FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-06-2008, 02:59 AM
Hal Vaughan
 
Default

On Saturday 05 April 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Saturday 05 April 2008 02:24:17 pm Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > I truly hope you're being facetious because the alternative would
> > be to wonder if you've ever talked to any parents.
>
> Of course I know parents, and the ones who don't have anything
> resembling that kind of money lined up pretty much have hell to pay
> for it. It's an unenviable position that I plain can't understand
> why anybody would put themselves in to start with, much less consider
> normal.

That you don't understand it does not mean that you are in any position
to judge them. That you admit you can't understand it supports that
you are in no position to make such a judgement. If you don't
understand it, you're not the one to make a judgement.

> > By your standard, less than 2% of the entire world's population
> > should ever consider parenthood, and those would be the richest 2%
> > on the planet.
>
> Yes, that's correct. There's not really much of any reason for
> humans to keep reproducing at the rate we are. We're gaining a
> billion people every 10-15 years right now, it's not like we need
> more numbers.

There's a difference between reproducing at the rate we are and limiting
reproduction rights to 2% of the world. That's quite a sharp line to
draw when there's a lot of gray area in the middle. Actually, if you
go by your statements, then unless your parents were wealthy when they
had you, you should have never been allowed to be conceived.

> > Unless you're at least a multi-millionaire (considering numbers
> > these days, I'd say worth $3-5 million), you've just qualified
> > yourself as an unfit Father.
>
> Actually, my abilities as a potential father aren't the issue and
> will never be the issue. I'm childfree.

Oh, don't worry. I didn't want to get into your fitness to raise any
children, whether you're a millionaire or not. But that you don't want
to have children does not qualify you to make judgements regarding
eugenics for others.

Hal


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-06-2008, 03:06 AM
"Telaman Consultancies"
 
Default

>
>
>
>---- Original Message ----
>From: cjw2004d@comcast.net
>To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>Subject: Re: [Not So Horrendously OT] Psychology, Economics and
>Debian Was[Re: Hmmm. A question. Was [Re: Debian is losing its
>users]]
>Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:09:33 -0400
>

>>Maslow is more on the theoretical side of psychology than on the
>experimental
>>side. If you look at his theory more closely, you may find some
>truth to it -
>>a homeless person is not going to be worried about
>"Self-actualization needs",
>>as this person's main goal will be to survive.

Yes, but if he/she is evr going to get themselves to any level of
existence higher than street level, they'll need to pay attention to
concepts such as self actualisation/realisation in order to do so.
Essential aspects to be implemented within the survival process.

Psychology *is* a
>science, in
>>that the scientific method is used on the experimental side, at
>least.

The scientific 'method' goes through the throes of change every bit
as much as any other aspect of science and is not limited to the
'experimental side'.
Any healthy scientific process is no more than a reflection of the
natural condition and is lived within far outside the paradigm of the
laboratory environment.

>>
>>Why is this not so off topic? Well, psychology and economics are
>two factors
>>that affect what any person chooses to "buy". I will explain this
>in a minute.

No need.
Obviously we buy for a number of emotive reasons and this is
qualified by the economic factor.

<snip>

>>Now, how can you "buy" something that is "free" like Debian? Well,
>it has real
>>costs associated with it - the price (if you buy it pre-burned, or
>>pre-installed), the cost of the bandwidth if you download it (plus
>the cost of
>>the CD/DVDs - just the bandwidth if you choose a Netinstall. In
>addition, all
>>operating systems have different capabilities and different pitfalls
>(i.e. they
>>may work very well on some systems, but not so well or not at all on
>others).
>>
>>In the end, it is a matter of choice, based on costs (perceived and
>real) and
>>benefits (also perceived and real). These perceptions are based
>upon our
>>imperfect interpretation of how our brains filter sensory data, and
>upon our
>>imperfect cognition.

Which varies with the individual, but within the crowd certain common
factors will emerge.

I 'buy' Debian for the opportunity of working at something in an
environment where my efforts are not going to be demeaned by having a
monetary value placed on them, for example.
The cost of the CD doesn't even attain the status of incidental.
I'd 'buy' it if it cost $50.00.

Now don't any of you distributors go getting any ideas, now!

<snip>


The real question is:
>How can we
>>maximize the benefits of Debian, for both current and future users,
>and get
>>them to perceive these increased benefits as such?

I have given one example of marketplace value.
There are others and where the demand is seen to be required by that
market, Debian will 'sell'.
Regards,

David Palmer.
 
Old 04-06-2008, 03:18 AM
Nate Duehr
 
Default

On Apr 5, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Charlie wrote:

I suppose by that standard you imagine that children have no worth
at all? I
can't really agree. As one who was a child once, I think children
are an
extremely valuable asset to a species in the now as well as the
future.


I never said anything of the sort. I said that as a society we reward
parents for having children, and it's odd. If their values are to
have a "big family" that's fine, but government encouraging it is a
different thing. Not necessarily bad, just not real "obvious" to the
majority that have children.


So I assume that government feels the same way and is willing to
ensure that

people keep having children?


