Well, as I understand the FairTax...overall, you'd have less tax.
Not possible, without more government debt or cutting programs. BTW, I'd all in favor of slashing programs, especially medicaid, welfare, etc.
It would replace the income taxes currently taken out of your check before you get it. You'd now get the full amount, and the tax you pay, is based on how much your purchase.
Yes, and to offset the lost income from income tax, sales / use taxes would have to be ratcheted up quite high to make up for the loss.. thus reducing spending. I bought at PS3 this past weekend, and was pretty annoyed at the $45 in tax I had to pay (7%). So there's no net gain for me... on the other hand, raising income tax on those above $250,000 doesn't affect me at all. You make more, you pay more. That's ALWAYS has the income tax has been.. indeed, that's how it was put into place. It was popular because it used to affect almost no one.
Frankly, I'd think that if the states were collecting this tax...they'd actually have power back again, as that the feds would be dependent on the states giving them the tax dollars.
If it's a national tax, it would be collected at the federal level. The only way states will get power back is by repealing the 17th amendment.
I too am for keeping things more on a state level, as you said, they are more responsive to MY direct needs.
They'd cut back I bet. Still better off than you, but hording more in the bank and taking lavish vacations in other countries..
As for arguments against a national sales tax... I already hate my money being taken and redistributed to other people, moreso when said people aren't even in my state. Why should I help subsidize someone living in another state? I want LESS tax overall, not more. I also have more say in my state government than I do the federal one... which means that if i do have to pay taxes, at least I get more say over what they are spent on.
I'll chill out when dumbfucks stop screaming nonsense in poor attempts to bash MS. They're stuff certainly isn't perfect, but creating a starter edition with limited or reduced features to enter the low price market is nothing unusual, pretty much every company does it.
There are plenty of legitimate things for which you could bash MS, this isn't one of them.
Sorry the starter edition and WinXP are beating the crap out of your junk toy OS in the netbook market. See, I can do it too!
Permission from the parent matters not; he can say it's ok for the kid to sit on the table, but if it breaks, it's still their fault. The owner of the property should have known better.
I question the parent dragging their 8 year old to the post office on tax day. Maybe he should have not waited until the last minute to file, and could have just left it at his own mailbox.
The only reason the hardware is missing is to charge me an extra $75 so I can plug the printer into the network. In other words, THEY DESIGNED IT TO BE MISSING THAT PIECE. Hm... just like MS is doing.
I defend them because stupid little brats like you have no clue what you're talking about. OMG Honda is trying to undercut the low cost car market with their Civic DX!!! It's missing features the other models don't have!!
A defective design is one that doesn't fulfill the design requirements. Since MS came up with the requirements, and the design meets those requirements, it's not defective.
What you really want to say is "I'm a self important, entitiled little bitch that expects to get everything MY way, screw what anyone else wants." Thats what anyone that shouts "defective by design!" means.
Starter Edition doesn't met your needs, that's fine. That doesn't mean it's defective.
Um, you're flaw is that the only things left to tax are not necessities, and thus rich people can hold back spending. Just because I have a million doesn't mean I buy the most expensive house I can afford.
I've read your post, and unfortunately I don't have time to be as detailed as you were, hopefully you understand.
Basically though, I don't see a loss of freedom as you do. I used to, I used to buy in 100%, until I actually went to use Linux on the desktop for a couple of years. Nothing made me appreicate the value of Windows more than that experience.
I don't see it as a loss of freedom that software doesn't come with the code. My car is also a black box. I don't get the recipe for Coke when I buy a bottle. I don't get scematics or driver source code for my video card, or my PSP. So the "black box" is irrelevent to me. To you its not, and that's fine, so you choose something that suits you.
You also seem to think MS is an immoral company, but plenty of other companies behave in a similar manner. I'd argue that's because we gave company's legal person status without any of the responsiblities (that is, the people that run them usually can't go to jail or be sued personally). Many of MS' past practices were harmful to competition.. I haven't seen that behavior in some time.
