Posts Tagged ‘Microsoft’

Christ was not Communist, or a Crony Capitalist Either, BUT…

December 8, 2013

This is a shout-out to
http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2013/10/christ-was-not-communistbut-he-wasnt.html

…which the author says is an answer to:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/07/christ-was-not-a-communist/

The truth is, they both seem to be wrong. The “Orthodoxy Today” seems reluctant to take the Biblical truths that they do glimpse to its proper conclusions. The “answer to it” also misses the logical conclusions from scripture.

I’ll say right out what they both miss are the implications of two principles, also enshrined in the Ten Commandments, and expanded by Jesus Christ himself. For the purposes of addressing government-enforced redistribution, take your pick: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and the Golden Rule, often paraphrased as Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The confusion for most people today stems from a strong “tradition of men” that in their minds has confused their thinking. Confused mine in times past.

What confuses them is automatically thinking of government as an inescapable necessity, without actually thinking very much about the premise itself.

you cannot reform the physical, absent fear, without reforming the spiritual. [sic]

That’s true but is a dance around the issue. Granted it is a dance begun by the orthodoxytoday essay, but there is also truth that the difference between “spirit” and “flesh” is a Biblical one.

There are precedents for a certain amount of govt. intervention and
controls and the charity of the OT was MANDATORY, the third year
tithe went to the poor, the edges of croplands were not to be harvested
but left for the poor, ditto going over one’s fruit trees more than once,
and the tither on the third year was required to make an accounting to
the elders and public to be sure he had in fact done this.

Yes, this is true, but please note the important part that relates to the role of any government in this picture. The “charity” of the Old Testament was mandatory, a commandment to the lawful believers. I like to mention this as an example of the many things in the actual laws of Moses that show that it was very much favorable to the poor, the innocent, the unfairly accused, and so on.

The description there of the “third-year accounting” is a bit more than is in the passages. I have read through the whole Torah, but don’t have it memorized and had to search for the “third year” passage. It is there, but the “‘accounting” is to GOD HIMSELF, not an earthly governmental intermediary, not even the priests, although I will grant that the whole chapter might lend itself to such an interpretation, though “thus saith the Bible” is too strong for it. But this is a quibble next to the important point here.

Those with lands and harvests were indeed commanded to leave some behind, enough for the poor that would come and pick it up behind them.

Punishment to enforce? risk of loss of God‘s protection and famine,
disease and foreign invasion as a result.

Yes, that’s right, but again, God did not order some earthly group to carry this out. In fact, David said his enemies were “God’s sword”, because they were used by God to carry out his judgments.

In fact, today in current events we see God using the enemies of the body of Christ, and the enemies of those who invoke his name (not always the same people), using them to enforce judgments against his house. “Judgment must begin in the house of God:” (1 Peter 4:17).

Now, another question is, just what DOES help the poor? Sure, there
is an issue of proper use of funds by govt. but the same is true of
private charitable organizations. Discernment is necessary. But if
everyone on food stamps or SSI suddenly had to depend on churches
and Salvation Army, you can count on it those systems would go
bankrupt.

No you can NOT “count on it those systems would go bankrupt”. You have no way of knowing that, you cannot say that with any certainty except for the indoctrination we’ve been subjected to in the recent generations of the rise of the welfare state.

In fact, history needs a revision to counter the revision we’ve been taught. Editors revise manuscripts to make them better, and history books need editors that know their facts better in some cases, and are more intellectually honest in other cases, and in more instances, editors and writers that are just not so lazy.

The abuses of child labor in the 18th century, for example, that we learned about, were actually the ones mostly committed by government child centers.

And the real problem when you look closely, is not so much big govt., as big business that OWNS the govt. and runs it.)

But the problem when business “owns” the government is the fact that a government uses force, using the threat of confiscations and prison against its victims. If a government official sells the services of such force, then I see there are two problems that have nothing to do with what the business does, and another problem with what the business does. That’s three.

