Linux-Advocacy Digest #653, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
what's up with Sun? ("Y ø r i k")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 14:03:28 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:43:08 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:00:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >JS/PL wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead of
> >> >> > > > > spending it for them!? How absurd!
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping the poor stay
> >> >> > > > healthy and educated.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > That's SOOOO OLD. Nothing is that simple. It's more of a 50 year old
> >> >> > > democratic slogan than anything. Not even worthy of argument except to
> >> >> say
> >> >> > > 95% of the poor are in that situation by choice, it's the five out of
> >> >> 100
> >> >> > > poor that need a hand.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Proof? For that matter, how many truly poor people do you know?
> >> >>
> >> >> I've met a lot of truly poor people in my life, and myself have been pleny
> >> >> broke and hungry. I never blamed anyone - especially "the rich" for my
> >> >> problems though, I blamed myself.
> >> >> If you are a poor adult, it is most generaly it is your own fault. I was
> >> >> broke and jobless in 1980 and figuring out who to blame when President Regan
> >> >> held up page after page of the help wanted ads on national television in
> >> >> response to a question on why so many people were out of work. And he was
> >> >> right.
> >> >
> >> >Ever notice how the democrats will claim that those are
> >> >"dead end burger-flipping jobs" and at the SAME TIME claim that
> >> >"nobody is qualified" for those same jobs.
> >> >
> >> >They can't have it both ways.
> >>
> >> Sure you can.
> >
> >How many burger-flipping jobs are there that "nobody is qualified for"
> >???
>
> Ever try actually LIVING on a job of that sort?
Yes.
>
> An unrealistic wage doesn't count. Pages full of ads for such
> jobs are not useful to anyone ultimately.
Engineering isn't useful?
Sales personnel aren't useful?
Designers aren't useful?
What planet are you on?
>
> --
> Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
>
> That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
> |||
> / | \
>
>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 14:04:11 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:40:48 -0400, Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> >> [...]
> >> >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? [...]
> >>
> >> No. That's called 'government'. You don't "buy" government when you
> >> pay taxes; you pay for government. And it is, unfortunately, an
> >> expensive proposition. I am certainly going to advocate any reasoned
> >> and feasible reduction in the expenses of government. That isn't a
> >> matter of making reactionary demands, though; it is a matter of applying
> >> social conscience and rigorous ethics.
> >
> >Then would you disagree with ZnU that it would be "theft" if someone who
> >paid into the social security fund never got any social security
> >payments when they retired?
>
> It's no more theft than any other tax, the benefits of which you
> rarely if ever actually experience.
Which is why most of the tax burden, is, in fact, theft.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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 14:09:45 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Your ISP seemed to have agreed with me, now didn't they.
>
> No, they sent me an email. I have threatened them with legal action
> should it turn out that you did not provide them with your real name and
> identity, though obviously not much will come of an email.
>
> I will remind you, again, that I will not be warning you via Usenet if I
> have decided to pursue legal action against you.
>
> >Death threats,
> >whether or not you actually now the persons name are highly illegal, (and
> >lame). Now drop it or I'll forward the second threat you posted and
you'll
> >be searching for a new ISP by Monday.
>
> Go ahead. Make my day.
pffftt.
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:13:31 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o8qsi$urf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:52:59 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > Clearly, you *aren't* a developer.
>
> And that give him the perfect qualifications to determine what developers
> should be doing. Read a little about the latest fad, like XML,
> understanding less than half of the information, credit it with magical
> properties to solve all ills and then direct developers to make it work
> somehow. Sounds familiar?
What is the deal here? I write a post or two that claims that we can manage
computer systems directly, on their storage, outside the abstractions of the
Operating Systems and their Services. I claim that these abstractions and
services simply clutter up the configuration management tasks and get in the
way, cause problems, and waste our time.
I claim that storage is nothing more than structured data, and can be
managed as just that, structured data.
Get over XML already! There is no magic, it is just a means of defining
structured data, and translations of structured data from one form to
another! Tagged file formats have been around since the late 60's! No
magic!
