The only area where Linux really lags in hardware support these days is wireless card support.
Another area where Linux lags in hardware support is with double or dual layer DVDs. For the past few months I've been looking for one for my Linux box but I haven't found one I can just walk into a store and pickup. Sure I may be able to order one but I want a physical brick and mortor store I can return it to if I have a problem with it. I'd also like it if my distro supports it, but as it is most of the drives my distro supports are single layered and discontinued.
How they decided the Clause to allow them to restrict solely in-state activity like CA's medical mj, and more importantly got SCOTUS to go along, I'll never figure out though. I'll just chalk it up to the usual cynical causes.
I don't know how the Justices figured out how CA's medical marijuana had anything to do with interstate commerce either myself, but a majority of them did. If I recall right 3 of the 9 members said the Commerce clause had nothing to do with medical marijuana, unfortunately the other 6 didn't agree. Instead they waved their arms up in the air and a link materialized in their brains, maybe they also said "abracadabra"?
Well yeah, which is why I'm glad they put in the Bill of Rights after all. Otherwise we'd see Congress claiming that the Commerce Clause grants them the power to regulate the speech in books sold across state lines.
Substitute medical marijuana for everything after "the speech" and you have exactly what the USSC Justices are allowing the federal government to do. In a California case on medical marijuana that went up to the USSC the Justices ruled that the federal government could prevent California from using marijuana medically. They said if the states wanted to allow it to be used legally then federal laws had to be changed.
What about Solaris? What about OS X? Can anybody share why they do or do not prefer one of these over GNU/Linux?
I can only talk about myself when saying what OS I prefer, others may agree or disagree. As for Solaris, I've never used it and I don't have any prctical knowledge about it. On using MacOS, not just OSX but the MacOS family, I've first used it sometime around 1985 or so and for about 10 years I used it more than anyother OS though I did use AmigaOS, DOS, and Windows some. But the past 10 years I've used Windows almost exclusively. I have used Linux some but that was some year ago, however as I recently got a new PC with Linux preinstalled I'll be using it more. Also because I'd like a laptop, and I don't to have to deal with any Activation, WGA, or any other BS MS wants users to do to use Windows I plan on getting a Macbook for a laptop. Though I haven't decided to yet, I may setup the Macbook as a dualboot between OSX and Linux.
As for what OSes I prefer, of those I used I liked Amiga the best, then either Macs or Linux.
The reason you find the Linux kernel in most free desktop systems should be pretty obvious - it's currently better at handling the random hardware that desktop users throw at it than anything else out there.
That's sort of a catch22 isn' it? I mean more people use Linux because it works with more hardware, yet it works with more hardware because more people develop drivers and otherwise work to get hardware working on Linux. To get more people to use these other OSes more people need to develop for them yet many won't until they see them being used more.
Yes, you're correct, but you have to account for that in your design phase, and as someone else pointed out, there's also the whole "nighttime" situation to worry about as well.
Yea, and a small battery backup should be added as part of the system. In this case he says the power used is about 50 watts so two or three betteries should provide enough power during the night. If it doesn't then a charger can be used along with a generator that can provide power and charge the batteries.
What I mean is plain english often has multiple meanings. Take a look at our constitution, its a GREAT document but thinkgs like the 4th amendment are constantly argued about because its not written to be exact its written for the common reader of the time. Maybe our laws should be like that, but they would lead to multiple interpretations by multiple courts.
I see what you mean, but perhaps the answer is to include a definition of the meaning of the words in a law or regulation, or at least some sort of word usage guide. Actually each law should be plainly understood, ie the average person can clearly understand it. If it's not clear what it means then how in the world can anyone follow it?
BTW, I believe the lawbooks, federal law, should be gone through and if the Constitution says nothing about it then it should be stricken from the books.
You'll need some sort of long-term energy storage if you want to use solar power, as solar power doesn't function in a cloudy situation.
