| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100832 is a reply to message #100470] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 09:24   |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lawrence Statton wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>> Oh, goodfuckinggrief. Now think about the process involved in
>> getting permission to do any maintenance or changes to a house
>> which has been declared historical.
>
> So, here's the question in my mind. Why did the property owner elect
> to have his property listed? Did he not understand that it would
> limit his future use of the building?
>
I'm not sure how that process works. I don't think you get a choice
about not having it listed.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100834 is a reply to message #100589] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 09:24 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM0004E2B9B3AC4BDA@aca385ca.ipt.aol.com...
>> Lawrence Statton wrote:
>>> Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> writes:
>>>> I am really surprised that any landmark law forbids bring electricity,
>>>> plumbing, etc., up to code.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course the REAL laws forbid no such thing. Only the imaginary ones
>>> in BAH's head.
>>>
>>>> Maybe Massachussets or Michigan or wherever this is is different,
>>>> but my bet would be it's a misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> I've seen this failure-mode from that source before. She hears about
>>> something, takes off from half-truths and foggy memories and then
>>> refuses to be swayed when told that her failing memory is erroneous.
>>> Then she doubles down on stubborn and accuses everyone of being out to
>>> get her.
>>>
>>> It's the George Bernard Dantzig story all over again.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, goodfuckinggrief. Now think about the process involved in
>> getting permission to do any maintenance or changes to a house
>> which has been declared historical. All you need is a
>> committee who know nothing about building maintenance to
>> deny requests.
>
> That’s a lie with the wiring.
>
If the committee is made up of people who have never done
proper house maintenance, e.g., they've lived in apartments
all of their life, I can understand if those types would
think that the original cloth covered wiring would be
"historical".
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100836 is a reply to message #100660] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 09:24 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lon wrote:
> On 7/29/2013 9:08 PM, sidd wrote:
>> In article <PM0004E2699E0A4914@ac8122ec.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Before those wars no Islamic moderates spoke publicly.
>>
>> your reading has a looooong way to go. Where to begin ? I suggest
>> Kabir, to begin, or even earlier with the Sufis. But I have a soft
>> spot for Kabir, who lived in much bloodier times, when Babur was kicking
>> off the Mughal invasion of India, after a couple hundred years of Muslim
>> raids.
>>
> Maybe go back a few hundred years when [forgot his name] the Muslim
> leader offered to share
> Mecca/Jerusalem but the crusaders were focussed on exclusive
> control/access and getting rid of the unbelievers.
Islam is going through that phase now.
>
> In other words, opinions and different histories differ greatly on who
> started all this mess.
>
>
It doesn't matter who started it. Nothing good will happen as long as
the "he started it" arguments go on and on and on. That's what 2 year
olds do.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100839 is a reply to message #100477] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 09:24 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <PM0004E27E30D2749B@aca21d26.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> William Pechter wrote:
>>> In article <PM0004E2697CE330D2@ac8122ec.ipt.aol.com>,
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> <grin> And I can remember posts and topics which were discussing
>>>> the little impact Linux might have. Providing sources without
>>>> _any_ strings attached made it become what it is today.
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>>
>>> Actually there are more strings to linux than *BSD...
>>>
>>> It all depends what you want to do. If you want to be forced to open up
>>> sources for your commercial product to the world including competitors --
>> GPL.
>>>
>>> If not -- the BSD license works for most of us.
>>>
>>> Nothing stops BSD licensed code from being given freely to all
>>> purchasers of your product. No gpl needed... you can use for any uses
>>> you'd like that doesn't violate the license.
>>>
>>> Hell... I released some of my stuff as Public Domain. Have fun. Just
>>> don't call me for support without paying me for it.
>>
>> There were problems with BSD licensing. Businesses worry about that sort of
>> thing. Kids don't.
>
> We were in late 1994 before all the legal demons around BSD were
> put to rest. By then Linux had taken a dedicated following.
>
> Linux and the GNU toolchain upon which it depended was also a
> second implementation, so you really had code diversity, and
> the code was guaranteed unencumbered.
>
>> It occurred to me a couple hours after I logged off, that I should have
>> written that Morten was right; he did a write-up about Linux and
>> market penetration way before a Linux for Dummies book was published.
>>
>> So this discussion must have been around 1996 or 1997?
>
> ISTR sometime around y2k.
It could have been that late. It was still a pretty good writeup for
predictions.
> But I have been posting in this group since
> 1992, with Barb present (almost) all the time.
I started right after JMF died in 1995.
>
> -- mrr
>
> realising that discussion of my own first posts here now fall within the
> 20-year rule of this newsgroup.
I can't believe it's been that long.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100843 is a reply to message #100707] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 09:24 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
sidd wrote:
> In article <PM0004E2B985317E9F@aca385ca.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm talking about current times.
>
> If you will not read history, you will not understand the present.
I have read histories.
> Kabir lived in blood drenched times, where pyramids of skulls were
> not figures of speech, and Hindu-Muslim strife was as violent as
> it has ever been. Yet there were men like him, who synthesized
> a religion of compassion and charity from Islam and Hinduism.
>
> Those ideas directly led, within decades, to the greatest example of
> a secular and tolerant Muslim empire the world has ever known, that
> of Akbar. (It all went pear shaped later with a despotic great-grandson
> and the advent of the Europeans, but that's another story.) There have
> been men like Kabir all through history, not excluding recent history.
