Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99331 is a reply to message #99257] Wed, 24 July 2013 16:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andrew Swallow is currently offline  Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 24/07/2013 15:01, jmfbahciv wrote:
> greymausg wrote:

>> On 2013-07-23, Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:

>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:

>>>

>>>> On 20-Jul-13 08:46, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> > Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>>> >> [Women as chattel] started to change in the 1970s,

>>>> >

>>>> > No, it started to change during WWII.

>>>>

>>>> The seeds were sewn during WWII, but they didn't bear fruit until the

>>>> 1970s. In the meantime, it was still legal for men to beat and rape

>>>> their wives, and there was no easy divorce or much in the way of child

>>>> support or alimony.

>>>

>>> That must have varied by state. I remember the old divorce laws only

>>> allowing divorce in cases of infidelity, beating, or abandonment. Maybe

>>> a few others. It was harder, and one spouse would have to be found to

>>> be at fault. There was child support, and there was alimony if the

>>> spouse with the better-paying job was found to be at fault. The

>>> fault-finding pretty much guaranteed a painful airing of one's

>>> differences, even if the spouses agreed that it was time to split up.

>>> Hence why divorcing spouses would get the divorce in Nevada.

>>>

>>

>> During the 40-50s there was a business in london that arranged

>> for husbands or wives to be caught in affairs, spurious, it was

>> a way of speeding divorces in cases where the couple just wanted

>> to split.

>

> <grin> Kewl. I never heard of something like that in the US.

>

> /BAH

>


Yes, the hotel maids in Brighton had a good living taking the train to
London to say the double beds had been used. The divorce lawyers and
private detectives organised it.

Andrew Swallow
Re: Lisp, was Logo is a Bizarre language? [message #99332 is a reply to message #99327] Wed, 24 July 2013 16:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Levine is currently offline  John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
> Jeez....two golden oldies from way back - Logo and Lisp. Are these

> still in active use?


Logo may be dead, but Lisp is as healthy as ever. Google for lisp
conference and you'll find many conferences this year.

I see that the 50th anniversary of the first Lisp conference is coming
up in December.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Re: Logo is a Bizarre language? [message #99334 is a reply to message #99327] Wed, 24 July 2013 16:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rich Alderson is currently offline  Rich Alderson
Messages: 489
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
ClF3@n-stoff.co.de writes:

> Jeez....two golden oldies from way back - Logo and Lisp. Are these

> still in active use? Nothing in my archive library for Logo, but I

> think the Winston & Horn 2nd edition Lisp classic is there.


I can't speak to Logo. I was interested for a bit after reading Papert's
_Mindstorms_, but it was difficult to find a Logo for the computers I had
at home.

Lisp is still in active use lots of places. The latest craze seems to be
Clojure, which appears to be a Common Lisp implementation built on top of the
Java Virtual Machine. (Yawn...) Scheme, the other Lisp, is also still in
the running.

I remember when it was eval-Lisp vs. evalquote-Lisp (which even got some
coverage in Winston & Horn 1st edition, still in my library). I still use
MACLISP from time to time on TOPS-20, just for the hack value.

--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99336 is a reply to message #99076] Wed, 24 July 2013 16:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rich Alderson is currently offline  Rich Alderson
Messages: 489
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:

> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Rich Alderson wrote:


>> "brad" <noise@comcast.net> writes:


>>> "jmfbahciv" wrote:


>>>> When JMF and I were in China, the Children's Palace we visited had

>>>> 3 or 4 dozen computers from Apple (can't remember the model) and

>>>> they were all busy with 2 kids on each programming. Wasn't there

>>>> a compiler which was aimed at little kids? These kids were younger

>>>> than 8..maybe even 5.


>>> Logo is a _language_ aimed at little kids. It's graphical based, one

>>> source was that it came with the Atari ST.


>> The initial implementation at MIT, in Papert's lab, was on a PDP-10.


> "Was he stealing time on that computer"?


<-Snrk!->

His project was connected to the AI Lab, so by definition he couldn't have
stolen time on that computer, since computers want to be freely available! ;->

--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
Re: Logo is a Bizarre language? [message #99338 is a reply to message #99334] Wed, 24 July 2013 16:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Walter Banks is currently offline  Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Rich Alderson wrote:

> ClF3@n-stoff.co.de writes:

>

>> Jeez....two golden oldies from way back - Logo and Lisp. Are these

>> still in active use? Nothing in my archive library for Logo, but I

>> think the Winston & Horn 2nd edition Lisp classic is there.

>

> I can't speak to Logo. I was interested for a bit after reading Papert's

> _Mindstorms_, but it was difficult to find a Logo for the computers I had

> at home.

>

> Lisp is still in active use lots of places. The latest craze seems to be

> Clojure, which appears to be a Common Lisp implementation built on top of the

> Java Virtual Machine. (Yawn...) Scheme, the other Lisp, is also still in

> the running.

>

> I remember when it was eval-Lisp vs. evalquote-Lisp (which even got some

> coverage in Winston & Horn 1st edition, still in my library). I still use

> MACLISP from time to time on TOPS-20, just for the hack value.

>

> --

> Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com

> the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/

> to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...


There are a handful of logo implementations around that will run on a pc.
Google logo language
including one I just looked at written in java script
http://www.colormen.com/logo/
My testing is limited to a one line program a few minutes ago

w..
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99341 is a reply to message #99336] Wed, 24 July 2013 16:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Ibmekon

On 24 Jul 2013 16:28:45 -0400, Rich Alderson
<news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:

> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:

>

>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Rich Alderson wrote:

>

>>> "brad" <noise@comcast.net> writes:

>

>>>> "jmfbahciv" wrote:

>

>>>> > When JMF and I were in China, the Children's Palace we visited had

>>>> > 3 or 4 dozen computers from Apple (can't remember the model) and

>>>> > they were all busy with 2 kids on each programming. Wasn't there

>>>> > a compiler which was aimed at little kids? These kids were younger

>>>> > than 8..maybe even 5.

>

>>>> Logo is a _language_ aimed at little kids. It's graphical based, one

>>>> source was that it came with the Atari ST.

>

>>> The initial implementation at MIT, in Papert's lab, was on a PDP-10.

>

>> "Was he stealing time on that computer"?

>

> <-Snrk!->

>

> His project was connected to the AI Lab, so by definition he couldn't have

> stolen time on that computer, since computers want to be freely available! ;->


Or , maybe the computers did it on their own time :-)

Carl Goldsworthy

I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99361 is a reply to message #99341] Wed, 24 July 2013 17:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Walter Banks is currently offline  Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Ibmekon wrote:

> On 24 Jul 2013 16:28:45 -0400, Rich Alderson

> <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:

>

>> His project was connected to the AI Lab, so by definition he couldn't have

>> stolen time on that computer, since computers want to be freely available! ;->

>

> Or , maybe the computers did it on their own time :-)

>

> Carl Goldsworthy

>

> I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.


They were artificially intelligent computers that would only
pay for the computer time they used in virtual currency.
BitCoins :).

w...
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99362 is a reply to message #99323] Wed, 24 July 2013 17:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> Wayne Salamon <xenon@net.invalid> wrote

>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote


>>>> That's never going to happen. In fact we have seen the

>>>> exact opposite happen, the linux stream ended so useful

>>>> that even Apple chose to use it for their mainstream OS

>>>> with their own user interface added.


>>> Nonsense;


>> We'll see...


