Wow, you're so elite. I'm so impressed....*yawn* I thought people gave up that crap years ago. Nice to see people still clinging to habits that were annoying before they started.

Why wouldn't I. I've been certified since 1996 in all the Operating systems from Microsoft. Microsoft is a great company and makes some great products. In my opinion, Bill Gates is as good a human being as Mother Theresa or Ghandi. That's how much he's done for charity. And he intents to do more. Microsoft gets a bad rap from ignorant people who claim they're a monopoly when they clearly aren't. In fact Microsoft has only done one seriously wrong thing in my book and that's how they violated their license agreement with Sun Microsystems and Java.

Everything else was fair game. It's called business and it's tough out there in the competitive world.

It's your "arse" then because it's true. Free market capitalism results in more competition, better products at lower prices, more efficient services handled by more qualified people, etc. The only time government should get involved is when there is a clear monopoly, when a company has committed fraud (including to their investors) or theft, polluted public lands, made faulty products that harm people, etc.

I'm all for accountability and responsibility for everyone including the government, but the government should never get between two parties doing business.


<BZZZT> Try again. There's no free lunch, no free healthcare, and no free anything else. Socialized medicine costs more than regular insurance. Especially in countries like Sweden that embrace socialism even more. The more socialist or communist a country is, the more the people pay. Private industry is more efficient than government programs 100% of the time.

The libertarian position on these things is by its very nature, a selfish one, thankyou for pointing that out. Healthcare is not cheaper if you cannot afford it. Frankly i find it a sign of a civilized society that we are willing to pay for the healthcare of those that cannot afford it, rather than going for the most cost effective option. I also don't think you read what i posed. Here most of the healthcare is provided by the govt, the exception being public hospitals, it's just the govt picks up the bill. Yet somehow that is less efficient?

I think you need to clean your nose dude, must absolutely stink. On the other hand if i made my money by supporting the faults of substandard operating systems i'm say something to that effect too.

Mother Theresa - Selfllessly helped the poor for the vast majority of her life
Ghandi - Freed a nation of colonialism and pioneered non-violent protest
Bill Gates - made billions by developing other peoples software and ripping off their ideas, then gave a fraction of it away to charity.
Yea. very even.

Microsoft are not a monopoly? That explains why they can bully OEMs and everyone else without fear of a backlash, that explains why they can use their overwhelming market share to quash any competition.

Ohh sorry, I forgot, a free market could never let that happen, right? A massive domineering supplier, or cartel of suppliers could never squash competition to maintain the profitable status quo, right?

Companies would never, ever crush innovation with thier sheer size, of course not.

Sorry, try again.

Even if it's going to create monopoly?

Look i agree free market capitalism can produce the benefits you claim, but it is oh so easily exploited by companies that in the end, only care about their bottom line.

Oh, dear, the mating cry of the cooercive collectivist: "It's so selfish of you to not give us what we want!".

Originally posted by Radar
In my opinion, Bill Gates is as good a human being as Mother Theresa or Ghandi.

I know jaguar already addressed this, but what the hell are you thinking man. I've her some cracked up opinions in the cellar before but this, this is one is incredible.
Bill Gates spends some of his money on the poor, while living his life in his mansions flying on private jets, crushing smaller companies, and refusing to give consumers the best products, all so he can squeeze a few more billions out of the public. You really think he donates his money because he really cares, he does it to increase his public images, something that obviously has worked in your case.

Mother teresa on the other hand lived among the poor, helped them first hand, not just handing off a half percent of her income to a charity. She willingly lived a life of near poverty for the sake of helping those less fortunate. Yep sounds a lot like Bill Gates. I'm sure the pope had a conversation over breakfast today about whether or not Bill Gates will be declared a saint when he dies.

Ghandi, don't know a lot about him but I'm sure he was a better person then money hungry Gates.

This sounds exactly like what the government does, only on a scale that's 1000 times what Gates could ever dream of.

how so?

<h4>Cam</h4>

That's a fair question. It seems pretty clear to me, but not everyone sees the world as I do.

Unfortunately, I only have the capacity to be annoyingly vague, or annoyingly specific.

I'll put something together, give me some time.

That's the <b>only</b> thing they've done that's "seriously wrong", eh? Don't you have trouble getting those blinders on over your rose-colored glasses?

Or does your definition of "seriously wrong" not include "dishonest" or "unethical" and embrace only "blatantly actionable"?

I guess it's only "wrong" if you get caught, convicted and suitably punished. They've managed to avoid that so far.

You're missing the point. It is selfish to not do what you can to help your fellow man. I'm selfish, you're probably selfish; we all are. But jaguar's right when he says that a civilized society does what it can to stop people from falling through the cracks. We, as Americans, do not do enough in this regard.

