Linux-Advocacy Digest #655, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (ZnU)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:35:31 -0400
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > What makes you so sure he will be deficit spending? (At least,
> > > > that his will be any worse than Gore's.) Yes, he is cutting more
> > > > taxes than Gore, but he is also spending less than Gore on
> > > > programs like health care.
> > >
> > > And spending more than Gore on things like (broken) missile
> > > defense.
> >
> > As I recall, the early astronautic program was even more fucked up
> > (or are all of those films of rockets going sideways, falling over,
> > or even falling backwards just latter day fakes?)
>
> The problem is, the missile defense system is bad even if it works.
>
> [snip]
>
What's bad about it? It maintains superiority, which is good. Unless you
think NOT being the most militarily superior country is desirable. U.S.
Strength is maintaining peace. If China doesn't like the fact that we are
building the ability to stop first strikes in mid launch, I'd have to say -
to bad.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:44:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >But the fact that the designers intended it to be that way doesn't
>> >mean that they succeeded.
>>
>> An argument from ignorance; it doesn't mean they didn't, and does
>> indicate that there is more than a chance likelihood it does.
>
>How much more?
Any amount more is "more".
>> It is a
>> successful programming language by some counts; one can presume that was
>> due to achieving its stated purpose, unless you have some evidence to
>> the contrary.
>
>Ever hear of unintended consequences?
Yes. Have you ever heard of providing evidence for your arguments?
>> [...]
>> >But if there are no objective criteria of intuitiveness, then your claims
>> >for BASIC in that regard are equally arbitrary.
>> [...]
>> >The fact that something was designed to be x doesn't mean that
>> >it is x.
>>
>> You're trolling, Colin. I'm afraid you've been reduced to an argument
>> from ignorance. Be a man and admit it (or just give up); its happened
>> to all of us.
>
>Nope. I was inquiring. I may be ignorant of language design, but that's
>a different issue.
Yes, it is a different issue. An argument from ignorance isn't merely
being ignorant of the argument. It is presuming that ignorance *is* an
argument, as you've attempted to demonstrate in the two quotes above,
and similar comments on this topic.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:48:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >The only way the government can "improve education" is to get out
> > > > >of
> > > > >the education business.
> > > >
> > > > The government isn't a business, and institutional education isn't
> > > > a
> > > > profitable business, by definition.
> > >
> > > There are lots of private universities parents can send their
> > > children
> > > to. They are organized as nonprofit organizations. Government-run
> > > institutions are not *necessary* there. So, why should they be
> > > necessary in other areas?
> >
> > There are also private elementary and high schools which don't receive
> > government funding.
> >
> > In many cases, they provide superior education for less cost per
> > student.
>
> They can only do that because they get to reject the more expensive
> students. Who deals with them in a privatized educational system?
It depends on the school. Some private schools take a number of
"problem" kids, usually under scholarship.
>
> Mr. Kulkis will probably say we should execute them.
Or send them to Cuba.....
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:51:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > david raoul derbes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>,
> > > > Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to
> > > > >me it
> > > > >seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where
> > > > >I
> > > > >live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could
> > > > >trouble
> > > > >farmers.
> > > >
> > > > You are very much mistaken.
> > > >
> > > > At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay the
> > > > government
> > > > for her sister and brother in law's farm. To be fair to the
> > > > government,
> > > > she had ten years to pay it off. She managed, but it wasn't easy.
> > > >
> > > > She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get to
> > > > repeat
> > > > the process.
> > > >
> > > > And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax. Those who think
> > > > the
> > > > inheritance tax is some sort of wicked thing should perhaps read
> > > > Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the subject.
> > >
> > > No. We need to eliminate the inheritance tax (PRECISELY for the
> > > reasons described above), and replace it with a sales tax.
> >
> > No, we need to have exceptions to the inheritance tax to allow family
> > farms or family businesses up to a certain value to be passed along.
> >
> > If you're so against handouts, why do you support the multimillion
> > dollar handouts rich parents pass along to their children?