Some of the new solar panels don't need full sunlight and can work while it's cloudy. Yes the older panels weren't good even if only a small part of the panel was blocked, whether by clouds or a tree, but newer tech had improved this.
law is hard to read because it is unambiguous and concise
If laws were concise and unambiguous then they would be easy to understand seeing as how if something is UNambiguous it is NOT having an obscure or double meaning and concise is brief (but comprehensive).
I'm not sure I agree here. First of all you're taxing corporations which everyone invests in, not just the rich.
While many people do invest many others don't as shown by the number of people who either depend on Social Security income now or will when they retire. If more people were to invest instead of just consume less people would depend on SS.
Are those the new rules that involve getting shot down by the Air Force?
Not in the United States. But it could happen in some countries if you are a missionary peacefully flying with your family.
guns? On a PLANE? Great - blow some holes in the fuselage flying 940 kmph at 35,000 feet and see how long people live. Even assuming the bullets don't happen to sever anything important to the basic airworthiness of the plane (which they very easily could), the decompression itself would fuck up the plane big time and kill a bunch of people, if not bring the plane itself down. And as the terrists (at least the ones who didn't get sucked through the holes out into the stratosphere, or didn't pass out from lack of oxygen) would be storming the cockpit, what are you going to do? Shoot at the cockpit and kill the pilot? Brilliant! Good move, ACE.
Then how did bombers survive with, forget bullet holes, holes from ack ack (anti aircraft) guns riddled in the fuselage during WWII?
I can see why we would want to prevent explosives, but I fail to see why banning guns actually helps us. If the passangers aboard the planes on 9/11 had guns, the attacks could not have happened. The presence of guns by average citizens is often a deterent to certain types of crime.
In general I agree, however normal bullets can cause the plane to crash killing everyone anyway if shot during flight. A slug piercing the fuselage could cause rapid decommpression. I wouldn't want any plane I'm in to rapidly decompress never mind decompresson from to rapid a rise when scuba diving. All the same, I'd still allow firearms on planes. I'd just require them to be emptied of ammo, ammo in luggage, or require special ammo (soft points) in the weapons.
Yes, the sterile area is a big thing. But there's nothing stopping someone from doing exactly what you've suggested against any number of soft targets, like, say, the Mall of America or numerous other locations.
Yea, around here after 911 a lot of people were expecting something to happen at megamall, Mall of America, which only 10 to 15 minutes drive from me. The way I look at is that if whoever it was really wanted to do some damage to the US they would have organized devastation in a bunch of places such as megamall, Disney, Six Flags, and other places with a lot of people like the bomber did in Atlanta, though more effectively. Or even some ports of entry such as LA's docks.
True, my problem with this is how long will it be before id is required. Some will say something about a strawman, but it doesn't make it anyless likely than either showing id or being more physically searched will lead to an id requirement. I was born, raised, and served in the armed forces of a country that was supposed to be the land of the free not the land of a police state.
Also, where have you been this past decade? You can use something like VMware server [vmware.com] to run Windows if you really need to.
I use Windows now but because of MS's actions as regarding Activation and WGA I am switching to Macs. Running Windows in a VM would mean I'd still have to deal with what is driving me away from Windows. I'd also have to buy a license for an OS I don't want.
Out of some 80 posts before yours, this is the first one I've seen that even has the word "opera" in it. It's also the firs tyme I saw safari mentioned, so it's 1 for 1 between how many tymes each as been mentioned.
Seriously. WHY? Why would I want to do that? What is so compelling about IE7 that I'd want to go through any effort at all? I'm using Firefox 2.0something, it meets my needs. If I were to jump through hoops to install this on my linux box, what would that get for me?
Why would you want to jump through loops to install IE in Linux? If you're a web developer, designer, or programmer you want to make sure what you create will work in the most popular browser being used. If you don't then you're neglecting a hugh market. That's why. Of course it would be better if you have a Windows machine to test in.