> But he is a good place to begin.
>
> Read Kabir, if for nothing else, the beauty of language, which comes
> through even in translation. Tagore has some great translations.
I'll look for it. thanks for the pointer.
>
> If you will not read history for understanding, nor poetry for love,
> I have little to say that might interest you. You will remain mired
> within your rigid ideology, promulgated by warmongers like Lewis, Kagan,
> Hanson, Huntington, and Pipes, to name but a few; an ideology that has
> directly caused unceasing war in the Middle East, and which bids fair
> to continue. That war will not be confined, it will, as you begin to see,
> increasingly create desparate men who will bring war to your own shores,
> homes and hearths. And warmongers like you will be to blame.
>
> I yet retain hope for the Islamic world, they have just as many
> compassionate and loving souls as any of the peoples of this world, who
> will yet prevail, against their own wolves and against your centurions,
> and your mercenaries. They have done it before.
they have a long-term view and have not (yet) learned instant gratification.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100850 is a reply to message #100832] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 11:38 |
Lawrence Statton
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Lawrence Statton wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Oh, goodfuckinggrief. Now think about the process involved in
>>> getting permission to do any maintenance or changes to a house
>>> which has been declared historical.
>>
>> So, here's the question in my mind. Why did the property owner elect
>> to have his property listed? Did he not understand that it would
>> limit his future use of the building?
>>
> I'm not sure how that process works. I don't think you get a choice
> about not having it listed.
>
It varies by state. In Massachusetts the property owner must
explicitly consent. In California, the property owner can tacitly
consent, but it may *not* be listed if s/he objects.
--
NK1G - Lawrence
echo 'lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom' | sed s/aba/c/g
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100851 is a reply to message #100663] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 11:35 |
Shmuel (Seymour J.) M
Messages: 3286
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In <Mqs0uA.ICG@kithrup.com>, on 07/31/2013
at 01:15 AM, mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) said:
> Then, you'd need to say what you disagree with.
I did, several times.
> Sure it does. I said it is immaterial.
Another demonstration that I *don't* agree with you.
> Sure it does. I said it is immaterial. What you miss, is that it
> is immaterial to me.
Where you talking to yourself? If not, then what matters is whether it
is material to the people that you are arguing with. Especially when
you claim that they agree with you.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100900 is a reply to message #100774] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 13:13 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-07-31, greymausg <maus@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-07-31, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/30/2013 7:49 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) writes:
>>>
>>>> If it were impossible, please explain why 406.8 billion exists as the
>>>> valuation for Apple's stock. There is is. Explain it's
>>>> non-existance, use your words.
>>>
>>> Market capitalization may not be the best example. While _in theory_,
>>> Apple is valued at 406.8 billion at its current stock price, any attempt
>>> to realize that value would quickly drop the stock to practically zero,
>>> so in reality, Apple is _worth_ much less.
>>
>> A lot of business leaders agree with you. Some are putting their
>> pocketbooks and companies back into privately held corporations.
>> Can't really say I blame them, but it is not a healthy trend for anyone
>> but the folks who can afford to invest in private offerings.
>>
>> In other words, 99% of the 1% may be about to see how it feels if this
>> continues.
>>
>> .... and yet, nobody to speak of on Wall Street has gone to jail.
>>
>
> Private corporations, here at least, do not have to publish results.
> Nobody knows how they are managing. There has been a trend towards
> that here recently, some think that it is to hide horrors.
>
>
I have been `invited' (spammed?) to join 3 social networks, which turn
out to be even more invasive than Facebook, but clones of said.
--
maus
.
.
....
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100913 is a reply to message #100843] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 15:17 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E2CEB81F57FD@aca20a14.ipt.aol.com...
> sidd wrote:
>> In article <PM0004E2B985317E9F@aca385ca.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm talking about current times.
>>
>> If you will not read history, you will not understand the present.
>
> I have read histories.
>
>> Kabir lived in blood drenched times, where pyramids of skulls were
>> not figures of speech, and Hindu-Muslim strife was as violent as
>> it has ever been. Yet there were men like him, who synthesized
>> a religion of compassion and charity from Islam and Hinduism.
>>
>> Those ideas directly led, within decades, to the greatest example of
>> a secular and tolerant Muslim empire the world has ever known, that
>> of Akbar. (It all went pear shaped later with a despotic great-grandson
>> and the advent of the Europeans, but that's another story.) There have
>> been men like Kabir all through history, not excluding recent history.
>> But he is a good place to begin.
>>
>> Read Kabir, if for nothing else, the beauty of language, which comes
>> through even in translation. Tagore has some great translations.
>
> I'll look for it. thanks for the pointer.
>>
>> If you will not read history for understanding, nor poetry for love,
>> I have little to say that might interest you. You will remain mired
>> within your rigid ideology, promulgated by warmongers like Lewis, Kagan,
>> Hanson, Huntington, and Pipes, to name but a few; an ideology that has
>> directly caused unceasing war in the Middle East, and which bids fair
>> to continue. That war will not be confined, it will, as you begin to see,
>> increasingly create desparate men who will bring war to your own shores,
>> homes and hearths. And warmongers like you will be to blame.
>>
>> I yet retain hope for the Islamic world, they have just as many
>> compassionate and loving souls as any of the peoples of this world, who
>> will yet prevail, against their own wolves and against your centurions,
>> and your mercenaries. They have done it before.
