This is true to some extent. The biggest problem is, if I dig ditches for a living (oh, if I could only find such a job!), why should I be taxed to pay for somebody who wants to play video games, monitor equestrian breeding lines or transfer doughnut futures to Iraq? I want ditch-digging software. The argument can be made that the equestrians will build more fields and require more ditch-diggers, but that is far removed from me. I probably won't reap enough benefits to cover my additional taxes. This is sort of the Robin Hood approach. If you are a Keynsian economist, it makes sense to charge more for the software because it increases the velocity of money. That, in turn, stimulates the economy, produces more goods, and increases everyone's standard of living. All that being said, the government's job is to protect us from ourselves. They are charged with playing Robin Hood in many instances because us poor dumb ditch diggers (no offense to ditch diggers) really don't understand why studying the sex lives of crabs can be valuable to everyone. In other words, maybe some open source software should be encouraged. But to take a broad stab at it with business software (especially vertical applications) would be folly (in my opinion). There are numerous examples of this type of subsidy doing harm to an industry. Just look at health care, agriculture, and administration in many enlightened countries. The capitalistic incentive is taken away. Entrepreneurs' efforts aren't rewarded sufficiently to inspire their best efforts. We have a computer industry where it is today because there was the enticement of huge revenues. I'm convinced that without that allure, we wouldn't even have the 8086 processor yet. There's also one other danger in government subsidies: government rarely operates as efficiently as they could. That means it costs $0.43 per user to make the $0.20 software available. That's why subsidies must be very carefully chosen. The other valid issue you bring up is the cost of distribution. The truth is, it costs way more to distribute to 1,000,000 users than 10. Nearly 50% of every dollar in software revenue goes to sales and distribution. Open source tends to totally circumvent this since who really cares if anybody knows about the software? It's not like anybody makes any money when the product is sold (or at least not very much). If it's good enough, the word will eventually get out. Open office has been around since '97 but it has taken nearly a decade for it to really make inroads

Well, if you want to start a revolt against taxes, there are two of us - maybe three with Wesley. As I recall, slavery begins when a lord extracts more than half your earnings. I'm practicing my "yes mi lord" 'cause they're taking more than 50%! The only reason tax freedom day is April 26th is that people cheat on their taxes and the study dosen't count the rest. How do we go about getting half the tax payers to revolt? I don't think the IRS will much care but the politicians will.

Begining with the 16th amendment, many court cases have been tried regarding the constitutionality and definition of "direct" v. "indirect" taxation. This amendment was in direct response to an 1895 case, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co whereby the court felt that taxation on the income derived from a business transaction was "direct", and therefore unconstitutional. Subsequent to that, numerous challenges have been raised, some of which affected regulatory issues but none have overturned the 16th amendment which grants the government the right to levy tax on income without respect to apportionment. It is illegal to NOT file a tax return to report revenues if they exceed certain amounts or meet certain rules that don't directly conflict with other constitutional rights. Here's the kicker: it ISN'T illegal to not PAY the taxes. In other words, you can file but not pay and you're OK! (Except that the IRS can come collecting.) In that sense, it is voluntary. As for the issue of testifying against yourself, there are several safeguards in place including tax court and numerous IRS rules that make it unlikely you will actually testify against yourself in a criminal action. The IRS still has to prove intent to make it criminal. The fifth amendment applies to criminal procedings against the witness that are pending or contemplated. That's why Perry Mason won almost all of his cases. He got the criminal to testify against themselves. Perfectly legal. Anyway, unless you're up for a huge, expensive, lengthy battle that you will eventually lose, I don't recommend "opting out" of the system. Intentionally failing to report is criminal. If you don't file, then the IRS can simply assess a tax and penalties. If you pay that, well, then maybe you're OK. The problem with that is they usually think you owe them more than you actually do. While I hate the level of taxation we face, I doubt anyone will be successful at proving they don't have to pay. Thousands have tried. It would be better to get government to change the tax system. In other words, campaign and vote.:-D

The IRS has to prove intent to defraud. Of course, Wesly is still personally responsible for reporting income but an accountant does provide some insulation against the "fraud" part of it. Unless they can show he willfully failed to report income or knowingly overreported expenses/deductions, he'll have to do the conspiracy movie. BTW, the legallity of paying income taxes has been challenged in pretty much every court in the land, mostly by John Birchers (no offense) and polygamists. I don't know anyone who won. I don't think Wesley fits into either of these categories but I don't know for sure. I do know a few people doing time for "removing themselves from the monetary system". Somebody once said something about "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ..."; probably good advice. Also, don't try making the check out to "the dirty bloodsucking bast**ds at the internal revenue service". They won't cash it but will hit you with a penalty for late payment.;) Still, wouldn't it be cool if they did cash it?

I guess he'll be doing a prison movie next. Maybe he can assign the rights to the IRS and avoid serious time. :-D Of course, maybe he's innocent. Then he can do a conspiracy movie.