And Radar, the absolute devotion to any ideology is myopia. The free market is not the answer to everything. I think it should generally be used for most industries, but there should be a close watch put on it. And certain things, like the health of the population, should not be left to the free market.

While I am greatly respectful of the assistance Bill Gates has given to charity, that does not change his predatory practices in the business world.

The difference between the music industry, the computer industry, and the healthcare/medical industies is an amazing array of evergrowing ethical concerns wrapped up in the products and services that may determine life/death/disability/ability. There will always be vulnerable populations in need of care. There so many issues beyond economic capitalism. There has been talk on other threads describing some cultures as being more "advanced". How does life expectancy and quality of health figure into that?

Thinking about the housing and food industries, yes, two essentials of life - their markets have contributed undeniably to some more long term glitches with more issues to come - Housing:sprawl, shoddy but quick construction, resource waste, environmental impact and Food: GMO's, monoculture, also environmental impact.

Its such a balancing act.

That's the same empty platitude twice in a row. "It is selfish not to do what you can...a civiized society does what it can". So if there is anything that you *could* do that you *haven't* done, then you have failed to "do what you can"...the ultimate blank check drawn on "somebody else". "Civilized society" takes a vow of poverty until everyone is happy, and no one has "fallen though the cracks". Socialism always gives it's proponents a delightful warm fuzzy self-righteous feel-good...but it's still ethically bankrupt at the core.

Maggie- Its interesting to me that you are so shocked by Gate's sense of ethics. He's hardly a bankrupt socialist.:) What is the individual's responsibility to others? What is your idea of an un-ethically bankrupt philosophy of society?

Oh shit.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jaguar on something.

Please watch this space for the fall of civilization. ;)

OK, dammit.. it's time to split this into five different threads now... I can handle tangents but this is ridiculous!

And absolute adherance to capitalism gives its proponents a delightful warm fuzzy self-righteous feel-good sense because they don't have to care about anyone else. Capitalism works because it plays off of greed and rewards whoever is the greediest. It fails in a humanitarian sense for the same reason.

Neither should be strictly adhered to, but a blending of the two seems to be the best option available. That's the problem with ideology - people get stuck in the particulars of a specific mindset and can't understand that the proper road might be somewhere down the middle. I decry complete socialism as much as I do complete capitalism.

How do you know that Hannibal used an army of elephants against the Romans? Do we have video footage of the event? Any living eye-witnesses?

No, but the story has lots of basis in fact, and parts of it coincide nicely with other parts of what we know of history. We take it as having actually happened because it seems rather plausible, and have no reason to believe otherwise.

So you're right, no one can <I>prove</I> that Christ lived, because anything you would consider proof didn't exist back then. So does that mean we just pretend everything that happened back then is a fairy tale?

MCSE: Minesweeper Champion and Solitaire Expert?

I agree that Gates has done much more good than harm for society. We now have one prevalent personal computer platform instead of dozens -- and that's a good thing. He is largely responsible for bringing computing to the masses.

And he did it all out of greed. He stole others' ideas and used them as his own. He played the game harder and better than anyone else, made a fortune, and whoops, accidentally made the world a better place.

Then he went too far. And a groundswell of discontent finally exploded, and now Linux will eventually supplant both Microsoft and Unix in the server space.

Sun complained that Microsoft broke Java (no argument there), and got an injunction against them creating new, incompatible JVM's. They could continue to distribute their current JVM for a certain period. That is a case where we needed government intervention, and it worked the way it's supposed to.

So they decided to take the JVM out of Windows, and now Sun is bitching because it means a lot of Java stuff won't work out-of-the-box. So what do they do, develop a great JVM and work with OEM's to get it preinstalled? No, they go to court to force Microsoft to distribute it for them.

Why the hell should they? It's Microsoft's product, and Sun thinks they should be forced to distribute a competitor's product? Is Coke required to include a can of Pepsi in every twelve-pack they sell?

There's nothing selfish about Libertarianism. There's nothing selfish about allowing people the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions. It is selfish to think you're entitled to reach into someone else's pocket just because you want or need something. Healthcare is cheaper when you're not being robbed for half of your income. Then even those with the lowest paying jobs can afford healthcare. Others would get it from private charities, friends, family, neighbors, churches, etc. And there are plenty of people willing to provide these essential services if only they could afford to do it. But they can't when half of their income is being STOLEN from them to pay for unconstitutional social programs that don't help anyone. Yes, Medicare, medicaid, etc. don't help anyone. Not only that the most poor people can just walk into an emergency room and get treatment and never pay for it so yes those that can't afford healthcare are still getting it.

