Linux-Advocacy Digest #813, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (david
raoul derbes)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (D. Spider)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:20:18 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> Who says that the existance of a Qt clone would increase Qt's market
> share?
> I'd say it would do just the opposite.
I suppose it comes from being used to the second sourcing that is prevelent
in so many engineering fields. Most engineers are opposed to designing
something that depends on a component available from only one source.
Othereise their design would be worthless if the one sources would fail,
either as a business descision or through misfortune. Would you feel
comfortable using and gambling your organizations future, your reputations
and career on using 7408 or in your project if that particular TTL were only
available from one source? That requirement for a second source has been
the prevelent opinion and mindset in engineering for a long time.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:29:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> No, I'd say we already have seen. Response to Windows ME is even less
>> than W2K.
>
>Considering it not for sale until the middle of September I imagine response
>WOULDN'T be too good yet, now would it.
I didn't say "numbers sold or distributed" or "market demand", I said
"response". As in, its an abysmal bomb of a market failure, and only
Microsoft could have the balls to call it a real product, let alone a
successful one. Hell, there was more demand (a better response) for
Solaris when it replaced SunOS, and that migration took literally years
to be considered 'mostly done'. Meanwhile, Sun still supports their
older versions in a lot of ways.
A new version of Windows, and the majority of the consumer market has no
idea that it even exists? I'd say calling that response "not too good"
would be an outrageous understatement.
--
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
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:29:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>No. To anyone who actually reads what I write, I say that I am biased.
>No more, no less. You have a taste for undue induction, don't you?
LOL. Cute.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 1 Sep 2000 21:31:23 GMT
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 19:56:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Boy are you naieve...
>>
>>I had not been called boy in about 15 years. Thanks!
>
> Go take an ESL course or something...
I wouldn't fault his English over this. He probably couldn't parse
your sentence because one word was used idiomatically and another was
not spelled correctly.
Maybe you should think about the course.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:41:12 -0300
Donovan Rebbechi escribió:
>
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 19:56:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>> Boy are you naieve...
> >>
> >>I had not been called boy in about 15 years. Thanks!
> >
> > Go take an ESL course or something...
>
> I wouldn't fault his English over this. He probably couldn't parse
> your sentence because one word was used idiomatically and another was
> not spelled correctly.
Maybe the ironic intention didn't get through well.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:37:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> [...]
>> >> >Terrible legal threat: "we can't guarntee we eill not sue".
>> >>
>> >> ...which individuals who don't have the financial resources
>> >> to deal with a lawsuit must take into consideration.
>> >
>> >Of course. What they shouldn't be is surprised. Noone will ever
>> >guarantee they will not sue anyone else.
>> >
>> >It's not a threat, it's a statement of the obvious.
>>
>> The fact that it is obvious even when unstated makes the statement of it
>> a threat.
>
>Not if it's the answer to a question. For example:
>
>Q: Will you sue us?
>A: I can't guarantee we will not.
>
>Is not a threat, IMHO. It's just a simple non-comitting answer.
Notice how the context, which you did not provide, is what makes the
difference between whether you're making sense or just being a pain in
the ass. I agree; it is a non-commital response. Were it a quote, it
might still not be enough for some people, as we expect a commitment on
the part of suppliers that they not reserve the right to rip people off,
but I won't fault them simply for not showing enough enthusiasm about
the prospect of competition.
>[snip]
>
>> What was it they called making threats in order to deter competition in
>> a market? Oh, yea, I remember. Its "monopolization", and its a felony.
>> Or maybe you're right, and it wasn't a threat, but just an observation.
>> Maybe then its just attempted monopolization, which is only a felony.
>
>Attempted monopolization is not a felony.
Then what was it that Congress outlawed in 1890 when they wrote "anyone
who attempts to monopolize has committed a felony"?
>And what market is it they are specifically monopolizing or trying to?
>The market of norwegian toolkits without vowels in the name?
The market for libraries for that API, apparently. You didn't think
that TT deserved private use of an API, did you?
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:51:32 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> [...]
> >> >> >Terrible legal threat: "we can't guarntee we eill not sue".
> >> >>
> >> >> ...which individuals who don't have the financial resources
> >> >> to deal with a lawsuit must take into consideration.
> >> >
> >> >Of course. What they shouldn't be is surprised. Noone will ever
> >> >guarantee they will not sue anyone else.
> >> >
> >> >It's not a threat, it's a statement of the obvious.
> >>
> >> The fact that it is obvious even when unstated makes the statement of it
> >> a threat.
> >
> >Not if it's the answer to a question. For example:
> >
> >Q: Will you sue us?