>
> Because it's THEIR money to do with as they please.
>
> I'm not against handouts, I'm against government pickpockets
> using me as the financial basis for their handouts.
Why does the child of a rich person deserve a handout more than the
child of a poor person?
> Why is it that every time a liberal wants to do good, it always
> depends on stealing money from me....
Probably because you're more interested in your own luxury than in the
well-being of the society you live in.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:52:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:33:35 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >One doesn't need to be "filthy rich" to get an education for your kids.
>
> ... thanks to public education, which you would have dismantled.
Or the _voluntary_ generosity of some well-to-do people who fund private
schools that even accept the less fortunate.
>
> >Hell, in some inner cities, cash-strapped parents are paying TWICE
> >for education..once through property taxes, and AGAIN to put the kid
> >into a local catholic school so that the kid will actually be taught
> >the essentials.
>
> Hahahaa ... what, you're trying to argue that catholic families suffer
> a net *LOSS* due to public funds that go to children ???
Where did he say that? He merely stated that some people are
double-paying for their kids' education.
Actually, I'm triple paying--once for school taxes, once for private
school tuition, and once for voluntary donations to the Catholic school
in my parish (which my kids don't attend).
Don't assume that everyone who gripes about too many taxes is unwilling
to support education.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:54:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
> > >
> > > Until the owner(s) don't make money, then some of the overhead costs
> > > are
> > > cut, which may or may not mean employee cuts or layoffs.
> > >
> > > > OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying
> > > > workers.
> > >
> > > Sometimes owners lose money, employees do not take that risk in a
> > > general
> > > sense, therefore are not entitled to sudden gains.
> > >
> >
> > The truth is somewhere in between.
> >
> > Sure, owners sometimes lay off employees even when the company is
> > profitable.
> >
> > But, essentially, an employee gets paid regardless of company profits
> > while an owner's compensation is completely dependent on company
> > profits. There are many, many, many examples where (at least for the
> > short term), employees continue to draw a salary when the owner
> > doesn't.
>
> I had one job where, for a while, my salary was literally coming out of
> the owner's own bank account.
>
That's essentially true in any privately owned company.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:53:13 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Even if I get what I've been promised, my lifetime return on investment
> >will probably be negative or in the very low single digits. If I had
> >been able to invest my Social Security "contribution" in any reasonable
> >investment, I'd retire extremely wealthy -by almost any standards.
> >
> >That IS theft
>
> Nobody ever made you any promises, Joe, other than you won't starve to
> death.
Sound's like a good deal to me.
"Give us 6.2% of your gross pay all of your life and we'll allow you to live
below the poverty level on cans of dog food slow cooked over the pilot light
of your stove, in the dark."
But I like this plan better.
Put away 6% in an IRA for your whole life and retire early as a
multi-millionair.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:57:45 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > I'm certainly for reforming the system. But starving it for cash
> > > > > is
> > > > > _not_ the way to do that.
> > > >
> > > > It's the only way to do it. You call it "starving it for cash"
> > > > others
> > > > call
> > > > it reducing government waste. A businessman would be in prison if
> > > > he
> > > > mismanaged his finances as poorly as government does.
> > >
> > > If you starve it to death, millions of people who have been paying in
> > > won't get anything out. That's straight-out theft.
> >
> > So is it theft for rich people who pay tons of money into the fund and
> > get less back (in absolute dollars) than other people, because their
> > incomes disqualify them from getting full social security benefits?
> >
> > Is it also theft any time I pay taxes to the government, and I don't
> > get
> > back all that money in the form of government services? If so, then we
> > have a society Robin Hood would be quite proud of.
>
> The more fortunate are paying for the benefit of not having the less
> fortunate starving in the streets.