I don't find armed robbery very civilized. And that's what income tax is. Armed robbery. The threat of force is used against us to pay for social programs that don't help anyone and are illegal under the constitution. Private healthcare is better than socialized medicine 100% of the time. In fact private industry is more efficient and provides better service in all areas 100% of the time.

Canadian healthcare is absolutely less efficient, provides substandard healthcare, long waits for service, etc.

Windows 2000 is the best operating system in the world. It's more stable than Linux and more user friendly. It's the most tested and secure piece of software ever created.

Mother Theresa and Ghandi did a lot to help the poor. Bill Gates has done even more. Bill Gates has earned his money honestly and provided great products. He is a tough and astute businessman but that's how business works. The strong survive. He's given more money to charity than any other two people on the face of the earth. It's given close to 3 BILLION DOLLARS so far and intends to give his entire fortune. Just like Mother Theresa and Ghandi, Bill Gates had dedicated his life to helping others, especially the less fortunate.

Bill Gates isn't Microsoft. And Microsoft has only stolen 2 things in their entire existence; Stacker and Java, and I fault them for that. There are a lot of other companies that have done worse things. They didn't steal the GUI interface as Apple claims. They didn't steal Netscape as they claim. They haven't stolen anything wrong other than Java in the 90's and stacker in the 80's.

The definition of Monopoly means ONE CHOICE. There are many choices of operating systems and software. The fact that Microsoft has better marketing and happens to be the most succesful doesn't mean they're a monopoly. In fact Microsoft doesn't even sell the fastest selling Operating system. And don't blame Microsoft for exclusive OEM agreements. They give OEM's a choice. OEM's don't HAVE to sell their systems with Microsoft OS's installed. But if they want to Microsoft wants them to sign an agreement that says they will ONLY sell their systems with Microsoft OS's. The OEM's can easily tell Microsoft to forget it but they don't because they know their customers want systems with Microsoft OS's installed. There's no force, bullying, or coersion.

Microsoft is not, nor has it ever been a monopoly. Microsoft doesn't prevent competition either. Microsoft has embraced and encouraged innovation and standards not just for their own company but for everyone. Microsoft has used their influence in the software community to make things far better than they were before they were around.

That's right. A free market PROMOTES an environment where even the smallest company can compete equally with the largest multi-national conglomerate and doesn't promote monopolies.

I didn't say I wanted a lawless market, just a free market. Companies that are not monopolies like Microsoft would be free to continue business, but the government WOULD get involved if say one company bought all the railroads in America. The government would still make sure we didn't have monopolies, that businesses didn't commit fraud, didn't sell faulty products, didn't misrepresent themselves to their customers, didn't pollute other people's land, etc.

Exactly! How selfish of you to not be happy when I try to rob you.

Bill Gates lives well. So what? Helping the poor doesn't mean you've got to be poor yourself. And Bill Gates doesn't crush smaller companies or even stop competition. Bill gates gives conumers great products that are feature rich and as stable as any other solution out there. You can't name a more stable OS than Windows 2000. And don't be an idiot and say Linux because you know that's a lie. I like Linux and find it very stable, but it's hardly as good as Win2k.

People don't spend 3 BILLION dollars because they don't care. And Gates isn't stopping there, he's giving all of his money to the poor. All of it!

When gates gave that 3 BILLION DOLLARS, he did more in a single act for the poor than Mother Theresa and Ghandi did in their entire lifetimes.

Microsoft does business honestly and ethically in almost all cases. The only exceptions were Java and Stacker. Everything else they've done has been above board.

Americans are the most generous people on earth. We give more money to people in need than anyone else. When there's an earthquake in turkey, starving ethopians, WTC bombings, etc. Americans always come together to help.

The only thing stopping Americans from giving even more is our government stealing half of our income to pay for programs that don't help anyone.

The free market is better, cheaper, and more efficient at ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING than the government. It makes no sense to leave the government in charge of healthcare. Everything the government touches turns to shit. The people who do healthcare the best and care about people the most (Free market) should handle important things like healthcare, retirement, charity, education, etc. Not glorified DMV workers who don't care and keep 85% of the money STOLEN for their own overhead.

I hate how people use the word "society" and forget that "society" includes those of us who want to keep our money and choose which charities we give to and which we don't. It's not selfish to choose where your money goes. It's very selfish to think it's ok to rob your neighbors for what you think their money should be spent on.

Whoops, almost forgot...

You mean you don't have some spare 486 laying around, or a couple other boxes you could cannibalize? Linux doesn't need much, ya know. You wouldn't even need a monitor or keyboard; just SSH in.

I first cobbled together a Linux box when I wanted to set up a cheap firewall/router, because I got a cable modem and there was no chance in the world I'm gonna let Windows sit connected to a 24/7 big ol' fat pipe to the outside. Even ZoneAlarm can't lock it up tight enough.

