Linux-Advocacy Digest #659, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Bob Hauck)
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war (OSguy)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Peter
Ammon)
Re: what's up with Sun? (Dave Martel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 16:59:18 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > JS/PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Have you compared the income disparity during the Reagan years to
> > > > the
> > > > administrations before that?
> > >
> > > Yea EVERYONE had the privilege of being poor under Carter, I
> > > remember well....you could finance a home loan for a mere 18%
> > > annual interst. And inflation was at about the same level.
> > >
> > > Income tax was ungodly, nobody could find a job, energy crisis,
> > > Iran was making the US the laughing stock of the world, the
> > > Presidents alcoholic brother was pissing on peoples lawns while the
> > > president was busy talking of his own "lustfull urges".
> >
> > And the scary thing is...Some people look up to Carter..
> >
> > BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAAHHA
>
> It's funny how many people forget *why* things were so bad during
> Carter's Presidency.
>
> We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
> Crisis that was out of anyone's control (in this hemisphere, anyway),
> Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them arms in a
> technically-treasonous exchange, and Carter admitted to having lust in
> his heart for women, versus Reagan's denial of same (while not
> mentioning that his daughter was conceived out of wedlock, and he was
> sleeping with Nancy while he was still married to Jane Wyman).
"We'll lead an ideal life if you'll just avoid doing one thing: don't
think." - Ronald Reagan to Jane Wyman
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
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 17:00:53 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
> > > Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So, tell the name of the third-world nations that have an ICBM
> > > > > capable of hitting the US -- then explain how it is that you or
> > > > > anyone knows this is a threat even though all of our espionage
> > > > > devices have failed to identify any such ICBM capability by a
> > > > > third-world nation.
> > > >
> > > > Russia?
> > >
> > > Russia has got thousands of the suckers. Any missile defense system
> > > we
> > > could build would be helpless against more than a few dozen, even if
> > > it
> > > actually worked. It might stop an attack by China, given its current
> > > arsenal. Which is why China says it will build a couple hundred more
> > > ICBMs if we deploy....
> >
> > More to the point, what's to stop the North Koreans from building lots
> > of decoy missiles with no nukes in them?
>
> Money. they don't have any. They're damned near bankrupt from just
> keeping their current program afloat.
Okay, how about the Iraquis? They've got plenty of oil money.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
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 17:02:13 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if the competitor's predictive power is just as good as Fair Isaac's
> for a little less money, or only slightly better for about the same
> amount of money, it would be simple for FI to drop prices to below cost
> for a while, or to do any of a number of other things that could remove
> the "more competitive" new guys from consideration.
We shall see. Trans Union is working on its own system and plans to
make its scores available to the public--something FI has never
allowed--later this year.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
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 21:02:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > That's the problem. This system useless against terrorists, because
> > they'll just use some cheap alternative to ICBMs, and it's useless
> > against real nations, because they have more offensive capability
> > than the system could stop. Of course they'd never shoot at us to
> > begin with; they know they'd be vaporized 20 minutes later.
> >
> > At best, this system will waste $60 billion of US tax payer money.
>
> Well then, think of it as a welfare program. It creates a lot of
> jobs. And even if there's only a 10% chance that they'll get
> something workable out of it, that's still a better ROI than some guy
> doing no work and drawing a welfare check, right?
Except that there's a _shortage_ of intelligent people with advanced
technical skills, so this project actually hurts the economy by hiring
some of these people to work on something useless....
> (And there's a great defense for every pork project ever conceived.
> ;-)
It only works when there are people actually having trouble finding jobs.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:03:23 GMT
> We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
> Crisis that was out of anyone's control (in this hemisphere, anyway),
> Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them...
You are woefully confused about certain things, like the
order in which certain Presidents were elected, for example.
C//
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:20:06 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8npmf2$k8t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One might note that the two main players in this particular case,
> >> > Office and IE, *are* superior products, in pretty much everyone's
> >> > opinion.
> >>
> >> Again, that's true _now_. Microsoft has made it unprofitable for
> >> competitors to bother, so there is no serious competition.
> >
> >With Office, it's been true for a very, very long time. Back to the
Windows
> >3.1 days.
>
> Oh, yea! Remember when we figured we'd have desktop applications
> aplenty from *everybody* who wanted to make applications competing for
> our business, instead of just Microsoft pushing new crap on top of old
> crap? Hoo-WEEE! I can't *wait* for that OS pre-load market to open up.
It's open _now_. What other OSes can you justify OEMs offering as a
pre-load that isn't already ?
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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 21:08:54 GMT
Courageous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
> > Crisis that was out of anyone's control (in this hemisphere, anyway),
> > Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them...
>
> You are woefully confused about certain things, like the
> order in which certain Presidents were elected, for example.