> they have a long-term view
Some do, most don’t, just like with any other group.
> and have not (yet) learned instant gratification.
Bullshit they haven't.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100914 is a reply to message #100836] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 15:23 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E2CEC73013F5@aca20a14.ipt.aol.com...
> Lon wrote:
>> On 7/29/2013 9:08 PM, sidd wrote:
>>> In article <PM0004E2699E0A4914@ac8122ec.ipt.aol.com>,
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Before those wars no Islamic moderates spoke publicly.
>>>
>>> your reading has a looooong way to go. Where to begin ? I suggest
>>> Kabir, to begin, or even earlier with the Sufis. But I have a soft
>>> spot for Kabir, who lived in much bloodier times, when Babur was kicking
>>> off the Mughal invasion of India, after a couple hundred years of Muslim
>>> raids.
>>>
>> Maybe go back a few hundred years when [forgot his name] the Muslim
>> leader offered to share
>> Mecca/Jerusalem but the crusaders were focussed on exclusive
>> control/access and getting rid of the unbelievers.
> Islam is going through that phase now.
Bullshit it is, most obviously with Indonesia which just happens to
be BY FAR the biggest moslem country in the entire fucking world.
>> In other words, opinions and different histories
>> differ greatly on who started all this mess.
> It doesn't matter who started it.
It does actually when so much of islam knows enough
about the history to care about that sort of thing.
> Nothing good will happen as long as the
> "he started it" arguments go on and on and on.
That’s just plain wrong too, most obviously with Ireland.
> That's what 2 year olds do.
Its also what plenty of adults do too.
And you are doing it yourself with your rabid
one eyed mindlessly respouted lies about Islam.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100915 is a reply to message #100834] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 15:24 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004E2CE8D82B073@aca20a14.ipt.aol.com...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM0004E2B9B3AC4BDA@aca385ca.ipt.aol.com...
>>> Lawrence Statton wrote:
>>>> Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> writes:
>>>> > I am really surprised that any landmark law forbids bring electricity,
>>>> > plumbing, etc., up to code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course the REAL laws forbid no such thing. Only the imaginary ones
>>>> in BAH's head.
>>>>
>>>> > Maybe Massachussets or Michigan or wherever this is is different,
>>>> > but my bet would be it's a misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen this failure-mode from that source before. She hears about
>>>> something, takes off from half-truths and foggy memories and then
>>>> refuses to be swayed when told that her failing memory is erroneous.
>>>> Then she doubles down on stubborn and accuses everyone of being out to
>>>> get her.
>>>>
>>>> It's the George Bernard Dantzig story all over again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, goodfuckinggrief. Now think about the process involved in
>>> getting permission to do any maintenance or changes to a house
>>> which has been declared historical. All you need is a
>>> committee who know nothing about building maintenance to
>>> deny requests.
>>
>> That’s a lie with the wiring.
>>
> If the committee is made up of people who have never done
> proper house maintenance, e.g., they've lived in apartments
> all of their life, I can understand if those types would think
> that the original cloth covered wiring would be "historical".
That isnt what happens with electrical wiring.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100958 is a reply to message #100834] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 16:15 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2013 13:24:47 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM0004E2B9B3AC4BDA@aca385ca.ipt.aol.com...
>>> Lawrence Statton wrote:
>>>> Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> writes:
>>>> > I am really surprised that any landmark law forbids bring electricity,
>>>> > plumbing, etc., up to code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course the REAL laws forbid no such thing. Only the imaginary ones
>>>> in BAH's head.
>>>>
>>>> > Maybe Massachussets or Michigan or wherever this is is different,
>>>> > but my bet would be it's a misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen this failure-mode from that source before. She hears about
>>>> something, takes off from half-truths and foggy memories and then
>>>> refuses to be swayed when told that her failing memory is erroneous.
>>>> Then she doubles down on stubborn and accuses everyone of being out to
>>>> get her.
>>>>
>>>> It's the George Bernard Dantzig story all over again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, goodfuckinggrief. Now think about the process involved in
>>> getting permission to do any maintenance or changes to a house
>>> which has been declared historical. All you need is a
>>> committee who know nothing about building maintenance to
>>> deny requests.
>>
>> Thats a lie with the wiring.
>>
> If the committee is made up of people who have never done
> proper house maintenance, e.g., they've lived in apartments
> all of their life, I can understand if those types would
> think that the original cloth covered wiring would be
> "historical".
There were slabs left down here from Hurricane Katrina. The Historic
Preservation people wouldn't let the owners rebuild. Ya know, 'cause
the structure was historical. Finally someone in officialdom pointed
out, what the owners said for years yes years, 'there is nothing to
preserve !'.
JimP
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://travellergame.drivein-jim.net/ July, 2013
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #100959 is a reply to message #100900] |
Wed, 31 July 2013 16:16 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2013 17:13:24 GMT, greymausg <maus@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-07-31, greymausg <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-07-31, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2013 7:49 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) writes:
>>>>
>>>> > If it were impossible, please explain why 406.8 billion exists as the
>>>> > valuation for Apple's stock. There is is. Explain it's
>>>> > non-existance, use your words.