And it just ballooned from there.. I got sick of my ISP screwing up my email, so I bought a domain and set up my own email server. Then a web server to share pictures with my family, and FTP server to transfer MP3's to work, etc. etc.

Gates is giving all of his money to the poor, and MSFT is always ethical and honest.

Except for the Java licence.

Oh, and Stacker.

And Netscape...

And... and...

Sooner or later, *everyone* MSFT embraces as a "busness partner" (including "customers") gets screwed. No exceptions.

It's a bit like a casino; there's a house percentage and the only winners are those who cash out immediately after a big win. The rest take it up the ass eventually. That includes those bearing a string of shell-game certifications....they are viewed as "food" too. When they start paying by-the-drink for proprietary development tools they may begin to understand. :-)

But of course, this is how business is done, isn't it?

Maybe. But the developer communities (well, execpt the kids who got free .NET infomercials desguised as for-credit courses) are maturing enough to see whose stewardship of technical standards can and can't be trusted.

No, at the moment I've just got this one box. It sucks. But Linux is sweet. You can install it on a toaster. It's very robust and has a lot of great features. Plus most of the software for Linux is opensource freeware. Very sweet.

Microsoft didn't do anything unethical with Netscape.


[quote]It's a bit like a casino; there's a house percentage and the only winners are those who cash out immediately after a big win. The rest take it up the ass eventually.[/qoute]

I was a casino craps dealer in Las Vegas for 6 years. And one thing I'll tell you is nobody forces anyone to play. And nobody forces them to play in the Microsoft casino. There are plenty of places to play.

The technical standards Microsoft uses aren't created by Microsoft. They are just adopted and promoted by Microsoft and are above reproach when it comes to trust.

Radar are you a Micrsoft employee. Or even Bill Gates hiself. I'm not sure what to think, I don't think I've ever heard anyone staunchly defend Micrsoft or Gates like this since...well ever.


But your insistance on comparing Bill Gates to Mother Theresa and Gandhi has got to stop. That's bullshit, just becuase he gives a small percentage of his income does not make the man a good person. Not saying he isn't but he isn't anywhere near the person Mother Theresa was. You lose credibility making such ridiculous statements. He just throws money at a couple groups who help the poor. Really similiar to Mother Theresa.

Nope, they just adopt them, change them, and then close them so that no one else can use them.

I must admit, Radar, that your diatribe about the free market has made me want to research ways to counter you, because well-meaning rhetoric and everyday examples do not phase you. You just repeat the same thing. So my response is that I think you are completely wrong in your strict belief system, and I'll be thinking about an all-inclusive counter in a few days. I call it the slang approach (no offense, Slang).

PS - What part of California are you from? I'm from the Inland Empire. I believe the town I went to high school in is now run by a Libertarian mayor - not that that has any relevance, but the city's a pile of crap. It was before she got there though.

He just took the balloon payment option.:)

Oh, absolutely. *snicker*. Like SMB.

Surely you've heard the phrase "Embrace, extend, extingish."

How does that Kool-Aid taste? Aren't you a little old for this "true believer" act? The LP *and* Microsoft? What's your stand on Santa Claus? :-)

I hope I run into some LP folks from CA soon that aren't space cadets, I'm starting to form a stereotype, especially after l'affaire Starchild.

When I compared Bill Gates to Mother Theresa and Ghandi I was giving Mother Theresa and Ghandi more credit than they deserve. Gates has done far more to help poor people than both of them combined. And 3 BILLION dollars isnt' a small percentage of anything.

Feel free to research all you like. I have.

I'm not from California, I just live here. I live in Gardena at the moment. And all of the inland empire is a pile of crap. I lived there too. I grew up in Las Vegas and was in the casino business for years.

Maggie: I'm not acting and every single thing I've said about the Libertarian party and Microsoft is an indisputable fact. I don't believe in Santa Clause, but if you believe in socialism or believe that Microsoft is a monopoly you probably believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and Bigfoot.

Starchild is hardly representative of all Libertarians. I've only spoken to him a few times with regard to youth outreach stuff. I don't get to the bay area very much but he's well known up there. Dave Moloney was head of the CA state LP for awhile and he absolutely hated Starchild. I used to do a lot of work for Dave at the CA LP office. I'm far from being a space cadet. My feet are firmly on the ground and I have no need to lie. What I say is the truth whether you want to admit it or not.

Microsoft doesn't invent standards, they just adhere to them and promote other developers to do it too.

OK, now even I am starting to believe you're an MS employee or just having some trolling fun. You didn't have a comeback to Maggie's SMB comment; do you think they "adhered" to that standard?

What about their J++ java implementation? They adhered right to that standard as well, right?

