50k is too high. Median household income is lower than that; half the country wouldn't have to pay taxes.
In 2006 the median income was $48,201.00. I stipulate that $50k is hardly Bourgeois.
A flat tax is as fair as a tax can get, as they are inherently unfair. After all, it is your money. Somehow it's theft if I were to help myself to your financial assets, so why is it any less so when the government does it?
I guess it's a balance. If I find that a piece of software is essential to me, I buy it. If I can't justify its cost, I don't use it. That's right. I pay for software.
How about this. Everybody, whether you earn a billion or $5 per year, gets to earn $50k tax free. If you want to get fancy with it, tie it to some consumer index and basis points.
Then apply a flat tax atop that. How's that sound?
First, Obama was absolutely certain that he would serve the State of Illinois better if he remained a State legislator, but then he had a change of heart. When Sen. Fitzgerald decided to not run, the Illinois Republican Party ran Jack Ryan. Obama ran against him and it turned out that Mr. Ryan had been at a porn club with his super hot wife Jeri Ryan. Reprehensible as this was, the Illinois Republican Party next mustered the colossal failure of a candidate Alan Keyes. Obama in no small part had the dysfunctional Illinois Republican Party to thank for his political success thus far.
Next he said that he under no circumstances would run for president. He felt he would serve the State of Illinois better if he remained the Jr. Senator of Illinois. Then he had a change of heart.
Now he ran for president in hotly contested primaries. During this time he had a number of bright ideas for the liberal base. He had a number of changes of heart during this time, but he finally clinched the presumptive nomination.
A number of things have happened from illegal immigration and marijuana policy to DC vs Heller. All of which he has managed to have a change of heart about.
I am not surprised that he has yet another change of heart with regard to NASA.
"Sun picked the CDDL because it's incompatible with the Linux kernel license (something that the Linux kernel developers simply cannot change)."
That's borderline cynical to say. You assume with this statement that Sun deliberately picked a license to be incompatible with the GPL, for the purpose of disallowing works published under it to be integrated with the Linux Kernel tarball:
If you wanted a copyleft license, why didn't you just use the GPL or LGPL?
We needed an open source license that allowed files released under the license to be linked with files released under other licenses. While a license like LGPL would allow this for dynamically-linked code, we also needed to be able to release software that statically links source files available under different licenses. In addition, we wanted to allow others to add externsions to OpenSolaris with different license terms. This was only possible under a license like the MPL; however, we could not use the MPL because it is not a "template" license allowing reuse by others. Consequently, we crafted a variant of the MPL, taking the opportunity to make it a template license as a step towards reducing license proliferation for others finding themselves in a similar position.
Are you suggesting that non-GPL software isn't free? Given the nature of the GPL and it's relative restrictive nature on derivative work, I would venture to say that it is less Free than the CDDL.
Mr. Morton of Linux Kernel fame has in terms advocated that Sun should shoot the dog that is OpenSolaris and that the company should roll over and adopt Linux as its own. And of course the obvious remark that DTrace and ZFS cannot be integrated with the Linux Kernel because both projects are licensed in an incompatible fashion. It strikes me that perhaps the Linux Kernel is licensed in such a fashion that it cannot adopt said projects? After all, how can Sun be serious about Free software unless it adopts Linux. printf("World Domination!\n");
I argue that OpenSolaris is an exciting project that has opened up innovation and has greatly contributed back to the main Solaris branch in positive ways. I don't see Sun dropping this effort anytime soon. The fact that I as a customer have a more informal way of interfacing with Sun's engineers and designers is a great improvement. I have Linux to thank for this, as it challenged Sun to step up to the plate. But that doesn't mean that Sun has to be the big bad company forever and ever. I sense this animosity in the Linux community of late and I think it's unwarranted. It's some sort of elitism that makes it so that Sun's effort is in jest, or at least less worthy. In summary, it has done little for me, but serve as a turn off for Linux.
"Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam. Failure to get a license could result in the seller being fined up to $1,000 and jailed for a maximum of 90 days."
Perhaps intentional, but nowhere in the article do I find one iota of purpose, let alone legitimate purpose, for this law. Presumably this is some warped view of Consumer Protection(tm). But it seems that this is more of a regulatory program for the State to bring in reveues where it thinks it is getting screwed. Pay close attention to the fact that they don't call this a 'tax'. Taxes are bad and Americans hate them. Hence a $200 fee and a $50,000 interest free loan is provided for the government.
