Where is IT Going ?

I don't know fi you're askking for the future of IT or the furture of JOBS in IT, wages, outsourcing or what, there have been many discussions on many different aspects of the topic.

As for being cool, I guess it could be, if you consider pasty white skin, enlarged eyes from hours infront of a monitor, a bad case of anxiety attacks from the caffeine, Zero REAL friends from being a shut-in who thinks Quake is better than sex, complete loss of any true social skills, having to say 'semi colon, hyphen, closing bracket instead of actually smiling.

Sure IT is cool, if you're IN IT I guess.

IT is becoming a global industry. And ironically as a result of its own accomplishments, it's becoming a global community. We Americans, or the larger community of anglophones, are on the verge of losing our dominance of the profession. It took a long time and a huge investment for Japan, and later Korea, to build an auto industry because all of its artifacts (both tools and products) are physical. It won't take much time or money for Poland and Georgia to build an IT industry: all the artifacts are virtual. Much of the world is getting tired of American dominance, but especially in software, where we seem to be clueless as to how to design in quality rather than testing out defects. It was poor quality in American autos that pushed Japanese cars to the top of the market. Imagine how much more quickly this could happen with software. As for being cool, when all is said and done being cool comes down to one thing: being good.

.
To Mars and beyond.

I suspect that one of the next IT swings will be

I forgot about the Microsoft staff issue kneepads!

.
The total cost of all federal assistance programs accounts for nearly one-half of all money spent by the federal government. That's DOUBLE the amount spent throughout the 1960s when the space program put a man on the moon.

Since the government will take (in the form of taxes) and spend 1.922 trillion dollars in fiscal year 2004, an increase from the 1.836 trillion in FY 2003, and since we can expect the same kind of increase in the years to come, the total cost of all federal assistance programs will exceed ONE TRILLION DOLLARS within a year or two. That's, $1,000,000,000,000 - one trillion dollars - in ONE YEAR. That astronomical amount is about $3,500 for every man, woman and child in the United States. As a comparison, 396 billion is spent on the military. But since not every man, woman and child in the U.S. is a wage earner and tax payer (In fact, many of them are tax-takers), the rest us pick up their tab as well, so the amount per wage earner is.........a wole bunch.

The federal government, on average, takes $3,500 from you and me just so they can give it to someone else who didn't earn it. The money proposed to be spent on the "new" space program, will cost a little over a hundred bucks apiece.

For some perspective on such a HUGE amount of money:

For 1 trillion dollars you could build a $75,000 house, place it on $5,000 worth of land, furnish it with $10,000 worth of furniture, put a $10,000 car in the garage, and give this to every family in Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Colorado. Having done that you would still have enough money left to build a $10,000,000 Hospital and a $10,000,000 Library in each of the 250 cities and towns in that six state region. Having done that you would still have enough money left to build 500 schools at $10,000,000 each for the communities in that region. Having done that you would still have enough left of the original trillion dollars to put aside at 10% annual interest, enough money to pay a salary of $25,000 per year for 10,000 nurses and 10,000 teachers, and an annual cash allowance of $5,000 for every family in that six state region forever.

And consider this. That's just one trillion dollars per year. Next year, we could do those things AGAIN in some more states.

If you want to be outraged about something, you should at least be outraged about something significant, something like that ONE TRILLION DOLLAR give-away. (Of course, that wouldn't fall in line with your apparent political agenda.)

If someone has creditors calling, they've been irresponsible with their spending habits. Besides, bankruptcies have been made so simple, that millions of people take that option every year. Of course, the rest of us "responsible spenders" pick up their tab through higher prices. If your children don't have anything to eat, you're a lousy parent or the bully at school is stealing his federally funded school lunch. Besides, do personally you know of any such children? I didn't think so. And if a person is sleeping in a cardboard box in a gutter, it's his own choice to drink or drug himself into oblivion, and refuse to go to any one of the scores of shelters available already. Besides, why don't you find one of these guys and give him the shirt off YOUR back instead of demanding additional federal handouts that force ME to give him the shirt off MY back?

I'll make a deal with you, I'll personally kick in for your share of the space program, and you pick up my tab for the social programs.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

It's a human thing called jealousy or envy. As much as we insist we are not a bit miffed by the empire Gates has built - there is a little bit of us pissed off at him. And, in the great North American tradition (yes, USA and Canada), we would rather bitch and complain about Microsoft while we're marching down to the computer store to buy Longhorn. Ironic huh, we are the very cause of that which we are bitching about.