Corporations offer their share/stock-holders something other business owners like proprietorships and partnerships don't get, limited liability. If you want limited liability you should pay for it.
An interesting point. Sometimes I have a hard time justifying the limited liability at all.
Originally limited liability was an important instrument for trade. Corporations and limited liability was started by the Dutch in the Netherlands. The Dutch were big shippers and traders, however ships sank or were lost too often and the ship owners were held liably for lost merchanize and crew. So corporations with limited liaility were instituted so small investors could join together to own ships and participate in trade without having to worry about being liable if the ship sinks. All they would lose was the amount they invested, they didn't have to think about being sued by either the families of the crew or by the owner of the merchandize. Also corporate charters were granted for the purpose of improving the common good. The Dutch East India Company was one of the first corporations.
If the CEO wants more pay then they could pay the workers more.
I think you're getting off track with your taxing of businesses. If you want the rich guys to pay more taxes, do a progressive consumption tax. Anyone who lives on (for example) $20k/year pays no taxes. Anyone who consumes $500k/yr pays a lot of taxes.
Though I didn't state it in my post you replied to, I am in total support of consumption and user taxes, ie sales tax. The more you consume the more you pay. As for taxing businesses, notice I only said corporations which offer limited liability. You want limited liability you pay for it. Otherwise your is just giving out "get out of jail" tickets, epescially as proprietors and general partners can be held liable..
Also, a consumption tax is harder to get around. If you're in the old money club and just live a life of luxury off of your parents' money, right now you pay almost no taxes. However, if you're earning a lot and living modestly you're taxed heavily. Consumption taxes would reverse that.
This won't be a problem with corporations being taxed. While a person who's living off their parent's money won't pay taxes directly, by taxing the profits of the corporations they own stocks in they are indirectly paying. As for discouraging investments, liability discourages investments as well yet people still start proprietorships and general partnerships. Along with some friends of her's my sister stated her own business, an accounting company. And as I've said before, if you want limited liability you should have to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Again, you also seem to not understand what it means if the factory owner "pockets" $19 of every $20 product (to use your example again).
Yes I do, it means the factory owner makes a lot more money than the workers, though not $19 because of the other costs like shipping, admin, and the retailers' margin which typically is about %60 of the retail price. As for the workers, they may or may not have a better standard of living. If they do then it helps the local economy, for instance because employment is higher more people in the area can start busineeses or work for someone else who has started a or expanded a business. This is because more people will be able to spend more money which creates more jobs.
The Niger delta is in serious trouble; the environmental contamination there is beyond anything you would believe. My company had been contracted by one of the large oil companies there to investigate cleanup of some of their contaminated sites. They gave us some project specs.
I hope you're not going there yourself, to be kidnapped and held hostage. A big part of the problem in Nigeria is that the government is controlled by one tribal group but another group lives in the delta region. The ones that control the government receive most if not all of the revenue from oil whereas those living in the delta don't even have schools. A few, maybe several, years back Shell agreed to build schools there but I don't know if any have been built. And dispite a law outlawing gas flaring it still happens. If you want to find out more on Nigeria AllAfrica is pretty good. It has news stories from news organizations throughout Africa.
We went to the delta to do some investigating and preliminary tests, and were shocked with what we found. On average, each contaminated site was 10x larger than the specs we were provided.
Oops, I guess I started this reply too soon as I see you've already been there.
Therefore, from the perspective of companies like Eni, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the Gates foundation owns a chunk of stock or someone else does. However, if the Gates foundation owns that chunk of stock, the dividends and capital gains from Eni's profits will ultimately go to the causes that the Gates foundation supports.
Ce depends. Depending on what is done with the stock, and not just the money earned from it, it does make a big difference. Part of Socially responsible investing or SRI, is investor activism. Investor pressure on businesses can make a big difference, for instance a stockholder can request the corporation to address the environmental costs of business. And with all of the money the B&MGF has invested in Eni they could sponser shareholder resolutions that would have the company reduce the pollution it creates, some of which may actually bring an added revenue stream. For instance the gas flares Eni uses to burn off natural gases. Instead of burning it off, it could be pressurized and sold on the world market as fuel.