>>>>
>>>> Market capitalization may not be the best example. While _in theory_,
>>>> Apple is valued at 406.8 billion at its current stock price, any attempt
>>>> to realize that value would quickly drop the stock to practically zero,
>>>> so in reality, Apple is _worth_ much less.
>>>
>>> A lot of business leaders agree with you. Some are putting their
>>> pocketbooks and companies back into privately held corporations.
>>> Can't really say I blame them, but it is not a healthy trend for anyone
>>> but the folks who can afford to invest in private offerings.
>>>
>>> In other words, 99% of the 1% may be about to see how it feels if this
>>> continues.
>>>
>>> .... and yet, nobody to speak of on Wall Street has gone to jail.
>>>
>>
>> Private corporations, here at least, do not have to publish results.
>> Nobody knows how they are managing. There has been a trend towards
>> that here recently, some think that it is to hide horrors.
>>
>>
> I have been `invited' (spammed?) to join 3 social networks, which turn
> out to be even more invasive than Facebook, but clones of said.
I get spam telling me various people have liked my Facebook page, I
don't have one.
JimP
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://travellergame.drivein-jim.net/ July, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101113 is a reply to message #99750] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 08:42 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/27/2013 10:59 AM, greymausg wrote:
> On 2013-07-27, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 7/26/2013 10:02 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> pechter@tucker.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) writes:
>>>> > In article <PM0004E2697CE330D2@ac8122ec.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >> <grin> And I can remember posts and topics which were discussing
>>>> >> the little impact Linux might have. Providing sources without
>>>> >> _any_ strings attached made it become what it is today.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> /BAH
>>>> >
>>>> > Actually there are more strings to linux than *BSD...
>>>> >
>>>> > It all depends what you want to do. If you want to be forced to open up
>>>> > sources for your commercial product to the world including competitors -- GPL.
>>>> >
>>>> > If not -- the BSD license works for most of us.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, one could argue (successfully), that the BSD license is "more free"
>>>> than the GPL, since it applies no restrictions to the receiver of the
>>>> source code (other than continuation of the copyright notice), unlike the GPL
>>>> which limits the freedom of the person using the source code.
>>>
>>> Yes, but those GPL restrictions serve a higher purpose.
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> I'm not really into the politics of this stuff, but judging by the
>>> uptake and usage of BSD vs. Linux, the GPL doesn't seem all that bad.
>>>
>>
>> Any ideas why Linux is so popular and the older and (IMHO) very similar
>> BSD languishes in obscurity?
>>
>
> device drivers?
>
All these arguments are of the chicken-and-egg variety. Linux has more
device drivers and software because it is more popular because it has ...
Michael Black said "It seems like something happened in the early days
for BSD to be skipped over for Linux." Was it just that Linux got all
the publicity and hype or was there something else there?
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101116 is a reply to message #99794] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 08:46 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/27/2013 10:28 PM, Michael Black wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2013, Rob Doyle wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2013 12:26 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> pechter@tucker.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) writes:
>>>> In article <PM0004E2697CE330D2@ac8122ec.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv
>>>> <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> > <grin> And I can remember posts and topics which were
>>>> > discussing the little impact Linux might have. Providing sources
>>>> > without _any_ strings attached made it become what it is today.
>>>> >
>>>> > /BAH
>>>>
>>>> Actually there are more strings to linux than *BSD...
>>>>
>>>> It all depends what you want to do. If you want to be forced to
>>>> open up sources for your commercial product to the world including
>>>> competitors -- GPL.
>>>>
>>>> If not -- the BSD license works for most of us.
>>>
>>> In fact, one could argue (successfully), that the BSD license is
>>> "more free" than the GPL, since it applies no restrictions to the
>>> receiver of the source code (other than continuation of the copyright
>>> notice), unlike the GPL which limits the freedom of the person using
>>> the source code.
>>
>> Which is more free? It depends on your point of view.
>>
>> If you author software and you want to ensure that your work is free and
>> will remain free, you want the GPL.
>>
>> If want to use software that someone else has authored for your own
>> purposes, you want the BSD license.
>>
>> Neither one is more evil than the other. They serve different purposes.
>>
> It's almost amusing. When I finally tried LInux, it was 2000 and I
> decided to go with Debian "because it was the least commercial
> distribution". But not only did I get tangled in the fuss over
> dependencies (I was using a 240meg hard drive, so it had to be a very
> limited install) but Debian did not include Pine, which I'd used since
> 1996, because of the license Pine used. "It wasn't free enough" by
> Debian standards. So I moved to Slackware, that included Pine,
> apparently the license not too evil for the other distributins.
>
> It really is about viewpoint, which is "most free".
>
Yes, from my POV as a user the "most free" system is that which lets me
most easily install and run the software I want without the nonsense
about GPL vs. BSD vs. whatever.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101118 is a reply to message #99817] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 08:50 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/28/2013 3:48 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:02:21 -0400
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Any ideas why Linux is so popular and the older and (IMHO) very similar
>> BSD languishes in obscurity?
>
> Timing - at the critical point that Linux was emerging from
> experimental toy to stable OS, the free BSD x86 ports were also getting well
> established (FreeBSD and NetBSD) and along came the AT&T lawsuit to scare
> people away from BSD. By the time that was resolved and BSD-4.4-Lite was
> cut Linux was well into growth phase, reasonably stable and functional and
> the BSDs were playing catch up.
