Linux-Advocacy Digest #183, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:10:49 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:54:05 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:26:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 17:45:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 20:17:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:22:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >In article
>>>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:09:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >-- snip --
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> > How are they going to tell? How would they know the difference
>>>>> >> > between an efx win32 variant and some Window Manager variant?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> They'll ask the salesdroid - Can I run Quicken 2000 on this? get
>>>>> >> an answer of "no" and immediately move on to a PC that can do so.
>>>>> >> Salesdroid soon has enough of this and stops pushing Linux box,
>>>>> >> figuring (correctly) that people would rather pay $50 more or so
>>>>> >> for a WinXX box that can run their software.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >A "salesdroid" would probably react as you indicate, but someone even
>>>>> >the least bit knowledgeable as a sales*person* would reply, "it *can*
>>>>> >run Quicken using an add-on called Wine, but there are alternatives,
>>>>> >such as GNUCash which may actually work better for you. For example,
>>>>> >if
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFL! In a consumer box? You're kidding, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> The "salesperson" wouldn't be a salesperson at CUSA if he knew all of
>>>>> that - he'd be doing computer support and making 2x as much $$.
>>>>
>>>>Go ahead and laugh. The point is that a pre-loaded and pre-configured
>>>>Linux box could very well address the hypothetical scenario which
>>>>***YOU*** came up with, your snottiness notwithstanding.
>>>
>>>No way. Not in such a way that anyone new to computers could figure
>>>out.
>>
>> Such a person would have equal trouble with WinDOS.
>
>Already installed and configured. Nothing to do but turn it on.
The same would be true of the Linux box, or BeOS box, or MacOS box.
>
>> WIMP under Linux is no different than WIMP under DOS or WIMP
>> under MacOS or WIMP under GEM.
>
>Uh...no. The Macsters will strongly disagree with that one, and I've
>got to also. The Linux GUI isn't up to MacOS standards, much less
What standards?
>Win2k standards. It just isn't there yet.
>
Be specific or dont bother.
Your claims are entirely without merit.
>>>>> >you prefer to use double-entry, GNUCash supports it. And you won't
>>>>> >have to buy a new version every year; just download a new version
>>>>> >when you want for free." Then the sales*person* could do a demo of
>>>>> >exporting a Quicken account onto a floppy and importing into GNUCash,
>>>>> >just to illustrate how painless it can be.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL. That's a riot. And you expect a normal retail customer (not a
>>>>> computergeek) to use that?
>>>>
>>>>I see you fail to give a concrete example of why not. You just assume
>>>>that Joe and Jane can't handle using a floppy disk. I can only wonder
>>>>why.
>>>
>>>It's not the floppy disk bit that I am suggesting wouldn't be done.
>>>
>>>>> Where's the support telephone number when they can't get it working?
>>>>
>>>>In the documentation that comes with the box. Or must you always be led
>>>>by the hand?
>>>
>>>I see. So GnuCash has a support line now? Face it - people have a
>>
>> Can we get a testimonial from the Intuit support line?
>
>Can we get you to acknowledge that it exists and stands ready to help
>people?
Nope.
It is a cost center for a company that wants to minimize such things.
[deletia]
>>>huge comfort level with certain applications, and by and large they
>>>don't run under Linux.
>>
>> That depends on the particular situation.
>>
>> Besides, you started out your response speaking of a 'clean slate'
>> end user and now have switched to a 'legacy' end user as it suits
>> you.
>
>Were we not talking about Quicken? Face it - no matter who you talk
>about, they'll have some Windows experience, and zero Linux
>experience. Linux is still an OS for the technogeek.
>
It doesn't matter. The interfaces are the same. The relevant
issue would be applications experience, not windows experience.
Quicken or WordPerfect or FreeAmp or Alpha Centauri on Linux
would be the same thign for them as it would be under Windows.
Besides, even Microsoft confounds the user every now and again
with gratuitous user interface changes.
>>>>> >The point here is that what you describe is the network effect of a
>>>>> >monopoly, and what I have provided is a fresh perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or I'm being realistic in what a normal customer would expect and
>>>>> would purchase, and you aren't.
>>>>
>>>>No, you are locked into MS-Think and I'm not.
>>>
>>>Me? No. Normal retail customers. The type of people you're talking
>>>about are computergeeks, and I don't suggest they can't run Linux.
>>
>> WIMP is just WIMP, even under Unix.
>
>We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Then provide an actual argument rather than blind faith.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:12:01 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 06:01:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:27:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >>> >> Otherwise your rant makes absolutely no sense at all.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >It tends to be difficult to follow when you delete the explanation
>> >>> >and fill in the blanks with what you wanted to read.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> [deletia]
>> >>> >
>> >>> >See what I mean?