I would agree though it seems like the definition seems to be shifting. Most commercial programs (produced to be sold to users) don't have their source code published in public forums; therefore, their code is proprietary. If it is open source (particularly if it is issued under GPL or similar license), it's "free" under most uses. I don't think the governments are necessarily saying they want more "free" software but the result is the same. Meanwhile, M$ and other proprietary developers are trying to compete. I know, everbody hates Microsoft, but is it time to discourage for-profit development using taxpayer dollars? If so, it seems to me that the open-source folks become the animals in George Orwell's Animal Farm. ;)

Technically, you are correct. It seems that politicians and management (in the same sentence) equate Open Source with "free". There may be valid reason to encourage true open source but most of the open source software of which I'm aware are also licensed under GPL, which in most cases means "free". Governments like open source because they can deal with bugs and enhancements themselves (if they can afford to hire competent help). The first clue that "open source" refers to "free" is that Microsoft is opposing it. Don't get me wrong; I love open source and GPL but when governments subsidize it, it's no longer what it was before. It becomes "unclean".

Sorry. It *does* sound a bit pop-culture. Got a better one? Motivate? Give incentive to? Here's the classic definition for "incentivize" (American Heritage Dictionary): inCENtivize: To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate: “This bill will help incentivize everybody to solve that part of the problem” (Richard A. Gephardt). or Dictionary.com's version: –verb (used with object), ‑vized, ‑vizing. to give incentives to: The Government should incentivize the private sector to create jobs. ------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1965–70, American] ____________________________________________________________ incentivize. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentivize ____________________________________________________________ incentivize. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentivize How many people add APA references to their rants?

I noticed the debate rages over open source vs. proprietary (read "free vs. for profit"). Some governments are talking about incentivizing open source with tax breaks. Excuse me??? So the government is going to take taxpayers' money and give it to open source developers? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Isn't "open source" supposed to be a free, collaborative project? It brings the best minds together, focusing on creating a solution. Paying for open source with public money is like forcing slaves to build pyramids. (Well, not quite, but ...) I've always been a proponent of having those who need a problem solved bear the burden of the solution. If we want it bad enough, we'll pay for it. With some minor exceptions, shouldn't we let the free market determine what warrents a solution? It is reminiscent of paying an ungodly amount of money to study the sex life of crabs. OK. Maybe it's cool but don't ask ME to donate! Whaddaya think?

Unfortunately, I'm way too invested. Rather than sheding a tear for each bug, I break a keyboard and invent a new cuss word. I have been accused of chanting demonic invocations at times. Makes sense. My computer is possessed most of the time.

Under the heading of "what's wrong with the industry", you just listed the two top dogs: politics and management. Politics: The art of stuffing your own pockets and getting your own way without getting people so pissed off that they actually say something about it. Management: The science of making all the right decisions for the wrong reasons. When you mingle both together in one human being, you have created a total sh**head! Unfortunately, without both of these branches of business, most coders wouldn't have a job. Beam me up, Scotty!

I would agree. Even though code is a very logical product, coding is a very creative process. That said, applying best practices in a coherent and consistent manner can do wonders for the "art".

Oh yes. Can't wait. I've always had a penchant for things that are slower and more complicated than they could be. Hopefully processor speed will be at 16ghz by the end of the year. Then Windows might run as fast as CPM did on my 1979 Northstar.;)

Programming: 62.5 Admin: 14 BullS**t: 5 Dreaming about work: the rest

The only thing I see wrong with this scenario is the similarities of the patents. Theoretically, a patent is issued based on the idea or application of the idea being totally novel. If patents are overlapping, the PTO is probably struggling with definitions. As for "broadness", anyone with an overly-broad patent has an enforceability issue. Even if the PTO issues the patent, the judiciary gets to interpret it. Many patents have become worthless just because they tried to cover everything. Here's an example: I write a new sort algorithm that implements part of QuickSort in a very new way. Does that prohibit others from altering the QuickSort algorithm for their own purposes? Absolutely not! What if I tried to get a patent that covered string sorting in general? Unenforceable (and it probably wouldn't even be issued.) You have to be able to demonstrate to both the PTO and the Judicial system that your patent covers something unique and improves the current state-of-the-art. In some cases, proof of prior inventorship set up as a trade secret is all you need. Patenting intellectual property is a relatively new area of law. There are bound to be some issues. We're still pioneering this stuff. I think it is very valuable to challenge these things and bring this to light so we can press past the frontiers.

We tend to look at things "bass-akwards". Death isn't the enemy. We're all going to succumb. The real enemy is the way we (everybody) views the world. Obviously, that battle begins inside of each one of us. What's most important is how we live. If terrorists force us into our bomb shelters, they don't have to bomb us to win. The American Spirit (in my opinion) isn't based on "duck and cover"; it's based on the courage to live freely. I know, easier said than done. Unfortunately, in the name of domestic security, we are becoming less American. Under pressure from their constituency, lawmakers are pecking away at freedom. Some Irish-american once said, "Give me liberty or give me death." We have to decide how much freedom we want to yield to be protected from the possibility of a terrorist attack. As for surviving the atomic blast, I would much prefer ground zero to the prison fear would build. Besides, at ground zero it's painless. ;) There. Was that dramatic enough? Back to hacking. :rolleyes:

If only Bill was listening. I'm expecting one day to see a Microsoft refrigerator. It will keep meats cold but milk will spoil. You'll have to reboot it to get ice cubes, but then the spoiled milk will freeze. The first few versions will have GAC leaks in the crisper. I haven't found better development tools than Microsoft's. Windows is OK. Linux is OK. I'm OK, you're OK. OK?;P