Would it make you happier if we quit talking about XML and said we would
hold the configuration information in TIFF files instead? Those are tagged
files too, and they handle binary! Who even cares, already!
You want to claim that the storage in a computer system is so complex, and
applications are so mysterious that it can't be defined using a simple
format for structured data. It isn't magic, it is just simple structured
data. You want to claim we can't have cross platform installation
facilities because of what? The complexity?
Well I have news for you. If you are a developer, you are a sad one,
because you should know and understand that there isn't much complexity at
the storage level. Files, Directories, and some attributes. That's it.
Very simple, Very structured. The only problem I can see is the possiblity
that Operating Systems are magic, but I don't believe in magic.
XML isn't magic, it is just good at describing structured data.
And storage is just structured data, nothing more, no magic.
------------------------------
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 18:15:32 GMT
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....
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 $60 billion of US tax payer money. At
worst, it will waste much more and start a another cold war.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:21:38 GMT
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]
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
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 18:23:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >You have to make something like $20 to 30 K before you pay any taxes.
> > >Meanwhile, I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes (all taxes combined).
> > >
> > >That's an absurd difference.
> >
> > Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year with a
> > family
> > of 3.
>
> It wouldn't be too much to ask to REFRAIN FROM HAVING KIDS THAT
> YOU FUCKING CAN'T AFFORD, would it?
I think people are pretty clear on the issue. But they have the kids
anyway. What are you going to do? Let the kids starve?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:26:26 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o8q6v$spd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:L4Pp5.19468$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > This is really getting close to what the origional post was all about!
> Only
> > it is isn't what is in the document that I want to know, but the
> information
> > that is typically "encrypted" into the installation program! I want to
> know
> > what files, directories, configuration settings, etc. that a program
> relies
> > on in order to be operational. I know this information is in the
install
> > program the developer provided. Thus I often uninstall and reinstall
the
> > program to try to fix the program (success rate: 20 percent).
> >
> > The problem is that every software component is handed to me in the
same,
> > encrypted format (a pile of installs from various venders). No meta
> > information about how these structures are supposed to be interrelated.
> No
> > single and separate "installation" facility (or what I would call a
> > "Software Rendering Facility") for collecting and tracking this
> information.
> >
> > Perhaps the developer doesn't WANT me to know what they are going to do
to
> > my computer's storage in order to install their program. Well, in that
> > case, I don't want their product. I am sick and tired of having a dead
> > machine because some stinking DLL or registry setting is screwed up, and
I
> > haven't got any reasonable way of figuring it out. In fact, I have such
a
> > laptop (a four week old, top of the line Dell with a dead Windows 98)
> > sitting right over there in the corner.
> >
> > My point is we have gotten past the idea that the writer is responsible
> for
> > laying out each page in a document. Let's get over the idea that each
> > developer has the responsibility for laying out my storage.
> >
> > There is little to hide when it comes to how to install software. So
why
> > don't developers just lay out what they need done in plain English (or
> > swahili whatever) already!
>
> If that is your concern, then you didn't word it very well and bringing
XML
> in to the discussion was pointless side issue that you gave center stage
to.
>
> If all you want is information and control over your system when
installing
> new software and have the power to override bad installation ideas in
> relations to your hosts needs; then WELCOME TO THE ALMOST FORGOTTEN PAST
OF
> COMPUTING! That is just the way things were before Microsoft along with a
> few other companies together desided that we neither needed to know or
even
> could handle these issues.
>
> To fix thing we don't need a redesigned package manager as you now seem to
> be championing. All we need is for the software to be delivered in a
format
> that we can control its installation. At one time all we had to do was
copy
> the programs and their supporting files onto our systems, we were in
control
> of that process, we knew what was being done and could select to locations
> of the programs. Then they started to be shipped in standard compressed
> archives. We could still examine the contents of the archives and control
> and override the installation process as we saw fit.
>
> Over time the process has become more and more automated with less and
less
> control on the part of the humans responsible for the installation. What
we
> need is to reject Redmond's way of doing thing and a return to the past.