The Vietnam War was expanded in the '60s, ran through '73, and the
payments on it were stalled until after Ford lost in 1976, dropping the
financial issues for it into Carter's lap.
The Energy Crisis was during Carter's Presidency.
The hostages were taken during Carter's Presidency and released after
Reagan won, partly through the Iran-Conrta situation.
Now which part to you think I got wrong, and why?
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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 17:11:01 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:39:13 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:16:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> >however you choose to characterize it), and of course, the welfare
> >> >slobs themselves (who are demonstrate culpability every time they
> >> >cash a "gimme dat welfare" check.
> >>
> >> You make it sound as though the national budget is spent entirely
> >> on these "welfare slobs" that you keep demonising. This is woefully
> >> innaccurate, especially now that the welfare reform laws have gone
> >> through.
> >
> >They are decreasing, but we are still subsidizing out-of-wedlock
> >pregnancies for high school girls.
>
> [1] AFDC comprised only 8% of the federal budget, IIRC.
> This isn't that much -- although it's enough to raise ire.
> (By comparison, debt service is about 17%, as is military
> funding.)
There is a somewhat useful pie chart of expenditures at the back of the
booklet than comes with the 1040 tax form.
For fiscal year 1998, interest on the debt was 14% of expenditures.
Actually paying down the debt was 4%. Defense was 18%.
Various social and development programs, including Social Security and
Medicare, account for 62%. (This was broken down into three categories,
perhaps to make it look like less: "Social Security, Medicare, and other
retirement; Social Programs; and Physical, human, and community
development".)
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.
-Frank Zappa
------------------------------
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 21:12:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > It's an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
>
> Accidental missile launches from Russia or China.
Accidental launch is unlikely, and I strongly suspect that ICBMs can be
ordered to self-destruct even after launch.
> One single launch stopped before detonation would more than pay for the
> system.
I agree. But the chances of anyone launching against us are essentially
nonexistent. The chances of this system actually _working_ are almost as
bad. There are other things you could spend the (probably many times as
much as) $60 billion on that would do much more for national security
than this thing.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:13:09 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >> So, tell the name of the third-world nations that have an ICBM
> > >> capable of hitting the US -- then explain how it is that you or
> > >> anyone knows this is a threat even though all of our espionage
> > >> devices have failed to identify any such ICBM capability by a
> > >> third-world nation.
> >
> > >Russia?
> >
> > Do you know what a third-world nation is?
>
> It's a very fuzzy definition, and Russia is dropping further and further
> into that every day. Witness the Kursk.
Third-world nations typically have nuclear-powered missile submarines?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing and
campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.
-David Broder
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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 21:13:03 GMT
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > More to the point, what's to stop the North Koreans from building
> > > lots of decoy missiles with no nukes in them?
> >
> > Money. they don't have any. They're damned near bankrupt from just
> > keeping their current program afloat.
>
> Okay, how about the Iraquis? They've got plenty of oil money.
They can't even buy decent tanks, and if they spend too much money in
trying to build or buy missiles, Iran will kick their asses. They also
don't have a nuclear program worth the name.
Nope- the big reason to have an SDI program is for Ivan Klutzsky in
North Pathetigrad, who shorts some wires and fires off an SS-20... watch
the old movie "Fail Safe" (or the recent remake) for more ideas on this
tangent.
All of the "big offense" scenarios would still be addressed with the
"we're going to bomb the crap out of you if you try it" strategy.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:22:53 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when The Ghost In The Machine
would say:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christopher Browne
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:45:27 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when The Ghost In The Machine
>>would say:
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>That's all that XML is, nothing more. It can not replace programs, it is
>>>>not a new concept in operating systems.
>>>
>>>It might replace programs (programs are interpreted data in their
>>>own right, after all -- to the right interpreter, such as an x86
>>>micro, a JVM, or even a BASIC environment), but it sure looks
>>>hard to manage, although not too hard to generate.
>>
>>It only "replaces" programs if it can express programs itself.
>>Note that providing the ability to _embed_ programs is not that;
>>that merely replaces one language with another.
>>
>>>But why can't we use a schema/data approach? Something like:
>>>
>>>first 8 bytes - magic signature number, just because
>>>byte - endianity
>>>byte - user-defined version ID
>>>2 bytes - number of fields
>>>field descriptor byte: 0=short, 1=long, 2=float, 3=double,
>>> 4=zero-terminated string
>>>field name: zero-terminated string
>>>field descriptor byte:
>>>field name:
>>>...
>>>
>>>(The floats would be in IEEE format, which is the one 680x0 and
>>>80x86 micros use -- and possibly a large number of other computer
>>>systems.)
>>>
>>>Surely somebody out there's thought of a standard for this.
>>
>>There's not one; there's several.