One, the government official is selling the service of force against others. If force is not involved, the business would have no need for government intervention. That means legislators too.

Two, the fact that a government can force its subjects to obey under penalty of several means of coercion.

Three, the business pays for these coercions, with the exception of the tit-for-tat type corruption that government officials or politicians threaten, so as to extort “campaign contributions”. This is known as “rent-seeking”. It is a way to benefit from the monopoly of force inflicted upon the rest of us through the use of force.

In fact, I have read cases studies of legislators proposing legislation that will reduce revenues for a particular company or industry, then “campaign contributions” are made to those legislators and they get visits by the lobbyists and the legislation goes away.

Bill Gates and Microsoft gave almost nothing to political campaigns before the anti-trust trials, for example, but were very generous afterward…

Another problem is the repeal of the parts of Glass-Steagall

That was a favor to certain interests, for sure.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

The problem with the welfare state, the problem with any government giving anything at all to anybody, is that for a government to give anything, it has to rob it from somebody else.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

Christians that follow Christ truly do have an obligation to help the poor. In fact, everyone should. But you cannot saying you are helping the poor if you rob your neighbor to help another neighbor. You are just making yourself feel better.

The same thing applies whether you get a Mafia boss to do it, Theft Incorporated, or your local mayor or governor or president. It does not matter if you get a mob of 51% of the population in your area to vote for somebody to hire armed men to rob some of the people so as to give other people the proceeds.

Even if you vote for yourself to be among the “victims”, it does no good, because you are an accessory to the theft where the victims are the unwilling “donors” who are not donors but victims of theft now.

At this point many readers coming across this as a new concept are getting mental protests that government is necessary for lots of things. I thought so too at first, but it is a discussion to have.

BIBLICALLY

There was mention of the laws of Moses and mandates for the poor. Note that when the people of Israel asked for a real government, though, God told Samuel that they had rejected God, not Samuel.

1 Samuel 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Now we all are taught in Sunday School or by preachers that Jesus said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s”, when he was asked about taxes by the Pharisees and Sadducees that sought to trick him into condemning himself or making himself unpopular.

But let us see what Jesus really thought about anybody who imposed any taxes on anybody

Matthew 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

The kings of the earth (those who tell the rest of us to pay taxes) do not pay those taxes themselves, and do not impose them on their own children, but on “strangers”.

And don’t forget what he did to the people that controlled the currency exchanges of the day, and their false balances. Imagine what he would to to the Fed:

John 2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

Imagine what he will eventually do upon his return to those “kings” that have robbed the poor and middle class with their fiat currency and money devaluation, and the false balance of a fiat currency, and through their devious legislation passed with a false balance (lies) of saying it’s for the poor but are not.

Better they leave us alone. Government is just a bigger Mafia than the rest of them. Sometimes it’s a kinder, gentler Mafia but whenever they tell you they want to help you, reach for your pocketbook. (And whatever you have to defend yourself with).

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Advertisement

This is an argument against trademark law – Part 2

October 27, 2013
Tim Berners-Lee speaking at the launch of the ...

Tim Berners-Lee speaking at the launch of the World Wide Web Foundation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I recently posted this:
https://trutherator.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/this-is-an-argument-against-trademark-law/

Somebody asked me:

What is the difference between my owning land and owning unique knowledge?

I’ll try to explain the main differences. Starting with the one that I think is most significant.

For Smith to acquire any land that belongs to Jones, Smith has to harm Jones in some way to de-facto “possess’ it, and Jones loses his own property to theft.

But if Jones “owns” a piece of “unique knowledge”, Jones loses absolutely nothing of what he already has if Smith acquires the same piece of “unique knowledge”.

If we apply the principles that support free trade among nations –they do– consider that the free trade means for sugar that we get net positive effect on the average. End the tarriff on them, domestic producers lose but everybody else gains a LOT more.