Perhaps. Or perhaps they are scared to piss off the majority and say,
"You can pay your fair share -- the people without children shouldn't
be paying more."


Neanderthal man had children because of sex drive, modern families
often want
things other than children because their sex drive can be satisfied
without

the obvious result. It is a choice, so each must make their own.


Yep. Personal decisions. Get the government out of the macro-
economics of it.



Interesting, and there will always be controversy and views in both
directions.


Yep. I just speak mine when I get a chance, because I'm an adult in
the vast minority on this topic. No offense meant to people who have
chosen to be parents. (I don't say "haven't chosen" because well
frankly, the vast majority choose to have sex, and can take
responsibility for the results.)


--
Nate Duehr
nate@natetech.com




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-06-2008, 03:25 AM
Nate Duehr
 
Default

On Apr 5, 2008, at 8:59 PM, Hal Vaughan wrote:

On Saturday 05 April 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Saturday 05 April 2008 02:24:17 pm Hal Vaughan wrote:

I truly hope you're being facetious because the alternative would
be to wonder if you've ever talked to any parents.


Of course I know parents, and the ones who don't have anything
resembling that kind of money lined up pretty much have hell to pay
for it. It's an unenviable position that I plain can't understand
why anybody would put themselves in to start with, much less consider
normal.


That you don't understand it does not mean that you are in any
position

to judge them. That you admit you can't understand it supports that
you are in no position to make such a judgement. If you don't
understand it, you're not the one to make a judgement.



Actually there's one judgement we can all agree on... the vast
majority of people having children (let's keep the straw-men of rape,
incest, etc... out of the big picture discussion for the moment) are
choosing to have sex.


They must then live with the consequences as responsible adults.

Whether or not we make their responsibilities "easier" or "harder" to
deal with becomes a societal decision.


The welfare of the child often is the "litmus test" for such
decisions, and indirectly we often make the parent's decision to have
sex "easier" because we choose as a society not to let the child suffer.


This is probably a good thing, from a balanced point of view --
neither fully socialistic nor fully capitalistic, but we also must
openly recognize that it ultimately leads to an unfair situation for
those willing to behave responsibly, and put limits on direct or
indirect aid.


I say, start with ramping down the indirect aid -- drop dependent tax
breaks. Fully aid those in the worst of situations where the child is
at risk, and quit handing the typical middle-class parents free money
every year just because they have kids. They'll budget and cope.


--
Nate Duehr
nate@natetech.com




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-06-2008, 03:41 AM
Hal Vaughan
 
Default

On Saturday 05 April 2008, Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Charlie wrote:
> > I suppose by that standard you imagine that children have no worth
> > at all? I
> > can't really agree. As one who was a child once, I think children
> > are an
> > extremely valuable asset to a species in the now as well as the
> > future.
>
> I never said anything of the sort. I said that as a society we
> reward parents for having children, and it's odd. If their values
> are to have a "big family" that's fine, but government encouraging it
> is a different thing. Not necessarily bad, just not real "obvious"
> to the majority that have children.

I was debating to respond earlier, but I thought I'd wait.

If you're talking about taxes in terms of rewards, as you said
initially, compare how much the deduction for a child is or how much is
added on to the refunds we'll get this year to how much it costs to
take care of a child for one year. It's about as much of a reward as
someone paying me $5 to spend a month doing some tough coding that
keeps me up day and night.

Hal


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-06-2008, 07:20 AM
Nate Duehr
 
Default

On Apr 5, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Hal Vaughan wrote:

On Saturday 05 April 2008, Nate Duehr wrote:

On Apr 5, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Charlie wrote:

I suppose by that standard you imagine that children have no worth
at all? I
can't really agree. As one who was a child once, I think children
are an
extremely valuable asset to a species in the now as well as the
future.


I never said anything of the sort. I said that as a society we
reward parents for having children, and it's odd. If their values
are to have a "big family" that's fine, but government encouraging it
is a different thing. Not necessarily bad, just not real "obvious"
to the majority that have children.


I was debating to respond earlier, but I thought I'd wait.

If you're talking about taxes in terms of rewards, as you said
initially, compare how much the deduction for a child is or how much
is

added on to the refunds we'll get this year to how much it costs to
take care of a child for one year. It's about as much of a reward as
someone paying me $5 to spend a month doing some tough coding that
keeps me up day and night.



Doesn't matter, economically it's still a reward for behavior that you
as an adult were always 100% responsible for anyway.


There's no bigger "welfare" for a larger group of people anywhere in
the U.S.


if you're making roughly middle-class money, it comes off of your
taxable income. It reduces your tax liability quite significantly. I
made similar comments on another list and challenged any parent to
calculate the difference on their taxes, and to send the difference to
their local school district during an "education reform" debate. I
haven't seen any e-mails yet from any takers... thus, obviously the
parents are not putting their money where their mouth is -- they want
to put my money (thus my labor and skills) in that breach instead and
run experiments with the school system on my dime.


I'd rather see them up the limits for future education spending for
the children under that particular parent's care, than take a straight-
off-the-top taxable income change. Go ahead and let 'em save lots and
lots of money for that child's education to reduce their tax liability
just as much as they get back for any dependents if they will... (more
than they can save already today as a tax shelter).