>
>Doesn't surprise me too much. :-)
>>
>>Leaping to mind are:
>>a) IIOP - the Internet protocol defined for CORBA that does
>> essentially what you describe, albeit a _little_ differently;
>>b) Casbah's LDO (Lightweight Distributed Objects)
>
>I'll have to check out IIOP. Another obvious one -- albeit it's
>not clear it's documented yet -- is Java's persistence format.
>(Is it specced to be JVM-compatible?)
Other options would be the Java "CORBA-like" thing, RMI; perhaps SQL-CLI
(aka ODBC) or JDBC.
>>>Or one can use a chunky format, something a la Amiga's IFF,
>>>where data is in chunks, understood by each program. Chunks
>>>could even have DTD-like structures if necessary.
>>>
>>>But nooooooo....we get to clutter up what is essentially a
>>>data-centric stream with a lot of framing clutter. Unless
>>>I'm missing something in the DTD spec which allows for the
>>>specification in binary of all of this data...?
>>
>>I think WAP provides some such mapping...
>
>I don't know WAP from THWAP, admittedly. :-)
>Is this on the www.w3c.org site?
I do not recall if it stands for "Wireless Applications Protocol" or
"Wireless Access Protocol." <http://www.google.com/> and some combination
of those words should find you something relevant.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #7. "When I've captured my adversary and
he says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what
this is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second
thought I'll shoot him then say "No."" <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:43:53 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:48:43 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Oh, so all those hours I spent installing stuff on Solaris was really
>Windows?
You were complaining about Windows, and things that are really quite
specific to Windows at that, rather than general problems.
>The point is that we need to get over the idea that installing is part of
>the abstractions that the OS provides. That mindset prevents us from
>developing technologies (such as those I am describing here) that can
>install across platforms.
My response is in the other part of the thread. I'm not going to
repeat it here. Basically, it sounds like you want some sort of
meta-language to define installation procedures. This meta-language
would generate install programs for each supported platform, or perhaps
a database of some kind that could be used by the universal installer
to actually do the install.
You are aware that this is sort of how Installshield and RPM work,
right? The developer creates scripts that describe his installation
and the tool makes some assumptions, and everything usually works. You
just want to make these scripts more abstract so that they'll work on
different platforms, and make them editable so you can pre-configure
your local setup.
Is that about right?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:46:02 -0500
Raul Iglesias wrote:
> While I am fully agree to your points, I think that most users
> do not want anything but a "Please wait ..." window, perhaps it
> could be a configurable option ? (I mean, to show things or not).
Actually, I think the public wants a "Please Wait, I'm X% finished, and
should be finished in X minutes" windows.
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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 20:56:36 GMT
Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This strange view that many U.S. citizens have that the
> U.S. is the sole source of moral authority and one reliable
> owner of nuclear weaponry in the world is the utmost in
> hubris. I cringed in embarrassment when we chastisted
> India... one of the most populated countries in the
> entire world... for having the simple desire to protect
> themselves with a small nuclear arsenal.
Actually, we told them to stop threatening Pakistan with the use of said
nuclear weapons...
> This is their right.
>
> As it is the people of China's.
Considering China's record in almost everything (including murdering 20
million of their own citizens), their ownership of nuclear weapons is
hardly a self-defensive measure.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
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 21:52:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Marion
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> > Check out the IRS' statistics. On average, people earning $60 K are
> > paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than people
> > earning $30 K. And people making $100 K pay even more (percentagewise).
>
> I don't think we need statistics to prove that.. just pay attention to
> how
> you've been taxed depending on how much you've made. I know that I'm
> paying a
> substantial percentage more now then I was at my lower-paying job about 3
> years ago.
You may not need statistics, but several people on this group questioned
it.
Apparently, they really believe that the poor are paying a higher
percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:02:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> You may not need statistics, but several people on this group questioned
> it.
>
> Apparently, they really believe that the poor are paying a higher
> percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.
That's obviously false...the rich do pay a higher percentage of their
income in taxes. But they also can afford to, since the marginal
utility of money is higher for the poor than the rich. After all, a
poor person needs each additional dollar more than a rich person.
What's not so obvious is whether the poor pay a smaller percentage of
what they can afford.
I'm not saying that "everyone pays an equal percentage of what they can
afford" is necessarily a just taxation system, but it does seem to be
the philosophy behind a progressive tax.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:03:32 -0500
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:35:06 GMT, "Y � r i k" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20000824/tc/is_sun_really_public_enemy_no_1__1.html
Everyone's on Sun's case for not going open-source with Java. If they
did then how long do you think it would be before MS hijacked it,
released a MS-specific version, and fractured the standard?
MS has already tried it once with Visual J++. Sun prevailed only
because of their tightly written licensing agreement forbidding any
alteration of the standard. Java needs to remain under tight control
until it's too well-established for MS to corrupt.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
