> > "Why should people buying software be paying for schools?"
> Why should people playing the lottery be paying for schools? Why should people > buying yachts be paying for public parks? Why should people buying gum be paying > for welfare?
What I was getting at is why should people buying software *particularly, and in excess of all other people*, be paying for schools?
If you accept that general taxation should pay for schools, why should that burden fall that much more on people who buy software?
> > "Tax is too complicated and too closely related to freedom to be used to > > implement political policy."
> exactly what 'political policy' does the (stupid) proposed game tax implement?
Not an explicit policy in this case, unless perhaps that people buying software are wealthy and can afford to pay more? but there is an implicit policy - that tax can be placed on fairly arbitrary transactions on the basis they raise revenue for "good causes", which is appalling.
Why should people buying software be paying for schools?
Is there some link here? of course not.
There are well-known principles of general taxation which are equitious and minimize the discouragement caused by taxation to industry. These need to be followed at all times.
ANYONE suggesting tax should be done otherwise is a complete idiot with regard to economics and should be kept WELL away from any such decisions.
Would you have a politician making design decisions for particle accelerators? of course not - you know full well that simply being a politician doesn't make you a physicist.
In EXACTLY the same way, being a politician does not make you an economist - and if politicians are then making economic decisions, their decisions will lead to an economy in the exact same state as the particle accelerator they would otherwise have built.
Tax is too complicated and too closely related to freedom to be used to implement political policy.
...for now there will exist databases which will show exactly where you were, when and what you were doing.
The State will be able to access these databases when it feels compelled to do so.
We were afraid of the State, 1984-like, maintaining huge databases, monitoring us all.
Instead, we have private companies maintaining these databases and the State accesses them when it needs to.
Either way, we have sacrificed true freedom for convenience - and we have done so without ANY meaningful public discourse upon the matter.
There was in fact no choice made; this situation has simply come upon us, through market forces.
We - all of us, States, citizens, one and all - are not in control of the direction (I can't say decisions, because deliberate choice is not occuring) our society is taking.
This is deeply worrying and ultimate stems from television, which is responsible for the lack of meaningful public discourse in our society.
Every law passed by the State with the honest and sincere intention of being for the public good turns out *in practise* to be to the (sometimes enourmous) public harm, while hugely benefitting a very small number of people.
> Ok, let's start by revoking all State-issued corporate charaters, land > and resource deeds, patents and copyrights, and ending the > State-created reserve banking system.
The Fed was largely responsible for the 1930s crash, so doing away with it would be an excellent move.
The State has an administrative role to play in the economy - namely, making sure everyone abides by the law. This includes enforcing patents.
This is of an entirely different character to the State engaging in actual economic activity of its own.
> But all parties are permitted to conduct research. If said scientists are > unable to gain public funding for their work, they are free to approach > whatever other monied groups or individuals they wish to seek funding from. > There is no law saying that the government is the only legal source of science > funding. (In fact, an awful lot of research is privately funded - eg by the > pharma companies)
The problem lies in the indirect effect of State suppression.
Firstly, State funding is denied from unacceptable research.
Secondly, researchers will be discouraged from conducting such research for fear of impact on their careers - future State funding may be threatened.
Thirdly, the State, with its vast influence, is certainly going to try to persuade non-State sources of funds to avoid unacceptable research.
Fourthly, the State, by taxation to accumulate the funds it uses for research, in equal measure reduces the ability of independent entities to fund and so conduct their own research.
> I'm pretty sure the Post Office, which ran the telephone system back then, > didn't ban Churchill from anything. As for the BBC, I can't find a reference > to anything about Churchill not being allowed to speak upon it, so without > further information, I'm going to chalk this down to typical > pseudo-libertarian misleading
I'm quoting Milton Friedman.
I agree I should verify all sources, but I usually take his stuff at face value.
> What would the state have to gain by promoting global warming?
It will also incur a great deal of political unpopularity to actually *do* something. I suspect the incumbents, who are on a knife's edge for re-election, would be best pleased if this hot potato could be defered for a few more years.