Several people have pointed to this. I guess this is the answer; I'd
forgotten or hadn't paid attention to the lawsuits at the time. Don't
you just love lawyers? We wouldn't want things to develop too rapidly,
now would we? We need to slow them down with a little legal nonsense. ;-)
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101119 is a reply to message #99825] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 08:51 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/28/2013 6:54 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <idn7v8p4sgvpgr6ujakdra8hdbo0nihckb@4ax.com>, Ibmekon
> wrote:
>
>> If everyone goes to the bank and demands their money in cash - the
>> fractional banking system collapses.
>> The notes do not exist and cannot be printed fast enough to supply
>> demand.
>
> No problemo, just start printing hundred and thousand dollar bills.
>
If things ger really bad just run them back thru a printer that tacs on
a few zeroes.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101122 is a reply to message #99957] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 08:59 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/28/2013 4:40 PM, Lon wrote:
> On 7/28/2013 7:18 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>> In <PM0004E2699E0A4914@ac8122ec.ipt.aol.com>, on 07/26/2013
>> at 01:00 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>>
>>> I really don't understand their thinking...unless they aren't as
>>> organized as perceived and are just a couople hundred roving bands
>>> of bandits.
>>
>> The taliban is a couple hundred roving bands of fanatics, or some
>> combination of fanatics and bandits. You'll never understand them
>> unless you realize that they are fanatics.
>>
>
> ? Source ?
>
> The Taliban was a highly organized political force, heavily funded and
> armed by the USA.
To fight the Russians. Apparently they have little gratitude.
What you call fanatics, they tend to characterize as
> religious.
Often the same thing.
As for roving bandits, oddly enough their fellow citizens
> have remarked publicly that when the Taliban is in the area, petty theft
> tends to drop like a rock.
Yes, because they do nice things like chop off hands. They also destroy
schools and kill teachers and doctors, etc.
>
> They aren't different than similar movements in the USofA range of
> religious orgs in methods, tactics, or willingness to violate basic
> principles of their religion in return for power.
>
All mainstream religious movements in the USA disavow violence. Some
fringe groups or individuals do stuff like blow up abortion clinics, but
I don't think too many people support that level of fanaticism. Most of
us have accepted diversity, or at least tolerate it.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101129 is a reply to message #100958] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 09:01 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JimP. wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2013 13:24:47 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:PM0004E2B9B3AC4BDA@aca385ca.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> Lawrence Statton wrote:
>>>> > Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> writes:
>>>> >> I am really surprised that any landmark law forbids bring electricity,
>>>> >> plumbing, etc., up to code.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Of course the REAL laws forbid no such thing. Only the imaginary ones
>>>> > in BAH's head.
>>>> >
>>>> >> Maybe Massachussets or Michigan or wherever this is is different,
>>>> >> but my bet would be it's a misunderstanding.
>>>> >
>>>> > I've seen this failure-mode from that source before. She hears about
>>>> > something, takes off from half-truths and foggy memories and then
>>>> > refuses to be swayed when told that her failing memory is erroneous.
>>>> > Then she doubles down on stubborn and accuses everyone of being out to
>>>> > get her.
>>>> >
>>>> > It's the George Bernard Dantzig story all over again.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Oh, goodfuckinggrief. Now think about the process involved in
>>>> getting permission to do any maintenance or changes to a house
>>>> which has been declared historical. All you need is a
>>>> committee who know nothing about building maintenance to
>>>> deny requests.
>>>
>>> Thats a lie with the wiring.
>>>
>> If the committee is made up of people who have never done
>> proper house maintenance, e.g., they've lived in apartments
>> all of their life, I can understand if those types would
>> think that the original cloth covered wiring would be
>> "historical".
>
> There were slabs left down here from Hurricane Katrina. The Historic
> Preservation people wouldn't let the owners rebuild. Ya know, 'cause
> the structure was historical. Finally someone in officialdom pointed
> out, what the owners said for years yes years, 'there is nothing to
> preserve !'.
People can get downright silly about that kind of thing. there are
a lot of people who don't know anythng about house maintenance.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101132 is a reply to message #100133] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 09:03 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/29/2013 10:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Then there is the EXPORT_GPL()
> symbol bullshit that some maintainers espouse to "prevent" people from
> distributing useful binary kernel modules.
>
This would (IMHO) be a total disaster!
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101133 is a reply to message #100134] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 09:06 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/29/2013 10:11 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 7/26/2013 12:26 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>>
>>> In fact, one could argue (successfully), that the BSD license is
>>> "more free" than the GPL, since it applies no restrictions to the
>>> receiver of the source code (other than continuation of the copyright
>>> notice), unlike the GPL which limits the freedom of the person using
>>> the source code.
>>
>> Which is more free? It depends on your point of view.
>>
>> If you author software and you want to ensure that your work is free and
>> will remain free, you want the GPL.
>>
>
> No, if I'm a software author (and I am), I want the most people to be
> able to use my software, which means I use the BSD license. I don't
> care if they subsequently take the code and incorporate it in a proprietary
> project - that's their freedom. That's more freedom than the GPL allows.
>
>> If want to use software that someone else has authored for your own
>> purposes, you want the BSD license.
Agreed. What the recipients do with the software is their business -
the version *I* released will always be free.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101134 is a reply to message #100138] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 09:10 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/29/2013 10:51 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
> "brad" <noise@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>
>>> The house was declared
>>> historical after the guy owned it.