>>> there is no Linux code in OS-X.


>> Never said there was. The word STREAM is there for a reason.


> The term "stream", in the context of unix or linux systems,

> has been overloaded with two distinct meanings:


> 1) stream, as applied to STDIO (and usurped by C++)

> 2) STREAMS, as applied to SVR4 networking streams (where various kernel

> modules can be pushed onto a stream to manipulate data while data

> transits the between the start and end of the stream).


I wasn’t using either of those.

> In neither case do these derive from linux. Where support for

> these exist in OSX, they're derived from the BSD Unix-derived

> NextStep and Mach (or SVR4 in the case of STREAMS).
Re: Lisp, was Logo is a Bizarre language? [message #99364 is a reply to message #99332] Wed, 24 July 2013 17:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, John Levine wrote:

>> Jeez....two golden oldies from way back - Logo and Lisp. Are these

>> still in active use?

>

> Logo may be dead, but Lisp is as healthy as ever. Google for lisp

> conference and you'll find many conferences this year.

>

> I see that the 50th anniversary of the first Lisp conference is coming

> up in December.

>

Lisp is in my favorite Linux distribution, I hadn't even given it any
thought.

And if there's Emacs, there's Lisp.

Michael
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99368 is a reply to message #99336] Wed, 24 July 2013 17:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Black is currently offline  Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Rich Alderson wrote:

> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:

>

>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Rich Alderson wrote:

>

>>> "brad" <noise@comcast.net> writes:

>

>>>> "jmfbahciv" wrote:

>

>>>> > When JMF and I were in China, the Children's Palace we visited had

>>>> > 3 or 4 dozen computers from Apple (can't remember the model) and

>>>> > they were all busy with 2 kids on each programming. Wasn't there

>>>> > a compiler which was aimed at little kids? These kids were younger

>>>> > than 8..maybe even 5.

>

>>>> Logo is a _language_ aimed at little kids. It's graphical based, one

>>>> source was that it came with the Atari ST.

>

>>> The initial implementation at MIT, in Papert's lab, was on a PDP-10.

>

>> "Was he stealing time on that computer"?

>

> <-Snrk!->

>

> His project was connected to the AI Lab, so by definition he couldn't have

> stolen time on that computer, since computers want to be freely available! ;->

>

Yes, and I was just making a joke based on the recent posts about Bill
Gates using the computer at Harvard.

Michael
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99369 is a reply to message #99330] Wed, 24 July 2013 17:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Wayne Salamon" <xenon@net.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnkv0cs9.fb.xenon@tomservo.wsalamon.net...
> On 2013-07-24, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Wayne Salamon <xenon@net.invalid> wrote

>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>

>>> there is no Linux code in OS-X.

>>

>> Never said there was. The word STREAM is there for a reason.

>>

>

> Please explain what you mean by "stream" in this context.


Sort of family, but even that isnt really ideal either.
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99373 is a reply to message #99361] Wed, 24 July 2013 18:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Ibmekon

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:04:33 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

>

>

> Ibmekon wrote:

>

>> On 24 Jul 2013 16:28:45 -0400, Rich Alderson

>> <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:

>>

>>> His project was connected to the AI Lab, so by definition he couldn't have

>>> stolen time on that computer, since computers want to be freely available! ;->

>>

>> Or , maybe the computers did it on their own time :-)

>>

>> Carl Goldsworthy

>>

>> I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

>

> They were artificially intelligent computers that would only

> pay for the computer time they used in virtual currency.

> BitCoins :).

>

> w...


Again , maybe the artificially intelligent computers paid for their
use of human time using their own BitCoins :-).

Carl Goldsworthy

An ignorant person is one who does not know what you have just found
out.
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #99377 is a reply to message #99187] Wed, 24 July 2013 18:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 7/24/2013 12:13 AM, harry wrote:
>

>

> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

> news:ichafk94yl.fsf@home.home...

>> "harry" <hsf@nospam.com> writes:

>>

>>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>> news:icppu98fkp.fsf@home.home...

>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>>

>>>> > Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >>

>>>> >>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >>>>

>>>> >>>>> I have no social circle. you are it.

>>>> >>>>

>>>> >>>> I speak from experience.

>>>> >>>> You complain about your health and being easily tired too.

>>>> >>>>

>>>> >>>> Forums can provide a feeling of human contact,

>>>> >>>> but you need to get out more and most

>>>> >>>> important you need to exercise.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> You don't understand the disease I have.

>>>> >>>>

>>>> >>>> If you can walk around your block, do so, every day.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> that will put me into bed for a few months until I "recover".

>>>> >>

>>>> >> Sorry to hear.

>>>> >> I'm not recognizing the set of symptoms but that's your business.

>>>> >> Hope you at least have a diagnosis you can trust.

>>>> >>

>>>> > Oh, sorry. It's called Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. People how

>>>> > have it prefer the name CFIDS, Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction

>>>> > Syndrome, because there exists a population of doctors who

>>>> > believe that CFS is a psychological disorder instead of an

>>>> > infection. In the 80s and 90s the main proponent for viewing

>>>> > it as a psych disorder was a psychologist who would lose

>>>> > 75% of his patients if it became a infectious disease. The

>>>> > politics went so far as him convincing his friend to edit

>>>> > the raw data in the CFS database at NIH edited. For many

>>>> > years, nobody who had CFS died.

>>>>

>>>> I knew one other person with CFS at work.

>>>> She claimed to be allergic to everything and sometimes

>>>> could barely make it to the restroom. You'd see her trying

>>>> to make it down the hallway holding onto the wall.

>>>> In her case she was a radical liberal.

>>>>

>>>> She had frequent remissions where she could function well enough to

>>>> hold

>>>> down a job.

>>>>

>>>> There are many diseases that mimic CFS so it's important to work

>>>> with your doctor and rule them all out.

>>>>

>>>> That's really tough, no treatment, no drugs, no way to definitely

>>>> diagnose the condition and lots of people just think you're faking.

>>>> One of those horrible tricks life plays on you.

>>>>

>>>> If you get any remissions at all, my guess is meeting people should

>>>> be at the top of your list. If you can get some kind of home care,

>>>> go for it.

>>>>

>>>> This is not in any of the literature I just reviewed, but I'd

>>>> strongly recommend a more positive attitude.

>>>>

>>>> I'm almost 68 and just went though a devastating loss and I attribute

>>>> my excellent health to a youthful attitude.

>>>

>>>> Even if the cause is immunity issues, attitude is known to help.

>>>

>>> No, there is no rigorous scientific evidence that supports that claim.

>>>

>>>> It helps with cancer.

>>>

>>> Or that either.

>

>> Good move Speedo.

>

> We'll see...

>

>> Believe what you want,

>

> Its not a question of what anyone believes, what matters

> is what has been established with rigorous science.

>

>> if the basis of CFS is psychological then attitude is all important.

>

> You didn’t say that CFS, you said IMMUNITY ISSUES.

>

>> There are lots of studies on laughter,

>> companionship, etc. on various miladies.

>

> And not one rigorous peer reviewed scientific study

> that has show that any of that has anything to do

> with IMMUNITY ISSUES or CANCER in spades.

>

>> I've seen multiple studies claiming positive results.,

>

> Not with IMMUNITY ISSUES or CANCER you haven't.

>

>> I'm going with positive.

>

> You can go anywhere you like, changes absolutely nothing at all.