Ending the “intellectual property” monopolies might mean a loss for the former patent and copyright and trademark holders, but it means great benefit for the rest of us. Not only in that the monopoly royalties hit us all and drain resources from other productive areas, but it means an end to a completely artificial industry in legal services that support such monopolies as a specialization, supplemented in turn by all the bogus “defensive” patent filings. Defensive patents are taken out on ideas that are so obvious anybody and even everybody knows them, but if somebody is awarded by these clueless patent officials then suddenly they have to pay royalties for the obvious.

An example of this waste is a patent Microsoft was actually awarded for an algorithm that recognizes what country corresponds to a high-level domain suffix in the DNS string!!

Information doesn’t want to be free, it just exists, but punishing people for knowing something or telling it gives too much power to government cronies that have a “For rent” shingle hung in front of their office.

Besides, consider Courtney Love‘s rant that the big corporate monsters of Hollywood control the market and pay pittance to the real true originators of ideas, the original writers, the originators of the “intellectual” product.

Consider also that we have recent outstanding examples that disprove the premise in the US Constitution and in the laws of most countries. The idea was stated as to provide incentives for innovation in science and the arts.

Consider also that a lot of new good ideas come from government-subsidized research. Hey, even IBM got its start with the government employee Hollerith who was told to design a system to count the census faster in the late 1800s. He did, and then went private to produce the punched card machines. I don’t know who got the patent for it, but if he did, is it “fair”? We paid for that research. The government couldn’t do it without robbing us first.

(Before the people who love to be told what to do and say and spend on what react, let us point out that the gigantic advances in calculating and computing have been from the private sector).

But now we have the World Wide Web, using a protocol and algorithms that Tim Berners-Lee gave to the world. Open source is taking over! In the words of one Red Hat developer I recently met, “We won!” (meaning Open Source). Android has more devices running it than Apple has sold, Linux took over the Internet server space lightning fast, open source browsers are crowding out the Microsoft browser on Microsoft machines running Windows.

Open source inspired open document, the commons license, wikipedia (in part), wikis in general. An open source office suite. There is open source bios!

Google Facebook. Yahoo. The most important Internet companies run open source. Brokerage companies on Wall Street that gain and lose millions sometimes in seconds, prefer Linux applications.

And the most creative research in computing is in open source code.

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Robot Liability Issues? Space Internet with Lasers

October 25, 2013

ROBOTS

 

Robots are getting better, and some people are already talking about the liability issues. I’ll bet there are a few corporate lawyers and litigation specialists helping drive the talk:

http://cacm.acm.org/news/169024-legal-issues-with-robots/fulltext

 

They’re worried about open source robots. Who to blame when something goes wrong?

 

Much worry about nothing. Who sued Microsoft for all the time and money lost to the Blue Screen Of Death?

 

Nobody died, but….

 

It’s simple anyway. If you build a robot and sell it and it is to blame in some hypothetical situation, it’s a deal between them and you. Linux proved more reliable than Microsoft, more stable and generally less vulnerable to attacks, but Microsoft gets liability protections when it sells its stuff. Disclaimers tell you that by using it, you can’t blame them for the results.

 

Some computer academics want to roll that back. But do businesses really want that? For a fool-proof computer system, for all contexts and uses that you might imagine, free of glitches, you’d have to pay double.

 

Look, you want a car that will resist damage in an accident to that extent? Get an 18-wheeler. Otherwise, get what you can pay for and what you think is worth it. Or if you’re a business, of course it’s the same thing.

 

Of course, I’m glad Open Source is invading the robotics space. It’s already practically taken over the 3-D printing space, from what I can see.

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===

 

SPACE INTERNET?

 

http://cacm.acm.org/news/169004-nasa-says-first-space-internet-test-beyond-expectations/fulltext

 

NASA was (is) testing laser communication systems as a medium for a space-based Internet.

Cornell says the laser communications system could form the building blocks of an outerspace Internet. “This is the beginning of that,” he says. “I think we could have that with delay tolerant networking.”