Education of their children benefits society far more than yearly
reductions in taxable income.


And this year, additional money in the rebate checks for those with
children? Why? Think about that one for a minute...


1. They already paid less in taxes.
2. Now they get more money than childless taxpayers back?

What a deal! I bet ALL of the "concerned parents" will be sending
BOTH the difference in their original taxes in 2006 and their rebate
checks straight to the education system. (Rolling eyes.)


--
Nate Duehr
nate@natetech.com




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-06-2008, 12:03 PM
Ron Johnson
 
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/06/08 02:20, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> What a deal! I bet ALL of the "concerned parents" will be sending BOTH
> the difference in their original taxes in 2006 and their rebate checks
> straight to the education system. (Rolling eyes.)

Yes, I'm sure we will. With gas at .gt. US$3/gal and milk at .gt.
US$4/gal, insurance costs always rising, etc, etc, the rebate check
will replenish a savings account decimated by tuition bills due in May.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

We want... a Shrubbery!!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH+LwBS9HxQb37XmcRAuJVAKCOCsZsCr30C1fLMnH2wK +Kz8Zv7ACcDJD9
yt39XVaULLt918IwnqF9UaQ=
=QYFH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-06-2008, 12:14 PM
Ron Johnson
 
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/05/08 21:59, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Saturday 05 April 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On Saturday 05 April 2008 02:24:17 pm Hal Vaughan wrote:
>>> I truly hope you're being facetious because the alternative would
>>> be to wonder if you've ever talked to any parents.
>> Of course I know parents, and the ones who don't have anything
>> resembling that kind of money lined up pretty much have hell to pay
>> for it. It's an unenviable position that I plain can't understand
>> why anybody would put themselves in to start with, much less consider
>> normal.
>
> That you don't understand it does not mean that you are in any position
> to judge them. That you admit you can't understand it supports that
> you are in no position to make such a judgement. If you don't
> understand it, you're not the one to make a judgement.
>
>>> By your standard, less than 2% of the entire world's population
>>> should ever consider parenthood, and those would be the richest 2%
>>> on the planet.
>> Yes, that's correct. There's not really much of any reason for
>> humans to keep reproducing at the rate we are. We're gaining a
>> billion people every 10-15 years right now, it's not like we need
>> more numbers.
>
> There's a difference between reproducing at the rate we are and limiting
> reproduction rights to 2% of the world. That's quite a sharp line to
> draw when there's a lot of gray area in the middle. Actually, if you
> go by your statements, then unless your parents were wealthy when they
> had you, you should have never been allowed to be conceived.

Especially when the US only has 4.5% and Europe[0] 7.5% of the world
population.


[0] Less Russia & Turkey, which physically are mostly Asian.

>>> Unless you're at least a multi-millionaire (considering numbers
>>> these days, I'd say worth $3-5 million), you've just qualified
>>> yourself as an unfit Father.
>> Actually, my abilities as a potential father aren't the issue and
>> will never be the issue. I'm childfree.
>
> Oh, don't worry. I didn't want to get into your fitness to raise any
> children, whether you're a millionaire or not. But that you don't want
> to have children does not qualify you to make judgements regarding
> eugenics for others.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

We want... a Shrubbery!!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH+L6hS9HxQb37XmcRAmXGAJ9UH07RfLjqXYkf/RjJp3cBrENMlwCbBGyK
c3fpYWCCSlLaEh2gMfBye/M=
=wTbU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-06-2008, 02:44 PM
Chris Bannister
 
Default

On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 06:51:07PM -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> On Apr 5, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
>> I have seen direct evidence of the problem inherent in reply-to
>> munging. We had a student reply to an email thinking she was replying
>> only to the instructor and instead sent her tearful sounding pleas to
>> the entire class list. Not cool. Much better to err on the side of
>> sending mail to fewer people than the opposite.
>
>
> Call me a masochist if you like, but I think stuff like that IS cool.
> It also shows very dramatically the inherent problems with using e-mail
> for human communication.
>
> If she really was that distressed, why wasn't she in his office for
> office hours IMMEDIATELY?
>
> So much for human interaction. You can now beg and plead for important
> things in life from your iPhone while drinking a coffee at Starbucks. (I
> assume she was begging about a grade or needing help with the course
> material, or something similar if she was a student.)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4463172a12.html

--
Chris.
======


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-06-2008, 03:10 PM
sini kumar
 
Default

Hi all
*I'm from U.A.E i would like to use GNU LINUX in my laptop Compaq presario F700 ,processer is Mobile AMD Sempronm(tm)Processor 3600+** 2.00Ghz,,1Gb ram , system type is 32bit operating system. so how can i install and where i get this . i am waiting for your repley
*
thanking you


Bin Owais Commercial*Enterprises

P.O.*Box no 277*

Dubai

Tel.*** +97192233381

Tel.*** +97142282299

Mob.** +971503996389

******** +971508575877

e-mail*- sinikumar@live.com

Planning marriage in 2008!
Join Shaadi.com matrimony FREE! Try it now!
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:06 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org