Which is where the idiocy begins. You can't tax something that's illegal. Well, you can, but not many people will fess up.
But they already do. How do you think they got Al Capone? You don't have to fess up to a crime, they just have to show you have an income stream that's not being taxed.
One of the problems with the new income tax law was how to define "lawful" income. Congress addressed this problem by amending the law in 1916 by deleting the word "lawful" from the definition of income. As a result, all income became subject to tax, even if it was earned by illegal means. Several years later, the Supreme Court declared the Fifth Amendment could not be used by bootleggers and others who earned income through illegal activities to avoid paying taxes. Consequently, many who broke various laws associated with illegal activities and were able to escape justice for these crimes were incarcerated on tax evasion charges.
Prior to the enactment of the income tax, most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities. The income tax fundamentally changed this relationship, giving the government the right and the need to know about all manner of an individual or business' economic life. Congress recognized the inherent invasiveness of the income tax into the taxpayer's personal affairs and so in 1916 it provided citizens with some degree of protection by requiring that information from tax returns be kept confidential.
I find it interesting that federal revenues just after the turn of the 20th century were ~1.5% of GDP and by WWI (shortly after the 16th Amendment) were ~25% of GDP. This has fluctuated since (though never dropping to the 1-2% level again, even in peacetime), and is in the 20% range today.
Wow...I know people that would love a free upgrade that gets them beyond 400MHz. I have trouble believing you can't even give them away. About 18 months ago I chucked out my wife's 366 P2 because I thought the same as you, and then I discovered it would have been a decent upgrade for my friend's wife. If only I'd known!
A year or so before that I did get my hands on a free 133 P1 which I set up with Mandrake 7 for a pastor friend who was still toodling along on a 486. He'd been a geek but changed professions about the same time Linux was rising to prominence, so had never had the opportunity to use it. He was thrilled. Realize this was about 2003...and he was thrilled with 133 MHz.
In my experience, the hardest part of acquiring free used machines here is that "here" is the Midwest, so the population density works against us. Most listings I see for free or dirt cheap machines are in California, Chicago, or the East Coast. That's another reason I felt so bad about chucking the P2, because I know how hard they are to come by.
XFCE or Equinox would be good DE choices - assuming you don't want to run a 5-year-old version of KDE/GNOME, which is likely. Else you could look at one of the more fully featured WMs. Or if you want to get the machine to feel really snappy, use a minimal WM like Blackbox or IceWM. The more resources you leave for your apps, the better they will run.
Why do you think you need the latest/greatest KDE/GNOME to replace Win98? The machine is still Win98-era, so that's about the best you should be able to expect from it and get decent performance. Choose a lesser desktop...you can probably find one that still has feature-parity to Win98 by looking through Windowmaker, XFCE, Equinox, Blackbox, IceWM, etc. - and you'll get decent performance.
I doubt it. OSs aren't designed to work with varying amounts of "physical" RAM. To the guest OS, that amount you set aside is how much RAM its (virtual) machine physically has.
OpenBSD might have a larger installed base then NetBSD, but I really doubt there are as many desktop installations. I don't think Dragonfly comes close to either.
Yeah...like a chubby female viking singing while holding a sword.
Seriously, what is it about browsers and icons? IE is a big "e", Netscape is a big "N", Opera is a big "O". Where's the creativity? At least Firefox, Camino, and Safari put a little effort into it.
I think there are a sizable chunk of people that would like to see a NetBSD/i386 version. (Personally I'd like to see a NetBSD/mac68k version just for kicks, but I'm probably in the minority there.)
My uni provided the computers in every dorm room. Great program, but they cancelled it after about 10 years because it was too expensive. I think they counted on students paying (a reduced price) to take their computer with them when they graduated, but that never really happened.
If you want a computer that will last you through college, mow a lot of lawns between your high school graduation and your freshman orientation.
My advice is to buy it before you lay your financials bare before the loan officer - cuz if you have any money "stashed" they will assume you are going to use the full amount for tuition. Any other needs you have are secondary to them.
How can you eavesdrop on yourself? If it's your own property, how can it be eavesdropping? Do you need permission to record whenever others in the vicinity might incidentally be recorded as well?
How can it be wiretapping if there's no wire being tapped? Anti-wiretapping laws seem to be based on the idea that info transmitted by wire is "private" despite not being encrypted. If you're doing something right out in the open, albeit on private property, how does this apply? Is Wal*Mart also "wiretapping" by having security cameras?
