Linux-Advocacy Digest #686, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:14:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> >Really? Count your standard deduction and personal exemption and
> >> >that's
> >> >$7000 tax free. If you make $21,000 and have no dependents, a third
> >> >of
> >> >your income is tax-free right off the bat. Now let's say you make
> >> >$80,000... where do you come up with $24,000 in itemized deductions?
> >>
> >> The question is where do I come up with $7000, not $24,000. And I
> >> don't; I generally come up with about $3000, but my goal is not to
> >> minimize the amount I contribute to society. Most others in my shoes
> >> might easily pay a crafty accountant to shave another $4K off my tax
> >> bill, through whatever means necessary.
> >
> >You have a strange concept of the tax laws. There's no way that a
> >"crafty accountant" is going to find an extra $4K in deductions unless
> >you've missed some very, very obvious things.
>
> That's my point. I may very well have done so, or been able to find
> greater loopholes with which to lower my tax bill in some other way. I
> don't even bother to try, as I don't get any kind of "warm and fuzzy"
> feeling by trying to minimize my taxes.
But you somehow believe that the system allows people who want to do so
to escape their tax burden. In general, that's not true.
>
> >That's a very common misconception. For the vast majority of "wealthy",
> >there are no magic loopholes or no way to hide your money. Sure, they
> >can lie about what they contribute to charity, but the poor can do that,
> >too and no one's advocating cheating.
>
> Sorry, I've enough money, and dealt enough with those who have even more
> money, to know that the loopholes may not be magic, but they do exist
> and they are taken advantage of by the wealthy and inaccessible to the
> poor.
Please be specific. No more of your "feelings" or bizarre definitions.
Please explain which loopholes you're talking about that a clever
accountant could have used to save you $4 K on your taxes.
>
> >Given that you think that the poor pay a higher percentage of their tax
> >bracket than the rich, you really ought to learn how the tax laws work
> >before spouting off so much.
>
> Screw your clueless assumptions about how tax laws work; give me data or
> shut the hell up. I'm not going to waste even more time chasing down
> your logical fallacies on this topic as well as the others I've trampled
> on your putatively intellectual arguments.
Wait a second.
You're the one who said that a clever accountant could have saved you
$4,000 on your taxes. YOU made the claim. Please tell us exactly which
loopholes you're referring to.
And no more of your fantasies. Please be specific.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:16:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> The wealthiest do not pay anywhere near as much [of their income] as
> >> their tax bracket base percentage indicates, while the middle and lower
> >> income people generally do.
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >Statistics bear it out, as does my anecdotal data.
> >
> >Since you're too slow to figure it out, let me to the math for you.
>
> How about you just post the statics and save us the bother of figuring
> out which logical fallacy you're committing this time.
>
> >When I was in the 21% bracket, my federal income tax was 25% of the
> >bracket level.
> >
> >Now that I'm in a higher bracket, my tax is about 60% of the bracket
> >level.
>
> I don't think anybody more familiar with tax laws will understand this
> any more than I do. What does "when I was in the 21% bracket, my tax
> was 25% of the bracket level" mean?
It was in the section that you just trimmed, you idiot.
I intentionally left it in the above post, but you cut it out either
because you were too stupid to understand that it was important or
because you're intentionally confusing the issue.
As I said, when I was in the 21% tax bracket, I only paid about 5% of my
income in federal income tax. That's what "when I was in the 21%
bracket, my tax was 25% of the bracket level" means.
So we can add intentional post mangling to your techniques, huh?
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:19:53 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> "See Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210,
> >> 218 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ('Because the ability of consumers to turn to
> >> other
> >> suppliers restrains a firm from raising prices above the competitive
> >> level, the definition of the 'relevant market' rests on a
> >> determination
> >> of available substitutes.'). "
> >>
> >> Apple computers do not constitute an alternative supply of
> >> Intel-compatible PC operating systems.