As far as hurting standards.. that "cost" is the same cost that people who push for helmet and seatbelt and all other kinds of laws use to push their agenda. The truth is though that accidents don't magically drain money out of the economy. There's a huge industry around reparing broken cars, and broken people. Not that I want to see anyone hurt, but economically speaking, the money isn't lost, quite the opposite. It helps spur the economy. If it takes me longer to build a site for FF and IE, it sucks for the client.. they pay more. But I make more money, which means I have more to spend, which means I buy things I might not be able to buy.
Regarding poor security; yes, they dove in without thinking and it created huge problems. They were totally unprepared for the internet. At the same time, expecting them to turn on a dime is unrealistic too. They can't break every existing application out there... so it's been slow going, but since the sift to more security in 2002, MS' products have greatly improved in the security area. To me, the security issue is also one of the past.
At some point, you equate convience with laziness. Personally, I like that it's easier for me to manage my home network with Windows than it was with Linux. In windows, I can just start clicking and if I need something more advanced, it's there. Anyone that says windows is simple doesn't know the platform very well. You CAN customize just about anything.. it's just not as widely known. Sometimes, you really have to dig deep into the platform, but it can be done. Back to the lazy point. I disagree; am I being lazy because I don't want to spend the time on Linux required to get it working, when I'd rather be spending time at the gym and getting into bodybuilding? I don't think so. For you it may be fine. I have other priorities, as do many other people. I program all day, and I'm at a point in my life where I love programming, and would never give it up, I also want to do other things as well. So at home, I don't want to program.. I want to do other things. I mean, dishwashers, washing machines and driers all are convience items... but is it lazy to have a machine that "just works" freeing you to focus on another task, possible additional education?
I don't feel like MS disrespects me; this google thing could very well be a bug. It could be designed behavior, and it may have a good reason we don't know of. It could have a bad reason we don't know of. I can't tell you, which is why I haven't defended or condemned this. I don't feel I know enough. You can speculate all you want. I'll save judgement for when more information comes out. Further, I don't expect MS to pretend to be my best friend or make me feel like anything more than a number. If something breaks, I expect help resolving it, nothing more, nothing less. The few times I've had to contact MS support, I've been very impressed. Once I e
Well, trying to upgrade Kopete to a version that worked. Printing never worked (and no, I'm not going to spend more time and money to hunt down some obsure model that works with Linux). GNUCash sucks. It kept track of my balances... but that was it. KMail was ok, but it had an annoying habit of making it look like my mail box was gone, when in reality it just corrupted it's own index. Never found a music player I liked, or where I had to download questionably legal codecs just to play MP3s. KDE in general was not very good; the sound daemon kept dying, and eventually got to the point where I had no sound at all. Administering was a PITA. It was 2006, I shouldn't have been editing text files to configure anything. There were other things as well, and I've posted them before too.
Funny, I thought offering a product to compete in a certain market was exactly what they are supposed to be doing.
I have a question.. is Dell creating an "artifical price point and limiting features" when they sell me a printer WITH A NETWORK PORT, but missing a chip that can be installed afterwards? Oh the horror, making products that are expandable to capture different price ranges!
There is no such thing as defective by design. If it functions as designed, then it works, and hence isn't defective.
At any rate, I'm not sure why anyone is bothering with this article. Its the exact same thing that WinXP starter and Vista Starter were, yet/. is acting like this is the first Start edition OS MS has released.
Where did I say that you have the right to throw your kids out on the street?
Them refers to your kids rights.. not your kids.
Many people have done just that because they are fed up with people such as yourself that think the school system should be teaching YOUR morals to THEIR kids.
Ya, well that's life. Why shouldn't I get a say in how MY money is spent? Especially when it's being taken from me at gun point. So I feel like I should have a say in how it's spent. So please... take your kids out of school and relieve me of the burden of eductating the next generation of trailer park residents.
Personally I think there needs to be stricter guidelines on homeschooling too... no parent has the right to cripple their kid because they don't know what they are talking about. After all, their kid is going to affect me at some point... isn't that the logic used to deny gay marriage? Allowing it affects kids?
Um, there's a TON of OSS software out there which I've tried, and you'd have to PAY ME to use it, because it was utter crap. Sorry, free != better. I ditched Linux because I'd rather pay with my money than my time to use my computer.