Why is it a crime to monitor what our public servants are doing? How else can we guard against abuses of power? We're literally supposed to turn a blind eye and simply trust them without reservation?
Or, as another has said, implement "silent bidding". You get to bid once on an auction, and you don't know who won until that auction is over. This may hurt people who are trying to follow multiple auctions for identical items, but too bad.
Being able to retract a "last" bid while maintaining all the non-winning bids ought to disqualify all bids by that person on that auction. Running up the price? That's evil.
poorly educated countries with beliefs and lifestyles about sex that encourage the spread of diseases
You don't have to be in a poorly educated country to have unhealthy sexual beliefs/lifestyles. Homosexuality and IV drug use are bad ideas when it comes to remaining healthy, regardless of how much money you have.
Without HTML? HTML in RSS is nonstandard. All my emails and feeds are stripped down to text. Yes, you can still put text blurbs in, but I don't think that's what you were talking about.
The state of web design at the moment is awful. [...]
True, very good points there. I suppose I'm a bit idealistic.
I still don't see the argument against full-text feeds from the user's perspective. You are making an argument for partial-text feeds, but even if everything you say were true, it wouldn't be an argument against full-text feeds.
True, there's a place for both, and having one does not exclude the other. But most sites are probably not going to provide dual versions. Recognizing that, the debate is about which format is "better" overall.
That's true, but in general I would think it would be to the publishers' benefit to direct people to their website proper for the full text. If they're selling stuff, that's where it will be. If they're getting ad revenue, that's where they will be. What benefit is there (for publishers) to giving away content "for free" in the RSS feed? Scoble makes some good points, but he assumes everyone's feed reader interprets embedded HTML. I think feeds (and email, for that matter) are plain text media. I don't get clickable links in either.
Also, it's not really a bandwidth issue in the sense of download size alone, but in the sense of my time as well. I want informative titles, so I can see almost all my daily feeds at a glance. If the title grabs me, I'll expand it to read the summary. If the summary is good, I'll go to the article. Full-text feeds aren't as bad for this if they are well written articles, where the first paragraph is itself a good summary, but often they are not.
Both of these relate to my work flow. Minimal and efficient. And isn't efficiency the point of RSS anyway? Even Scoble makes that point. If I wanted to receive my feeds as nearly-complete web pages in their own right, then sure, he has a point. But just because something is in a feed I've subscribed to doesn't mean I'll automatically be interested, only that there's a higher likelihood that I will be.
Now OTOH, I'd be very interested in a reader that let displayed a list of (informative) titles, showed a (good) summary when clicked, and then let me (optionally) expand it into the full article view. If readers supported this, and all feeds were coded that way, I'd be completely on board with full text feeds. It comes down to this: I don't have time to skim articles to see if it looks good or not, so facilitate my need to sort the grain from the chaff. That's the original point of RSS as I see it. Sure I like the convenience of having the full article available, but not at the price of giving up a decent summary on which I base my decision to read or not. Without a good title and summary, I'd rather skip the feed - I don't have the time.
But you make a good point in my favor, too. Bandwidth usually isn't a concern. You probably have broadband, right? So why even care about having to fetch the full version? You can have it in a couple seconds if you like the summary. Skim all your feeds' headlines/summaries, opening the ones you like in tabs of a background (or integrated) web browser, and when you're done then read the articles. This is essentially how I read my news now (for those without RSS)...go to FoxNews, CNN, whatever, and click the links into background tabs, then close the home page. Read the tabs in succession, closing as I go.
It's workflow preference. There's more than one way to skin the cat.
Shocking! Celestia finally pushed past version 1.3.2, where it had languished for years. Will wonders never cease? Can't wait to get home and download this puppy...
plenty of people complain if you only provide partial feeds as opposed to full-text feeds
Who are these people? I want RSS to be a notifier with "teasers"...if I wanted to suck all that bandwidth for full text, I'd just open Opera with a saved tab-set and go directly to the web sites. Anything more than a single paragraph is too much. If you can't capture my attention in 3-4 lines, don't bother me.
Sure, maybe it's an expectation, but that's not a contractual obligation. If you want your wifi users obliged to buy some coffee before they can use your signal, then put some restrictions on it. Maybe you get a token for 20 minutes when you get your latte. Sure, that makes it annoying for the "legitimate" users, but if you want the signal that you yourself are broadcasting to be restricted then it is your obligation to put that in place.