> >A: I can't guarantee we will not.
> >
> >Is not a threat, IMHO. It's just a simple non-comitting answer.
>
> Notice how the context, which you did not provide,
Because I don't have it. But according to my recollection,
it was something very similar. You will have to take (or not)
my word for it.
> is what makes the
> difference between whether you're making sense or just being a pain in
> the ass. I agree; it is a non-commital response. Were it a quote, it
> might still not be enough for some people, as we expect a commitment on
> the part of suppliers that they not reserve the right to rip people off,
Suppliers of software do reserve the right to rip people off. It's in
the
EULA.
> but I won't fault them simply for not showing enough enthusiasm about
> the prospect of competition.
What this might mean is beyond me.
> >[snip]
> >
> >> What was it they called making threats in order to deter competition in
> >> a market? Oh, yea, I remember. Its "monopolization", and its a felony.
> >> Or maybe you're right, and it wasn't a threat, but just an observation.
> >> Maybe then its just attempted monopolization, which is only a felony.
> >
> >Attempted monopolization is not a felony.
>
> Then what was it that Congress outlawed in 1890 when they wrote "anyone
> who attempts to monopolize has committed a felony"?
Because when you provided the real quote in another thread, it didn't
say that? Be honest! You know it doesn't say that, yet you say it does.
I wonder if you would call that a lie?
> >And what market is it they are specifically monopolizing or trying to?
> >The market of norwegian toolkits without vowels in the name?
>
> The market for libraries for that API, apparently.
And when each version they change the API, they move
into monopolizing another market? This has to be the stupidest
definition of a market ever. It's like "coca cola has a monopoly
in the market of beverages that taste like coca cola".
> You didn't think that TT deserved private use of an API, did you?
They don't. And anyone can clone it. And if they sue the cloner,
as long as the cloner didn't do anything illegal, the cloner will
win. Big deal.
By your definition, GTK+ has 100% market share, and monopoly
in the market of "libraries with the GTK+ API". It's stupid.
They have a monopoly in that "market" because noone is competing.
If you don't want them to, compete.
In any realistic market, like "toolkits" or "cross platform
toolkits", they do have a competition.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:47:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
[...]
>> Remember, just because you are familiar with the comment, it does not mean
>> that everyone is.
>
>Oh, come on, for something about harmony, I'd go to the harmony mailing
>list archives, it's not too big a guess :-)
What's harmony? And where are their mailing list archives? And where,
within those archives, would I find the message traffic you are
referring to?
[...]
>They are not! The API is not copyrighted. They *could* sue anyone,
>but they could lose to anyone, as long as that anyone is not doing
>something illegal. I could be sued by MS tomorrow too. Should I be
>scared?
Yes, because you'd still be broke when they're done, whether you're
doing anything illegal or not.
>> Yes, we sue anyone who does anything to hurt our bottom line or infringes in
>> anyway on our intellectual property.
>
>This would be seen as a threat, and indeed, it would be a threat
>of a frivolous lawsuit!
>
>Your proposed response seems, to me, much more threatening than the
>original.
Certainly more threatening than your original misquote. I'd agree that
its more threatening, too, then what TT actually said. It think 'mjcr'
is just more interested in what is true, rather than whether somebody's
covered their ass enough. People who think that covering your ass makes
you right make us more ethical people very nervous.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:47:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Andres Soolo in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I say "might probably" because the DNS system is, in many ways, the
>> "achilles's heel" of the Internet, and it wouldn't surprise me if news
>> of a hack were somewhat muted, if not suppressed, so as not to seem to
>> be inciting unrest by causing the public to become concerned about the
>> danger.
>Who could have that kind of power?
It isn't a question of power.
>And who would be interested in actively preventing panic?
Well, any responsible person, I should think.
--
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.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:47:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said david raoul derbes in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>wrote:
>> >
>> >Apologies. This is off topic and very long.
>>
>> Not at all, forgive my edits.
>>
>> >>Then please explain why results from private schools are so good when
>> >>the average private school salary is lower than public school
>> >>salaries....
>> [...]
>> >Despite my frequent disagreements with Joe R. on many topics, and his
>> >implied (and not so implied) insults hurled my way, I agree with him
>> >on this one.
>> >
>> >Salary is *not* the most important determining factor in obtaining
>> >and keeping talented faculty. It is absolutely true that the salaries
>> >at private schools, usually, are not as good as those in public schools
>> >(there are of course exceptions, e.g. the best boarding schools in
>> >the country pay astonishingly well.)