If YOU owned that chunk of stock, the dividends and capital gains would go to purchase that 100" plasma TV, which feeds that evil multinational corporation that makes it and pollutes a river in China somewhere.
As I don't have that much money I don't know what I'd really do with it, but I hope I'd use it to improve people's lives as well as the environment. I'd like to sponser health clinics and schools amoung other things.
You COULD argue that the Gates foundation should be spending it's money FASTER, that argument is orthogonal to the question of WHERE it's investing the money hasn't spent yet.
You could also argue the foundation should be pressuring the businesses it invests in to improve their environmental record as I mentioned above. As for how much they spend, not just this one but all charities should be organized such that they will drive themself out of business, "cure" what they were created for. For instance find a cure, as well as a prevention, of AIDS if the goal is to fight AIDS and make sure all have access to it.
That's why we should tax consumption and not production. Instead of reporting your earnings, you should report your spending. If you live a life of luxury, you should pay high taxes. If you make twice as much money as Bill Gates and live a modest life, you should pay low taxes.
Yeap, I'd change one thing though, well two really. First I'd tax corporate profits. Corporations offer their share/stock-holders something other business owners like proprietorships and partnerships don't get, limited liability. If you want limited liability you should pay for it. Secondly tax businesses for the pay a employees, executives such as CEOs, get that above a ratio of the lowest paid fulltime worker makes. Say the lowest fulltime worker makes $12,000 a year and using a ration of 1000, if the company pays the CEO more than $12,000,000 what they pay over that would be heavily taxed. If the CEO wants more pay then they could pay the workers more.
Slashdot Mirror
The only area where Linux really lags in hardware support these days is wireless card support.
Another area where Linux lags in hardware support is with double or dual layer DVDs. For the past few months I've been looking for one for my Linux box but I haven't found one I can just walk into a store and pickup. Sure I may be able to order one but I want a physical brick and mortor store I can return it to if I have a problem with it. I'd also like it if my distro supports it, but as it is most of the drives my distro supports are single layered and discontinued.
FalconHow they decided the Clause to allow them to restrict solely in-state activity like CA's medical mj, and more importantly got SCOTUS to go along, I'll never figure out though. I'll just chalk it up to the usual cynical causes.
I don't know how the Justices figured out how CA's medical marijuana had anything to do with interstate commerce either myself, but a majority of them did. If I recall right 3 of the 9 members said the Commerce clause had nothing to do with medical marijuana, unfortunately the other 6 didn't agree. Instead they waved their arms up in the air and a link materialized in their brains, maybe they also said "abracadabra"?
FalconWell yeah, which is why I'm glad they put in the Bill of Rights after all. Otherwise we'd see Congress claiming that the Commerce Clause grants them the power to regulate the speech in books sold across state lines.
Substitute medical marijuana for everything after "the speech" and you have exactly what the USSC Justices are allowing the federal government to do. In a California case on medical marijuana that went up to the USSC the Justices ruled that the federal government could prevent California from using marijuana medically. They said if the states wanted to allow it to be used legally then federal laws had to be changed.
FalconWhat about Solaris? What about OS X? Can anybody share why they do or do not prefer one of these over GNU/Linux?
I can only talk about myself when saying what OS I prefer, others may agree or disagree. As for Solaris, I've never used it and I don't have any prctical knowledge about it. On using MacOS, not just OSX but the MacOS family, I've first used it sometime around 1985 or so and for about 10 years I used it more than anyother OS though I did use AmigaOS, DOS, and Windows some. But the past 10 years I've used Windows almost exclusively. I have used Linux some but that was some year ago, however as I recently got a new PC with Linux preinstalled I'll be using it more. Also because I'd like a laptop, and I don't to have to deal with any Activation, WGA, or any other BS MS wants users to do to use Windows I plan on getting a Macbook for a laptop. Though I haven't decided to yet, I may setup the Macbook as a dualboot between OSX and Linux.