If this works out (e.g. the State thinks it's successful) you can damn well expect an eBay Lite law, which does the same thing less the requirement for certifications for ordinary people who sell their one used iPod or other junk. The objective here is the bond and the license. The Lite version of the law would most likely entail a license only at a reduced price of $25 or some silly amount to start with.
Then other states follow. So write your politicians now (especially if you are in OH or a surrounding state). That'll allow them to bear in mind your thoughts when this sort of stuff comes to the table, rather than trying to convince them after they're already interested in the potential revenue stream.
Some good resources for Solaris X86 extras and tinkering;
http://www.bolthole.com/solaris/x86.html
http://www.solaris-x86.org
The author said that he was forced to use OSS to get sound to work. There are open source drivers for Solaris as well and they work pretty well. Note that they're compiled for Solaris 9, but they still work with Solaris 10.
It IS unequivocal. What about 'shall not be infringed' do you fail to understand?
The codifying of the Militia in the Militia Act of 1792, assuming that this is what you speak of, says that the Militia may be called upon in the defense of the land against any foreign aggressor and that the President shall have such power.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
From Merriam-Webster;
infringe "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights"
How is infringing (you can only have a deer rifle if you're a member of an organized State militia (National Guard)) on the people's right to keep and bear arm compatible with 'shall not be infringed'? It is not possible to have limits on the right to keep and bear arms while protecting against such limits.
If you do not like guns, something which I've been unable to gauge, but I will assume - the correct thing would be to argue the repeal of Amendment II. Not inventing some meaning that isn't there. Same actually goes for all of the Constitution, but let's start with Amendment II since we have it on subject.
The DoJ did a study on the matter and came up with the following;
On the one hand you acknowledge that our President was elected, certified and ultimately inaugurated. Then you're suggesting that you don't know who got more votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/p re sident/
Bush (Incumbent) 60,608,582 51% 286 Democratic Kerry 57,288,974 48% 252
It does not say that you have the right to keep and bear arms in an organized Militia. It says that I have the right to keep and bear arms and that this right shall not be infringed upon.
Our Founding Fathers gave a premise and a reason, for the right to keep and bear arms, not a condition under which I have that right.
Yes, unequivocally, you and I have the right to keep and bear arms.
I did actually read your post, but I didn't engage your argument - I stuck with mine. I was also obnoxious about it, which I concede was not fair to you. My apologies.
I was arguing that George W. Bush didn't steal the election based on the fact that he was certified by Congress after being voted in favor of by the electors. All challenges to the election were unsuccessful at various levels. It is true, that he is President today.
That said, many people suggest that "we will never know" what the outcome of the election was because of allegations that were either deemed to have no merit or weren't presented to the courts. In either case, the premise that "we will never know" is preposterous because we do indeed know. George W. Bush is President.
It is not complex, nor difficult to answer the question;
Did George W. Bush, Diebold et al. steal the election from John Kerry?
Unless you can prove that to be true, it must be false because George W. Bush is president. In fact, attempts at proving that have been shot down by courts and legislature. For what it's worth, we do know who won the election.
But we are dealing with a boolean, not a float. The election was certified and challenges were dismissed, Diebold wrongdoing allegations included. We have an inaugurated President.
Either the election was stolen or it was not. Considering the premise, it was not.
Now if you don't like the Diebold machines, I congratulate you and wish you well in your petitioning your legislators to make law that tells your elections officials to purchase other equipment, or amend to your satisfaction the Diebold machines. I am sure that Diebold Corporation would be delighted at the prospect of selling additional products for the machines your municipality already owns.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just simply how about no taxes?
Mod the parent up. Seriously. Do it.
No bias to see here.
Yes... This isn't the bias you're looking for... Move along.
She sure is prettier than Joe Biden. BDIRL? (But Does It Run Linux)
50k is too high. Median household income is lower than that; half the country wouldn't have to pay taxes.
In 2006 the median income was $48,201.00. I stipulate that $50k is hardly Bourgeois.
A flat tax is as fair as a tax can get, as they are inherently unfair. After all, it is your money. Somehow it's theft if I were to help myself to your financial assets, so why is it any less so when the government does it?
I guess it's a balance. If I find that a piece of software is essential to me, I buy it. If I can't justify its cost, I don't use it. That's right. I pay for software.