More generally of course there is always a reluctance to do something which is painful in the short term and only provides rewards in the long term.
If you permit all parties to conduct research, then there will be pro-green, pro-oil and indeed neutral parties, all conducting research.
One naturally considers the source of research when considering what is being argued.
I would rather have an open field for all comers than the State imposing its invisible foot upon those who offer unacceptable views.
John Stuart Mill argued that all views contain an element of the truth; one is best able to come closest to the real truth by being opened minded. Of course, this cannot happen with State interference; but it *can* happen when all are free to research and publish.
This is why it's important not to have State control over funding; anything unacceptable - which is of course entirely orthagonal to truth or falsehood - naturally, to a lesser or greater extent, tends to be suppressed.
Did you know Winston Churchill wasn't permitted to speak on the BBC (the State telecoms monopoly of the day ) between 1933 and 1939 because his views on Nazi Germany were considered too extreme?
The State is created by free men to protect liberty and freedom. The problem we face is when the State becomes a monster and threatens the very liberty and freedom it was created to protect.
The State inherently holds political power; to give the State economic power is to provide it with a forceful means to implement its own ends. This is one of the reasons why its so vital to keep the State out of economic activity; because of the danger of the abuse of that economic power.
This case per se isn't so important, I think, compared to the larger issue.
Basically, successful private companies sometimes accumulate large amounts of user information.
The State is in general then obtaining access to that information - the recent Google subpoena comes to mind.
In other words, any large scale accumulation of data is in effect part of the State's ability to monitor citizens, since the State seems in general to be able to access that information as and when it wishes to do so.
It's possible, but I don't think it so, because it would mean I changed *and* I failed to notice; and also because many other good people I knew there departed from the company with much the same view.
> So basically, when it was a startup, you enjoyed your nerf tournaments, but then > their investors eventually demanded that they make a profit. Was that about the time > when you left?
Your view in this matter is utterly unlike the reality of events.
ARM was exceedingly hard working and to begin with something like half the staff had PhDs. What (IMHO) happened was that with rapid growth the quality of lower and middle management in particular was diluted and also politics, the rot of all companies, set in; more and more decisions were made because of *politics* rather than good sense.
Amulet, the clockless ARM project, was in existance before I even joined ARM in 98. It was a joint effort I think between the Uni and ARM.
I recall the problem was bottlenecks; it was hard *not* to end up with one or two bits of the chip slowing everything else down and so they never really got the chip to be better than a normal clocked version.
Truely wonderful and very special company for the first two of those years, then it slowly and surely went downhill - these days, it's just another company. ARM's culture didn't manage to survive its rapid growth in those few years from less than two hundred to more than seven hundred.
Making an ATM offer slow services is not a good move; they just won't be used, in exactly the same way that very few people would buy a burger from MacDonalds if it took twenty minutes to cook.
"The company pushing the idea, ICM Registry, also argues that dot-xxx would be good for customers of pornography sites, assuring them of certain business benchmarks, like being free of adware or computer viruses."
The fact is, laws passed for the "common good" invariably end up harming those they were notionally intended to help and in fact end up greatly benefiting a very small group of people.
In this case, the average punter will see his prices rise, to pay for all the regulation the porn sites would bear, the number and variety of porn sites would decrease because of their extra costs and ICM Registry would do very well out of it *indeed*.
Slashdot Mirror
> > "Why should people buying software be paying for schools?"
> Why should people playing the lottery be paying for schools? Why should people
> buying yachts be paying for public parks? Why should people buying gum be paying
> for welfare?
What I was getting at is why should people buying software *particularly, and in excess of all other people*, be paying for schools?
If you accept that general taxation should pay for schools, why should that burden fall that much more on people who buy software?
> > "Tax is too complicated and too closely related to freedom to be used to
> > implement political policy."
> exactly what 'political policy' does the (stupid) proposed game tax implement?
Not an explicit policy in this case, unless perhaps that people buying software are wealthy and can afford to pay more? but there is an implicit policy - that tax can be placed on fairly arbitrary transactions on the basis they raise revenue for "good causes", which is appalling.