As for what OSes I prefer, of those I used I liked Amiga the best, then either Macs or Linux.
FalconThe reason you find the Linux kernel in most free desktop systems should be pretty obvious - it's currently better at handling the random hardware that desktop users throw at it than anything else out there.
That's sort of a catch22 isn' it? I mean more people use Linux because it works with more hardware, yet it works with more hardware because more people develop drivers and otherwise work to get hardware working on Linux. To get more people to use these other OSes more people need to develop for them yet many won't until they see them being used more.
FalconYes, you're correct, but you have to account for that in your design phase, and as someone else pointed out, there's also the whole "nighttime" situation to worry about as well.
Yea, and a small battery backup should be added as part of the system. In this case he says the power used is about 50 watts so two or three betteries should provide enough power during the night. If it doesn't then a charger can be used along with a generator that can provide power and charge the batteries.
FalconWhat I mean is plain english often has multiple meanings. Take a look at our constitution, its a GREAT document but thinkgs like the 4th amendment are constantly argued about because its not written to be exact its written for the common reader of the time. Maybe our laws should be like that, but they would lead to multiple interpretations by multiple courts.
I see what you mean, but perhaps the answer is to include a definition of the meaning of the words in a law or regulation, or at least some sort of word usage guide. Actually each law should be plainly understood, ie the average person can clearly understand it. If it's not clear what it means then how in the world can anyone follow it?
BTW, I believe the lawbooks, federal law, should be gone through and if the Constitution says nothing about it then it should be stricken from the books.
FalconYou'll need some sort of long-term energy storage if you want to use solar power, as solar power doesn't function in a cloudy situation.
Some of the new solar panels don't need full sunlight and can work while it's cloudy. Yes the older panels weren't good even if only a small part of the panel was blocked, whether by clouds or a tree, but newer tech had improved this.
FalconHome Power Magazine publichs some good howto articles as does Solar Today .
Falconlaw is hard to read because it is unambiguous and concise
If laws were concise and unambiguous then they would be easy to understand seeing as how if something is UNambiguous it is NOT having an obscure or double meaning and concise is brief (but comprehensive).
FalconI'm not sure I agree here. First of all you're taxing corporations which everyone invests in, not just the rich.
While many people do invest many others don't as shown by the number of people who either depend on Social Security income now or will when they retire. If more people were to invest instead of just consume less people would depend on SS.
FalconAre those the new rules that involve getting shot down by the Air Force?
Not in the United States. But it could happen in some countries if you are a missionary peacefully flying with your family.
Especially Colombia!
Falconguns? On a PLANE? Great - blow some holes in the fuselage flying 940 kmph at 35,000 feet and see how long people live. Even assuming the bullets don't happen to sever anything important to the basic airworthiness of the plane (which they very easily could), the decompression itself would fuck up the plane big time and kill a bunch of people, if not bring the plane itself down. And as the terrists (at least the ones who didn't get sucked through the holes out into the stratosphere, or didn't pass out from lack of oxygen) would be storming the cockpit, what are you going to do? Shoot at the cockpit and kill the pilot? Brilliant! Good move, ACE.
Then how did bombers survive with, forget bullet holes, holes from ack ack (anti aircraft) guns riddled in the fuselage during WWII?
FalconI can see why we would want to prevent explosives, but I fail to see why banning guns actually helps us. If the passangers aboard the planes on 9/11 had guns, the attacks could not have happened. The presence of guns by average citizens is often a deterent to certain types of crime.
In general I agree, however normal bullets can cause the plane to crash killing everyone anyway if shot during flight. A slug piercing the fuselage could cause rapid decommpression. I wouldn't want any plane I'm in to rapidly decompress never mind decompresson from to rapid a rise when scuba diving. All the same, I'd still allow firearms on planes. I'd just require them to be emptied of ammo, ammo in luggage, or require special ammo (soft points) in the weapons.