Note: This is not a personal attack on you Max ... this just seemed like a good place to stick in my whining and bitching.

But I agree, they are wonderful. All the pixar movies are very entertaining. Finding Nemo is also a wonderful pixar flick.

Isn't it?

Public perception of their business all around the world. So you are pushing it a bit far by blaming OZ for everythig wrong with "Gates, Microsoft or the USA."

Billy boy used to bring a lot of his problems on himself remember the Nescape debarcle? And then Microsoft seems to have some interesting anitcompetive business paratices which tend to just plain and simple piss people off and now Microsoft is admitting thsi and attempting to fix what they have done but after it is far too late to repair.

Just imange how much further computer software development would have progressed if not for M$ business pratices it is really Microsoft who is holding back new developments in software design. When they can produce a piece of software that doesn't leak like a seive in a streem of water they just might have a hope but until then they will continue on their merry way.

Longhorn is a good example by realising a pre Beta version of it on the net it got quite a few people excited and I can clearly remember answering a question about Longhorn having a firewall, I just replied that it would still be a long way off so get on with what you want to do now and don't wait for this product to become available. I was told not to be flipant and get with the program and this was now something like 12 months ago.

Col

Knight Commander of the British Empire, of course.
The 'Common' address used now for a KBC is Lord.

"But being bestowed with the honorary knighthood, does not make you a lord. You're welcome."

It doesn't make you a Lord but you will be addressed as Lord in North America don't ask me why it's just the way it is and I believe incorrect too, when have North Americans ever been right about British monarchy though?

"By the way, it just occurred to me, that anyone or anything successful, powerful and strong, you resent and/or despise. Whether it be Gates, Microsoft, or the USA. I wonder why that is? Interesting."

I despise capitalism and capitalistic actions. I despise the fact that in the USA Bigger is assumed to be better as it has sacrificed so much quality. Large corporation just end up giving us less for more, not more for less. It's pure crap and these people should be shot for thier abuse of the public. I see SO many Americans flocking to the WalMarts, Piggly Wiggly and Target stores because of convenience yet the end up buying second rate knock off grarbage for a few pennies less. In turn, the real store owners who believe in quality and service go to the wayside and the corporate giants win. You being a Rpublican supporter would not probably relate to this as it stands for everything big and obnoxious, just the way you are all seen in other eyes.

I had three people telling me what a bunch of assholes Americans were last night, I just drank my beer and didn't want to get into the four hour debate. Just like the military, your entire idea of how to be a human is bigger is better, well this has been proven wrong over and over again throughout time, yet you still strive to be bigger and better. Like I said, a little slice of humble pie would make your country so much more acceptable.

Bad day Max, don't go there.

Not getting skin cancer is a bonus! Not really an issue here in England :-)

.
You should take your own advice and enjoy life a little. Why anyone would choose to work themselves into a tizzy, and then attack innocent people in these threads is beyond me.

Heck, take the day off. Have a beer or smoke a doobie or something. (Doobies are okay up there in Canada, aren't they?)

I have no problems with ANYONE here at all, except you. Even when I politely asked you to sgree to disagree and that we don't agree so we just just leave it alone, you still come out slapping like a bitch. You desrve hatred you deserve having shots taken at you, you instigate and bring it upon yourself.

If you want to go toe to toe I am more than happy to tell you how I feel about you, within reason I guess as TR does have guidelines, which have saved me from expressing my true feelings toward yourself in the past.

I actually came here today to get some lighter thoughts and here some fun from friends, not yourself.

If you don't like my attitude, don't provoke it. I don't see anyone else gettign told to F-O today, except IBM and yourself. Have a seat and deal with it or shut up and take it like the woman you are.

I would love to be able to designate where a portion of my taxes go (even 1 - 2% would make me happy). Kind of like the united way cards we get to fill out every year. I'm pretty sure if we could do that, you and I would be donating in different areas, but hey, who cares..we'd both be happy. You could donate to defense and I'd donate to underprivileged children.

.
But to make myself a little more clearer, I would also donate to the underprivileged, both children and adults. I've often said that, as a caring society, that we should take care of those who can't take care of themselves. But "can't" is the operative word here, and I would want to choose to whom it goes.