>>
>> This was in the United States? Doesn't the Fifth Amendment forbid the
>> taking of property by the government without payment?
>
> The story is highly suspect. (As usual.)
>
> We see historical houses being repaired on This Old House a lot.
> The "normal" rules are you can do anything you like on the interior but
> exterior changes have to be approved.
>
> If an address, or link was posted I'd try to check it.
> As it is, I'm sorry, but I'm just not believing it.
>
Yes, there's nothing particularly "historic" about old, bad wiring. The
story may be "true", but there may have been other factors that blocked
the rehab.
Most people who choose to live in a historic property do so because they
want to, and try to keep it as historically accurate as possible
compatible with modern kitchens, indoor plumbing, etc.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101135 is a reply to message #100327] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 09:17 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/29/2013 8:58 PM, Lawrence Statton wrote:
> Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> writes:
>> I am really surprised that any landmark law forbids bring electricity,
>> plumbing, etc., up to code.
>
>
> Of course the REAL laws forbid no such thing. Only the imaginary ones
> in BAH's head.
>
>> Maybe Massachussets or Michigan or wherever this is is different,
>> but my bet would be it's a misunderstanding.
>
> I've seen this failure-mode from that source before. She hears about
> something, takes off from half-truths and foggy memories and then
> refuses to be swayed when told that her failing memory is erroneous.
> Then she doubles down on stubborn and accuses everyone of being out to
> get her.
>
> It's the George Bernard Dantzig story all over again.
>
I've seen cases where the owner wanted to do stuff that was not allowed
- add a room, paint the house polka-dot, etc. When he wasn't allowed to
do this he refused to do *anything* to fix the property, such as wiring,
etc.
From my experience these restrictions make the property (and
surrounding properties) more valuable rather than less. You're giving
up some freedoms for a good cash return. If you don't like it, sell and
buy somewhere else without the restrictions, and pocket the extra cash.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101171 is a reply to message #101134] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 10:34 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
> On 7/29/2013 10:51 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
>> "brad" <noise@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>>
>>>> The house was declared
>>>> historical after the guy owned it.
>>>
>>> This was in the United States? Doesn't the Fifth Amendment forbid the
>>> taking of property by the government without payment?
>>
>> The story is highly suspect. (As usual.)
>>
>> We see historical houses being repaired on This Old House a lot.
>> The "normal" rules are you can do anything you like on the interior but
>> exterior changes have to be approved.
>>
>> If an address, or link was posted I'd try to check it.
>> As it is, I'm sorry, but I'm just not believing it.
>>
>
> Yes, there's nothing particularly "historic" about old, bad wiring. The
> story may be "true", but there may have been other factors that blocked
> the rehab.
And there is nothing intrinsicly unsafe[*] about knob and tube, so long as
it is properly done and the wiring hasn't deteriorated over time (something
that happens to type NM-B modern thermoplastic encased house wiring over time
as well).
scott
[*] Well, aside from the notable lack of a grounding conductor, but that
applies to 60's thermoplastic insulated "modern" wiring as well.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101172 is a reply to message #101113] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 10:51 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <ktdkmj$6vc$2@dont-email.me>,
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/2013 10:59 AM, greymausg wrote:
>> On 2013-07-27, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2013 10:02 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Any ideas why Linux is so popular and the older and (IMHO) very similar
>>> BSD languishes in obscurity?
>>>
>>
>> device drivers?
>>
>
> All these arguments are of the chicken-and-egg variety. Linux has more
> device drivers and software because it is more popular because it has ...
>
> Michael Black said "It seems like something happened in the early days
> for BSD to be skipped over for Linux." Was it just that Linux got all
> the publicity and hype or was there something else there?
By 1990 we had the hardware for decent, cheap workstations, but the
software was elusive. 386 and later 486es were more than adequate
for running a simple "skinny X" client. But the software was lacking.
Sure, you could buy some unix, or use i386, but they were pretty
non-native ports. So, when this finnish student posted about his OS,
a lot of people took notice. My reaction was that either is he full
of it, or he has some real goods, and his profile was more indicative
of the last. So we waited, and downloaded.
Linux proved sufficiently good and the crowd of a few tens of
thousand people that were desperatly seeking exactly this kind of
software were on it in less than 6 months. By late 1994 linux had
taken off.
It was written for the x86 architecture, and uses native x86 disk
labels, boot process, and uses the x86 segments. (BSD lets the paging
handle it all). Behind the scenes it is still an x86 inspired OS,
where a lot of stuff seems to come from a DEC toolchain; indirectly
making it look more like a tops20 reimplementation than another
unix; but it still provides a 100% unix/posix userland interface.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101217 is a reply to message #101122] |
Thu, 01 August 2013 16:31 |
harry
Messages: 143
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ktdlnn$gj4$1@dont-email.me...
> On 7/28/2013 4:40 PM, Lon wrote:
>> On 7/28/2013 7:18 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>> In <PM0004E2699E0A4914@ac8122ec.ipt.aol.com>, on 07/26/2013
>>> at 01:00 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>>>
>>>> I really don't understand their thinking...unless they aren't as
>>>> organized as perceived and are just a couople hundred roving bands
>>>> of bandits.