Even simple things like Outlook's handling of email isn't standard. Their Kerberos implementation isn't standard. Their IE-specific HTML extensions aren't standard.

Need any more examples?

but its still a percentage. gandhi and mother theresa devoted their *entire* lives to helping people. im not saying bill should give it all away. but until bill does something more than throw some money at charities once in a while dont make him out to be a greater humanitarian than mother theresa. bill sacrifices a small percentage of his money. mother theresa and gandhi sacrificed their *lives* for what they believed in. their contribution was far greater. that is unless you can put monetary value on what thwey did. can you?

~james

What criteria do you use to determine who has done more in helping the poor? Certainly you use more than money, right?

Or do you?

I would like some evidence on how Bill Gates has done more to help poor people than Mother Teresa or Gandhi, including the criteria used to determine the "best helper," and any data analysis you might have used, such as ANOVA.

Thanks.

Shit! These threads expand too fast for those who only come here 3 times a day to keep up!

Now let’s clear something up here.

I am to a degree, a libertarian. Hell even on the issue of guns I am ambivalent, thought I’d rather blow off my own kneecap than throw a bone to some of the attached philosophies that are thrown around here. But when it comes to social policy, irrespective of whether you support such policies, they are by their nature selfish. It's not about freedom, it's about access. I think *only* having a public system is bad, but *only* have a private system is worse, as hermit put it, it's too easy for people to fall though the cracks. It's not a freedom if you cannot afford it, a fact that is easy to overlook in the name of abstract idealism or pure selfishness. It is not about absolutes, it’s about the best possible compromise, because either extreme is terrible.

By paying tax we all support services we do not want or need, the fact we are willing to contribute to something that may help others with no benefit to ourselves I think is a great reflection on our society.

Now radar has done brilliant job of proving my point. After a few pages of rubbish about efficiency, the truth comes out: he thinks income tax is 'armed robbery'. I assume therefore that he is an anarchist, not a libertarian, because I do not understand how government is supposed to function effectively (or efficiently?) without tax revenue? Or should government be turned into a competitive business maybe? So what radar is actually miffed about his hard earned money might be used to pay for someone else's healthcare, without his permission. As for a rebuttal for that - see above.

And last I checked Radar, I was talking about the system here which I described, not Canadian healthcare, so please, read what I posted and post a rebuttal to that, not what you assumed I wrote.

Bullshit. Sorry.

The rest of your post is a nice attempt to dig your head in the sand and pretend that theory, not business reality, is reality. Ironic.

Radar's last post convinced me that he just wants to disagree with everything everyone says.

Okay hermit...let's test that theory.

The Libertarian Party is far superior to any of the other established parties.

Bullshit. Microsoft outlook handles pop3 and all other emails according to set standards. They do DHCP, WINS, TCP/IP, SNMP, and hundreds of other services, protocols, and software implementations according to standards they they didn't create. The fact that you don't like the way they handle a few of things doesn't mean they don't follow standards.

So has Bill Gates. He worked hard to build the largest and most profitable software company in the world and he's giving his entire fortune away. And 3 billion dollars helps poor and sick people a lot more than non-violent protests and helping only a few sick orphans.

I use the number of needy people who got assistance and the level of assistance they got.

We don't PAY taxes. We don't get a tax bill in the mail and we don't choose which programs we support with those taxes. Nearly half of our income is STOLEN from us to pay for UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL social programs that don't help anyone. The government keeps close to 85 cents of every dollar STOLEN from us as overhead.

I defy you to show me how it's different than armed robbery or extortion. Money is taken from you against your will and you have no choice about it and if you don't like it and try to avoid it, men with guns show up.

100% of the constitutional parts of government can be run solely with the tariffs and excise taxes we already collect. But in order to make it a more free market for everyone the tariffs should be spread out evenly across all importers from every nation. A flat 3% tariff and the standard excise taxes on telephone, gas, power, etc. alone would pay for our military, judiciary, and the other constitutional parts of government. Everything else is unconstitutional and needs to go.

Under a Libertarian plan the poor, elderly, and infirmed would get MORE ASSISTANCE not less. Less people would fall through the cracks if people had more of their income and got to choose where it went. The government steals from us to pay tobacco farm subsidies and then to pay for no-smoking campaigns.

I don't want to pay for either of those. I'd much rather have the people who genuinely care about the poor, elderly, and infirmed like private charities, churches, friends, family, and relatives have more money to help them. And that's not a fantasy like trying to get the government to do everything for everybody like the socialists want. I think it's selfish of people to want to use government to steal from people and allow government to violate the constitution when a private system run without force or coersion would provide even more assistance. And it would without a doubt.