Now, isn't that exactly an argument I could use to say that even if you
never get paid social security benefits, they payroll tax wasn't stolen
from you, because you got the benefit of not having the less fortunate
starving in the streets?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:57:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
>
> > > Because the economy is much better, and the rich always benefit most
> > > from a stronger economy. That's true to some extent in just about any
> > > capitalist society, but much more so with the US's winner-take-all
> > > mentality. I'd love to see something done about it, but any measure
> > > that
> > > could accomplish anything would be considered far too radical in the
> > > current political climate.
> >
> > So, by the Democrats' own measure, Clinton is a horrible president.
>
> The entire government has been moving to the right for years. Clinton
> probably would have been considered a moderate conservative a few
> decades ago, with a few exceptions (like the national healthcare system
> he tried to create).
So you're agreeing with Aaron? Clinton was a bad president, even by the
Democrat's own standards?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:00:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Shocktrooper in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> > But why did they have to start by pulling the rug out from under the
> >> > consumer? Monkeying around with the method of setting market rates
> >> > for
> >> > kilowatts, suppliers (and, eventually, consumers) have had to pay up
> >> > to
> >> > 1000% increases on electrical rates. The whole "crisis" that
> >> > afflicted
> >> > the west coast last month wasn't because there wasn't enough
> >> > electricity; it was because somebody figured out how to profiteer on
> >> > it.
> >>
> >> Actually, it was *exactly* because there wasn't enough electricity.
> >>
> >> How did you manage to miss all of the "California is on the razor's
> >> edge
> >> of blacking out" stories in July and early August?
> >
> >Um, because of restrictive licensing that prevented other electric
> >companies to sell their surplus electricity to the consumers in
> >the affected areas?
>
> What "restrictive licensing" are you imagining? A public utility is not
> a 'licensing' issue.
>
> >If you did not have quasi-monopolies for electric authorities you
> >wouldn't have this happen.
>
> If you didn't confuse public utilities with commercial monopolies you
> would not have this happen. Is that what you mean?
Deregulation is the worst thing that's ever happened to my utility
bills. I'm now paying twice what I was last year for electricity
(despite this being a cooler summer), and I'm paying $38/month for basic
cable (they just raised rates again). Not a word is being said, because
both parties voted for it.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:01:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Isn't it funny that the party that is oooooooooooooh so fucking worried
> about debt reduction is the SAME goddamn party that ran up the debt
> in the first place....
> --
Actually, in all fairness, both the Republicans and Democrats
contributed to the National Debt. They just want to spend the money in
different ways.
To that extent, the Libertarians are right.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:08:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> >
> > > > Because the economy is much better, and the rich always benefit
> > > > most from a stronger economy. That's true to some extent in
> > > > just about any capitalist society, but much more so with the
> > > > US's winner-take-all mentality. I'd love to see something done
> > > > about it, but any measure that could accomplish anything would
> > > > be considered far too radical in the current political climate.
> > >
> > > So, by the Democrats' own measure, Clinton is a horrible
> > > president.
> >
> > The entire government has been moving to the right for years.
> > Clinton probably would have been considered a moderate conservative
> > a few decades ago, with a few exceptions (like the national
> > healthcare system he tried to create).
>
>
> So you're agreeing with Aaron? Clinton was a bad president, even by
> the Democrat's own standards?
He was about as good as one could expect given the current political
climate in this country. Unfortunately that isn't saying much.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:09:49 -0400
In article <tbrown-5F5456.11293926082000@news-server>, Ted Brown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There probably should be a debate that is just Gore and Bush, after all
> we
> know that one of the two will win, but it's nice to see some of the
> alternatives get some major air time.
I say let Nader and Buchanan in on the first debate. If it doesn't
boost their level of support, then keep them out of the remainder.
> Of course it seems that Bush is trying to avoid as many debates as
> possible.
I believe the Republicans have pointed out that the Clinton/Gore ticket
didn't follow the recommendations of the nonpartisan debate committee in
1996 for Gore to debate Kemp, so it's somewhat hypocritcal of Al Gore to
complain about Bush's failure to agree to those recommendations this
year.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