>

>> But what kind of scum would want to take away a person's hope?

>

> Nothing I say will make any difference to what she believes.


Actually you're too late with this UL. Recent studies have shown that a
positive attitude might make you feel better, but it doesn't cure (or
help to cure) things like cancer. In fact, repeating this is a
positively bad thing, because people who feel like s%it and have a
negative attitude as a result then feel worse because they're not
helping themselves.

FWIW, I used to believe the "attitude" thing too.

--
Pete
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99378 is a reply to message #99250] Wed, 24 July 2013 18:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 7/24/2013 10:01 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> greymausg wrote:

>> On 2013-07-23, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On 7/22/2013 9:23 AM, Walter Banks wrote:

>>>>

>>>> I have been fascinated by the basic differences between a

>>>> Canadian and American definition of freedom. When I

>>>> lived in the states for a few years, I was startled by the

>>>> American definition of freedom being (compared to Canada)

>>>> extremely self centred free to pursue personal goals at

>>>> many times at the cost of those around them and the

>>>> Canadian sense of freedom is more of the freedom not

>>>> to be interfered with by those around them to pursue

>>>> their personal goals. There is an obvious difference in

>>>> how much less personal security I feel I need living in

>>>> Canada. Interestingly in the small town America I am

>>>> familiar with (NH, ND) there is a lot of respect for

>>>> other peoples freedoms in the Canadian sense.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Nuts are everywhere, they just feel they have the freedom to be more

>>> vocal here.

>>>

>>> An interesting example came up locally recently. Saratoga Springs is

>>> big on historic preservation and several committees usually have to

>>> approve new development. Some guy bought a historic house in some

>>> disrepair, and after some hemming and hawing decided that he didn't want

>>> to fix it up, but wanted to tear it down and build something new. He's

>>> been stopped by the bureaucracy of the committees and went to a meeting

>>> and complained "these busybodies are preventing people from doing what

>>> they want with their property." I wanted to say to him "you idiot,

>>> don't you realize that your property is worth as much as it is only

>>> because those 'busybodies' have prevented others from doing what they

>>> wanted with their property."

>>>

>>

>> The Irish solution is to leave the door unlocked and come back in a while.

>> Beautiful old house in North Dublin being treated like that as I write,

>> on the other hand really horrible heap being forced to restoration.,

>> near wwhere I live.

>

> There was a house in Marlboro, MA. which had been declared a historical

> landmark. the town would not let the owner redo even the electrical

> system. He finally accepted that someday the house will catch fire

> and burn down. Some of that historical preservation is insane.

>

> /BAH

>


Not really. If you buy a historically significant house you're made
aware of any restrictions. If you don't like them you can sell (or not
buy) It's like zoning, you wouldn't want someone to buy the house next
door to you and replace it with a muffler shop, for example.

--
Pete
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #99383 is a reply to message #99377] Wed, 24 July 2013 19:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
harry is currently offline  harry
Messages: 143
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kspkad$scu$1@dont-email.me...
> On 7/24/2013 12:13 AM, harry wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>> news:ichafk94yl.fsf@home.home...

>>> "harry" <hsf@nospam.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:icppu98fkp.fsf@home.home...

>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >

>>>> >> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>>> Dan Espen wrote:

>>>> >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >>>>>

>>>> >>>>>> I have no social circle. you are it.

>>>> >>>>>

>>>> >>>>> I speak from experience.

>>>> >>>>> You complain about your health and being easily tired too.

>>>> >>>>>

>>>> >>>>> Forums can provide a feeling of human contact,

>>>> >>>>> but you need to get out more and most

>>>> >>>>> important you need to exercise.

>>>> >>>>

>>>> >>>> You don't understand the disease I have.

>>>> >>>>>

>>>> >>>>> If you can walk around your block, do so, every day.

>>>> >>>>

>>>> >>>> that will put me into bed for a few months until I "recover".

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> Sorry to hear.

>>>> >>> I'm not recognizing the set of symptoms but that's your business.

>>>> >>> Hope you at least have a diagnosis you can trust.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >> Oh, sorry. It's called Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. People how

>>>> >> have it prefer the name CFIDS, Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction

>>>> >> Syndrome, because there exists a population of doctors who

>>>> >> believe that CFS is a psychological disorder instead of an

>>>> >> infection. In the 80s and 90s the main proponent for viewing

>>>> >> it as a psych disorder was a psychologist who would lose

>>>> >> 75% of his patients if it became a infectious disease. The

>>>> >> politics went so far as him convincing his friend to edit

>>>> >> the raw data in the CFS database at NIH edited. For many

>>>> >> years, nobody who had CFS died.

>>>> >

>>>> > I knew one other person with CFS at work.

>>>> > She claimed to be allergic to everything and sometimes

>>>> > could barely make it to the restroom. You'd see her trying

>>>> > to make it down the hallway holding onto the wall.

>>>> > In her case she was a radical liberal.

>>>> >

>>>> > She had frequent remissions where she could function well enough to

>>>> > hold

>>>> > down a job.

>>>> >

>>>> > There are many diseases that mimic CFS so it's important to work

>>>> > with your doctor and rule them all out.

>>>> >

>>>> > That's really tough, no treatment, no drugs, no way to definitely

>>>> > diagnose the condition and lots of people just think you're faking.

>>>> > One of those horrible tricks life plays on you.

>>>> >

>>>> > If you get any remissions at all, my guess is meeting people should

>>>> > be at the top of your list. If you can get some kind of home care,

>>>> > go for it.

>>>> >

>>>> > This is not in any of the literature I just reviewed, but I'd

>>>> > strongly recommend a more positive attitude.

>>>> >

>>>> > I'm almost 68 and just went though a devastating loss and I attribute

>>>> > my excellent health to a youthful attitude.

>>>>

>>>> > Even if the cause is immunity issues, attitude is known to help.

>>>>

>>>> No, there is no rigorous scientific evidence that supports that claim.

>>>>

>>>> > It helps with cancer.

>>>>

>>>> Or that either.

>>

>>> Good move Speedo.

>>

>> We'll see...

>>

>>> Believe what you want,

>>

>> Its not a question of what anyone believes, what matters

>> is what has been established with rigorous science.

>>

>>> if the basis of CFS is psychological then attitude is all important.

>>

>> You didn’t say that CFS, you said IMMUNITY ISSUES.

>>

>>> There are lots of studies on laughter,

>>> companionship, etc. on various miladies.

>>

>> And not one rigorous peer reviewed scientific study

>> that has show that any of that has anything to do

>> with IMMUNITY ISSUES or CANCER in spades.

>>

>>> I've seen multiple studies claiming positive results.,

>>

>> Not with IMMUNITY ISSUES or CANCER you haven't.

>>

>>> I'm going with positive.

>>

>> You can go anywhere you like, changes absolutely nothing at all.

>>

>>> But what kind of scum would want to take away a person's hope?

>>

>> Nothing I say will make any difference to what she believes.


> Actually you're too late with this UL.


No.

> Recent studies have shown that a positive attitude might make you feel

> better, but it doesn't cure (or help to cure) things like cancer.


What I said in a lot more words.

> In fact, repeating this is a positively bad thing, because people who feel

> like s%it and have a negative attitude as a result then feel worse because

> they're not helping themselves.


Que ?

> FWIW, I used to believe the "attitude" thing too.