Here is a true story about a government handout parasite. There is a house in my brother's neighborhood that is owned by the government. Now this isn't a project neighborhood, mind you, but rather a typical middle class neighborhood with ranch style and split-level homes that are valued anywhere between $150,000 and $350,000. The government started buying these houses some years ago with the theory that if welfare recipients were moved out of the projects and into a typical middle class neighborhoods, the "cycle" might be broken, and they would have more opportunities.

The family that lives in this house has been there for over twelve years. A father and mother, and four kids were moved in at our expense. The father doesn't work because he "has a bad back"; the mother doesn't work because she had kids to care for; so they receive money as well as free rent. Well, he has a bad back like the moon has cheese. He always seemes to keep the yard well groomed, as it was a condition of his living there. He is always working on his and other's automobiles. And he makes even more extra money working for cash doing yard work for others. He would play baseball in the park down the street, he would shovel snow, and so on. In short, he and she were and are just as capable of working and self-support as you and I. He moved out recently, but he's there a lot of the time. She is still there with the kids, and now even a couple of grandkids. So much for the cycle being broken. It is suspected that they got a quasi "divorce" because they might be made to work otherwise.

Now this house in my brother's neighborhood is really one of the nicest around. They are always getting new carpet, a new roof, a new fence, a new driveway, new appliances, new paint every few years, and so on, all compliments of you and me. In the meantime, my driveway is pitted, I need a new roof, I had to Visa the cost of a new fence, and my carpet is five years beyond needing to be replaced. I can't afford to do all those things, but these people get them at the drop of a hat - and WE pay for it. I think about the thousands and thousands of dollars in tax money I pay every year so this parasite can enjoy a lifestyle I can't afford because I'm paying for his. This isn't right. And this isn't an isolated case. (Yes, people have questioned it. It makes no difference.)

And you know what? This is only one of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of cases where people sponge off the government. If you factor in the other government handouts, such as medical care for millionaires, school and medical care expenses for illegal aliens, subsidized utilities for those who choose not to work, and I could go on and on, all being paid for by you and me. How many hundreds of billions of dollars go to such people every year? How many trillions of dollars have gone to them over the past twenty years? It's a sham and it's a shame. We've created not one, but many dependent classes of people, and, quite frankly, I'm tired of it.

Governments shouldn't be in the charity business, at least not the US government. That's what charities are for. This socialized state that FDR created, LBJ continued, and both major parties are now a slave to, has gone from bad to worse, and it's getting more dire every year.

How long before there are more takers than givers? And more importantly, what will happen then?

...Is to embarrass the appropriate enforcement agency into doing something about it. [I won't say sue them]

The local/regional news agencies should be contacted about such a thing and let them do some of their "investigative research". They'll turn that house into a mansion with crystal chandeliers and the cars the guy works on would turn into Rolls...

It about the only good thing I can think of for the sensationalist media to do... Might as well take advantage of it.

.
That's a great idea, and I'm not sure if anyone has attempted such a thing. But that's only one case out of millions. In reality, the bigger picture has to be addressed. The national dialogue has to change. The expectations placed on government has to change. And that was my point. With so much widespread abuse of the system, and with so much money being wasted, we are still inundated with "children starving in the street" claims, which is, at best, a bunch of malarkey. And people believe it! They're wasting more and more money every year, but they still want more and more money every year. It's pure lunacy!

My solution is as follows: One: Freeze spending on ALL social programs (money transfer programs) for a period of two years. Two: During that two year period, the already bloated government workforce that oversees these programs must verify the legitimacy of every dollar going out, correct waste, fraud and abuse, and prepare for step three. Three: REDUCE all social spending, and I mean a real reduction, not just the reduction in automatic growth, by some set percentage, perhaps five percent, for a period of four years. That will REDUCE social spending by twenty percent over the next six years, and save taxpayers eight hundred billion dollars, maybe even ONE TRILLION DOLLARS over those six years. At that time, we can reevaluate what needs to be done, including a total overhaul of the social security system. That should be phased out entirely over a period of fifty years, so as to be fair to all those (you and me) who have paid into it over their lifetime.