>>>
>>> The taliban is a couple hundred roving bands of fanatics, or some
>>> combination of fanatics and bandits. You'll never understand them
>>> unless you realize that they are fanatics.
>>>
>>
>> ? Source ?
>>
>> The Taliban was a highly organized political force, heavily funded and
>> armed by the USA.
> To fight the Russians.
No, that was the Mujahedeen, completely
separate group to the Taliban.
> Apparently they have little gratitude.
The Taliban were never armed or financed by the USA.
> What you call fanatics, they tend to characterize as
>> religious.
> Often the same thing.
Often not too.
> As for roving bandits, oddly enough their fellow citizens
>> have remarked publicly that when the Taliban is in the area, petty theft
>> tends to drop like a rock.
> Yes, because they do nice things like chop off hands.
They don't actually, they just kill them.
> They also destroy schools and kill teachers and doctors, etc.
>> They aren't different than similar movements in the USofA range of
>> religious orgs in methods, tactics, or willingness to violate basic
>> principles of their religion in return for power.
>>
>
> All mainstream religious movements in the USA disavow violence.
But lots of them are nothing like mainstream.
> Some fringe groups or individuals do stuff like blow up abortion clinics,
> but I don't think too many people support that level of fanaticism.
And we don't see them taking over government by force of arms either.
Most of
> us have accepted diversity, or at least tolerate it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101384 is a reply to message #101113] |
Fri, 02 August 2013 05:47 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:42:11 -0400
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Black said "It seems like something happened in the early days
> for BSD to be skipped over for Linux." Was it just that Linux got all
> the publicity and hype or was there something else there?
See elsethread, there was a lawsuit over parts of the BSD code
right at the critical point where Linux was moving from toy to tool. The
BSD ports (FreeBSD and NetBSD) were production ready practically from the
start, but the issues over the AT&T code in the BSD distribution didn't
get settled until Linux had not only become production ready but popular.
Even then the BSDs had areas where they excelled over Linux - particularly
networking which is why they still turn up in data centre appliances today.
--
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 a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101388 is a reply to message #101384] |
Fri, 02 August 2013 06:21 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2013-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:42:11 -0400
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael Black said "It seems like something happened in the early days
>> for BSD to be skipped over for Linux." Was it just that Linux got all
>> the publicity and hype or was there something else there?
>
> See elsethread, there was a lawsuit over parts of the BSD code
> right at the critical point where Linux was moving from toy to tool. The
> BSD ports (FreeBSD and NetBSD) were production ready practically from the
> start, but the issues over the AT&T code in the BSD distribution didn't
> get settled until Linux had not only become production ready but popular.
> Even then the BSDs had areas where they excelled over Linux - particularly
> networking which is why they still turn up in data centre appliances today.
>
Most people wanted a Unix-type, open source OS, and Linux clicked into
place. Once they had that, they were happy. The BSDs were akward in
ways, for someone say, who was coming from M$, Amiga, or basic-based systems.
Is it possible yet to read-and-write data from a Linux or M$ partition under
the BSDs? (Dual-boot systems)
--
maus
.
.
....
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101392 is a reply to message #101388] |
Fri, 02 August 2013 07:04 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2 Aug 2013 10:21:48 GMT
greymausg <maus@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:42:11 -0400
>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Black said "It seems like something happened in the early days
>>> for BSD to be skipped over for Linux." Was it just that Linux got all
>>> the publicity and hype or was there something else there?
>>
>> See elsethread, there was a lawsuit over parts of the BSD code
>> right at the critical point where Linux was moving from toy to tool. The
>> BSD ports (FreeBSD and NetBSD) were production ready practically from
>> the start, but the issues over the AT&T code in the BSD distribution
>> didn't get settled until Linux had not only become production ready but
>> popular. Even then the BSDs had areas where they excelled over Linux -
>> particularly networking which is why they still turn up in data centre
>> appliances today.
>>
> Most people wanted a Unix-type, open source OS, and Linux clicked into
> place. Once they had that, they were happy. The BSDs were akward in
> ways, for someone say, who was coming from M$, Amiga, or basic-based
> systems. Is it possible yet to read-and-write data from a Linux or M$
> partition under the BSDs? (Dual-boot systems)
At the time Linux and FreeBSD were very similar in installation and
user friendliness (very friendly to Unix users not so much to others). Both
could quite happily read and write DOS discs (NTFS and indeed NT was Not
There then). Linux didn't start to aim for being a windows replacement
until a little later.
TBH it's been years since I dual booted a system, according to man
mount_ntfs there is limited write support for NTFS in FreeBSD. The
mount_ext2fs manpage doesn't list any limitations or issues so I presume it
works.
--
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 a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101433 is a reply to message #100380] |
Fri, 02 August 2013 09:16 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/30/2013 1:10 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> In article <b5hmkjF9po9U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Mike Stump" <mrs@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>> news:MqL3zt.1vHE@kithrup.com...
>>> In article <ksto8r$e63$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/26/2013 2:32 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm looking for information content from you, like, for example, how
>>>> > you value money. The above isn't responsive to my request for
>>>> > information.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're talking to another of Rod's sock puppets. Information is
>>>> the last thing you're going to get.
>>>
>>> I'm happy. I already got some nice nuggets. They elaborated enough
>>> for me to understand them and model them. The model lets me
>>> understand their words precisely. A little hard to drag it out, but
>>> it was revealed to me. I had hoped for a more meaningful
>>> conversation, but, it is what it is.