I never did buy it, but them I have always been about rigorous science.
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99438 is a reply to message #99369] Thu, 25 July 2013 05:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wayne Salamon is currently offline  Wayne Salamon
Messages: 33
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
On 2013-07-24, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>

> Sort of family, but even that isnt really ideal either.

>


What is in this Linux "stream" or "family" that "ended so useful that even
Apple chose to use it for their mainstream OS with their own user interface
added."?

How did Apple add their user interface to something that wasn't code?
--
WS
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99439 is a reply to message #99266] Thu, 25 July 2013 07:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Walter Bushell is currently offline  Walter Bushell
Messages: 1834
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <Y%RHt.144721$ny.83768@fx14.iad>,
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>> On 23-Jul-13 08:57, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>>> > On 22-Jul-13 07:45, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>> >> No. I'm against increases taxes now becuase it's the spending

>>>> >> which is ouot of control. Increaseing taxes will only cause

>>>> >> Congress to increase spending, not decrease it.

>>>> >

>>>> > In the 1990s, Clinton increased taxes on the rich

>>>>

>>>> That was the first time Congress passed a tax increase which was

>>>> retroactive. Nobody objected.

>>>

>>> The rich objected; so did their puppets in Congress and talk radio.

>>

>> They objected to the incrase. Nobody mentioned the retroactive

>> piece of it. Another odd thing was the people who owed the higher

>> taxes were given 3 years to pay them.

>>

>>>

>>>> > and for the first time in decades, we had a balanced budget (as

>>>> > long as you ignore interested on past debt).

>>>>

>>>> And social security.

>>>

>>> That includes Social Security, which was running a surplus back then.

>>

>> You can't count that as balanced if part of the balancing relied on

>> borrowing from that section of the budget.

>

> It was a surplus, not just balanced. And it wasn't an accounting trick,

> the collected FICA taxes exceeded the social security payouts until

> very recently. The excess was known as the Social Security Trust Fund

> and was intended to be invested and used whenever the collected taxes

> were less than the amount paid out. Unfortunately, Congress in their

> very finite wisdom, spent the excess (or more correctly included it in

> the general budget to offset deficit spending) so here we are.

>

>

>

>>> Military spending decreased sequentially every year from 1984 to 1997,

>>> i.e. including under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. Clinton is actually the

>>> one who reversed that trend, in 1998.

>>

>>

>> Clinton reorg'ed the military with the assummption that would be only

>> one theatre of war at a time. then he boasted about all the "savings"

>> in leiu of national security.

>

> No, he didn't. The military had an explicit "two-front" posture

> during the entire Clinton years.

>

>>

>>

>>>

>>> Clinton was, however, responsible for "gutting" the CIA's human

>>> intelligence resources. Even Dubya didn't repeal the Executive Order

>>> that caused all the problems, though, nor did Congress override it.

>>

>> National security was a non-goal in the Democrat leadership. It

>> still seems to be that way.

>

> Your statement bears little relationship to reality.

>

>

>>> We had to do something, sure. For instance, assassinating Bin Laden

>>> would have been a good move. For that matter, so would taking out the

>>> Saudi royal family, who provide most of the funding for Islamic

>>> terrorism--including both WTC attacks.

>>>

>>> There was reasonable justification for invading Afghanistan, so I won't

>>> bother arguing against it; at minimum, it was necessary to appease an

>>> outraged American populace.

>>

>> I thought you had written that both wars were useless.

>

> "Appeasing outraged americans" as a justification means that

> it was useless. Neither war has accomplished anything other than

> increase the violence and decrease the stability of the middle east,

> tthat certainly makes them useless to any objective observer.


Worse than useless, actually.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? [message #99440 is a reply to message #99227] Thu, 25 July 2013 07:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Walter Bushell is currently offline  Walter Bushell
Messages: 1834
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <51EFD556.A939ABEC@bytecraft.com>,
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

> jmfbahciv wrote:

>

>> Walter Banks wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> Walter Banks wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote:

>>>>

>>>> > In <20130722164900@news.eternal-september.org>, on 07/22/2013

>>>> > at 08:48 PM, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> said:

>>>> >

>>>> > >Limited government is not the same thing as no government. Originally

>>>> > >the federal government in the U.S. had little to do with most

>>>> > >individual citizens except in specialized circumstances (military,

>>>> > >federal employees).

>>>> >

>>>> > The original US government didn't work very well, which is why we

>>>> > abandoned the Articles of Confederation in favor of out current

>>>> > constitution. The Constitution impinge on individual citizens enough

>>>> > to provoke the Whiskey Rebellion, and that was in the early days.

>>>>

>>>> Workable governments are not easy. Bad governments are better

>>>> than no government (Iraq for the last decade) An Iraqi friend pointed

>>>> that the streets of Baghdad were safe to walk at night under Sadism.

>>>>

>>>> w..

>>>

>>> Saddam (gotta hate spell checkers)

>>

>> However it was a good and accurate misspelling :-))).

>>

>> Iraqi streets were safe as long as you didn't catch the

>> eye of him or his sons. And his sons were completely

>> out of control.

>

> Essentially if you were not politically active you free to live life

> un-molested.

> Ethnic groups worked together with minimum of tensions. Saddam was not

> a nice guy to be sure but his government provided services the people

> needed. He got power, water and sanitation reliably running in Baghdad

> within a few weeks of the first gulf war something successive administrations

> in the last decade have not been able to do.

>

> To be clear my point was that even bad functioning governments are an

> important part of maintaining social order. It is very difficult to create a

> workable alternative no matter what personal philosophy one has.

>

> w..

>

>

> +


There were even mixed marriages, Sunni and Shiite, but all those had
to break up or flee. There was the beginning of a secular (though
predominately Islamic) society, so we had to bash it. Socialist, you
know.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Re: Logo is a Bizarre language? [message #99454 is a reply to message #99327] Thu, 25 July 2013 08:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
ClF3@n-stoff.co.de wrote:

<snip>

>

> Jeez....two golden oldies from way back - Logo and Lisp. Are these

> still in active use? Nothing in my archive library for Logo, but I

> think the Winston & Horn 2nd edition Lisp classic is there.

>

> I think I'll just hold on to my Leventhal "Programming The..." and

> "Assembly Language Subroutines For The...." series, and those Zaks

> ones from Sybex. They could be family heirlooms in another 20 years.


We had a wandering LISP thread going this past winter.

/BAH
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99459 is a reply to message #99378] Thu, 25 July 2013 08:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Peter Flass wrote:
> On 7/24/2013 10:01 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:

>> greymausg wrote:

>>> On 2013-07-23, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> On 7/22/2013 9:23 AM, Walter Banks wrote:

>>>> >

>>>> > I have been fascinated by the basic differences between a

>>>> > Canadian and American definition of freedom. When I

>>>> > lived in the states for a few years, I was startled by the

>>>> > American definition of freedom being (compared to Canada)

>>>> > extremely self centred free to pursue personal goals at

>>>> > many times at the cost of those around them and the

>>>> > Canadian sense of freedom is more of the freedom not

>>>> > to be interfered with by those around them to pursue

>>>> > their personal goals. There is an obvious difference in

>>>> > how much less personal security I feel I need living in

>>>> > Canada. Interestingly in the small town America I am

>>>> > familiar with (NH, ND) there is a lot of respect for

>>>> > other peoples freedoms in the Canadian sense.