There's a strong argument to be made that most books will contribute to a child's education, which of course is the point you're making. However, the vast majority of the internet won't contribute to a child's education more than they could get by just reading a decent book.
Except that its much easier to find information on the internet. Oh, and that the internet always holds more information than your local library.
In addition, websites tend to promote extreme views which is exactly what you don't want to present to children in an educational setting.
So we shouldn't have learned of the Nazis in school and their extreme views? The fact is, like it or not, those views are out there, and ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
In school they shouldn't be allowed to watch any videos that aren't related to their education.
You act as if teachers put on a movie and sell popcorn at the door. Really, just about any video can be related to education, and I doubt a teacher is going to put on one that has no relevence.
You mock it, but that's the real crux of the matter. Children are sponges ready to be taught what society expects of them. If you were a parent, would you leave that to the schools or would you try to teach your children as best you can without interference from the schools?
Yes, and I think the problem is that parents SHOULDN'T be able to mold a carbon copy of themselves using their kids. Schools should bring insights that challenge the parents views, just as they should be challenging all views. That's how you build critical thinking skills... not by being spoonfed one view that they are never allowed to venture out of.
you'd be surprised at how much religion is kept out of classes. I went to a school that was literally over 90% mormon, and we weren't allowed to discuss religion in class, pray at any official functions or even unofficial functions with even a whiff of a connection to the school, etc. The same thing that keeps religion out of the classroom is what keeps open discussion of LGBT issues out of the school as well.
You went to a shitty school. We were allowed to pray if WE chose to; our school let a christian group meet in one of the class rooms before school hours to discuss whatever, and since religion plays a large part in history (as motiviation for people to go kill other people), I don't know how you'd get away with pretending religion didn't exist. They can't tell you which one is "right" and should choose, but they can talk about them objectively.
So, basically, the problem wasn't that the LGBT website was blocked, but that the anti-homosexual site wasn't blocked as well. These issues should be kept out of public schools as much as possible.
Ya... what a great way to instill civic responsiblity into kids.. don't let them discuss social issues!
Why is it any business of the state if I want to shield my kids from a lifestyle that I may not approve of?
Because your kid has rights, and you don't automatically get to throw them out just because you "don't approve."
Oh, and if you don't want the state (me) telling you how to raise your kids... stop using my property tax to pay for your kids education and foot the bill yourself.
Because the plantifs lawyers still needed to do research and prepare a case, and lawyers are expensive? Has/. gotten so stupid that this is a serious question?
Say I make a craigslist ad that says, "Hey, I'm looking for sex, call me at +4790369389, and you call that number, and it goes to A loudspeaker that broadcasts your voice to the public. You call that number and yell out that you're looking for sex, and here's your name and email. Am I now liable for broadcasting your public information to the world, or is that your own damn fault for not realizing what that number did.
Wow, what a stupid contrivated "point." Here's the answer: a reasonable person isn't expecting that to happen. It's a classified ad. If you make such a setup, you're now liable and can be sued. In this case, you may have also violated wiretapping laws as well.
Um, you're claiming your right to broadcast the private matters of another that doesn't want those facts to be known is equiovlent to slavery? That's way off base. Yes, you have the right to free speech. I also have the right to be left alone and keep my private life private. There's no need for anyone to be privy to my private life.
It can. As a human being we also have rights to privacy. Your right to speech ends with my right to a private life, when there's no reason for anyone to know my private life.
No, we're not. I was the one who brought up Amazon, and I meant AWS when I brought it up. Sorry if I didn't articulate that clearly.
I am in no way arguing that when purchasing an Amazaon product, I have anything to do with their bandwidth.
I am only claiming that Amazon clearly pays less than AWS fees for bandwidth.
Well, I've heard of AWS, but it's more of a footnote when I think about Amazon, if it comes up at all. I can see how if you use it it'd be more at the front of your mind... but I don't, so for its books, music and games.