But this notion that the government exists to provide womb to tomb support for anything and everything for anyone and everyone is pure nonsense, and it just can't be maintained without caving in on itself. Eventually, there will be more takers than givers. We're almost there right now. Moreover, the notion of taking property (money) from one person, just to give it to another person is contrary to what America is all about. Not only that, it's the kind of nonsense that the founders didn't want in the first place. Let the rest of the world be a welfare state. Let the other countries socialize every aspect of their citizen's lives. Let America be the land of the free and the home of the brave and the place where individualism rules. And if that's such a bad America, let all those who disagree flee to all those other countries who will provide socialized support from womb to tomb. But in reality, the opposite will happen, people will flee to the "individualism" America, just as history has proven.

P.S. People will argue and debate the issues in my first two paragraphs. But no one has even attempted to debate the points listed in my last paragraph.

Well it starts out making some sense to me, but to go as far as implying that in order to have a socialist government you must have slack welfare requirements is not true. This varies across Canada depending on provinece and who you are. What I do think should be changed is that people who deserve support can't get it, while those that get support milk it. A mother with three kids will be denied because the delinquent husband is supposed to pay chlild wuport, when he doesn't, the nother is left with months of paperwork and legal proceedings after which the husband will still NOT pay support, quit work and go to work under the table etc. She is STILL out of Welfare support and strugling with three children.

instead of removing the welfare system perhaps holding delinquent parents accountable is a priority, perhaps ensuring thiose that need help get help and those who are milking for help DON't get it. It's not the system that is wrong, it is the rules that govern it that are wrong.

Can you actually say that you don't think SOME people inneed should get support as needed?

Do you not see that it is the people who abuse a system that cause the system to fail and there should be more stringent guidleines in place?

Basically, in Canada, you CANNOT refuse someone welfare, which has good points and bad but little to define the differences.
Eg. You cannot say no to someone seeking support.
This should be defined into a set of rules that oputline EXACTLY who is entitled and who isn't, as it sits, ANYONE can go get a check, unless you REALLY need it, then there's OTHER support you need to seek, taking time, costing money in babysitting and travel etc. Meanwhile, someone working full time as a construction worker, under the table, will get a check from welfare the same day in just a couple of hours, so he can go sit in the bar.

I don't think the system is corrupted, I think the people are.

It's no wonder that there are a lot of anti-Americans around!

When in Rome, do as Rome does. No matter what your feelings or views on Royalty or any other country, it is always right and proper to show respect and to behave in keeping with custom. Whether or not you feel any respect is up to you. Common etiquette demands that you follow the customs and traditions of a host nation and as it is highly unlikely that Her Majesty the Queen (note the correct form of address) would come round to YOUR place, if you ever got to meet her, it would probably be in Britain.

In many far Eastern countries, it is considered very poor form to show the soles of your feet. This is implying that you are putting yourself above others and is just 'not acceptable'. How many students and backpackers (mostly American, I might add) I have seen arrested in Singapore Airport and 'cautioned' for this 'offence' I lose count of. In the USA (and indeed Britain) it may be acceptable (I personally disagree!!) for our youth to be slouched around with their feet propped up on the back of another chair but there it is NOT acceptable.

What makes a nation 'great' is not the ability to dominate others and impose your own culture and behaviour, but the ability to accept the social norms of others and treat them with the same respect you would wish to be treated yourself.

One of the reasons that so many American service personnel are being attacked in Iraq, despite the war technically being 'over' is for the very reason that the Americans are seen to be treating the locals with no regard for local customs or mores. Just because you overpower a country doesn't mean you have to ignore tradition and customs. The British troops on the other hand, are told what is and isn't acceptable in Arab states. Even if you beat a country in battle you should be magnanimous in defeat and show the same courtesy and consideration as you would wish to be shown if the boot was on the other foot. Funny how it's fairly peaceful in Basra?

I have lived and worked in virtually every corner of the globe. I have been to places where I strongly disagree with the regime in power or with aspects of custom, but courtesy demands that I behave in a manner which does not show my feelings! The French all kiss each other when they meet in public (as do many North Africans)...personally, I don't got round kissing men (it's just not 'British'), but if I was in France or Algeria, I would accept their way of doing things...I may not like it, but it's 'their' way and I respect that.

As far as bowing to the Queen goes...one doesn't have to fawn and make a big song and dance about it....a simple tilt of the head is perfectly acceptable in normal everyday situations. Being Knighted is a different matter....this is a tradition going back a couple of thousand years and is a ceremonial occasion (theatrical if you like) and as such demands a little more when it comes to protocol.