>>>> >

>>>>

>>>> Nuts are everywhere, they just feel they have the freedom to be more

>>>> vocal here.

>>>>

>>>> An interesting example came up locally recently. Saratoga Springs is

>>>> big on historic preservation and several committees usually have to

>>>> approve new development. Some guy bought a historic house in some

>>>> disrepair, and after some hemming and hawing decided that he didn't want

>>>> to fix it up, but wanted to tear it down and build something new. He's

>>>> been stopped by the bureaucracy of the committees and went to a meeting

>>>> and complained "these busybodies are preventing people from doing what

>>>> they want with their property." I wanted to say to him "you idiot,

>>>> don't you realize that your property is worth as much as it is only

>>>> because those 'busybodies' have prevented others from doing what they

>>>> wanted with their property."

>>>>

>>>

>>> The Irish solution is to leave the door unlocked and come back in a while.

>>> Beautiful old house in North Dublin being treated like that as I write,

>>> on the other hand really horrible heap being forced to restoration.,

>>> near wwhere I live.

>>

>> There was a house in Marlboro, MA. which had been declared a historical

>> landmark. the town would not let the owner redo even the electrical

>> system. He finally accepted that someday the house will catch fire

>> and burn down. Some of that historical preservation is insane.

>>

>> /BAH

>>

>

> Not really. If you buy a historically significant house you're made

> aware of any restrictions. If you don't like them you can sell (or not

> buy) It's like zoning, you wouldn't want someone to buy the house next

> door to you and replace it with a muffler shop, for example.


A house with bare wires is NOT going to be a significant house; it will
be a smoking pile of timber. He wasn't allowed to fix the things
which were broke.

/BAH
Re: What Makes an Tax System Bizarre? [message #99461 is a reply to message #99280] Thu, 25 July 2013 08:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>> Scott Lurndal wrote:

>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>>

>>>> > So, I still don't understand how you think your tax rate "doubled".

>>>>

>>>> Because the tax I pay doubled. Since it's the same income from last

>>>> year, the rate had to have doubled.

>>>

>>> Or you no longer qualified for one or more exemptions,

>>

>> SAme exemptions.

>

> The personal exemption changes from year to year.


Yes, I know. It went up.

>

>>

>>> or you had

>>> fewer deductions,

>>

>> I don't do Schedule A.

>

> There is still the standard deduction, of course, which changes from year

to year.

I know. Why do you keep tryig to "prove" that everything I write is wrong?

>

>>

>>> or you had an incompetent accountant.

>>

>> It's possible I made a mistake but not likely since I 1. have a simple

>> return and 2. have been doing this for 20 years.

>

> I've been doing mine for 30, now. And I'll wager they're more complicated

> than yours. I will be subject to an additional percent or two this year

> due to the medicare tax provision of the ACA coming into effect, for

example.

That's my point. Mine isn't complicated. Following the ES rules, I'm
going to be paying a lot more with the Dec. 31, 2112 tax law. I've
noticed that the AMT threshold has been lowered to the old one. that's
going to bite a lot of middle class.


>

>>

>>>

>>> It is clear, for anyone that can read a tax table, that the tax rate

>>> hadn't "doubled" from 2011 to 2012. For anyone.

>>

>> I suggest you actually fill out a form using the instructions.

>

> Been there, done that, got the refund. Turbo tax is easier, however.


How can you get the refund for 2013 taxes? Turbo tax hasn't written
the software for 2013 taxes.

>

>> You don't take the AGI and mulitply a tax rate to it. You have

>> to got through all kinds of multiplications, subtractions and

>> greater than-less than choices before using the tax table.

>

> No, it is not quite that complicated. Once you've arrived at

> your adjusted gross income, computing the tax burden is simple

> math. In any case, you're claiming your 2013 "tax rate" has

> doubled, when the IRS has not even released the 2013 tax documents

> yet (aside from the 1040ES, which doesn't mean squat).


So you've just proven you're full of shit and aruging just for the
sake of it.

>

> You may wish to enlighten us as to your working definition of

> "tax rate", then, since nobody else can match your calculations.

> (for the purposes of this discussion, I suggest you compute your overall

> tax rate, as "gross tax" / "gross income"). You should have no problem

> showing where the "doubling" occurs.


I sugggest you figure out the difference between 2112 tax rules and 2013
tax rules. On April 14th, the only way to get them is to obey the 1040-ES
instructions.

/BAH
Re: Logo is a Bizarre language? [message #99464 is a reply to message #99334] Thu, 25 July 2013 08:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ClF3 is currently offline  ClF3
Messages: 5
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
On 24 Jul 2013 16:26:05 -0400, Rich Alderson
<news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:

> ClF3@n-stoff.co.de writes:

>

>> Jeez....two golden oldies from way back - Logo and Lisp. Are these

>> still in active use? Nothing in my archive library for Logo, but I

>> think the Winston & Horn 2nd edition Lisp classic is there.

>

> I can't speak to Logo. I was interested for a bit after reading Papert's

> _Mindstorms_, but it was difficult to find a Logo for the computers I had

> at home.

>

> Lisp is still in active use lots of places. The latest craze seems to be

> Clojure, which appears to be a Common Lisp implementation built on top of the

> Java Virtual Machine. (Yawn...) Scheme, the other Lisp, is also still in

> the running.

>

> I remember when it was eval-Lisp vs. evalquote-Lisp (which even got some

> coverage in Winston & Horn 1st edition, still in my library). I still use

> MACLISP from time to time on TOPS-20, just for the hack value.


Hell, it seems that my library of seventies and eighties books are
definitely woth hanging on to.

I never played with Logo, but had a lot of fun with Metacomco's Lisp
implementation on my Amiga 1000.

I seem to recall that AutoCAD was written in Lisp - or has it gone to
C++ the usual default application language on the PC these days.
Re: Logo is a Bizarre language? [message #99465 is a reply to message #99338] Thu, 25 July 2013 09:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Walter Banks is currently offline  Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Walter Banks wrote:

> Rich Alderson wrote:

>

>> ClF3@n-stoff.co.de writes:

>>

>>> Jeez....two golden oldies from way back - Logo and Lisp. Are these

>>> still in active use? Nothing in my archive library for Logo, but I

>>> think the Winston & Horn 2nd edition Lisp classic is there.

>>

>> I can't speak to Logo. I was interested for a bit after reading Papert's

>> _Mindstorms_, but it was difficult to find a Logo for the computers I had

>> at home.

>>

>> Lisp is still in active use lots of places. The latest craze seems to be

>> Clojure, which appears to be a Common Lisp implementation built on top of the

>> Java Virtual Machine. (Yawn...) Scheme, the other Lisp, is also still in

>> the running.

>>

>> I remember when it was eval-Lisp vs. evalquote-Lisp (which even got some

>> coverage in Winston & Horn 1st edition, still in my library). I still use

>> MACLISP from time to time on TOPS-20, just for the hack value.

>>

>> --

>> Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com

>> the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/

>> to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...

>

> There are a handful of logo implementations around that will run on a pc.

> Google logo language

> including one I just looked at written in java script

> http://www.colormen.com/logo/

> My testing is limited to a one line program a few minutes ago

>


I knew better than to type a link in an email . The url above is definitely was
not logo
This one I copied from running screen http://www.calormen.com/logo/

w..
Re: What Makes an Tax System Bizarre? [message #99466 is a reply to message #99461] Thu, 25 July 2013 09:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:


>> You may wish to enlighten us as to your working definition of

>> "tax rate", then, since nobody else can match your calculations.