There are ways to tax and there are ways to tax.
Most are highly inequitious - such as this tax.
Why should people buying software be paying for schools?
Is there some link here? of course not.
There are well-known principles of general taxation which are equitious and minimize the discouragement caused by taxation to industry. These need to be followed at all times.
ANYONE suggesting tax should be done otherwise is a complete idiot with regard to economics and should be kept WELL away from any such decisions.
Would you have a politician making design decisions for particle accelerators? of course not - you know full well that simply being a politician doesn't make you a physicist.
In EXACTLY the same way, being a politician does not make you an economist - and if politicians are then making economic decisions, their decisions will lead to an economy in the exact same state as the particle accelerator they would otherwise have built.
Tax is too complicated and too closely related to freedom to be used to implement political policy.
I'm not like a broken record...broken record...broken record...
...for now there will exist databases which will show exactly where you were, when and what you were doing.
The State will be able to access these databases when it feels compelled to do so.
We were afraid of the State, 1984-like, maintaining huge databases, monitoring us all.
Instead, we have private companies maintaining these databases and the State accesses them when it needs to.
Either way, we have sacrificed true freedom for convenience - and we have done so without ANY meaningful public discourse upon the matter.
There was in fact no choice made; this situation has simply come upon us, through market forces.
We - all of us, States, citizens, one and all - are not in control of the direction (I can't say decisions, because deliberate choice is not occuring) our society is taking.
This is deeply worrying and ultimate stems from television, which is responsible for the lack of meaningful public discourse in our society.
Oracle could swallow Redhat without even needing a context switch.
I'm...speechless.
Let's get this straight.
*The* most popular search engine in the world, with billions of hits per day, puts *your* work on its front page.
Billions of people who've never heard of you before will now find out about you.
And you say...
"TAKE IT DOWN AT ONCE!!"
I've seen stupid, but then there's *STTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTUPID*.
> I'll remember that the next time I quote from The Bill of Rights.
The main purpose of the Bill of Rights is to control the powers of State.
My point is that the State passes lots of stupid laws; the Bill of Rights is a confirmation of that fact.
Every law passed by the State with the honest and sincere intention of being for the public good turns out *in practise* to be to the (sometimes enourmous) public harm, while hugely benefitting a very small number of people.
I'm quoting Milton Friedman.
I know I should verify my sources, but I usually take what he says as being accurate.
> Ok, let's start by revoking all State-issued corporate charaters, land
> and resource deeds, patents and copyrights, and ending the
> State-created reserve banking system.
The Fed was largely responsible for the 1930s crash, so doing away with it would be an excellent move.
The State has an administrative role to play in the economy - namely, making sure everyone abides by the law. This includes enforcing patents.
This is of an entirely different character to the State engaging in actual economic activity of its own.
> But all parties are permitted to conduct research. If said scientists are
> unable to gain public funding for their work, they are free to approach
> whatever other monied groups or individuals they wish to seek funding from.
> There is no law saying that the government is the only legal source of science
> funding. (In fact, an awful lot of research is privately funded - eg by the
> pharma companies)
The problem lies in the indirect effect of State suppression.
Firstly, State funding is denied from unacceptable research.
Secondly, researchers will be discouraged from conducting such research for fear of impact on their careers - future State funding may be threatened.
Thirdly, the State, with its vast influence, is certainly going to try to persuade non-State sources of funds to avoid unacceptable research.
Fourthly, the State, by taxation to accumulate the funds it uses for research, in equal measure reduces the ability of independent entities to fund and so conduct their own research.
> I'm pretty sure the Post Office, which ran the telephone system back then,
> didn't ban Churchill from anything. As for the BBC, I can't find a reference
> to anything about Churchill not being allowed to speak upon it, so without
> further information, I'm going to chalk this down to typical
> pseudo-libertarian misleading
I'm quoting Milton Friedman.
I agree I should verify all sources, but I usually take his stuff at face value.