While that's certainly possible, that's a pretty risky loss leader, considering some of the larger services that have been hosted on AWS. It also seems incredibly unlikely that it'd be a loss leader to other Amazon products, as AWS and (say) DVD sales are such completely different markets that it's really unlikely I'd prefer Amazon for a product simply because I host things on AWS.
It's true, it could be about lockin. But how much datacenter could they afford to give away to establish that lockin, especially as tenuous as it is? Eucalyptis is a FOSS implementation of the AWS API. App Drop is an AWS implementation of Google App Engines. Projects like PoolParty often target AWS first, but add support for other services. And my own apps generally contain less than a hundred lines of AWS-specific code.
Yes, it could be risky. Or perhaps they've made their computing systems more efficent, and are selling the now excess. Or maybe the largest projects are paying more.. who knows? But that's my point really... we don't know.
Back to the original topic.. Amazon still isn't maintaining hundreds or maybe thousands of miles of networking cable across a farely large geographical area. That's an expensive task, which is why cable / phone companies are usually given monopolies on such last mile stuff.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I have seen too many truly ridiculous "MS can do no wrong" posts. The objection you raise is how you could have known that I must not have been referring to the more objective folks who merely have different software preferences. If you can see how that works, then much bickering that comes from making assumptions about the person to whom you're replying can be neatly avoided. I don't consider someone an "MS apologist" because they say something good about MS or its products that happens to be true and factual.
I guess it is because I don't see too many of those posts that blindly defend MS. I do see alot of linux zealots throwing the phrase "MS apologist" out though.
I consider someone an "MS apologist" when they act like "Microsoft can do no wrong" and seek to spin every negative action Microsoft takes. That is something else entirely, and that is the exclusive subject of my previous post. To fail to recognize that while responding to what I said is equivalent to setting up a straw man (yes, this can happen unintentionally if not guarded against). Incidentally, you see the same mentality for other corporations such as Apple and Google. It appears to be a universal flaw in the way our culture perceives faceless artificial constructs such as corporations. The flaw comes from personally identifying with them instead of regarding them as any other object or force. So now I will further explain the reasoning behind my previous post.
I agree with your definitions, but all too often I see linux zealots label anyone defending MS as apologists. My intent is not to setup a strawman.
I have never seen a good reason, that made sense, why anyone would want to promote a company that has a multimillion (or is it multibillion?) dollar marketing machine that's designed to do just that when they are not going to be compensated for their efforts. That act is no longer about technology or practicality or using the right tool for the job; it crosses that border and travels into "hearts and minds" territory, which seems grossly inappropriate to me. I hope that no one who is doing this has any illusions that Microsoft is going to show them any such loyalty.
I guess it depends on what your definition of promotion is. Is simply talking about something MS did that actually is really good / useful promotion? Is correcting factually incorrect information promotion? Those seem to be the majority of pro-MS posts I've seen. Maybe you see something different, and that's fine, we just disagree.
If you believe that I must mindlessly and religiously advocate Linux (or anything else for that matter) merely because I speak against MS apologists, or if you believe that a person cannot point out misplaced loyalty and groupthink without also exhibiting the same flaws, then I would like to know the basis of your belief. I don't believe I have given you any justification for making this judgment against me. For that reason, this seems like a rejection of the concept of objectivity rather than an attempt to contend with me.
Fair enough, I probably did jump the gun... but it could be expected here at/. I've been labeled a fanboy for just pointing out that no, that's not how that feature works at all. This site is pretty MS hostile... and Linux zealots abound. So, I appologize, but hopefully you can see why I might jump to that conclusion. To me, the Linux zealotry far outweighs the MS zealotry on this site, and one of the key phrases many zealots like is to call you an MS apologist.
To put that another way, you've apparently run into the more "religious zealot" types as indicated by the last line of your post. The real problem with the zealots is that they make it more difficult to have reasonable discourse. Your reasoning can be perfectly valid and objective but people will assume you're like those zealots who tried to say similar things. That's the real damage that they do. I find humor in the saying "it's only
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as I understand the FairTax...overall, you'd have less tax.
Not possible, without more government debt or cutting programs. BTW, I'd all in favor of slashing programs, especially medicaid, welfare, etc.