You'll get a good start with:
# svccfg apply /var/svc/profile/generic_limited_net.xml
You can then further manage the services you want running with modifying `site.xml' and apply that:
# svccfg apply /var/svc/profile/site.xml
How about this. Everybody, whether you earn a billion or $5 per year, gets to earn $50k tax free. If you want to get fancy with it, tie it to some consumer index and basis points.
Then apply a flat tax atop that. How's that sound?
Tim Horton's... Hockey? Am I correct in that you can't vote in this election?
First, Obama was absolutely certain that he would serve the State of Illinois better if he remained a State legislator, but then he had a change of heart. When Sen. Fitzgerald decided to not run, the Illinois Republican Party ran Jack Ryan. Obama ran against him and it turned out that Mr. Ryan had been at a porn club with his super hot wife Jeri Ryan. Reprehensible as this was, the Illinois Republican Party next mustered the colossal failure of a candidate Alan Keyes. Obama in no small part had the dysfunctional Illinois Republican Party to thank for his political success thus far.
Next he said that he under no circumstances would run for president. He felt he would serve the State of Illinois better if he remained the Jr. Senator of Illinois. Then he had a change of heart.
Now he ran for president in hotly contested primaries. During this time he had a number of bright ideas for the liberal base. He had a number of changes of heart during this time, but he finally clinched the presumptive nomination.
A number of things have happened from illegal immigration and marijuana policy to DC vs Heller. All of which he has managed to have a change of heart about.
I am not surprised that he has yet another change of heart with regard to NASA.
"Sun picked the CDDL because it's incompatible with the Linux kernel license (something that the Linux kernel developers simply cannot change)."
_ faq/
That's borderline cynical to say. You assume with this statement that Sun deliberately picked a license to be incompatible with the GPL, for the purpose of disallowing works published under it to be integrated with the Linux Kernel tarball:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing
If you wanted a copyleft license, why didn't you just use the GPL or LGPL?
We needed an open source license that allowed files released under the license to be linked with files released under other licenses. While a license like LGPL would allow this for dynamically-linked code, we also needed to be able to release software that statically links source files available under different licenses. In addition, we wanted to allow others to add externsions to OpenSolaris with different license terms. This was only possible under a license like the MPL; however, we could not use the MPL because it is not a "template" license allowing reuse by others. Consequently, we crafted a variant of the MPL, taking the opportunity to make it a template license as a step towards reducing license proliferation for others finding themselves in a similar position.
Are you suggesting that non-GPL software isn't free? Given the nature of the GPL and it's relative restrictive nature on derivative work, I would venture to say that it is less Free than the CDDL.
Mr. Morton of Linux Kernel fame has in terms advocated that Sun should shoot the dog that is OpenSolaris and that the company should roll over and adopt Linux as its own. And of course the obvious remark that DTrace and ZFS cannot be integrated with the Linux Kernel because both projects are licensed in an incompatible fashion. It strikes me that perhaps the Linux Kernel is licensed in such a fashion that it cannot adopt said projects? After all, how can Sun be serious about Free software unless it adopts Linux. printf("World Domination!\n");
I argue that OpenSolaris is an exciting project that has opened up innovation and has greatly contributed back to the main Solaris branch in positive ways. I don't see Sun dropping this effort anytime soon. The fact that I as a customer have a more informal way of interfacing with Sun's engineers and designers is a great improvement. I have Linux to thank for this, as it challenged Sun to step up to the plate. But that doesn't mean that Sun has to be the big bad company forever and ever. I sense this animosity in the Linux community of late and I think it's unwarranted. It's some sort of elitism that makes it so that Sun's effort is in jest, or at least less worthy. In summary, it has done little for me, but serve as a turn off for Linux.
I disagree. According to Merriam-Webster;
Main Entry: auctioneer
Pronunciation: "ok-sh&-'nir
Function: noun
: an agent who sells goods at auction
That seems to me that if you sell stuff on eBay, you are an auctioneer.
Simply put, this (from the article) is Bad Law;
"Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam. Failure to get a license could result in the seller being fined up to $1,000 and jailed for a maximum of 90 days."