> >
> >Apple provides a different OS. But there is a barrier to switching,
> >namely the cost of purchasing new hardware and software. The question
> >is, does this barrier prevent so much switching that the barrier
> >effectively creates separate markets? I'm not convinced that it does,
> >especially where corporate purchases are invovled. Of course, even if
> >you include Apple in the relevant market, Microsoft still has market
> >share that leads directly to a conclusion of monopoly, so whether Apple
> >is included is irrelevant IMO.
>
> I'm sorry, any suggestion that having to purchase a whole new computer
> in order to replace an operating system constitutes an alternate supply
> of Intel-compatible PC OSes is obvious enough evidence that Apple is not
> part of the relevant market, as they do not provide either
> Intel-compatible PC OSes nor Intel-compatible PCs. If PC OSes
> themselves were routinely replaced by "just getting a new computer", I'd
> see your point. But the upgrade behavior of Microsoft alone is enough
> to refute that claim in their defense; they do sell after-market
> upgrades, and so they obviously they don't consider the market to make
> buying a new computer a feasible alternative to replacing an operating
> system.
So are BeOS, OS/2, and Linux an alternate supply in the relevant market?
I would point out that if you use those OSes you will likely have to
replace a lot of your Windows software, which could *easily* cost more
than the $800 you'd have to spend to buy an iMac.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:25:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> And how do you personally expect to tackle these 'problems' without
>> paying someone to deal with them?
>
>Yet another stupid T. Max non-sequitor.
>
>More money doesn't make those problems go away. Period.
Nothing makes those problems go away, so whether the problems go away
has nothing to do with whether more money is or is not necessary to
ensure that public primary or secondary education is responsibly
supported by government.
[...]
>> Money isn't ever the answer. Education is always the answer, or at
>> least the best one we've got. But education costs money. Fascism, in
>
>True.
>
>But what makes you think that more money equals better education? That's
>what this discussion was about before you started polluting it.
I didn't say it does; I'm demolishing your argument that more money
doesn't, which is what your position was before you changed it just now.
>> the end, is much cheaper, which is why we see people like you and Aaron
>
>I see you still haven't learned how to read.
I see you still resort to ad hominem attacks when you are losing an
argument.
>Where have I ever favored any fascist attitudes?
The idea that public school teachers have a mandate to provide moral
authority ("strong discipline", as they say) is a fascist attitude,
IMHO. Teachers have a mandate to provide an education, not to make sure
that students are 'good little boys and girls' and accept the status quo
in a well-behaved manner.
>> Kulkis spewing this kind of regressive bullshit. It is opportunity, not
>
>And where have I ever favored a regressive fund raising scheme? The
>scheme I favor is very progressive.
It isn't the fund raising scheme which is regressive. It is the idea
that public education can be provided by profit-seeking institutions
without undermining the very purpose of ensuring a basic education for
all citizens.
>But that won't stop you from spreading lies, I guess.
>
>> "discipline" or "expectations", which spur learning.
>
>I see. And how does throwing more money at the problem fix that?
It provides teachers the resources necessary to teach, obviously. I
don't consider it "throwing money at the problem", I consider it
"spending public funds to ensure that all citizens are provided an equal
and sufficient fundamental education".
>And you're wrong, anyway. There are plenty of studies that show that
>students learn better when expectations are high and discipline is
>maintained.
>
>But that doesn't fit your Robin Hood attitude.
Actually, it does. Robin Hood's merry men were a disciplined fighting
force, with a tactical and ethical advantage. Despite your ignorance of
the matter, public education does more to prevent your kind of stupidity
than it does to encourage it, these days.
Students learn better when they are given respect and a fair
opportunity; all humans do. But you may as well say "expectations are
higher and discipline is maintained when students learn better", for all
the 'popular wisdom' understanding of the relevant studies would mean,
if you misinterpret them as grandly and grievously as you misrepresent
everything I've said in the last couple weeks of discussion.
--
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: 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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:24:17 GMT
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
> Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:33:45 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"First-world" nations have nuclear submarines that work, and don't
> > > >screw
> > > >around for a week before asking for help in rescuing the crew.