I agree, guy with a bad back is reprehensable and I am sure there are many more like him. No, I don't want to support his lifestyle with my taxes. But how do you stop the abuse? There are hungry children in this country, I see it in the small town that I live in. And yes, I'm sure that in many cases, it's the parents fault. But does that make it okay to let a kid go hungry? Obviously the parents aren't taking care of the kid, SOMEBODY has to. It isn't the child's fault that his/her worthless parents procreated. I don't have the answers and I can't stand the waste. I guess my only point is, that if it were up to me, I'd spend my tax money in the hopes it would reach people who truly need it, rather than spend it on defense. I'm sure this is a simplistic view, but it's mine..

.
If you see hungry children in the streets of your town, I have to wonder where you live. I live in a metropolitan area of over 2 million, and I don't see it. Yes, I will admit, that there are probably some hungry kids roaming around because they have irresponsible parents. But we have a system in place to remove those kids from such environments and place them into foster homes. If a kid is going hungry, he doesn't need a meal, per se, he needs a caring home. Moreover, just because these parents may be financially strapped and may have trouble putting food on the table, doesn't mean they don't have options. For example, in almost every community there are food banks where just about any needy person can go to and get free food. And when these food banks run short of supplies, it's usually reported on the local news, and we'll see a bunch of groups have special food drives. Moreover, every year the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the local sports teams (usually the players' wives), churches, schools, and so on have food drives to fill the shelves of these food banks. Our local grocery stores have food bins at the door so people can buy something extra to donate. Our town has a coat drive every winter, and a local dry cleaning business collects and distributes tens of thousands of coats that generous people have donated. The bottom line is this. The doom and gloom stories of "big bellied", malnourished kids wandering the streets of America are all nonsense. It simply doesn't exist.

If you see a starving kid walking around, you should call the authorities. If you want to donate your time and money to fill these food banks, that's great. If you want to buy that kid a meal, go for it. (But be careful.) I donate food several times a year, and my elderly mother even works (for free) in a food bank two days a week. And they don't run out of food.

But for you to want the government to take money from someone other than yourself and force them to be charitable is not the best way. overnments, especially the American government, should govern, no more, no less. Charities should be charitable, no more no less. And never the two should meet.

I'm not debating a need for charity. I'm just suggesting that government forced charity is not the best way.

OK, Max. I know we've discussed this before, actully, and I think I DID challenge this statement, albeit a year or so ago...

I would rather waste my money on a hundred scoundrels than to let one truly needy person suffer.

Yes, it's irreprehensible that a hundred houligans get away with robbery and contribute to the lack of resources for us all. But removing the support someone really needs isn't the correct answer.

This is my 'liberal' side. Socially.

But I am adamant about fixing the problem. I hate that people are stealing my hard earned money and preventing the lighter burden of only helping the guy who really needs the help. I haven't seen a very good fix other than to increase spending.

I know that got your attention.

It's where you spend the money that counts. Enforcement.

Spending more money on enforcing laws is where we will actually SAVE money in the long run. You will be able to reduce welfare expenditures by slamming the abusers - hard.

But I'll work with your plan.

Let's reduce the total of the budget that goes toward paying entitlements, while increaing enforcement by just as much.

A space program aimed at putting a permanent colony on the moon and sending an expedition to Mars is a small start at a space program that could, in time, deflect a life killing asteroid.

With that in mind, you could consider Bush's space program to be a social program.

Furthermore, unless it is outsourced to other countries, said space program could employ a lot of people who are having problems making ends meet because their tech jobs have disappeared. And if these people have jobs, that generates jobs for others.

Now, admittedly it would be a small step towards reaching the technology to deflect Near Earth Orbit asteroids. But those steps need to be made.

Perhaps it is an overstatement to say there are hungry children in my town. (Although, I didn't say starving). Perhaps it would be better to say needy. There are many children who get enough to survive and forgo the distended bellies, but don't have enough (food, clothing, shelter) to have the quality of life that everyone in this country SHOULD have. There is enough for every one. I read recently, and no, I have not verified this, that the 13,000 most wealthy families in this country have more than the 20 million most poor. Getting back on subject, just because a child isn't starving does not mean that what he is getting is enough. Lack of food can cause poor behavior, poor health, lack of concentration, etc. Some people rise above this, most don't. Of course if I saw a truly starving child I would report it, I do, however, see children walking on the sidewalks who don't have coats or shoes when the weather is cold, who are to young to be out and about without parental supervision, yet are. If spending my tax dollars will help improve the quality of life for one kid, I won't begrudge that. These kids are going to be taking care of us one day, I want them to be happy and healthy when that day comes.