FalconYes, the sterile area is a big thing. But there's nothing stopping someone from doing exactly what you've suggested against any number of soft targets, like, say, the Mall of America or numerous other locations.
Yea, around here after 911 a lot of people were expecting something to happen at megamall, Mall of America, which only 10 to 15 minutes drive from me. The way I look at is that if whoever it was really wanted to do some damage to the US they would have organized devastation in a bunch of places such as megamall, Disney, Six Flags, and other places with a lot of people like the bomber did in Atlanta, though more effectively. Or even some ports of entry such as LA's docks.
Falconhe would indeed have been able to fly with no ID.
True, my problem with this is how long will it be before id is required. Some will say something about a strawman, but it doesn't make it anyless likely than either showing id or being more physically searched will lead to an id requirement. I was born, raised, and served in the armed forces of a country that was supposed to be the land of the free not the land of a police state.
FalconAlso, where have you been this past decade? You can use something like VMware server [vmware.com] to run Windows if you really need to.
I use Windows now but because of MS's actions as regarding Activation and WGA I am switching to Macs. Running Windows in a VM would mean I'd still have to deal with what is driving me away from Windows. I'd also have to buy a license for an OS I don't want.
FalconOut of some 80 posts before yours, this is the first one I've seen that even has the word "opera" in it. It's also the firs tyme I saw safari mentioned, so it's 1 for 1 between how many tymes each as been mentioned.
FalconSeriously. WHY? Why would I want to do that? What is so compelling about IE7 that I'd want to go through any effort at all? I'm using Firefox 2.0something, it meets my needs. If I were to jump through hoops to install this on my linux box, what would that get for me?
Why would you want to jump through loops to install IE in Linux? If you're a web developer, designer, or programmer you want to make sure what you create will work in the most popular browser being used. If you don't then you're neglecting a hugh market. That's why. Of course it would be better if you have a Windows machine to test in.
FalconCorporations offer their share/stock-holders something other business owners like proprietorships and partnerships don't get, limited liability. If you want limited liability you should pay for it.
An interesting point. Sometimes I have a hard time justifying the limited liability at all.
Originally limited liability was an important instrument for trade. Corporations and limited liability was started by the Dutch in the Netherlands. The Dutch were big shippers and traders, however ships sank or were lost too often and the ship owners were held liably for lost merchanize and crew. So corporations with limited liaility were instituted so small investors could join together to own ships and participate in trade without having to worry about being liable if the ship sinks. All they would lose was the amount they invested, they didn't have to think about being sued by either the families of the crew or by the owner of the merchandize. Also corporate charters were granted for the purpose of improving the common good. The Dutch East India Company was one of the first corporations.
If the CEO wants more pay then they could pay the workers more.
I think you're getting off track with your taxing of businesses. If you want the rich guys to pay more taxes, do a progressive consumption tax. Anyone who lives on (for example) $20k/year pays no taxes. Anyone who consumes $500k/yr pays a lot of taxes.
Though I didn't state it in my post you replied to, I am in total support of consumption and user taxes, ie sales tax. The more you consume the more you pay. As for taxing businesses, notice I only said corporations which offer limited liability. You want limited liability you pay for it. Otherwise your is just giving out "get out of jail" tickets, epescially as proprietors and general partners can be held liable..
Also, a consumption tax is harder to get around. If you're in the old money club and just live a life of luxury off of your parents' money, right now you pay almost no taxes. However, if you're earning a lot and living modestly you're taxed heavily. Consumption taxes would reverse that.
This won't be a problem with corporations being taxed. While a person who's living off their parent's money won't pay taxes directly, by taxing the profits of the corporations they own stocks in they are indirectly paying. As for discouraging investments, liability discourages investments as well yet people still start proprietorships and general partnerships. Along with some friends of her's my sister stated her own business, an accounting company. And as I've said before, if you want limited liability you should have to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
FalconAgain, you also seem to not understand what it means if the factory owner "pockets" $19 of every $20 product (to use your example again).