> > >
> > > The US has lost two nuclear subs over the years. I don't know how
> > > long
> > > they "screwed around" though.
> >
> > For the ten to twelve seconds that it took for the crews of those subs
> > to die horribly?
>
> Which is apparently what happened here?
We don't know yet, except that due to the Russians screwing around, we
didn't get anyone down there in time to find out.
Note that the two major US sub disasters of the last half-century
occurred in deeper waters, and were over in a couple of seconds.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:27:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [...]
>> >> >No. You just give money away without doing anything about the real
>> >> >problem.
>> >>
>> >> What real problem would that be, Joe?
>> >
>> >Lots of things. Lack of discipline. Lack of expectations. Lack of parent
>> >involvement. And so on.
>>
>> And how do you personally expect to tackle these 'problems' without
>> paying someone to deal with them?
>
>
>HINT FUCKING HINT: ***NONE**** of those things cost money, Max.
ANSWER INVECTIVE ANSWER: That's because none of them are valuable all by
themselves. You don't expect to pay teachers from public funds, then
the public won't have teachers, and we'll churn out more idiots like you
and JS/PL and Joe and Christopher Smith. You guys might think you have
the ability to engage in intellectual investigation, but while you might
have been taught that its important to do so, you obviously never
learned how to do it.
--
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: 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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:27:59 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:04:53 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >> Again, you make the flawed assumption that the unfitness of the
> > > >> parents implies the unfitness of their children.
> > > >
> > > >That's the safe way to bet.
> > >
> > > If you want to go on statistics alone, and make blanket assumptions
> > > based on averages, I ask you this -- would you endorse a company
> > > policy that dictates that African Americans shouldn't be hired due
> > > to the fact that the "safe way to bet" is that they have inferior
> > > "intelligence" ( despite considerable overlap of different ethnic
> > > groups ... ) Oh, I refer you to your "bible" for the relevant
> > > statistics.
> >
> > No. Simply overturn the Supreme Court ruling that disallows IQ tests
> > for job placement.
>
> It's impossible to even come up with a single number to accurately
> represent microprocessor performance and you think the same can be done
> for the human brain?
I don't think he said jobs should be placed entirely on the basis of IQ.
But you do use certain single numbers representing CPU performance when
making computer purchases, don't you? It's not the only factor, but it
*is* a factor.
--
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: 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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:29:56 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is fairly common, however many bothered not to get an education
> > (despite the billions of dollars in social funding for poor or
> > minority education grants and scholarships) and don't see the necessity,
> > yet they complain that they can't make more money and they're stuck
> > flipping burgers.
>
> It's simple: FUCK THEM!
Wouldn't that lead to more "inferior" children?
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:31:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> I don't believe you when you say that he says that, if that's what
>> you're asking. Adam Smith might be thought, in some ingenuous theory,
>> to say that anti-trust laws are not necessary. In that, alas, he was
>> idealistic, if it is indeed the case.
>
>Adam Smith didn't think antitrust laws were viable because he thought
>that powerful monopolist lobbyists would be able to prevent any
>government from ever enacting them. Obviously he was wrong.
I'm afraid you'd have to provide a quotation if you expect me to believe
that, Eric. My own understanding was that he didn't think they were
necessary because the free market would prevent monopolization.
Obviously, he was wrong. It isn't really surprising, though, and
doesn't undermine any of the fundamental principles which he explored
and presented in his ground-breaking work. He was, after all, dealing
with a decidedly simpler, pre-industrial civilization in his
consideration of economic issues.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:33:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >> At best, this system will waste $60 billion of US tax payer money.
>> >
>> >Many incidental technologies generally flow from such efforts.
>>
>> "Star Wars" is not landing a man on the moon, I'm afraid.
>
>Then why don't you explain the technical reasons why it's likely to
>produce fewer spinoffs?
Because much of the important developments would be classified military
secrets. You can't compare development of a weapon system with actual
public works such as infrastructure or exploration.