I see foster homes as just another way for a government to deal with a problem without resolving it.

Certainly if a child LOSES his parents or is physically abused by his parents he should be ermoved from the abuse. For a hungry or malnourished child to be placed in foster caer because his mother is unable to work is not a resolution to anything and simply ADDS to juvenile delinquency. Kids in foster homes usually feel they need to fight for attention, something they have probably fought for for years already at home. They are also more susceptible to becoming criminals, drug abusers etc. due to lack of attentive parenting and attention, 'the man' removed them from their mothers home, who are these other people to start enforcing rules the child has never had to deal with before. It creates INSTANT resentment and hatred toward the social services and the foster parents. It is no better than putting mentally disturbed criminals in jail. I understand that psychopathy is not curable and cannot be "reformed" as it is a physical disturbance with the frontal lobe. But to stick criminals in jail with mental dfeficiencies is wrong, unless a system of rehabilitation is in place. Many of these people COME from the foster homes where they were placed due to their terrible parents.

Putting something in a closet or sweeping it under a rug and out of sight is not a resolution, it is actually the cause behind much of todays criminal action.

.
I think you are still missing my point. I don't argue that there are needy people, because there are. I understand the compassionate thought behind letting the scoundrels get away with theft, just to make sure no one gets left behind. I don't dispute the fact that the 13,000 most wealthy families in this country have more than the 20 million most poor, even though I didn't attempt to verify it. (But if it's not accurate, it's probably not off by much.) My point is the "therefore what" that follows?

Some people, therefore, want the government to act as the broker of charity, taking - by force - the property of one person so that they may give it to another. That's wrong. That's dead wrong. That's not how America was founded. And, in the long run (and we're well into the race), it will certainly be the downfall of America as we know it, or hope to know it.

In 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough, had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

He goes on to say, "The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

We're seeing the demise of America as it was intended to be. And if we don't turn it around, and do it very soon, our grandchildren will read about how it used to be in the history books. Unless, of course, they read some revisionist's version of history, which is more likely.

When should people be able to "vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury"? The answer is never. Absolutely never. I don't care how good intentioned it may be.

This is really about how we include song lyrics to emforce our point.

In the words of Edith and Archie Bunker (everyone now)
"THOSE WERE THE DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYS !!"

.
It's just that when you refer to "God Gates", as you often have, I just assumed that you don't exactly have very many warm and fuzzy feelings towards him. I could be wrong, mind you, but it's just a feeling I get.

20 million for a driveway at a house that costs 50 million? 40 percent of the cost of that house is a driveway? That's a bit hard to believe. Do you have a source for that information? Unless, of course, the "driveway" is considered everything leading up to his house. I read that he's been quietly buying all the property and houses surrounding his home because it allows him to have much more privacy, which, in my opinion, is certainly understandable. Perhaps that's what you're talking about. (He lets other MS people live in them.)

Taken from a telivised interview with Bill Gates when he was building the house of the future with all the new latest gagets. They went to great lengths to explain what all the new advances where but then Bill mentioned the cost of the driveway which did at least to me sound a bit eccesive. I don't know just how long it is but from my memory about the pictures it was a half circle where you drove in one end and out the other the main cost was in the white stones that covered the driveway, they where susposed to be imported for some special place but they never actually said much about it other than the cost and a little bit of narative about it being necessary for looks.

That was one thing that the reast of the house didn't have as it didn't look anything special as far as a house goes but with all the new technology in it it was a special place.

Actually I only refer to Bill as God Gates because of the way that most of the people who sell Microsoft products appear at their Partneres Meetings. They are unwilling to accept that there are any different apps out there that might do a better job and if Microsoft don't make it it isn't worth having. They are like a bunch of Zombies who just follow whatever they are told without question.

I don't know how they get on with AV products for home computers or small business where it isn't practial to use ISA which I really think is great and its next version will be even better when it is realeased but it certianly isn't for most people and is limited to the big end of town.

Actually it was a Microsoft sales person who first used that term {I think at the official XP release} and I just liked it so I've kept using it.