> What would the state have to gain by promoting global warming?
It will also incur a great deal of political unpopularity to actually *do* something. I suspect the incumbents, who are on a knife's edge for re-election, would be best pleased if this hot potato could be defered for a few more years.
More generally of course there is always a reluctance to do something which is painful in the short term and only provides rewards in the long term.
If you permit all parties to conduct research, then there will be pro-green, pro-oil and indeed neutral parties, all conducting research.
One naturally considers the source of research when considering what is being argued.
I would rather have an open field for all comers than the State imposing its invisible foot upon those who offer unacceptable views.
John Stuart Mill argued that all views contain an element of the truth; one is best able to come closest to the real truth by being opened minded. Of course, this cannot happen with State interference; but it *can* happen when all are free to research and publish.
This is why it's important not to have State control over funding; anything unacceptable - which is of course entirely orthagonal to truth or falsehood - naturally, to a lesser or greater extent, tends to be suppressed.
Did you know Winston Churchill wasn't permitted to speak on the BBC (the State telecoms monopoly of the day ) between 1933 and 1939 because his views on Nazi Germany were considered too extreme?
The State is created by free men to protect liberty and freedom. The problem we face is when the State becomes a monster and threatens the very liberty and freedom it was created to protect.
The State inherently holds political power; to give the State economic power is to provide it with a forceful means to implement its own ends. This is one of the reasons why its so vital to keep the State out of economic activity; because of the danger of the abuse of that economic power.
This case per se isn't so important, I think, compared to the larger issue.
Basically, successful private companies sometimes accumulate large amounts of user information.
The State is in general then obtaining access to that information - the recent Google subpoena comes to mind.
In other words, any large scale accumulation of data is in effect part of the State's ability to monitor citizens, since the State seems in general to be able to access that information as and when it wishes to do so.
This is worrying.
> Perhaps it was you who changed...
It's possible, but I don't think it so, because it would mean I changed *and* I failed to notice; and also because many other good people I knew there departed from the company with much the same view.
> So basically, when it was a startup, you enjoyed your nerf tournaments, but then
> their investors eventually demanded that they make a profit. Was that about the time
> when you left?
Your view in this matter is utterly unlike the reality of events.
ARM was exceedingly hard working and to begin with something like half the staff had PhDs. What (IMHO) happened was that with rapid growth the quality of lower and middle management in particular was diluted and also politics, the rot of all companies, set in; more and more decisions were made because of *politics* rather than good sense.
When that happens, the inevitable happens.
Amulet, the clockless ARM project, was in existance before I even joined ARM in 98. It was a joint effort I think between the Uni and ARM.
I recall the problem was bottlenecks; it was hard *not* to end up with one or two bits of the chip slowing everything else down and so they never really got the chip to be better than a normal clocked version.
Presumably this has been fixed?
I worked for ARM for four years.
Truely wonderful and very special company for the first two of those years, then it slowly and surely went downhill - these days, it's just another company. ARM's culture didn't manage to survive its rapid growth in those few years from less than two hundred to more than seven hundred.
"ECMAEiffel".
That's a death knell if ever I heard one.
Well, you can tell Australia used to be a penal colony...
ATMs are the MacDonalds of the banking world.
MacDonalds don't offer slow food.
Making an ATM offer slow services is not a good move; they just won't be used, in exactly the same way that very few people would buy a burger from MacDonalds if it took twenty minutes to cook.
Have a Mac which can run XP when required.
That's one way Linux is getting into the workplace. All the PCs at my work are dual boot, Linux/Windows.
"The company pushing the idea, ICM Registry, also argues that dot-xxx would be good for customers of pornography sites, assuring them of certain business benchmarks, like being free of adware or computer viruses."
The fact is, laws passed for the "common good" invariably end up harming those they were notionally intended to help and in fact end up greatly benefiting a very small group of people.
In this case, the average punter will see his prices rise, to pay for all the regulation the porn sites would bear, the number and variety of porn sites would decrease because of their extra costs and ICM Registry would do very well out of it *indeed*.