The government isn't here to clothe, feed, shelter, prepare for retirement, educate, give healthcare, or any of those other things. It's only here for those things specifically listed in the constitution and that's it. NOTHING MORE.

Well Win2k is better than any Mac OS, better than Linux, better than Novell, better than Unix, better than OS2, and better than any mainframe OS. So how is that bullshit?

Absolutely true. Libertarians won't sacrifice their principles to get elected and actually do what they promise when elected. (See Art Olivier) and it's this reason why they will come out ahead in the end not the reason they will fail. A Libertarian president isn't a dream, it's a certainty. It will happen in my lifetime for sure.

<a href="http://www.libertymall.com/Products/Books/federal_mafia.htm"> The Federal Mafia </a>

"Irrefutable - an expose to end all exposes"
—Irv Homer, WWD, Philadelphia

If you read this book, you will at the very least, understand why so many people feel the incometax is illegal. It is very well put together with hundreds of examples from tax forms and official IRS documents.

You may very well disagree with the idea that the income tax is illegal after completing Schiff's book, but you will admit that there is a strong case against it.

oh yeah, i forgot about how bill wakes up every morning and spends all day making the world safe for orphans in india with his perfectly secure and stable operating systems.

radar, youre an idiot.

~james

Damn it perth I had put off saying that for a couple days.

Radar, if you want to discuss stuff, please be willing to listen to argument, no one agress with you, yet you have not given one source or any other form of information other than your opinionated bullshit. I'm willing to listen to about most everything you've said(excluded the ridiculous comparison of Bill Gates to Mother Teresa that's just complete fucking bullshit) but please give me some proof.

so far in this thread...
 

i became bored, i was surprised, i bought three books, i disavowed anarchism, i laughed once, and am now considering that i may be a libertarian. pray continue this very enlightening squabble.

HI mig, and welcome

Re: so far in this thread...
 

I think you may enjoy Mr Jaguar's comments. You two seem to have a similar style.

mig, part of the problem is that there is big-L and small-l libertariansm. One is a party, the other is a general school of thought. Neither one is a fully-formed all-encompassing philosophy although many adherents to both believe that it is.

mig
 

slang : i suspect you are a member of my family. specifically one of my uncles or my mother. if you are not, we should adopt you so i have somone else to argue against. if you know the name of a certain pony, tell me so i can razz you at Christmas.

undertoad : i have trouble with capital letters. i meant lower case. doesn't do to leap into a political party headfirst.

thank you Cam :D

sorry cam. feel free to follow up. :)

~james

*sighs*
You're frigging insane.

I don't know the intricacies of constitutional law in the US to the validity of social programs I cannot comment on. I was not, after all discussing this on a legal level, but a moral level. I would love to see these social programs that don't help anyone, isn't that a self defeating statement? The difference with armed robbery is the money is not spent on my country and community, in theory for the benefit of all, and I can't leave the country if I dislike an armed robbery.
I'm also yet to see how by not having income tax the poor get more assistance. Private charities are often a vehicle for religious institutions and these days have become a competitive industry, with marketing budgets as big as their welfare budgets. I see you have no actually made any rebuttal to the healthcare sys I explained, that is in place here, but instead have continued with your unsupported rubbish.

slang: I have never, in any sense put any value whatsoever on the concept of anarchy, it's nothing more than protest politics for those too lazy to think about what they're protesting about.

Easier to use than OSX? Riiiggghhtt. More secure than OpenBSD? Riiiggghhht. More stable than linux? Riiiggghhhtt. 'better' than True64unix and AIX in mainframes? tehehahahahHAHAHAHA you are a moron. I'm sorry, but if you think Win2k is the best operating system across the board on every system in every environment it is clear why you're so proud of your MCSE – you don’t have a bloody clue. I’ve worked a bit in IT, but there are people here who get their bread and butter out of HPUX and the like who I’m sure will enjoy ripping up your farcical statement.

I'll help you with the constitutional law, jaguar. I'm not an expert, but general readings have shown me that people who deal with constitutional law pretty much fall into 1 of 2 categories: strict constitutionalists and interpretists. Strict constitutionalists can be compared to some Islamic movements of the late 20th century: that the theoretical framework was complete in an earlier form, and the course of time has corrupted it. Interpretists believe that the Constitution is a living document, and that it was set up that way so that it would not become outdated: it could be adapted to fit the evolving nature of society.

This is a bit simplistic, of course; there are extremes at each end. But the people who claim that taxes or social policies are illegal are at the far end of the constitutionalist spectrum. They do not understand how much revenue is required to run the greatest (by size & influence) economic, military, political and ideological power in the world.

Again, I'm not an expert, so I'll be the first to admit that I may be wrong on parts of this typology.