Col

I used to carry a "Slide Rule" around with me and I used it so much it was almost attached. I can remember working out stress requirments that took weeks to perform all with the slide rule and a note pad {well generally lots of note pads} but with the advent of computers and CAD aps all that is now long gone and while computers promised us the paperless office this hasn't happened yet but the advantage is that when you do a set of calculations and print them out they are at least readable to others and not only to you're self.

Thinking about TV we only used to see one when my father took us on holidays in my latter teenage years we never had one at home until well after it was introduced over here and even then it was an old Valve B & W unit which just seemed to go on without any problems and when Color TV came to our shores we still kept the B & W and it remained untill well after my fathers death I think he may of considered a color unit if he hadn't of gone blind towards the end.

But thinking back when we went on holidays to the beach it was considered as healthy to get sunburnt and then tan up after you had recovered from the sunburn even when I went to visit my uncle on the sheep staiton way out west we used to walk around in almost nothing but shorts and a wide brimed hat and got sunburnt all the time we actually only wore any real clothing when it rained and it was the accepted normal and considered as Healthy it wasn't until much latter when skin cancers started to appear on various members of my family that we began to think differently and by then it was far too late as the damage had already been done.

I think that we remember the past but only the good times and tend to forget tha bad times and all the problems that we encounted. Since my brothers death 2 years ago I've had 40 moles removed and only 23 where cancer but because of the Health beliefs of the time I now have to see the surgeon every 6 months just to make sure that nothing is developing that is unwanted. However on the bright side I've worn a full beard for years now so at least my face is fairly well protected and when I lived up north I did find it interesting that all the mens barbers/hairdressers wouldn't cut mens hail above the collor so it would protect the back of the neck and they always recomended that the men grow full beards. So maybe our long dead forfathers had the right idea with their beards and long hair.

But isn't it interesting how beliefs change over time?

Col

I'm sure you foresaw this response, so let me get it out of the way for you to continue:

Wealth is political power in this country. Power can gain additional wealth. [or at least bar entry for competition]

I'll throw in the current example: Halliburton.

Have at it.

The following has been true for more than ten years:

The number one health problem among America's poor is obesity!

If welfare is the problem, then it's corporate welfare, not individuals. A single mother with 3 kids (or even your brother's loser neighbor) can't compete with corporate welfare..brief examples..

"Mining corporations, many of which are not even American, receive huge welfare handouts from U.S. taxpayers in the form of access to public land at far less than the market value. Billions of dollars' worth of precious metals and other natural resources have been taken from public land, without any compensation to U.S. taxpayers."

"A new study commissioned by the National Education Association (NEA) reveals that local policymakers nationwide are doling out tax breaks and other subsidies to corporations with little or no accountability. Moreover, these tax handouts often come at the direct expense of public schools, with school boards lacking any input in the decision."

"The federal government currently spends roughly $93 billion a year on programs that provide subsidies to private businesses. Not only does this give big business an unfair advantage over smaller competitors, it gives politicians an excuse to deny much-needed tax relief to the bottom 75% of taxpayers -- those who, according to the Tax Foundation, make less than $55,226 a year.

Specifically, the bottom 75% (over 96 million people) pay approximately $156.8 billion a year in federal income taxes -- with those who make below $27,682 (the bottom 50%) paying a little over $38.3 billion, and those who make between $27,682 and $55,225 paying the rest.

Thus, if we eliminated corporate welfare, that alone would allow for the income tax to be reduced by nearly 1/2 for those making between $27,682 and $55,225, and abolished entirely for those making below $27,682. This would benefit wage-earners enormously by offsetting the regressive nature of the payroll tax, and would benefit small businesses by eliminating the anticompetitive nature of corporate welfare spending. "

Again, I'm not saying the welfare fraud is not a problem..but if we're going to bitch about how our tax money is being used..there are bigger fish to fry. (And I'd still rather use mine to help needy children)

And is holding a "Bloody Big Sword" so I personally would do whatever she asked me to do.

After all it is an Honour that is being bestoed not some form of punishment for the Colonies Uprising all those years ago.

Now exactly how many Yanks has this honour been bestoded upon obviously Bob Hope didn't count because he was born in the UK.

But I suspose being with the PC crowd even having the Congressional Medal of Honour pined to you're chest would be some form of INSULT and it would be better to be handed it in a nice little box like they do when they hand out medals to dead people Right?

Col

And this si something that I've said previously as well.

Most of the Welfare budget goes to the support Government Structures and not the intended recipents which is not something that is only found in the USA but in all Westeren Countries.

Col