>>
>> That was my response, as well. His contention was ass-backwards; he was
>> trying to argue that it can't be higher salaries that make private
>> schools more effective. In classic Joe R. fashion, he fabricated the
>> argument from whole cloth, as nobody else had ever suggested such a
>> thing.
>
>No, Max, YOU said exactly that.
>
>You stated (and I quote): "You want to pay teachers crapola and you're
>going to get crappy teachers".
I said (and I quote, in context):
"Well, that's what happens when you're not willing to pay teachers what
they're worth. You want to pay teachers crapola, you're going to get
crappy teachers."
Perhaps the reason it's importance escapes you, as so many abstract and
subtle differences do, was that you forgot it wasn't a statement of
position, but a statement of opinion.
>It was your argument that I was deflating. The fact that even you won't
>admit that you made the argument is pretty good evidence of how
>worthless it was.
It was my statement you were, again, trying to mangle into a fabrication
so you can call me a 'liar' and pretend to have a point. I didn't make
an argument that *you* wanted one thing or the other. You're just
trying to confabulate the issue, as always.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 21:41:16 GMT
In article <8op5p2$pka$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And ignoring a great deal of MS evidence.
I think you mean "rigged" or "doctored" evidence, don't you Simon? ;-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 19:00:27 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> [...]
> >> Remember, just because you are familiar with the comment, it does not mean
> >> that everyone is.
> >
> >Oh, come on, for something about harmony, I'd go to the harmony mailing
> >list archives, it's not too big a guess :-)
>
> What's harmony? And where are their mailing list archives? And where,
> within those archives, would I find the message traffic you are
> referring to?
Well, since you don't know the parts involved in the thread, you do well
to ask.
Harmony was the project to clone Qt that jedi says was threatened
by TT. As for finding their mailing lists archives, it's a 2 minutes
task using any internet searching tool, but I'll tell you they are
in http://lists.kde.org.
> [...]
> >They are not! The API is not copyrighted. They *could* sue anyone,
> >but they could lose to anyone, as long as that anyone is not doing
> >something illegal. I could be sued by MS tomorrow too. Should I be
> >scared?
>
> Yes, because you'd still be broke when they're done, whether you're
> doing anything illegal or not.
Not if the lawsuit takes place here. The losing party pays the legal
fees (to a reasonable amount).
> >> Yes, we sue anyone who does anything to hurt our bottom line or infringes in
> >> anyway on our intellectual property.
> >
> >This would be seen as a threat, and indeed, it would be a threat
> >of a frivolous lawsuit!
> >
> >Your proposed response seems, to me, much more threatening than the
> >original.
>
> Certainly more threatening than your original misquote. I'd agree that
> its more threatening, too, then what TT actually said. It think 'mjcr'
> is just more interested in what is true, rather than whether somebody's
> covered their ass enough. People who think that covering your ass makes
> you right make us more ethical people very nervous.
So you say that what the TT people truely thinks is what mjcr said, and
that they really want to sue, but they didn't threaten to cover their
butts? And on what the fuck are you basing that? Ethical? Yeah, sure.
You are, again, insulting, this time TT, with no basis whatsoever!
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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 ...)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 22:04:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>david raoul derbes wrote:
>
>> A correspondent mailed me with a valuable url that cited the oft-
>> quoted number that the top 1% of the country (income-wise) paid
>> 31.3% of the tax. Sounds really progressive, doesn't it? Turns out
>> that the actual rate of tax paid by this group was on the order
>> of 24% (I will attempt to cite the appropriate url in a bit.)
>> That's well under what I paid, even with all the deductions I
>> could manage. That is, the top 1%, though they paid 31.3% of the
>> tax, may have earned significantly more than 31.3% of the income.
Forrest has cited the appropriate url below; thanks, Forrest!
>David, I think you are misreading the import of the tax data published
>by the Tax Foundation. www.taxfoundation.org is the URL which
>published a chart comparing 1987 data with 1997 (the latest available
>from the IRS).
>
>What this data shows is that the top 1% of filers earned 17.4% of the
>total AGI reported by all taxpayers for 1997. That percentage paid
>was 33.2% of all taxes paid. Their average tax rate on their AGI
>was 27.6%. This latter percentage was the highest of all the
>percentile groups.
Quite correct. I said 24%, and that's clearly wrong.
>So while their AGI was 17.4% of the total AGI reported by all taxpayers,
>they paid 33.2% of all tax revenue garnered by the IRS. Their average
>tax rate was 27.6%. Compare this with the bottom 50% of filers whose
>AGI share was 13.8% on which they paid 4.3% of total revenue at an
>average tax rate of 4.5%. Any mystery why many polls tell us that
>most Americans don't give a rat's ass for a tax reduction?