I actually do have some idea how much revenue is required. Does that in itself make the tax system legal?

It is true that the current system funds almost all of the programs and policies many of us are against. Take the money away, the house of cards crumbles.

People far smarter than me are finding very little actual law supporting the tax system , while at the same time quite a bit of intimidation that keeps it going.

Schiff's book is a good resource for understanding the argument, whichever side you are on. I bought and read it years ago and no longer have a copy, but you would find it interesting , I'm sure.

Damn this thread grew faster then I realized, I just remember this post.
I kind of agree with Tob on this one. I've actually brought this issue up and everyone just kind of skirts the real subject. I remember thinking that what other companies wanted was similiar to what would happen if Sony suddenly deciding that all car companies should have to install their speakers and decks. Though I dislike Microsoft I always found some of the issues kind of iffy.

Sounds like an interesting topic to look into, if kind of irrelevent.

That's a lame simile. Coke never agreed to include Pepsi in every future twelve-pack during some hypothetical time when it was to their advantage to do so.

MSFT's bad-faith dealings with the Java licence created a situation where the market for Java support was structured around support being included in the OS platforms. MSFT even signed up to "implement the reference platform" for Java on their OS....which they actually did do, for a while.

When they finally twigged that Java would actually achieve a reasonable level of platform independance--something they undoubtedly thought impossible--they panicked and started looking for ways to poison the well--including that whole charade over at ECMA. They couldn't find one that worked well enough without completely violating their original contract, which they proceeded to go ahead and do figurung "Neener, neener, neener, we're MSFT and we can afford more lawyers than you can, by the time we're done in court we'll have crushed you like evrybody else."

I think Sun is perfectly right to insist on the remedy bringing them closest to "specific performance" of what MSFT originaly agreed to: develop a JVM to Javasoft's spec and distribute it with their OS platform, along with very specific compatibility requirements (which forbade extensions except in certain highly controlled ways, which MSFT flauted completely). and they are now throwing a tantrum and sulking because they haven't gotten their way. Since they can't be trusted to develop anything for Java without poisoning the well, Sun will develop for Windows and MSFT can bloody well distribute it as they agreed to.

Nope. Your opinions are no more or less important to the legality of the legal system than mine is. :)

It's always an interesting exercise to try to figure out what needs to be cut from the budget. There's a summary of it here:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/pdf/bud34.pdf
and more here:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/maindown.html.

And I'll look for that book. It sounds interesting.

Maggie, it's a bizarre world - we agree on something. :)

(final comment of the night)


2 TRILLION dollar budget......and they couldn't keep 4 planes from being used at weapons. Maybe 5 trillion will do the trick. Or 7......or 12.....or 20..........

slang, Schiff's book is a good text for understanding that no matter how much we think we understand the law, ultimately it's the judges who interpret the law. And thusly, I've just heard that an old LP acquaintance of mine was raided. He felt he was following Schiff to the letter. Now he faces years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

It scarcely matters what Schiff thinks if the judges disagree on the loopholes that Schiff believes he's found. The judges are, for better or worse, the final arbiters. That's how the system works.

(falling asleep)

The book isnt about loopholes UT, it's about legal foundation. Read the book, it's entertaining. There is no doubt that if you stop paying the IRS will imprison or kill you, the question is, how could this be with the existance of the US BOR.

I dont disagree in regards to the judges, but I think we've been hoodwinked.

Imprison i can understand. Kill? Do please back that one up.

We should make a cellar silly quotes of shame board. I'm sure i'd have a few on there too. Although i'd be pushed off pretty quickly by Radar and Cairo at this rate.

Here's a tissue, Radar...you might want to clean off those rose-colored glasses of yours.

Stability is a pretty subjective issue. I have never had Linux crash to the point where I had to reboot the server. Ever. In fact, the only time a reboot is required is when you upgrade the kernel. That's what I call stability; I'd be interested in hearing your definition. (That's not sarcasm.. I am really interested by what measure you find Win2k more stable than Linux.)

I never said pop3, now did I? I admit, "handling of email" is pretty vague. So how about their <B>NTLM authentication scheme</B> for starters? Could you please show me an RFC where that is documented?

And what about that horrible Rich Text Format that Outlook uses? Granted, it's a published standard, but it's still something Microsoft created, with minimal support elsewhere. Care to revise your earlier statement, "Microsoft doesn't invent standards, they just adhere to them and promote other developers to do it too."?

OK, I'm admittedly fuzzy on all of the history leading up to now.. what do you mean when you say Microsoft "signed up" to implement Java in their OS, and how does that mean they should be forced to include it today?

That all depends on the wording of the contract now doesn't it. :)

Actually, that's exactly my point. And I'm not familiar with the contract, or whatever else they may have signed, so I'd be interested in how it binds them to supporting a competitor's product.