By analogy: TV stations broadcast their signal "for free" and there might be an expectation that I'm going to see the commercials that subsidize my free access, but there sure as heck is no obligation for me to sit through them.
I completely agree. Wasn't there an effort (like 10 years ago) to get 811 pushed through as the number to call for non-emergency needs? Sure would be handy, since no one ever knows the local numbers, especially as mobile as people are today.
Slashdot Mirror
But they already do. How do you think they got Al Capone? You don't have to fess up to a crime, they just have to show you have an income stream that's not being taxed.
I find it interesting that federal revenues just after the turn of the 20th century were ~1.5% of GDP and by WWI (shortly after the 16th Amendment) were ~25% of GDP. This has fluctuated since (though never dropping to the 1-2% level again, even in peacetime), and is in the 20% range today.
Wow...I know people that would love a free upgrade that gets them beyond 400MHz. I have trouble believing you can't even give them away. About 18 months ago I chucked out my wife's 366 P2 because I thought the same as you, and then I discovered it would have been a decent upgrade for my friend's wife. If only I'd known!
A year or so before that I did get my hands on a free 133 P1 which I set up with Mandrake 7 for a pastor friend who was still toodling along on a 486. He'd been a geek but changed professions about the same time Linux was rising to prominence, so had never had the opportunity to use it. He was thrilled. Realize this was about 2003...and he was thrilled with 133 MHz.
In my experience, the hardest part of acquiring free used machines here is that "here" is the Midwest, so the population density works against us. Most listings I see for free or dirt cheap machines are in California, Chicago, or the East Coast. That's another reason I felt so bad about chucking the P2, because I know how hard they are to come by.
XFCE or Equinox would be good DE choices - assuming you don't want to run a 5-year-old version of KDE/GNOME, which is likely. Else you could look at one of the more fully featured WMs. Or if you want to get the machine to feel really snappy, use a minimal WM like Blackbox or IceWM. The more resources you leave for your apps, the better they will run.
Why do you think you need the latest/greatest KDE/GNOME to replace Win98? The machine is still Win98-era, so that's about the best you should be able to expect from it and get decent performance. Choose a lesser desktop...you can probably find one that still has feature-parity to Win98 by looking through Windowmaker, XFCE, Equinox, Blackbox, IceWM, etc. - and you'll get decent performance.
I doubt it. OSs aren't designed to work with varying amounts of "physical" RAM. To the guest OS, that amount you set aside is how much RAM its (virtual) machine physically has.
OpenBSD might have a larger installed base then NetBSD, but I really doubt there are as many desktop installations. I don't think Dragonfly comes close to either.
Fiddler doesn't run on all the platforms that Opera does.
Yeah...like a chubby female viking singing while holding a sword.
Seriously, what is it about browsers and icons? IE is a big "e", Netscape is a big "N", Opera is a big "O". Where's the creativity? At least Firefox, Camino, and Safari put a little effort into it.
I think there are a sizable chunk of people that would like to see a NetBSD/i386 version. (Personally I'd like to see a NetBSD/mac68k version just for kicks, but I'm probably in the minority there.)
Smiley? You're thinking of iCab.
My uni provided the computers in every dorm room. Great program, but they cancelled it after about 10 years because it was too expensive. I think they counted on students paying (a reduced price) to take their computer with them when they graduated, but that never really happened.
My advice is to buy it before you lay your financials bare before the loan officer - cuz if you have any money "stashed" they will assume you are going to use the full amount for tuition. Any other needs you have are secondary to them.
In that vein, here's something a friend pointed me to just today.
How can you eavesdrop on yourself? If it's your own property, how can it be eavesdropping? Do you need permission to record whenever others in the vicinity might incidentally be recorded as well?
How can it be wiretapping if there's no wire being tapped? Anti-wiretapping laws seem to be based on the idea that info transmitted by wire is "private" despite not being encrypted. If you're doing something right out in the open, albeit on private property, how does this apply? Is Wal*Mart also "wiretapping" by having security cameras?
Why is it a crime to monitor what our public servants are doing? How else can we guard against abuses of power? We're literally supposed to turn a blind eye and simply trust them without reservation?
Or, as another has said, implement "silent bidding". You get to bid once on an auction, and you don't know who won until that auction is over. This may hurt people who are trying to follow multiple auctions for identical items, but too bad.
Being able to retract a "last" bid while maintaining all the non-winning bids ought to disqualify all bids by that person on that auction. Running up the price? That's evil.