NASA hopes to use similar systems for faster satellite communications and deep space communications with robots and human exploration crews in the future. Two-way laser communications systems can deliver six times more data with 25 percent less power than the best radio systems currently in use today, and weigh half as much, Cornwell notes.

“Oh, it’s going to enable a lot of things,” he says, “but the big benefit is you can send back more data from wherever you are.”

It will require line-of-sight, right? But then there’s not as much clutter in space as there is on the ground here, except for near-Earth orbiting space junk and useful stuff up there.

 

 

‘Impressed’ and ‘Delighted’ Hypocrite Warren Buffett Matches one GOP Rep’s Deficit Donations

January 21, 2012

This billionaire hypocrite tried to turn it around on Boehner‘s invitation to him to put his money where his mouth is and contribute what he thinks he should pay to bring down the deficit.

‘Impressed’ and ‘Delighted’ Warren Buffett Matches one GOP Rep’s Deficit Donations:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/impressed-delighted-warren-buffett-matches-204656439.html

Hey! Let us see Buffet match the money that Ron Paul refuses to take in Congressional salary! But Buffet playing the game that got his where he is I guess (and I thought he was maybe just a savvy investor and nothing more), no doubt does not want to give the only honestly constitutional representative in Congress any more publicity than does the rest of Compromised Media.

It was Buffet who complained about his tax rate, it wasn’t the Republicans in Congress! Hypocrite Times Ten! Buffet’s retort should have sent waves of uproarious laughter throughout the Internet!

Then his fellow rich guys like Michael Moore claim they don’t want to be disadvantaged against the other zillionaires, but then they have no right to claim to be speaking for them either. They just want us to conspire to help take away the money earned by smart labor, saving, investment and efforts of those who earn a little more than the rest of us, and from other potential competitors.

I would welcome Warren Buffet to pay normal tax bracket percentages on the ONE BILLION DOLLARS he hid from the tax man in his so-called “non-profit” trusts he left to his children to run, and pay the same tax bracket amount on the ELEVEN BILLION DOLLARS he hid by putting it into Bill Gates‘ “charity”, a “non-profit” that makes noises about reducing the numbers of the rest of us in the world, and “promoting education” in Microsoft products around the world.

How about a search engine that respects privacy? And stop PIPA and SOPA and “neutrality” laws!

January 18, 2012
Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...

Image via Wikipedia

I don’t like the idea of Google tailoring the thing to my persona or my IP address, especially when I’m not logged in. They’ll say it’s to be for us, but it’s really for them and the ad revenue, plus they want to expand their dominance in the information-search domains, and now applications.

Google has reached its limit I think in the economies-of-scale limits as far as how many things they can take over in a good way. Something is wrong when upstart companies that begin to gain traction think they can make more money by selling out to Google or Microsoft. Unfortunately regulatory regimes add an element of too-big-to-fail tilting of the economic environment that favors entrenched market dominance.

Although we are getting pulled along by both economic forces and powers-that-be forces toward giving up privacy, and the Biblical prophecy in Revelation 13 makes clear there is a subcutaneous chip on its way, we can make it as difficult as possible for them. Larry Ellison said “Privacy is dead, get over it” but then he’s one of “them”, at least so he thinks. Maybe he is.

Americans have been known for their respect for individual liberty. We should not lose sight of that. Dividing people by groups leads to tensions and war.

Google also censors the ads. I may sharply disagree with some of the things Pamela Geller, and sharply disagree with many of the approach she uses to some of the things I agree on, but I defend her right to be heard same as me and you.

By the way, that applies to Ron Paul, too, who is the guy the Big Brother regime is trying to censor. He’s America‘s last best hope for recovering our individual liberties, no wonder big money is going to all the other guys (including Obama).

Keep tuned to:

http://epic.org/
and
https://www.eff.org/

–trutherator

P.S. What alternative is there to Google and Yahoo engine? There are other search web sites but the ones I’ve found all use on of those two as their “search engine”.