>> >>
>> >>Note: no response.
>>
>> The best you've come up with is ~ "it automates stuff".
>
>The best response you can come up with isn't even vaguely appropriate to the
>question. Not surprising. Please reread the context again to glean what it
>was I was commenting on. Do you read past a 5th grade level? I don't mean
>that as an insult. You're honestly scaring me.
You scare far too easily.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:18:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> I'm not sure it crosses thier mind that they will be partaking
> of it either. Typically with most products, if you ever need to
> call the manufacturer, the product is a considered a failure.
>
> Using 'tech support' as a trumpcard and a crutch is not useful.
I've taken orders for computer services over the phone and "What are
the tech support hours" was asked of me as often as the features we
support.
My direct professional experience tells me - to the point where there
is no "I'm not sure..." in my answer anywhere - that the presense of
phone support /does/ matter and /is/ on the minds of most computer
novices and /is/ an important factor in their decision making.
Plus, the choice of which company to use is made before they've
experienced the quality of the support.
It's only the availability of support that's on their mind when they
make a buying decision. Not how good it is.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:22:01 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:14:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> It is easier for a rich person to pay $1000 than a poor person.
>
>So, what does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with the fact that it doesn't substantially inconvenience
the rich person to pay that much.
>Again...your attitude is
>
>'soak the rich...because we can!"
Your attitude is "make the poor pay up, because they should".
My attitude is -- if it doesn't cost much to ensure that everyone
has access to medicine and education, we should do it -- even if it
means that the wealthy have to settle for a BMW instead of a Rolls
as a result.
>That is not only immoral, it's downright repulsive!
If you want to talk about "downright immoral" and "repulsive",
then talk about someone who earns $7500 being forced to pay
$20,000 in taxes. This is only one step away from debt-induced
slavery of the kind that you usually only see in the third world.
>Please tell me how it is not punitive for one adult to pay $500 in
>taxes,
>another to pay $5,000 in taxes, and a third to pay $50,000 in taxes,
>when they are ALL recieving the same basic "government services".
It is not punitive if none of them are undergoing hardship. I mean,
that's what "punitive" means, right ? It's derived from "punish"
which means to impose hardship on another. In this instance, no one
suffers from severe s hardships.
On the other hand, someone on an income of $7500 who pays $20,000 tax,
is definitely being subjected to hardship.
>> pay $20,000 in taxes -- *THAT* is punitive.
>
>So, stop punishing them, and lower the tax rates FOR EVERYBODY!
So you admit that you were wrong when you discussed this "equal" tax
where everyone pays $10000 per family member. Good -- we are making progress.
Now the problem is that we have no government revenue any more, because
the tax rates are determined by what the poorest people can afford to
pay, because we must hold the tax rates down for fear that a millionaire
may pay more tax than someone on minimum wage ( actually, under the system
you advocate, there would be no minimum wage... )
>That's what sales taxes are for. They are discretionary. IF you don't
>want to pay a lot of taxes, you can wait until later until the tax
>rate goes down, and then make your purchases....that, or wait for your
>investments to grow, so that the tax bite isn't as bad.
Under the kind of system you advocate, the poor wouldn't have any money to
invest in the first place. THey'd be forced to sell themselves into
slavery to pay their debts.
>> Under your scheme, I would have *OWED* money after tax, and that is *BEFORE*
>> paying any living expenses. Under your system, some kind of indentured
>> servitude would be necessary, because some people would not be able to
>> earn more than the tax.
>
>So, basically, what you are telling us, right now, is that you
>are consuming VAST SUMS of government resources, but you aren't
>paying a dime.
No, I'm not consuming any government resources.
>In other words, you're a parasite.
Not only you are a liar, but you make personal insults based on your own
lies. Wouldn't it be easier to just admit that you've lost than to stoop
to this level ?
>> "more money in their bank accounts". The truth is that you only want the
>> wealthy to have more money in their bank accounts.
>
>No. I want to eliminate parasitism.SAS
In other words, you want to punish the poor. That or you believe that
the rich and powerful actually need more wealth and more power than they
already have.
>Hint fucking hint: Rural = FARMS. Anybody who is living on
>farmland and still starves DESERVES to fucking die.
Hint: a lot Chinese farmland is more like wasteland, you stupid ass.
How about we drop you in the middle of the antartic and let you "farm"
all you like ? If you can't survive hardships that you are eager to
impose on others, perhaps you really do deserve to die.
>> You'd need to rent the land from someone and pay for the right to grow food
>> their .. wait, you can't afford anything because you already owe. So we
>> go back to indentured servitude ...
>
>You can always go out and get a job. (FUCKING HORRORS!!!!)