>> (for the purposes of this discussion, I suggest you compute your overall

>> tax rate, as "gross tax" / "gross income"). You should have no problem

>> showing where the "doubling" occurs.

>

> I sugggest you figure out the difference between 2112 tax rules and 2013

> tax rules. On April 14th, the only way to get them is to obey the 1040-ES

> instructions.

>


I will leave you with this: The 1040ES rules are simple approximations. The
2013 tax forms haven't been published yet, so you cannot make any valid comparison
between 2012 and 2013. FWIW, I paid 20.19% effective tax rate (total tax / agi * 100)
in 2011 and 20.86% in 2012. I expect that to be about 23% in 2013 due to various
factors, including the ACA medicare tax. Not doubled by any metric. The 1040ES
intentionally overestimates the required taxes to avoid underpayment penalties.

I'll also note that the AMT was patched in the fiscal-cliff deal by indexing it to
inflation. It is no longer necessary for congress to patch the AMT each year.

"Far from perfect, this legislation does include a permanent fix to the
ever-growing AMT, giving millions of hard-working, middle-class families
certainty that the nightmare of this tax has finally come to an end"
- Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah told ABC News.

2012 (single rate)

10% on $0 to $8700
15% on 8700 to 35350
25% on 35350 to 85650
28% on 85650 to 178650
33% on 178,650 to 388,350
35% on amount over 388350.

2013 (single rate, proposed, not final)

10% on $0 to $8925
15% on 8925 to 36250
25% on 36250 to 87850
28% on 87850 to 183250
33% on 183250 to 398350
35% on 398360 to 400000
39.6% on amount over 400000.

Someone on a fixed income will likely pay _less taxes_ in 2013 than in 2012 (assuming the
fixed income is less than 400000).

You claimed that your tax rate doubled. You still need to "show your work".

scott
Re: What Makes an Tax System Bizarre? [message #99468 is a reply to message #99461] Thu, 25 July 2013 10:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

> Scott Lurndal wrote:

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:

>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>>>> >Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>>>

>>>> >> So, I still don't understand how you think your tax rate "doubled".

>>>> >

>>>> >Because the tax I pay doubled. Since it's the same income from last

>>>> >year, the rate had to have doubled.

>>>>

>>>> Or you no longer qualified for one or more exemptions,

>>>

>>> SAme exemptions.

>>

>> The personal exemption changes from year to year.

>

> Yes, I know. It went up.

>

>>

>>>

>>>> or you had

>>>> fewer deductions,

>>>

>>> I don't do Schedule A.

>>

>> There is still the standard deduction, of course, which changes from year

> to year.

>

> I know. Why do you keep tryig to "prove" that everything I write is wrong?


The point is we know that there is essentially no change in dividend tax
this year. So, we all know you are wrong. Believe it or not, we don't
take any extra enjoyment from that (except for Speedo). In this case
you should take this as us being helpful.

I just checked publication 505 and worksheet 2-7 and it left me
scratching my head. They do mention 15% but maybe someone more patient
can figure out the whole deal.

Still, you file 1040ES because you want to avoid penalties on under
withholding. It's very clear that your tax rate is 15% or less.
I wouldn't send in any more than 15%.

If you over withhold you'll get it back at the end of the year
but they won't pay interest for your generosity.

So, in conclusion:

1. We're just trying to help.
2. Your taxes have not doubled.
3. You can thank Obama now, or later.


--
Dan Espen
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99475 is a reply to message #99438] Thu, 25 July 2013 11:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlton Wilbur is currently offline  Charlton Wilbur
Messages: 94
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
>>>> > "WS" == Wayne Salamon <xenon@net.invalid> writes:


WS> What is in this Linux "stream" or "family" that "ended so useful
WS> that even Apple chose to use it for their mainstream OS with
WS> their own user interface added."?

WS> How did Apple add their user interface to something that wasn't
WS> code?

I assume you're being Socratically stupid here in order to show Rod the
error of his ways. It won't work.

In case you're not: Rod is failing to distinguish between Unix and
Linux, and doesn't seem to realize that 4.3BSD-Tahoe was free software
released under the BSD license in June 1988, approximately three years
before Linus started work on Linux and over three years before the
famous post in comp.os.minix. In 1991, you could run 4.3BSD-Reno with
Net/2 (released June 1991); in 1992 you could run 386BSD.

So when Rod says

>> the linux stream ended so useful that even Apple chose to use it
>> for their mainstream OS with their own user interface added.

what he *means* is "Unix makes a solid underpinning for an OS, and the
fact that the BSD license isn't viral makes it an attractive decision
for a proprietary software company to use the well-tested and publicly
available BSD source code as a basis for a proprietary operating
system."

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Linux.

Or maybe he's just babbling and drooling and getting ready to fling shit
at us. It's Rod; who can say?

Charlton






--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99494 is a reply to message #99475] Thu, 25 July 2013 11:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anne &amp; Lynn Wheel is currently offline  Anne &amp; Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net> writes:
> what he *means* is "Unix makes a solid underpinning for an OS, and the

> fact that the BSD license isn't viral makes it an attractive decision

> for a proprietary software company to use the well-tested and publicly

> available BSD source code as a basis for a proprietary operating

> system."


besides BSD from USB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
.... there were other unix work-alikes like LOCUS from UCLA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOCUS_%28operating_system%29
and MACH from CMU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29

Jobs used MACH for NeXT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT

NeXT/MACH was then used for new MAC OS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

recent posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013.html#74 mainframe "selling" points
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013h.html#76 DataPower XML Appliance and RACF
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#68 Boyd's cycle: the path to guaranteed success + 6 big companies as evidence

in the Unix-wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars
pieces of LOCUS & MACH were used by OSF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation
for OSF/1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSF/1


--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99495 is a reply to message #99475] Thu, 25 July 2013 11:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Stan Barr is currently offline  Stan Barr
Messages: 598
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:01:00 -0400, Charlton Wilbur
<cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote:
>

> In case you're not: Rod is failing to distinguish between Unix and

> Linux, and doesn't seem to realize that 4.3BSD-Tahoe was free software

> released under the BSD license in June 1988, approximately three years

> before Linus started work on Linux and over three years before the

> famous post in comp.os.minix. In 1991, you could run 4.3BSD-Reno with

> Net/2 (released June 1991); in 1992 you could run 386BSD.

>

> So when Rod says

>

>>> the linux stream ended so useful that even Apple chose to use it

>>> for their mainstream OS with their own user interface added.

>

> what he *means* is "Unix makes a solid underpinning for an OS, and the

> fact that the BSD license isn't viral makes it an attractive decision

> for a proprietary software company to use the well-tested and publicly

> available BSD source code as a basis for a proprietary operating

> system."

>

> This has nothing whatsoever to do with Linux.


Quite!
I'm using FreeBSD these days (been using on other machines for over a
decade) and every visitor just assumes it's some species of Linux.
I've put a unix family tree on the wall that starts with Unix 1st
Edition (1972) and ends with FreeBSD with no mention of Linux just to
prove the point.

--
Stan Barr plan.b@dsl.pipex.com
Re: What Makes an Tax System Bizarre? [message #99496 is a reply to message #99468] Thu, 25 July 2013 11:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:


>> I know. Why do you keep tryig to "prove" that everything I write is wrong?