But most Americans do pay federal income tax. My guess is that even
the guy who pays a couple of hundred dollars would prefer to pay
less, especially as it is likely that the guy doesn't make very mcuh.
>I think David makes too much of "rich" people paying zero taxes.
Waitasec. The main thing that exercises me is not a comparative
handful (my very poor memory of some talking head one Sunday morning,
Cokie Roberts on ABC to be precise, was several hundred) of well off
people paying nothing, but that deductions which result in substantial
savings are available more to the wealthy than to the poor. The most
familiar one, and one that my wife and I are glad to have, is the
mortgage interest deduction. If a family is too poor to buy a house,
they certainly can't get the deduction.
>I believe the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax enacted by Congress
>some years ago corrected this situation).
I want to stress that I don't think any of my putative zero-tax
payers are doing anything illegal. In fact, that is part of the problem:
I believe that exceedingly wealthy people have ways of enticing
congressmen to do their bidding, and I am quite confident that laws
have been enacted to benefit the tax returns of one or two people only.
Clearly, the AMT was enacted to right gross inequities in the code.
It isn't obvious that none remain.
>It is important to keep in mind that this data is dealing with AGI (Adjusted
>Gross Income), that is, reported earnings AFTER all deductions.
>BTW this data also provides the totals for the number of filers in each
>percentile group including the grand total for all filers.
Right, and thanks again for pointing this out. I don't know, and even
with your excellent sources I haven't been able to find out, what the
gross income of the top 1% is. I would be grateful to Forrest or anyone
else for this number.
I don't think that I am some sort of wild-eyed radical to suggest that
the income tax code favors the very well off, notwithstanding the
higher tax rates paid by those who have had a large annual income,
and the AMT, the purpose of which was, evidently, to circumvent
"excessive" deductions, whateve those might be.
For example, have a look at Citizens for Tax Justice (www.ctj.org),
Responsible Wealth (www.responsiblewealth.org), or the book I alluded to
earlier, Donald Bartlett and James Steele, "The Great American Tax Dodge"
(Little, Brown, $22.95) which I haven't had a chance to read yet,
except for excerpts.
I do not want to "soak the rich"; likewise I don't want large tax cuts
to go to people who really don't need them.
It seems to me that many middle-income people of good will regard "soak
the rich" tax laws (for example, estate tax laws) as inherently unfair.
I understand this; it is laudable that people look out for the rights of
a group that they are not part of. People who, by dint of hard work or
luck of birth or both, have more than most of us deserve to be treated
no worse than anyone else. I just object to their being treated better
than some of us. This is my only point.
Which is why, with a large deduction for every American (working or
otherwise), I support a flat or nearly flat tax, absent all other
deductions. I think it is the fairest non-regressive tax. The national
sales tax is sort of fair, but it is regressive as hell.
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>//
>
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:00:18 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8op7pp$jn2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8op5p2$pka$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And ignoring a great deal of MS evidence.
> I think you mean "rigged" or "doctored" evidence, don't you Simon? ;-)
No, I'm talking about evidence such as:
Marc Andreesen detailing plans to release Netscape for free from the start
(a position that he reiterates in a recent issue of Wired where he was
interviewed about LoudCloud) -- Netscape never intended to sell their
browser initially; they were going to make all their money off the server.
RealPlayer G2's installer problems being caused by a bug in their installer.
"Cutting off their Oxygen supply" being attributed to MS employees, when in
fact it was someone else.
Netscape market figures actually being much higher than claimed by Netscape
management in court.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 22:04:16 GMT
It appears that on Wed, 02 Aug 2000 19:26:21 -0300, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer escribió:
>>
>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >I have graphics, and I haven't compiled a framebuffer SVGA kernel.
>>
>> You must have one of the holy graffix cards that Lie-nux actulley SUPPORT'S.
>
>Or has a kernel precompiled with framebuffer support. I know I do.
>
>> >> >> Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the computer
>> >> >> world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists rather than
>> >> >> business people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >And what revolutions has Microsoft made?
>> >>
>> >> Window's 98.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It's a somewhat improved Windows 95, but it's hardly a revolution.
>> >
>> >Colin Day
>> >
>>
>> It wa a hell of an emprovement over DOS.
Umm, no it wasn't, it IS DOS. It's just DOS with a mandatory GUI shell
and with most of the useful command-line stuff removed.
>
>Well, Linux is one hell of an improvement over CP/M. So what?
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