You're forgetting that a lot of jobs would have paid less than the annual
tax ! Under the tax system you proposed in this thread, you would have
a debt-slave class. Sure they could get a job -- but the job would pay
less than their required tax, and they would go deeper in debt.
You use wqords like "immoral" and repulsive. Well I'd say that for
the government to tax 150% of someone's income when they're working full
time is "immoral" and "repulsive". Apparently, you're more concerned
about the possibility that a millionaire might have to pay $1001 while
someone on less than minimum wage ( remember, no minimum under your
system ! ) may have to pay only $1000. That would be horribly unfair
-- for the millionaire, because they supposedly use less government
resources.
>There are always philanthropists in every society.
>
>and guess what...almost all of them are the same "filthy rich
>bastards"
COuld you show me where I mention "filthy rich bastards" ?
> which you despise so much.
It's not about despising anyone. It's about having a basic health,
education and law enforcement system that works for everyone, not just
the wealthy.
>> Well you can tell them that all you like, but it's not really the kids
>> fault if their parents make a bad choice.
>
>Ok. Make a law requiring parents to send their kids to school.
>There, problem solved.
Again, you are making laws that force people to pay sums they can't afford.
What, the law says I have to pay $10,000 a year to send my child to
school, but my iincome is only $25,000 which is $5,000 after the $10,000
per family member tax. Your law would be unenforceable and ineffective.
>> That's not what you'[re advocating here. Your advocating a complete
>> absence of social mobility.
>
>Wrong. I'm advocating the elimination of programs which
>foster, yea, ENCOURAGE parasitism.
And at the same time, eliminating programs which enable social mobility
such as education, or even basic survival, like law enforcement , and
health.
>Socialism might have been appropriate in the 1930's. These
We are not discussing the 1930's, and I am not advocating socialism
( unless you call western democracies including the USA "socialist" )
>wrong. Social mobility in China is strictly prohibited by
>economic means; it is ONLY allowed by political means....
>in other words, the exact opposite of what I propose.''
The end result is not much different. The rich people instead of
party members are the rulers, and the only people who can get "in"
are those with their approval, since they are the gatekeepers.
The others are stuck with no education, no legal recourse, and born
into families that are debt-slaves. Perhaps you could even do something
really clever and have the children inherit their parents debt on the
grounds that "if the parents are in debt, they shouldn't breed".
>> Oh, so you admit that you want your kids to land on top of the social
>> heirarchy regardless of how dumb or incompetent they are ?
>
>Nope. I want the *fear* of winding up on the dung-heap to serve
>as a motivator to achieve....so that they will take steps
>THEMSELVES to avoid it.
The problem is that you're going to have a lot of people on
the dung heap, with no way to get off it. You will have a large
slave underclass with nothing to lose. You'll have underfunded
law enforcement agencies fighting a hopeless war on crime,
against an enemy who have nothing to lose. Meanwhile, you'll have
out of control private militias taking the law into their own hands.
>> >Absolutely. If they parents were signing the checks themselves, they
>> >would pay more attention to what the schools are teaching, and whether
>> >they are effective, and DEMAND that miscreants be punished and, if
>> >need be, expelled.
>>
>> Yes... if they could afford to pay in the first place.
>
>If they can't afford it, then they have no business having
>kids in the first place.
Yes, but again, the kids didn't decide this, yet you wish to punish them.
>> They are limited. There are not enough scholarships for everyone.
>
>You seem to be unable to grasp how much money would be freed up if
>the tax rates were lowered.
Not enough.
> Do you know what the tax burden of the
>average American is??? over 50%
What do you mean by "the tax burden of the average American" ?
>And 80% of it is wasted on goddamned idiotic nonsense, a good
>portion of it to pay to house and feed junkies and welfare whores
Under your system, they'd all be in prison, which would cost more. But
under your system, you'd also have less government revenue.
>> are not even enough scholarships to educate the majority.
>
>There would be a LOT more money if the tax rates were lowered.
Yes, but how would the "a lot more" be distributed ?
>WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
>
> INCOME TAXES are the "old-money-preferential" system.
>
> Tell me, how much taxes are the Kennedy assholes paying on
>all of their millions? Barely a whit.
Inheritence is taxed. There are a bunch of ways you can close this kind
of loophole. For example, if the money is inside some kind of fund, you
can tax when money is removed from the fund.
Basically, you are wrong. They do pay tax. And don't forget, the money
had to be *someone*'s income before they got it, so it's already seen
a round of taxes.
> Meanwhile, the guy who's out
>there slaving a way, building a successful business (and thus, helping
>a LOT of people along the way -- his CUSTOMERS)....oh, we fucking
>***RAPE*** him every which way possible.
Not unless he's making an awful lot of money. If he's really suffering
from economic hardship, he won't be heavily taxed.