It would replace the income taxes currently taken out of your check before you get it. You'd now get the full amount, and the tax you pay, is based on how much your purchase.
Yes, and to offset the lost income from income tax, sales / use taxes would have to be ratcheted up quite high to make up for the loss.. thus reducing spending. I bought at PS3 this past weekend, and was pretty annoyed at the $45 in tax I had to pay (7%). So there's no net gain for me... on the other hand, raising income tax on those above $250,000 doesn't affect me at all. You make more, you pay more. That's ALWAYS has the income tax has been.. indeed, that's how it was put into place. It was popular because it used to affect almost no one.
Frankly, I'd think that if the states were collecting this tax...they'd actually have power back again, as that the feds would be dependent on the states giving them the tax dollars.
If it's a national tax, it would be collected at the federal level. The only way states will get power back is by repealing the 17th amendment.
I too am for keeping things more on a state level, as you said, they are more responsive to MY direct needs.
Then a federal sales tax goes against that goal.
They'd cut back I bet. Still better off than you, but hording more in the bank and taking lavish vacations in other countries..
As for arguments against a national sales tax... I already hate my money being taken and redistributed to other people, moreso when said people aren't even in my state. Why should I help subsidize someone living in another state? I want LESS tax overall, not more. I also have more say in my state government than I do the federal one... which means that if i do have to pay taxes, at least I get more say over what they are spent on.
Or they buy overseas, and you know, just bring back that Rolex on their wrist after spending a ton of money in another country on other stuff.
I'll chill out when dumbfucks stop screaming nonsense in poor attempts to bash MS. They're stuff certainly isn't perfect, but creating a starter edition with limited or reduced features to enter the low price market is nothing unusual, pretty much every company does it.
There are plenty of legitimate things for which you could bash MS, this isn't one of them.
Sorry the starter edition and WinXP are beating the crap out of your junk toy OS in the netbook market. See, I can do it too!
Permission from the parent matters not; he can say it's ok for the kid to sit on the table, but if it breaks, it's still their fault. The owner of the property should have known better.
I question the parent dragging their 8 year old to the post office on tax day. Maybe he should have not waited until the last minute to file, and could have just left it at his own mailbox.
You don't need to publish something to get a copyright on it. Copyright exists as soon as you capture the content.
The only reason the hardware is missing is to charge me an extra $75 so I can plug the printer into the network. In other words, THEY DESIGNED IT TO BE MISSING THAT PIECE. Hm... just like MS is doing.
I defend them because stupid little brats like you have no clue what you're talking about. OMG Honda is trying to undercut the low cost car market with their Civic DX!!! It's missing features the other models don't have!!
This is the exact same thing.
Grow up already, anonymous fuck.
A defective design is one that doesn't fulfill the design requirements. Since MS came up with the requirements, and the design meets those requirements, it's not defective.
What you really want to say is "I'm a self important, entitiled little bitch that expects to get everything MY way, screw what anyone else wants." Thats what anyone that shouts "defective by design!" means.
Starter Edition doesn't met your needs, that's fine. That doesn't mean it's defective.
Um, you're flaw is that the only things left to tax are not necessities, and thus rich people can hold back spending. Just because I have a million doesn't mean I buy the most expensive house I can afford.
I've read your post, and unfortunately I don't have time to be as detailed as you were, hopefully you understand.
Basically though, I don't see a loss of freedom as you do. I used to, I used to buy in 100%, until I actually went to use Linux on the desktop for a couple of years. Nothing made me appreicate the value of Windows more than that experience.
I don't see it as a loss of freedom that software doesn't come with the code. My car is also a black box. I don't get the recipe for Coke when I buy a bottle. I don't get scematics or driver source code for my video card, or my PSP. So the "black box" is irrelevent to me. To you its not, and that's fine, so you choose something that suits you.
You also seem to think MS is an immoral company, but plenty of other companies behave in a similar manner. I'd argue that's because we gave company's legal person status without any of the responsiblities (that is, the people that run them usually can't go to jail or be sued personally). Many of MS' past practices were harmful to competition.. I haven't seen that behavior in some time.