>Oh, I remember. You just post your feelings and facts be damned.
I post my thoughts, based on facts, and your feelings be damned.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:33:27 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Arthur Frain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Personally, I'm not a Catholic, never have been, and have
> > > > > fundamental
> > > > > disagreements with their religious dogma.
> > > >
> > > > > However, given a choice, I would send my kids to a Catholic
> > > > > school
> > > > > before sending them to a public school.
> > > >
> > > > Then why did you choose Purdue over a perfectly good
> > > > nearby Catholic school like Notre Dame?
> > >
> > > 1. I'm talking about K-12 education.
> >
> > We're talking about education, period. If public schools can do a good
> > job at the college level, what is the reason you think they couldn't do
> > well elsewhere?
>
> While I agree that public schools can do OK at any level (and they do,
> at least some of the time), there are some significant differences
> between K-12 and college that might make the situation different.
>
> The biggest one is that people have to be there in K-12 whether they
> want to or not. No one's making them go to college.
But that doesn't explain why a private school would have more luck than
a public school when it comes to teaching someone who doesn't want to be
there.
--
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: 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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:34:35 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Bennett wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Arthur Frain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Personally, I'm not a Catholic, never have been, and have
> > > > > fundamental
> > > > > disagreements with their religious dogma.
> > > >
> > > > > However, given a choice, I would send my kids to a Catholic
> > > > > school
> > > > > before sending them to a public school.
> > > >
> > > > Then why did you choose Purdue over a perfectly good
> > > > nearby Catholic school like Notre Dame?
> > >
> > > 1. I'm talking about K-12 education.
> >
> > We're talking about education, period. If public schools can do a good
> > job at the college level, what is the reason you think they couldn't do
> > well elsewhere?
>
> I looked at all of the engineering schools in the US, culled out those
> that were farther away from home than I wanted to be, and applied
> to the top of the remaining list.
>
> I was turned down by one university (U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign),
> and so I chose Purdue.
Great. Now could you answer my question?
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:32:37 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:54:59 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >> I'd argue that the inclusiveness of both America and its education system
> >> makes it look considerably worse than it really is. I'd conjecture that
> >> if you were to take two children of *equal ability* and put one through
> >> Japan's system and one through America's, there wouldn't be a substantial
> >> difference in the end result.
> >
> >So, you are saying that the typical Japanese student is of
> >higher ability than the typical American student...
>
> If you're asking if the American kid doesn't perform as well on
> international tests by the time they enter high school, my answer
> is "yes". The American kids are already behind at this stage.
>
> If you're asking if American kids are less "intelligent" than Japanese
> kids, well I refer you to your bible (1)
So...based on what YOU have just told us:
(A) There is a genetic component to intelligence
AND/OR
(B) American schools are fucked up.
So...is it (A), (B), or both?
--
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: 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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:41:34 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I don't believe you when you say that he says that, if that's what
> >> you're asking. Adam Smith might be thought, in some ingenuous theory,
> >> to say that anti-trust laws are not necessary. In that, alas, he was
> >> idealistic, if it is indeed the case.
> >
> >Adam Smith didn't think antitrust laws were viable because he thought
> >that powerful monopolist lobbyists would be able to prevent any
> >government from ever enacting them. Obviously he was wrong.
>
> I'm afraid you'd have to provide a quotation if you expect me to believe
> that, Eric.
>From "Understanding the Antitrust Laws" by Jerrold Van Cise:
=====
[Smith and Marx agreed] that a free competitive economy was in the
public interest so long as the competing sellers and buyers were
individual persons. . . . The error of Adam Smith and Karl Marx--in
rejecting the possibility that monopoly could be curbed by law--arose
from their common belief that the lobbies of the monopolists would block
the enactment of any such legislation. [In The Wealth of Nations, Smith
writes that] 'neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest
rank, nor the greatest public services, protect [the legislator] from
the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor
sometimes from real danger arising from the insolent outrage of furious
and disappointed monopolists.'
====
--
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