>

> The point is we know that there is essentially no change in dividend tax

> this year. So, we all know you are wrong. Believe it or not, we don't

> take any extra enjoyment from that (except for Speedo). In this case

> you should take this as us being helpful.

>

> I just checked publication 505 and worksheet 2-7 and it left me

> scratching my head. They do mention 15% but maybe someone more patient

> can figure out the whole deal.


The issue is regarding "qualified" vs. "non-qualified" dividends. Qualified
dividends are taxed at the cap gains rate (15%), while non-qualified dividends
are taxed at the ordinary income rates. The distinction was made as part
of the Bush tax cuts.

Qualified dividends have a holding period (61 days during the 121-days
surrounding the dividend declaration date). When an corporation avoids
income tax by paying _income_ (as opposed to _earnings_) to shareholders,
those dividends are also considered non-qualified and taxed at ordinary
income rates.

There was some concern that the distinction would disappear this
year, with all dividends treated as non-qualified, but the american
taxpayer relief act of 2012 (signed 1/2/2013) made qualified dividends
permanent. The ATRA2012 did raise the rate from
15% to 20%, but only for taxpayers in the 39.6% tax bracket (> 400,000 AGI).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_dividend

scott
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99497 is a reply to message #99475] Thu, 25 July 2013 11:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wayne Salamon is currently offline  Wayne Salamon
Messages: 33
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
Member
On 2013-07-25, Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>> >> "WS" == Wayne Salamon <xenon@net.invalid> writes:

>

> WS> What is in this Linux "stream" or "family" that "ended so useful

> WS> that even Apple chose to use it for their mainstream OS with

> WS> their own user interface added."?

>

> WS> How did Apple add their user interface to something that wasn't

> WS> code?

>

> I assume you're being Socratically stupid here in order to show Rod the

> error of his ways. It won't work.


Oh well, a few keystrokes wasted then.

> what he *means* is "Unix makes a solid underpinning for an OS, and the

> fact that the BSD license isn't viral makes it an attractive decision

> for a proprietary software company to use the well-tested and publicly

> available BSD source code as a basis for a proprietary operating

> system."


Well, I'm not sure what he means at any given time, hence the question.

>

> This has nothing whatsoever to do with Linux.

>


My original point.

The fact that Apple releases most of the core OS as open source, pulls code
from FreeBSD still, and contributes back some code, isn't the Linux model
under the GNU license.

> Or maybe he's just babbling and drooling and getting ready to fling shit

> at us. It's Rod; who can say?

>


You've spoiled the surprise.

--
WS
Re: What Makes an Tax System Bizarre? [message #99500 is a reply to message #99496] Thu, 25 July 2013 12:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>

>>> I know. Why do you keep tryig to "prove" that everything I write is wrong?

>>

>> The point is we know that there is essentially no change in dividend tax

>> this year. So, we all know you are wrong. Believe it or not, we don't

>> take any extra enjoyment from that (except for Speedo). In this case

>> you should take this as us being helpful.

>>

>> I just checked publication 505 and worksheet 2-7 and it left me

>> scratching my head. They do mention 15% but maybe someone more patient

>> can figure out the whole deal.

>

> The issue is regarding "qualified" vs. "non-qualified" dividends. Qualified

> dividends are taxed at the cap gains rate (15%), while non-qualified dividends

> are taxed at the ordinary income rates. The distinction was made as part

> of the Bush tax cuts.

>

> Qualified dividends have a holding period (61 days during the 121-days

> surrounding the dividend declaration date). When an corporation avoids

> income tax by paying _income_ (as opposed to _earnings_) to shareholders,

> those dividends are also considered non-qualified and taxed at ordinary

> income rates.

>

> There was some concern that the distinction would disappear this

> year, with all dividends treated as non-qualified, but the american

> taxpayer relief act of 2012 (signed 1/2/2013) made qualified dividends

> permanent. The ATRA2012 did raise the rate from

> 15% to 20%, but only for taxpayers in the 39.6% tax bracket (> 400,000 AGI).

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_dividend


Yep, that's why I said essentially not changed.
From her general comments, I conclude she's not in the 39.6% bracket.
I think BAH indicated that her dividend income is qualified.

--
Dan Espen
Re: What Makes an Tax System Bizarre? [message #99519 is a reply to message #99496] Thu, 25 July 2013 14:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
osmium is currently offline  osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Scott Lurndal" wrote:

> There was some concern that the distinction would disappear this

> year, with all dividends treated as non-qualified, but the american

> taxpayer relief act of 2012 (signed 1/2/2013) made qualified dividends

> permanent.


When I see the word "permanent" WRT US law I am always struck with a feeling
of disbelief. I think I finally have it figured out. What it *really*
means is that there are no sunset provisions in the statute, isn't that
true?
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99521 is a reply to message #99026] Thu, 25 July 2013 14:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:29:15 -0700
Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

>

>> On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:05:59 -0500

>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:

>>

>>> On 18-Jul-13 09:31, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>

>>>> so birth control is usually left up to the female.

>>

>> Yep, the female has the vested interest in ensuring that it

>> happens.

>

> They both do... the days when a man could skip town and get out of

> paying child support are over.


You are assuming that the man (or boy) in question is a) known,
b) capable of paying child support and c) will pay child support. However
even ignoring that there's a lot more than money at stake for the woman,
including 9 months carrying, labour and childbirth with all the attendant
risks involved, to say nothing of the impact on her life plans.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: What Makes an Tax System Bizarre? [message #99522 is a reply to message #99519] Thu, 25 July 2013 15:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:

> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:

>

>> There was some concern that the distinction would disappear this

>> year, with all dividends treated as non-qualified, but the american

>> taxpayer relief act of 2012 (signed 1/2/2013) made qualified dividends

>> permanent.

>

> When I see the word "permanent" WRT US law I am always struck with a feeling

> of disbelief. I think I finally have it figured out. What it *really*

> means is that there are no sunset provisions in the statute, isn't that

> true?


Exactly.

Being practical, no other definition would be appropriate.

--
Dan Espen
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99526 is a reply to message #99150] Thu, 25 July 2013 17:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Patrick Scheible is currently offline  Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

> On 7/23/2013 12:29 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:

>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

>>

>>> On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:05:59 -0500

>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On 18-Jul-13 09:31, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>

>>>> > so birth control is usually left up to the female.

>>>

>>> Yep, the female has the vested interest in ensuring that it happens.

>>

>> They both do... the days when a man could skip town and get out of

>> paying child support are over.

>

> The boyfriends don't work and/or are in jail. It's hard to get

> anything out of them. You keep hearing about the women who have x

> fids by x different fathers, wasn't married to any, and is either a

> single parent or living with boyfriend >= x+1.


That certainly can happen. But many boyfriends may hope to have a job
and/or get out of prison someday, and when they do they'd hope to keep
their earnings instead of having them attached to pay back child
support.

-- Patrick
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99527 is a reply to message #99368] Thu, 25 July 2013 17:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rich Alderson is currently offline  Rich Alderson
Messages: 489
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:

> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, Rich Alderson wrote:


>> <-Snrk!->


>> His project was connected to the AI Lab, so by definition he couldn't have

>> stolen time on that computer, since computers want to be freely available! ;->


> Yes, and I was just making a joke based on the recent posts about Bill

> Gates using the computer at Harvard.


Yes, I know. That's why I decorated my response with smirks and related noises.