Perhaps intentional, but nowhere in the article do I find one iota of purpose, let alone legitimate purpose, for this law. Presumably this is some warped view of Consumer Protection(tm). But it seems that this is more of a regulatory program for the State to bring in reveues where it thinks it is getting screwed. Pay close attention to the fact that they don't call this a 'tax'. Taxes are bad and Americans hate them. Hence a $200 fee and a $50,000 interest free loan is provided for the government.
If this works out (e.g. the State thinks it's successful) you can damn well expect an eBay Lite law, which does the same thing less the requirement for certifications for ordinary people who sell their one used iPod or other junk. The objective here is the bond and the license. The Lite version of the law would most likely entail a license only at a reduced price of $25 or some silly amount to start with.
Then other states follow. So write your politicians now (especially if you are in OH or a surrounding state). That'll allow them to bear in mind your thoughts when this sort of stuff comes to the table, rather than trying to convince them after they're already interested in the potential revenue stream.
Or how about not buying one for little Poot if you don't trust it or want it?
Some good resources for Solaris X86 extras and tinkering;
http://www.bolthole.com/solaris/x86.html
http://www.solaris-x86.org
The author said that he was forced to use OSS to get sound to work. There are open source drivers for Solaris as well and they work pretty well. Note that they're compiled for Solaris 9, but they still work with Solaris 10.
http://www.tools.de/solaris/audio/
It IS unequivocal. What about 'shall not be infringed' do you fail to understand?
m
w .guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
The codifying of the Militia in the Militia Act of 1792, assuming that this is what you speak of, says that the Militia may be called upon in the defense of the land against any foreign aggressor and that the President shall have such power.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.ht
From Merriam-Webster;
infringe "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights"
How is infringing (you can only have a deer rifle if you're a member of an organized State militia (National Guard)) on the people's right to keep and bear arm compatible with 'shall not be infringed'? It is not possible to have limits on the right to keep and bear arms while protecting against such limits.
If you do not like guns, something which I've been unable to gauge, but I will assume - the correct thing would be to argue the repeal of Amendment II. Not inventing some meaning that isn't there. Same actually goes for all of the Constitution, but let's start with Amendment II since we have it on subject.
The DoJ did a study on the matter and came up with the following;
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
Read on further here;
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://ww
Thank you for arguing and proving my point.
Again, did Bush steal the election? The onus is on you to prove it, because the election proved he was elected President.
On the one hand you acknowledge that our President was elected, certified and ultimately inaugurated. Then you're suggesting that you don't know who got more votes.
p re sident/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/
Bush (Incumbent) 60,608,582 51% 286
Democratic Kerry 57,288,974 48% 252
Bush got more votes.
It does not say that you have the right to keep and bear arms in an organized Militia. It says that I have the right to keep and bear arms and that this right shall not be infringed upon.
Our Founding Fathers gave a premise and a reason, for the right to keep and bear arms, not a condition under which I have that right.
Yes, unequivocally, you and I have the right to keep and bear arms.
I did actually read your post, but I didn't engage your argument - I stuck with mine. I was also obnoxious about it, which I concede was not fair to you. My apologies.
I was arguing that George W. Bush didn't steal the election based on the fact that he was certified by Congress after being voted in favor of by the electors. All challenges to the election were unsuccessful at various levels. It is true, that he is President today.
That said, many people suggest that "we will never know" what the outcome of the election was because of allegations that were either deemed to have no merit or weren't presented to the courts. In either case, the premise that "we will never know" is preposterous because we do indeed know. George W. Bush is President.
It is not complex, nor difficult to answer the question;
Did George W. Bush, Diebold et al. steal the election from John Kerry?
Unless you can prove that to be true, it must be false because George W. Bush is president. In fact, attempts at proving that have been shot down by courts and legislature. For what it's worth, we do know who won the election.
But we are dealing with a boolean, not a float. The election was certified and challenges were dismissed, Diebold wrongdoing allegations included. We have an inaugurated President.
Either the election was stolen or it was not. Considering the premise, it was not.
Now if you don't like the Diebold machines, I congratulate you and wish you well in your petitioning your legislators to make law that tells your elections officials to purchase other equipment, or amend to your satisfaction the Diebold machines. I am sure that Diebold Corporation would be delighted at the prospect of selling additional products for the machines your municipality already owns.
I don't understand.
1) Are you saying that punch-style ballots and machinery is superior to electronic equipment?
2) Are you suggesting that since the machines haven't failed or malfunctioned to date, that this is no safeguard that they won't?
Am I understanding you correctly?