As far as hurting standards.. that "cost" is the same cost that people who push for helmet and seatbelt and all other kinds of laws use to push their agenda. The truth is though that accidents don't magically drain money out of the economy. There's a huge industry around reparing broken cars, and broken people. Not that I want to see anyone hurt, but economically speaking, the money isn't lost, quite the opposite. It helps spur the economy. If it takes me longer to build a site for FF and IE, it sucks for the client.. they pay more. But I make more money, which means I have more to spend, which means I buy things I might not be able to buy.
Regarding poor security; yes, they dove in without thinking and it created huge problems. They were totally unprepared for the internet. At the same time, expecting them to turn on a dime is unrealistic too. They can't break every existing application out there... so it's been slow going, but since the sift to more security in 2002, MS' products have greatly improved in the security area. To me, the security issue is also one of the past.
At some point, you equate convience with laziness. Personally, I like that it's easier for me to manage my home network with Windows than it was with Linux. In windows, I can just start clicking and if I need something more advanced, it's there. Anyone that says windows is simple doesn't know the platform very well. You CAN customize just about anything.. it's just not as widely known. Sometimes, you really have to dig deep into the platform, but it can be done. Back to the lazy point. I disagree; am I being lazy because I don't want to spend the time on Linux required to get it working, when I'd rather be spending time at the gym and getting into bodybuilding? I don't think so. For you it may be fine. I have other priorities, as do many other people. I program all day, and I'm at a point in my life where I love programming, and would never give it up, I also want to do other things as well. So at home, I don't want to program.. I want to do other things. I mean, dishwashers, washing machines and driers all are convience items... but is it lazy to have a machine that "just works" freeing you to focus on another task, possible additional education?
I don't feel like MS disrespects me; this google thing could very well be a bug. It could be designed behavior, and it may have a good reason we don't know of. It could have a bad reason we don't know of. I can't tell you, which is why I haven't defended or condemned this. I don't feel I know enough. You can speculate all you want. I'll save judgement for when more information comes out. Further, I don't expect MS to pretend to be my best friend or make me feel like anything more than a number. If something breaks, I expect help resolving it, nothing more, nothing less. The few times I've had to contact MS support, I've been very impressed. Once I e
Well, trying to upgrade Kopete to a version that worked. Printing never worked (and no, I'm not going to spend more time and money to hunt down some obsure model that works with Linux). GNUCash sucks. It kept track of my balances... but that was it. KMail was ok, but it had an annoying habit of making it look like my mail box was gone, when in reality it just corrupted it's own index. Never found a music player I liked, or where I had to download questionably legal codecs just to play MP3s. KDE in general was not very good; the sound daemon kept dying, and eventually got to the point where I had no sound at all. Administering was a PITA. It was 2006, I shouldn't have been editing text files to configure anything. There were other things as well, and I've posted them before too.
Funny, I thought offering a product to compete in a certain market was exactly what they are supposed to be doing.
I have a question.. is Dell creating an "artifical price point and limiting features" when they sell me a printer WITH A NETWORK PORT, but missing a chip that can be installed afterwards? Oh the horror, making products that are expandable to capture different price ranges!
Why would it be illegal? Nvidia didn't get sued for that, its pretty common in manufactoring.
This is pretty blatantly defective by design.
There is no such thing as defective by design. If it functions as designed, then it works, and hence isn't defective.
At any rate, I'm not sure why anyone is bothering with this article. Its the exact same thing that WinXP starter and Vista Starter were, yet /. is acting like this is the first Start edition OS MS has released.
Where did I say that you have the right to throw your kids out on the street?
Them refers to your kids rights.. not your kids.
Many people have done just that because they are fed up with people such as yourself that think the school system should be teaching YOUR morals to THEIR kids.
Ya, well that's life. Why shouldn't I get a say in how MY money is spent? Especially when it's being taken from me at gun point. So I feel like I should have a say in how it's spent. So please... take your kids out of school and relieve me of the burden of eductating the next generation of trailer park residents.
Personally I think there needs to be stricter guidelines on homeschooling too... no parent has the right to cripple their kid because they don't know what they are talking about. After all, their kid is going to affect me at some point... isn't that the logic used to deny gay marriage? Allowing it affects kids?