>>>
>>> My take away, no concept of valuation, so, any statement about
>>> valuation is meaningless. This lets me ignore them for the purposes
>>> of valuation. Also, lots of, I want you to be talking about what I
>>> want you to be talking about, not about what you actually said.
>>> Kinda curious. Why do people do that?
>>
>> They might just choose to point out the massive holes in your claims.
>
> I don't recall a single hole. Here feel to say, the hole is, and then
> describe the hole. Quote from wikipedia, so that I can understand.
>
> You say prices don't exist. I say they do.
>
> Let me give an example:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833281 032
>
> I claim, the price exists, and the price is $189. Now, you claim it
> doesn't exist, prove to me the price doesn't exist.
>
> I claim valuation is the price. My proof is the definition of
> valuation. I've cited that.
>
> You claim the price cannot be reduced to a single number, I've shown a
> price, $189 above, that is a single number, that number is 189.
>
> The valuation is $189. 189 remains a single number. QED.
Economics goes back to barter. "I'll trade you two bushels of wheat for
a new pair of sandals." Prices were all negotiated between buyer and
seller. The next step was money was created as shorthand, so if the
sandal maker didn't want wheat you didn't have to scrounge around for
something he /did/ want. As markets got bigger it wasn't possible or
feasible to haggle over each transaction, though people still do in many
places. However, look at the commodity markets, where prices fluctuate
on a minute-by-minute basis based on supply and demand.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101434 is a reply to message #100382] |
Fri, 02 August 2013 09:18 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/30/2013 3:05 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> In article <idn7v8p4sgvpgr6ujakdra8hdbo0nihckb@4ax.com>, <Ibmekon> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:52:15 -0400, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
>> If everyone goes to the bank and demands their money in cash - the
>> fractional banking system collapses.
>
> I don't see that it has too. You simply give the assets to the people
> that want the assets. The note that X will pay Y, is an asset.
But ... but I don't want a promise to pay, I want my money *now*.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101437 is a reply to message #100477] |
Fri, 02 August 2013 09:26 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/30/2013 2:53 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
>
> Linux and the GNU toolchain upon which it depended was also a
> second implementation, so you really had code diversity, and
> the code was guaranteed unencumbered.
FSVO "guaranteed." Remember SCO? We haven't heard from them in a
while, anyone want to bet they're really gone?
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101440 is a reply to message #100593] |
Fri, 02 August 2013 09:37 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/30/2013 3:29 PM, harry wrote:
>
>
> "Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:proto-33C094.09135930072013@70-1-84-166.pools.spcsdns.net...
>> In article <Mqqq2E.69F@kithrup.com>, mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So, you're saying they engineered the high unemployment rate?
>>>
>>> :-)
>
>> Probably. High unemployment benefits the rich
>
> No, it actually benefits employers who are hardly ever the rich anymore.
I don't think this is true either. Unless you want to employ unskilled
labor you're not getting that much of a break from high unemployment,
since lawyers, engineers, designers, executives, etc. aren't unemployed
that often. I think unemployment is just irrelevant to these people.
As long as there are enough people who can buy their products, they
don't care about the others.
Unfortunately, for all the rhetoric, this may be unfixble without
government "make-work" programs. As we've discussed, most assembly-line
workers, miners, etc. simply aren't retrainable for the jobs in demand.
I expect that a large portion of the current crop of high school
students won't be either. You can't turn a kid with a C average in math
into a competent electrical engineer, and I wouldn't want to trust many
of them as health-care aides either.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101441 is a reply to message #100662] |
Fri, 02 August 2013 09:45 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/30/2013 9:24 PM, Lon wrote:
> On 7/30/2013 7:49 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) writes:
>>
>>> If it were impossible, please explain why 406.8 billion exists as the
>>> valuation for Apple's stock. There is is. Explain it's
>>> non-existance, use your words.
>>
>> Market capitalization may not be the best example. While _in theory_,
>> Apple is valued at 406.8 billion at its current stock price, any attempt
>> to realize that value would quickly drop the stock to practically zero,
>> so in reality, Apple is _worth_ much less.
>
> A lot of business leaders agree with you.
Current valuation includes expectation of future earnings. A company
making the "fad of the month" may be doing great this year, but
potential buyers (and sellers) of the stock will discount it if they
don't expect it to be around next year.
In Apple's case, the stock price includes guesses about profits next
year, the year after, etc.
The "book value" of a stock is the presumed value that the company's
assets would have it they were all sold off individually. I say
"presumed" because there's a lot of fiddling here also. When Enron
entered bankruptcy the filing declared a book value that was several
times the amount of debt, but we all know where that ended up.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? [message #101445 is a reply to message #101437] |
Fri, 02 August 2013 10:10 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
> On 7/30/2013 2:53 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>> Linux and the GNU toolchain upon which it depended was also a
>> second implementation, so you really had code diversity, and
>> the code was guaranteed unencumbered.
>
> FSVO "guaranteed." Remember SCO? We haven't heard from them in a
> while, anyone want to bet they're really gone?
FSVO "gone". What's left after they chapter 7'd and sold all the
unix business to unXis is the tattered remains of the SCO v IBM lawsuit,
which is currently in motion practice, but SCO's chances of anything are
pretty close to zero.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