Moreover, the taxes can be smoothed out somewhat. ( you can do income
averaging accounting tricks to avoid getting slammed on a good year )
>Income taxes are NOT a burden on "the rich"....they are a burdon
>on those who are ESCAPING POVERTY!
If someone's really getting hit hard by income taxes, they are already
out of poverty. Someone who's struggling to get a business off the ground
is probably not making a great deal of money ( if any )
>> There we have it. Mr Kulkis's dream society is one where he drives past
>> starving children in his BMW, feeling self assured that it's their "parents
>
>I drive a 1989 Geo Spectrum....remember...
But if your income doubled as you claim, then you could get a BMW, right ?
>Being broke is a a temporary condition.
>Poverty is a way of life.
Under your system, being broke would be a permanent condition.
>Those who live in poverty....at least in this country, where every
>opportunity is available TO THOSE WHO APPLY THEMSELVES (hint hint
>hint) do so by their own choice.
Yes, because the existing system, *which I have consistently defended*
results in a fair degree of social mobility.
But you are attempting to defend the erxisting system while arguing for
radical change. To me, this makes very little sense.
>> Irrelevant. The child doesn't have any say in whether or not they are
>> born.
>
>That doesn't excuse the parents.
And it doesn't excuse you for punishing the children. By all means, punish
irresponsible parents, but don't punish their children
>Look...here's the scam that's being pulled.
>
>Wow! Look at this! I can spread my legs for every asshole who
>walks down the street, and pop out kids like I'm going for the
>world record...and I'll get DONOVAN to pay for it all...hell,
>I'll have him payin' more for *my* kids then he gives to his own!
Still, it's most definitely unfair to punish the children. If the parent
behaves irresponsibly, one could argue that they should be punished.
But to argue that the children should be punished is reprehensible.
>Because most adults won't put their children through it.
What if they do ? Who should be punished, the adult or the child ?
>E-fucking-NOUGH of that idiotic NONSENSE! It's gone on for
>nearly 40 years in this country.
>
>Has poverty decline? Not in the slightest!
I've consistently argued that the "poor" in the US aren't poor. You were
arguing the same previously, but now you do a backflip.
Poverty has declined. Todays so-called "poor" have vastly better living
standards than they had 40 years ago. I'd rather take a salary of $20,000
or so today, and enjoy the conveniences of technology than be a millionaire
in the 19th century. My choice would give me access to things that simply
didn't exist ( and would have been worth one hell of a lot if they did )
as well as better quality education, food and health care.
>Were poverty rates declining before we started this nonsense? YES!
>Are poverty rates declining now, after 40 years of it? NO FUCKING WAY!
>
>What does this tell you?
Nothing, because the premise of your argument is completely flawed.
"Poverty rates" are things that are fudged by special interest groups.
> WELFARE PROLONGS AND SPREADS POVERTY
>
> END WELFARE NOW!!!!!
BTW, I wasn't advocating welfare. I am primarily advocating public health,
education and law enforcement.
>Wrong. "How well a kid does" is determined by how well he applies
>himself in school.
Not if his parents can't afford to send him to school in the
first place. Or if they can't afford to send him to a decent school.
>Bring back competitive admissions to junior high and high schools,
>so they get the lesson EARLY.
This idea certainly has some merit. I don't think all schools should
have competitive admissions, but having schools for gifted students
that do would be a good thing.
>> Not on their own merits. Inheritence over ability is
>> starting to sound like your anthem.
>
>You know what... I'm sick of everybody worrying about whether some
>welfare slob successfully breeds another generation of losers.
Under your system, it's not just the so-called "welfare slobs" who lose
out, it's also low income earners. I don't have that much sympathy for
"welfare slobs", but I think if someone's willing to do an honest weeks
work, they shouldn't be subjected to undue hardships.
>> Yes -- in the US. Other countries with leftist governments soundly whip
>> the USA on international tests.
>
>That's because the US educational establishment has been overrun with
>Communists (truly!) who have embarked upon a mission of causing our
>society to collapse from within.
>
>It's the same old Communist technique. First, install Communist
>teachers...after that, the rest is easy.
The above is so absurd that I won't even dignify it with a response.
>schools are good or if they fail....which is why they are allowing
>the communist-indoctrinated education establishment to get away with
>their bullshit.
"Communist indoctrinated education" in other western democracies whips
the hell out of that in the US. Australia ( where I'm from ) is considerably
less user-pays than the US, and the standards are certainly not lower
( to put it in the nicest way possible ).
>The current system irrationally punishes the high achievers for
May I remind you that to "punish" , it must impose some kind of hardship.
I don't see how the wealthy in the US are "suffering", and I don't see the
wealthy in the US migrating elsewhere to avoid their "punishment".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