Yes I do, it means the factory owner makes a lot more money than the workers, though not $19 because of the other costs like shipping, admin, and the retailers' margin which typically is about %60 of the retail price. As for the workers, they may or may not have a better standard of living. If they do then it helps the local economy, for instance because employment is higher more people in the area can start busineeses or work for someone else who has started a or expanded a business. This is because more people will be able to spend more money which creates more jobs.
FalconDarn, I should of done a better job of previewing, the link for allAfrica didn't work.
FalconThe Niger delta is in serious trouble; the environmental contamination there is beyond anything you would believe. My company had been contracted by one of the large oil companies there to investigate cleanup of some of their contaminated sites. They gave us some project specs.
I hope you're not going there yourself, to be kidnapped and held hostage. A big part of the problem in Nigeria is that the government is controlled by one tribal group but another group lives in the delta region. The ones that control the government receive most if not all of the revenue from oil whereas those living in the delta don't even have schools. A few, maybe several, years back Shell agreed to build schools there but I don't know if any have been built. And dispite a law outlawing gas flaring it still happens. If you want to find out more on Nigeria AllAfrica is pretty good. It has news stories from news organizations throughout Africa.
We went to the delta to do some investigating and preliminary tests, and were shocked with what we found. On average, each contaminated site was 10x larger than the specs we were provided.
Oops, I guess I started this reply too soon as I see you've already been there.
FalconTherefore, from the perspective of companies like Eni, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the Gates foundation owns a chunk of stock or someone else does. However, if the Gates foundation owns that chunk of stock, the dividends and capital gains from Eni's profits will ultimately go to the causes that the Gates foundation supports.
Ce depends. Depending on what is done with the stock, and not just the money earned from it, it does make a big difference. Part of Socially responsible investing or SRI, is investor activism. Investor pressure on businesses can make a big difference, for instance a stockholder can request the corporation to address the environmental costs of business. And with all of the money the B&MGF has invested in Eni they could sponser shareholder resolutions that would have the company reduce the pollution it creates, some of which may actually bring an added revenue stream. For instance the gas flares Eni uses to burn off natural gases. Instead of burning it off, it could be pressurized and sold on the world market as fuel.
If YOU owned that chunk of stock, the dividends and capital gains would go to purchase that 100" plasma TV, which feeds that evil multinational corporation that makes it and pollutes a river in China somewhere.
As I don't have that much money I don't know what I'd really do with it, but I hope I'd use it to improve people's lives as well as the environment. I'd like to sponser health clinics and schools amoung other things.
You COULD argue that the Gates foundation should be spending it's money FASTER, that argument is orthogonal to the question of WHERE it's investing the money hasn't spent yet.
You could also argue the foundation should be pressuring the businesses it invests in to improve their environmental record as I mentioned above. As for how much they spend, not just this one but all charities should be organized such that they will drive themself out of business, "cure" what they were created for. For instance find a cure, as well as a prevention, of AIDS if the goal is to fight AIDS and make sure all have access to it.
FalconThat's why we should tax consumption and not production. Instead of reporting your earnings, you should report your spending. If you live a life of luxury, you should pay high taxes. If you make twice as much money as Bill Gates and live a modest life, you should pay low taxes.
Yeap, I'd change one thing though, well two really. First I'd tax corporate profits. Corporations offer their share/stock-holders something other business owners like proprietorships and partnerships don't get, limited liability. If you want limited liability you should pay for it. Secondly tax businesses for the pay a employees, executives such as CEOs, get that above a ratio of the lowest paid fulltime worker makes. Say the lowest fulltime worker makes $12,000 a year and using a ration of 1000, if the company pays the CEO more than $12,000,000 what they pay over that would be heavily taxed. If the CEO wants more pay then they could pay the workers more.
Falcon