You want proof that Bill Gates has given about 3 billion dollars to charity? That won't be too tough to provide.

http://www.glf.org

http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_707992.html?menu=

No, he goes to India personally and gives them $400,000,000 for AIDS research. And it's paid for with the best operating system on earth, Windows 2000.


I will. You're an asshole.


Wrong! If someone robs me and says they're going to use the money to feed their starving kids and give medicine to their elderly mother, it doesn't make it any less robbery. And the money that's stolen from us does not benefit everyone or anyone. Welfare doesn't help people, it keeps them in a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty. Public education doesn't help people. It makes Americans less educated than most other countries when private education costs half of what is spent per student in public schools and provide a superior education. Medicare and Social security don't help people. If someone put the same money into a savings account over their working career as they do into social security they'd have more than a million dollars to retire on, have more money each month, and be able to leave it to their family. You can't name a single government program that has done it's job. Welfare was created to end poverty. Has it? Social security was made to provide a retirement that people can live on in their autumn years. Does it?

The answer on all these is NO!!!

Bullshit. Private non-profit charities RARELY keep more than 20% of money collected for overhead while the government keeps 85% of every dollar stolen. There are also hundreds if not thousands of these non-profits that aren't related in any way to any religious organization. The Red Cross, The United Way, and hundreds of charities to fund research for AIDS, Cancer, Abused Children, food banks, and other such things.

I see you're still talking shit even though I've backed up everything I've said with actual numbers and indisputable facts.

I've been in IT for 17 years and you're a complete idiot if you think any of those OS's provide more security, are more user friendly, or are more stable than Win2k. I can talk about anything you want in the computer realm and put you and most others to shame. Now sit down little boy, you've been schooled.

I'm not extreme in any sense of the word. Let me help you out. Read the 9th and 10th amendments. They say that anything not specifically listed in the constitution is a right of the people or a power of the states. And that the fed may not take part in anything not enumerated (specifically listed) in the constitution. Government funded charity, education, healthcare, retirement, etc. ARE NOT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE THUS ILLEGAL FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE PART IN!

Yes the constitution can be changed, but only with a constitutional amendment. Not an act declaring a change of government powers like the war powers act, or the homeland security act. Only an actual amendment can change the powers of government or add new parts to government. Nothing less is acceptable or legal. The constitution doesn't require "interpretation". It's written in simple English and it means what it says; nothing more and nothing less.

It's a metaphore. And it's legitimate. Microsoft never agreed to sell their product with anyone else's product included. Especially a competing browser or even Java. Microsoft did break their license agreement not to change Java. But they didn't make any promises to distribute Java. They merely got a license to use it.

Exactly. The military budget is FAAAR to big. Every single American military base outside our own borders should be shut down immediately. The constitution provides for a DEFENSIVE military not an OFFENSIVE show of force spread out all over the globe like the Roman empire.

It's from personal experience. I am a consultant that literally sees thousands upon thousands of machines of all operating sytems. And don't get me wrong I really like Linux. But I've had 1 or 2 linux machines crash on me. But have never seen a Win2k machine crash. I will give Linux this, it almost never has to be rebooted. And while win2k rarely has to be rebooted, it still does on occasion when you install software packages. Win2k has a lot of features Linux doesn't have such as R.I.S. and other stuff included as part of the operating sytem.

I never said everything they do is based on standards, but nearly everything is. I am sure I can name a dozen things Microsoft does by standards that have RFC's you can look up for every one you can provide that doesn't have one. And I'd look for that RFC but I've got to get to bed. As it is I'll get 4 hours of sleep before work if I leave right this second and immediately fall asleep.

Radar, he wasnt asking for proof about bills charitable giving. he was asking for proof regarding all the other bullshit youve spewed since arriving here.

1. you say the libertarian party is bigger than ever. undertoad calls you out on that statement. you challenge the veracity of his numbers and when he does, you choose to ignore them for the sake of your fragile ego. whos been schooled?

2. you start this little flamewar about how win2k is better than any other os on the planet. maybe it is, but i have yet to see you back that up other than taking someone elses statement, turning it into a question, and disagreeing with it.

3. the only facts you *have* thrown out are irrelevant. nobody cares how much bills given. what everyone cares about is this:

bill has given a percentage of his wealth to charity, lets say 3 bil, for your sake. mother theresa and gandhi gave 100% of their lives to charity. you said, and i quote: so what youve essentially done is put a value on not one but two human lives. and its less than 3 billion.

i may be an asshole. but at least i can turn that on and off. youll always be an idiot.

~james

p.s. ive just remembered that i can turn *you* on and off. congratulations on the dubious honour of being the first person on my ignore list.