I'm in complete agreement. I don't understand why it doesn't work this way already.
You don't have to be in a poorly educated country to have unhealthy sexual beliefs/lifestyles. Homosexuality and IV drug use are bad ideas when it comes to remaining healthy, regardless of how much money you have.
But it's not government's job to determine who needs money and in what amount. That's a centrally planned economy, and the antithesis of freedom.
Three factors contributed most significantly to the centralization of power to the FedGov (i.e. nationalization): the 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, and creation of the Federal Reserve. I imagine that increased mechanization/automation is what made urbanization possible/necessary.
Without HTML? HTML in RSS is nonstandard. All my emails and feeds are stripped down to text. Yes, you can still put text blurbs in, but I don't think that's what you were talking about.
True, very good points there. I suppose I'm a bit idealistic.
True, there's a place for both, and having one does not exclude the other. But most sites are probably not going to provide dual versions. Recognizing that, the debate is about which format is "better" overall.
That's true, but in general I would think it would be to the publishers' benefit to direct people to their website proper for the full text. If they're selling stuff, that's where it will be. If they're getting ad revenue, that's where they will be. What benefit is there (for publishers) to giving away content "for free" in the RSS feed? Scoble makes some good points, but he assumes everyone's feed reader interprets embedded HTML. I think feeds (and email, for that matter) are plain text media. I don't get clickable links in either.
Also, it's not really a bandwidth issue in the sense of download size alone, but in the sense of my time as well. I want informative titles, so I can see almost all my daily feeds at a glance. If the title grabs me, I'll expand it to read the summary. If the summary is good, I'll go to the article. Full-text feeds aren't as bad for this if they are well written articles, where the first paragraph is itself a good summary, but often they are not.
Both of these relate to my work flow. Minimal and efficient. And isn't efficiency the point of RSS anyway? Even Scoble makes that point. If I wanted to receive my feeds as nearly-complete web pages in their own right, then sure, he has a point. But just because something is in a feed I've subscribed to doesn't mean I'll automatically be interested, only that there's a higher likelihood that I will be.
Now OTOH, I'd be very interested in a reader that let displayed a list of (informative) titles, showed a (good) summary when clicked, and then let me (optionally) expand it into the full article view. If readers supported this, and all feeds were coded that way, I'd be completely on board with full text feeds. It comes down to this: I don't have time to skim articles to see if it looks good or not, so facilitate my need to sort the grain from the chaff. That's the original point of RSS as I see it. Sure I like the convenience of having the full article available, but not at the price of giving up a decent summary on which I base my decision to read or not. Without a good title and summary, I'd rather skip the feed - I don't have the time.
But you make a good point in my favor, too. Bandwidth usually isn't a concern. You probably have broadband, right? So why even care about having to fetch the full version? You can have it in a couple seconds if you like the summary. Skim all your feeds' headlines/summaries, opening the ones you like in tabs of a background (or integrated) web browser, and when you're done then read the articles. This is essentially how I read my news now (for those without RSS)...go to FoxNews, CNN, whatever, and click the links into background tabs, then close the home page. Read the tabs in succession, closing as I go.
It's workflow preference. There's more than one way to skin the cat.
Shocking! Celestia finally pushed past version 1.3.2, where it had languished for years. Will wonders never cease? Can't wait to get home and download this puppy...
Who are these people? I want RSS to be a notifier with "teasers"...if I wanted to suck all that bandwidth for full text, I'd just open Opera with a saved tab-set and go directly to the web sites. Anything more than a single paragraph is too much. If you can't capture my attention in 3-4 lines, don't bother me.
That's very cool. Do you know if that number's common across your region? State? Telco?
Sure, maybe it's an expectation, but that's not a contractual obligation. If you want your wifi users obliged to buy some coffee before they can use your signal, then put some restrictions on it. Maybe you get a token for 20 minutes when you get your latte. Sure, that makes it annoying for the "legitimate" users, but if you want the signal that you yourself are broadcasting to be restricted then it is your obligation to put that in place.
By analogy: TV stations broadcast their signal "for free" and there might be an expectation that I'm going to see the commercials that subsidize my free access, but there sure as heck is no obligation for me to sit through them.
I completely agree. Wasn't there an effort (like 10 years ago) to get 811 pushed through as the number to call for non-emergency needs? Sure would be handy, since no one ever knows the local numbers, especially as mobile as people are today.