Um, there's a TON of OSS software out there which I've tried, and you'd have to PAY ME to use it, because it was utter crap. Sorry, free != better. I ditched Linux because I'd rather pay with my money than my time to use my computer.
There's a strong argument to be made that most books will contribute to a child's education, which of course is the point you're making. However, the vast majority of the internet won't contribute to a child's education more than they could get by just reading a decent book.
Except that its much easier to find information on the internet. Oh, and that the internet always holds more information than your local library.
In addition, websites tend to promote extreme views which is exactly what you don't want to present to children in an educational setting.
So we shouldn't have learned of the Nazis in school and their extreme views? The fact is, like it or not, those views are out there, and ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
In school they shouldn't be allowed to watch any videos that aren't related to their education.
You act as if teachers put on a movie and sell popcorn at the door. Really, just about any video can be related to education, and I doubt a teacher is going to put on one that has no relevence.
You mock it, but that's the real crux of the matter. Children are sponges ready to be taught what society expects of them. If you were a parent, would you leave that to the schools or would you try to teach your children as best you can without interference from the schools?
Yes, and I think the problem is that parents SHOULDN'T be able to mold a carbon copy of themselves using their kids. Schools should bring insights that challenge the parents views, just as they should be challenging all views. That's how you build critical thinking skills... not by being spoonfed one view that they are never allowed to venture out of.
you'd be surprised at how much religion is kept out of classes. I went to a school that was literally over 90% mormon, and we weren't allowed to discuss religion in class, pray at any official functions or even unofficial functions with even a whiff of a connection to the school, etc. The same thing that keeps religion out of the classroom is what keeps open discussion of LGBT issues out of the school as well.
You went to a shitty school. We were allowed to pray if WE chose to; our school let a christian group meet in one of the class rooms before school hours to discuss whatever, and since religion plays a large part in history (as motiviation for people to go kill other people), I don't know how you'd get away with pretending religion didn't exist. They can't tell you which one is "right" and should choose, but they can talk about them objectively.
So, basically, the problem wasn't that the LGBT website was blocked, but that the anti-homosexual site wasn't blocked as well. These issues should be kept out of public schools as much as possible.
Ya... what a great way to instill civic responsiblity into kids.. don't let them discuss social issues!
Why is it any business of the state if I want to shield my kids from a lifestyle that I may not approve of?
Because your kid has rights, and you don't automatically get to throw them out just because you "don't approve."
Oh, and if you don't want the state (me) telling you how to raise your kids... stop using my property tax to pay for your kids education and foot the bill yourself.
Because the plantifs lawyers still needed to do research and prepare a case, and lawyers are expensive? Has /. gotten so stupid that this is a serious question?
You've published it, and are liable.
Say I make a craigslist ad that says, "Hey, I'm looking for sex, call me at +4790369389, and you call that number, and it goes to A loudspeaker that broadcasts your voice to the public. You call that number and yell out that you're looking for sex, and here's your name and email. Am I now liable for broadcasting your public information to the world, or is that your own damn fault for not realizing what that number did.
Wow, what a stupid contrivated "point." Here's the answer: a reasonable person isn't expecting that to happen. It's a classified ad. If you make such a setup, you're now liable and can be sued. In this case, you may have also violated wiretapping laws as well.
Um, you're claiming your right to broadcast the private matters of another that doesn't want those facts to be known is equiovlent to slavery? That's way off base. Yes, you have the right to free speech. I also have the right to be left alone and keep my private life private. There's no need for anyone to be privy to my private life.
It can. As a human being we also have rights to privacy. Your right to speech ends with my right to a private life, when there's no reason for anyone to know my private life.
No, we're not. I was the one who brought up Amazon, and I meant AWS when I brought it up. Sorry if I didn't articulate that clearly.
I am in no way arguing that when purchasing an Amazaon product, I have anything to do with their bandwidth.
I am only claiming that Amazon clearly pays less than AWS fees for bandwidth.
Well, I've heard of AWS, but it's more of a footnote when I think about Amazon, if it comes up at all. I can see how if you use it it'd be more at the front of your mind... but I don't, so for its books, music and games.