> When you depend on a standard installation program/package manager you are
> surrendering control. You are right if you believe we need to eliminate
> installation programs for most cases, but you don't do that by just
> introducing another package manager. You do that by returning to the way
> things were done right before the installation programs and package
managers
> came along.
Ah those simple days of yore! But we can't and we won't go back.
Today we have Java VMs and Adobe Acrobat viewers, and browsers, and browser
plug-ins, word processing packages, and stock tickers, Internet based games,
etc. Never mind that we are going to be configuring systems to connect with
other systems, and use databases, and database clients, and we need to set
up security, and down load the new versions of our clients, etc.
It isn't going to be simple in the future. It is going to get worse. In
another post I list a set of requirements we are going to need from a
package manager. Not want, need. Typewriters are out for good. And
Redmond may be at fault to some degree, but if so they only pushed us ahead
in time a bit. It was going to happen to us anyway.
We have to have package managers, but they need to be based on open
standards. And they need to operate in an environment outside the execution
environment of the supported computer systems. They need to be able to
manage cross platform, distributed applications. Why? Because we are on
the Internet already! We want to bank, we want to order hamburgers on the
Interstate Hwy so I don't wait for my order! I want to use my PDA to adjust
my lights in my hotel (cause I don't know where the switches are, but I have
my PDA), I want to listen to my MP3 files on the rental car's stereo, from
the station I programmed on the Internet.
We can't do all of this by coping all our files onto our bin directory.
Sorry.
------------------------------
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 18:27:45 GMT
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).
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 26 Aug 2000 18:32:30 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:35:27 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:46:55 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >> -Children are already the responsibility of their parents.
>> >>
>> >> And children are punished for the sins of their parents?
>> >
>> >Darwinism in action.
>>
>> Darwinism is about "survival of the fittest", not "survival of the fattest".
>
>Those who can't feed themselves and their children are not fit.
>QED.
Again, you make the flawed assumption that the unfitness of the parents
implies the unfitness of their children.
>> >> A large and angry underclass that will resent the upper class.
>> >
>> >And how is this any different from current conditions?
>> >
>> >Welfare slobs resent the upper class right now.
>>
>> "Welfare slobs" are not a "large" class.
>
>Significant enough that transfer-of-wealth payments to them amount
>to a several BILLION dollars each year.
We were discussing whether or not they were a "large" class. They are
not. They are a small minority.
Under your proposed system, the newly created class consisting of
the working poor would join the "welfare slobs" in the angry underclass.
The number of workers ( people on low paying jobs ) is considerably higher
than the number of "welfare slobs" ( especially now that we have welfare
reform, it's not really possible to sustain oneself as a "welfare slob"
for long )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: what's up with Sun?
From: "Y ø r i k" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:35:06 GMT
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20000824/tc/is_sun_really_public_enemy_no_1__1.html
------------------------------
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 18:35:46 GMT
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. Some don't seem to think that's worth
the expense, but fortunately the government makes them pay anyway.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 26 Aug 2000 18:41:08 GMT
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.
>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 ???
>> >I'd rather see them starve to death before they start doing damage.
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, Mr Kulkis, they will not starve. There's so much
>> food lying around in the US that you could sustain yourself just from
>> eating from trash cans ( as some people do ). Under your proposed system,
>> you would have a large beggar/criminal underclass doing considerably
>> more damage.
>
>We already have such...and worse...we are subsidizing them.
Well firstly, one should ask how we are "subsidising" them. If we're
"subsidising" them by constructing homeless shelters and giving them
food, I'd consider that a good thing because it keeps them off the
streets and out of the trash cans. On the other hand, I'd object to
large cash handouts.
However, your scheme doesn't really help. Your proposal would make this
underclass both larger and angrier. And less complacent, since you'd
be pushing a lot of workers ( as opposed to welfare bums ) into the
underclass.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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 18:42:58 GMT
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?
Mr. Kulkis will probably say we should execute them.
[snip]
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Aug 2000 18:43:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:36:55 -0400,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Evidently, you are unaware of the number of high school seniors (who
>*just* had a "government" class) who could not identify key phrases
>from the US Constitution. Some even believed that Leninist slogans
>were actually in the USC.
Documentation please.
Perry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
