room that was locked, and ransacked the entire place. They found no drugs and exactly one "weapon": a pistol-shaped BB gun. The conclusion from the SWAT team leader: that the confidential informant had proved his worth *and* that their destruction of the apartment had shut down a drug distribution center.
I wish I were making this up. Sadly, this is probably typical of cases that Radley Balko has cataloged.
Even for domestic flights, carriers currently do not board anyone whose name shows up on the "no-fly" list. See John Gilmore's lawsuit. Explain, please, how this is any different except for being limited to international flights?
Just for kicks, I decided to look at the proposed rule change as published in the National Register. It is about changing the time that airlines, cruise ship operators, and the like send passenger manifests to the US government (for flights entering or leaving the USA). For example, rather than airplane passenger manifests being sent within 15 minutes of wheels being retracted after takeoff, the rule change says at least 15 or 60 minutes before boarding. It does not mention new requirements for collecting passports or other identification.
So what's the big deal? I understand that Slashdot editors are too busy and/or lazy to fact-check the stories they post, but let bygones by bygones, and let us talk about the actual rule change rather than some interpretation spun up by politically motivated hacks.
Border agents need probable cause for highly invasive searches that "implicate dignity and privacy interests" (US v Flores-Montano). As you imply, this gives border agents much more leeway than most US law enforcement officers, but even within the country's borders, police officers can perform warrantless searches based on probable cause or when it is incident to arrest. So the Fourth Amendment does apply when crossing the border, but its protections are lower there due to a different balance of interests than applies inside the country.
The article at least mentions the two recent apposite federal cases, if not by name (Romm and Arnold). If the judge's ruling in US v Arnold is upheld on appeal, the circuit split between 9th and 5th circuits will probably lead the Supreme Court to address the question. I hope -- against hope, given the presence of usually big-government and usually pro-security justices -- that they would agree with the California judge in saying that laptop searches do implicate dignity and privacy interests.
It is probably a reference to Judith Miller. After considering arguments on several sides of U.S. v I. Lewis Libby -- to wit, the prosecution, the defense, the NYT, and a number of amici -- the judge in the case ordered Miller to reveal her sources in the Valerie Plame/Wilson story. Miller refused on the grounds of journalistic privilege; the judge refused to recognize that privilege and jailed Miller for contempt of court.
What is probably the most revealing (and disappointing for those who like the US) about that entire debacle is that the special prosecutor investigating it is apparently discovering that nobody broke any laws. It looks like nobody broke any laws before Fitzgerald opened shop, and after that the only "crimes" were contempt of court related and the not-yet-tried perjury and obstruction of justice trial that gave rise to the contempt.
It's not entirely clear that DRM'ing a GPLv2'ed binary like that is allowed unless you also distribute the keys as part of the work's source code. GPLv2 defines source code to include "the scripts used to control compilation and execution of the executable". Given that the compiler is then listed as a special exception to this requirement, there's a fairly strong line of argument that the necessary DRM keys are part of "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
Why did the government fund the interstate highway system? For the benefit of regular people? I think not. It was a military project. Illustrates the point once again -- I'm just not sure that the point is the one you think it is.
(My interpretation is that the government is willing to spend a lot more money on long-term investments where the long-term benefit is not clear. This pays off big in some cases, and becomes a spectacular money pit in other cases. This correlation between high risk and high reward is well-established in all sorts of fields.)
I did not forget that at all. Since the gentleman in question was the Tribune's Washington correspondent, it did not seem likely that he would comment on (or be measured based on) state elections.
You were the one who introduced aggregates by saying that the tax burden shifted from the upper class or ultra-rich to the middle class. Aggregate numbers are the only way to interpret that statement: no one really cares what share of taxes Bill Gates pays as compared to Larry the trash guy, since those numbers are not representative of other people. (Also, wealth is not directly taxed, so introducing it is either a red herring or a pathetic indication that you are yet another liberal droid out of his depth.)
I pointed out the 7% and 10% growth numbers because they indicate reduced income inequality. The 10% income growth was for the poor, not the rich. If you think liberal should reject income inequality as a rallying point, I won't argue. Otherwise, your argument does not make sense.
You deny that you are moving goalposts, but what you claim is "tax burden" is called by other names by everyone else, since the standard definition of "tax burden" is strictly taxes paid. Clarifying your position by redefining terms is either moving goalposts or being sloppy.
Your claim about value received is wrong, to boot: the largest single-program increases in the federal budget under Bush have been for things like Medicare Plan D, which are used by (and benefit) the poor much more than the rich. Going forward, the CBO predicts that redistributionary effect will only increase.