While that's certainly possible, that's a pretty risky loss leader, considering some of the larger services that have been hosted on AWS. It also seems incredibly unlikely that it'd be a loss leader to other Amazon products, as AWS and (say) DVD sales are such completely different markets that it's really unlikely I'd prefer Amazon for a product simply because I host things on AWS.
It's true, it could be about lockin. But how much datacenter could they afford to give away to establish that lockin, especially as tenuous as it is? Eucalyptis is a FOSS implementation of the AWS API. App Drop is an AWS implementation of Google App Engines. Projects like PoolParty often target AWS first, but add support for other services. And my own apps generally contain less than a hundred lines of AWS-specific code.
Yes, it could be risky. Or perhaps they've made their computing systems more efficent, and are selling the now excess. Or maybe the largest projects are paying more.. who knows? But that's my point really... we don't know.
Back to the original topic.. Amazon still isn't maintaining hundreds or maybe thousands of miles of networking cable across a farely large geographical area. That's an expensive task, which is why cable / phone companies are usually given monopolies on such last mile stuff.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I have seen too many truly ridiculous "MS can do no wrong" posts. The objection you raise is how you could have known that I must not have been referring to the more objective folks who merely have different software preferences. If you can see how that works, then much bickering that comes from making assumptions about the person to whom you're replying can be neatly avoided. I don't consider someone an "MS apologist" because they say something good about MS or its products that happens to be true and factual.
I guess it is because I don't see too many of those posts that blindly defend MS. I do see alot of linux zealots throwing the phrase "MS apologist" out though.
I consider someone an "MS apologist" when they act like "Microsoft can do no wrong" and seek to spin every negative action Microsoft takes. That is something else entirely, and that is the exclusive subject of my previous post. To fail to recognize that while responding to what I said is equivalent to setting up a straw man (yes, this can happen unintentionally if not guarded against). Incidentally, you see the same mentality for other corporations such as Apple and Google. It appears to be a universal flaw in the way our culture perceives faceless artificial constructs such as corporations. The flaw comes from personally identifying with them instead of regarding them as any other object or force. So now I will further explain the reasoning behind my previous post.
I agree with your definitions, but all too often I see linux zealots label anyone defending MS as apologists. My intent is not to setup a strawman.
I have never seen a good reason, that made sense, why anyone would want to promote a company that has a multimillion (or is it multibillion?) dollar marketing machine that's designed to do just that when they are not going to be compensated for their efforts. That act is no longer about technology or practicality or using the right tool for the job; it crosses that border and travels into "hearts and minds" territory, which seems grossly inappropriate to me. I hope that no one who is doing this has any illusions that Microsoft is going to show them any such loyalty.
I guess it depends on what your definition of promotion is. Is simply talking about something MS did that actually is really good / useful promotion? Is correcting factually incorrect information promotion? Those seem to be the majority of pro-MS posts I've seen. Maybe you see something different, and that's fine, we just disagree.
If you believe that I must mindlessly and religiously advocate Linux (or anything else for that matter) merely because I speak against MS apologists, or if you believe that a person cannot point out misplaced loyalty and groupthink without also exhibiting the same flaws, then I would like to know the basis of your belief. I don't believe I have given you any justification for making this judgment against me. For that reason, this seems like a rejection of the concept of objectivity rather than an attempt to contend with me.
Fair enough, I probably did jump the gun... but it could be expected here at /. I've been labeled a fanboy for just pointing out that no, that's not how that feature works at all. This site is pretty MS hostile... and Linux zealots abound. So, I appologize, but hopefully you can see why I might jump to that conclusion. To me, the Linux zealotry far outweighs the MS zealotry on this site, and one of the key phrases many zealots like is to call you an MS apologist.
To put that another way, you've apparently run into the more "religious zealot" types as indicated by the last line of your post. The real problem with the zealots is that they make it more difficult to have reasonable discourse. Your reasoning can be perfectly valid and objective but people will assume you're like those zealots who tried to say similar things. That's the real damage that they do. I find humor in the saying "it's only