--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99541 is a reply to message #99459] Thu, 25 July 2013 18:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rod Speed is currently offline  Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E254A4932037@aca27d7c.ipt.aol.com...
> Peter Flass wrote:

>> On 7/24/2013 10:01 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>> greymausg wrote:

>>>> On 2013-07-23, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> > On 7/22/2013 9:23 AM, Walter Banks wrote:

>>>> >>

>>>> >> I have been fascinated by the basic differences between a

>>>> >> Canadian and American definition of freedom. When I

>>>> >> lived in the states for a few years, I was startled by the

>>>> >> American definition of freedom being (compared to Canada)

>>>> >> extremely self centred free to pursue personal goals at

>>>> >> many times at the cost of those around them and the

>>>> >> Canadian sense of freedom is more of the freedom not

>>>> >> to be interfered with by those around them to pursue

>>>> >> their personal goals. There is an obvious difference in

>>>> >> how much less personal security I feel I need living in

>>>> >> Canada. Interestingly in the small town America I am

>>>> >> familiar with (NH, ND) there is a lot of respect for

>>>> >> other peoples freedoms in the Canadian sense.

>>>> >>

>>>> >

>>>> > Nuts are everywhere, they just feel they have the freedom to be more

>>>> > vocal here.

>>>> >

>>>> > An interesting example came up locally recently. Saratoga Springs is

>>>> > big on historic preservation and several committees usually have to

>>>> > approve new development. Some guy bought a historic house in some

>>>> > disrepair, and after some hemming and hawing decided that he didn't

>>>> > want

>>>> > to fix it up, but wanted to tear it down and build something new.

>>>> > He's

>>>> > been stopped by the bureaucracy of the committees and went to a

>>>> > meeting

>>>> > and complained "these busybodies are preventing people from doing what

>>>> > they want with their property." I wanted to say to him "you idiot,

>>>> > don't you realize that your property is worth as much as it is only

>>>> > because those 'busybodies' have prevented others from doing what they

>>>> > wanted with their property."

>>>> >

>>>>

>>>> The Irish solution is to leave the door unlocked and come back in a

>>>> while.

>>>> Beautiful old house in North Dublin being treated like that as I write,

>>>> on the other hand really horrible heap being forced to restoration.,

>>>> near wwhere I live.

>>>

>>> There was a house in Marlboro, MA. which had been declared a historical

>>> landmark. the town would not let the owner redo even the electrical

>>> system. He finally accepted that someday the house will catch fire

>>> and burn down. Some of that historical preservation is insane.

>>>

>>> /BAH

>>>

>>

>> Not really. If you buy a historically significant house you're made

>> aware of any restrictions. If you don't like them you can sell (or not

>> buy) It's like zoning, you wouldn't want someone to buy the house next

>> door to you and replace it with a muffler shop, for example.


> A house with bare wires is NOT going to be a

> significant house; it will be a smoking pile of timber.


Bullshit.

> He wasn't allowed to fix the things which were broke.
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99544 is a reply to message #98102] Thu, 25 July 2013 18:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mrs is currently offline  mrs
Messages: 42
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Member
In article <b4u67aF54bgU1@mid.individual.net>, 127 <127@586.com> wrote:
>

>

> "Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:ksb9e3$dqb$2@dont-email.me...

>> On 7/18/2013 3:32 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:

>>> On 17/07/2013 23:47, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>>> On 17-Jul-13 16:23, Peter Flass wrote:

>>>> > On 7/17/2013 11:24 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

>>>> >> There's one serious problem with your theory: 1.5 million women per

>>>> >> year choose abortion. That shows they _don't_ want to have a kid,

>>>> >> despite the supposedly wonderful life of a welfare queen. So why

>>>> >> did they get pregnant in the first place? Because birth control is

>>>> >> simply too expensive for someone without health insurance.

>>>> >

>>>> > Abstinence is free.

>>>>

>>>> And, in practice, it doesn't actually work.

>>>>

>>>> Sadly, my state mandated the oxymoronic "abstinence-only sex education",

>>>> and within a few years our teen pregnancy rate went from the middle of

>>>> the pack to the highest in the country. Gov. Perry declared the program

>>>> a "success", which makes me wonder what his goal really was--or if he's

>>>> so stupid that he doesn't realize being #1 is a bad thing in this case.

>>>>

>>>> S

>>>>

>>>

>>> The ban on abortion and contraception do feel like the slave breeding

>>> programs that the southern states introduced when the slave trade was

>>> banned. Similar rules.

>>>

>>

>> The origin of Planned Parenthood was the Eugenics movement.

>

> That's not correct.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood#History

>

> The idea

>> was to stop the undesirables from breeding.

>

> No.

>
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99545 is a reply to message #99521] Thu, 25 July 2013 19:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Patrick Scheible is currently offline  Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:29:15 -0700

> Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:

>

>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

>>

>>> On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:05:59 -0500

>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On 18-Jul-13 09:31, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>

>>>> > so birth control is usually left up to the female.

>>>

>>> Yep, the female has the vested interest in ensuring that it

>>> happens.

>>

>> They both do... the days when a man could skip town and get out of

>> paying child support are over.

>

> You are assuming that the man (or boy) in question is a) known,

> b) capable of paying child support and c) will pay child support. However

> even ignoring that there's a lot more than money at stake for the woman,

> including 9 months carrying, labour and childbirth with all the attendant

> risks involved, to say nothing of the impact on her life plans.


In some jurisdictions now, if the mother doesn't cooperate in identifying
the father she can be denied welfare benefits. If she thinks it might
be any of a dozen different males, haul them all in and let DNA testing
sort 'em out. There will still be a few in which the mother can't even
identify them that well, but those are fairly rare cases.

Certainly the impart on the mother is greater, but it isn't like the
father faces no consequences.

-- Patrick
Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #99546 is a reply to message #99545] Thu, 25 July 2013 21:16 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
harry is currently offline  harry
Messages: 143
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
"Patrick Scheible" <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote in message
news:86li4uyzvz.fsf@chai.my.domain...
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

>

>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:29:15 -0700

>> Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:

>>

>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:

>>>

>>>> On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:05:59 -0500

>>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> > On 18-Jul-13 09:31, jmfbahciv wrote:

>>>>

>>>> > > so birth control is usually left up to the female.

>>>>

>>>> Yep, the female has the vested interest in ensuring that it

>>>> happens.

>>>

>>> They both do... the days when a man could skip town and get out of

>>> paying child support are over.

>>

>> You are assuming that the man (or boy) in question is a) known,

>> b) capable of paying child support and c) will pay child support. However

>> even ignoring that there's a lot more than money at stake for the woman,

>> including 9 months carrying, labour and childbirth with all the attendant

>> risks involved, to say nothing of the impact on her life plans.

>

> In some jurisdictions now, if the mother doesn't cooperate in identifying

> the father she can be denied welfare benefits. If she thinks it might

> be any of a dozen different males, haul them all in and let DNA testing

> sort 'em out. There will still be a few in which the mother can't even

> identify them that well, but those are fairly rare cases.


I don’t believe it's that rare at all most obviously with amateur hookers.

> Certainly the impart on the mother is greater, but it isn't like the

> father faces no consequences.
Pages (231): [ «    162  163  164  165  166  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Next SCCAN meeting - Saturday, January 18
Next Topic: Most Americans still own a VCR
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 02:53:53 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.08082 seconds