rec.autos.simulators

I can't believe it...

As far as I remember the US still owe billions and billions to the UN ??
As far as I know the US still makes truckloads of money selling landmines as
the only "civilized" country who refuse to abandon their use. I guess it
gives your Peace Corps something to do ?
As far as I know the US claims to have the m***right to use armed force
against anyone they want, claims to be all powerfull and in control of
everything... well with power comes responsability. Funny how you still
think you can evade all the agreements on saving our planet (again as the
only large industrialized country), make money on polluting 10 times more
than anyone else disregarding the rest of the human race and then have the
nerve to complain when we ask you to spend a bit of that money cleaning up
after yourselves, removing some of the landmines, redistributing to those
3rd world countries exploited.

The US is way WAY down on the list when it comes to giving to the
undeveloped countries of the world. Your contributions might seem ok to the
uneducated eye, but when related to your economy and your population it's
laughable compared to most "civilized" countries.
Sorry to all you regular americans, but these uneducated or highly
nationalistic "holier than thou" propaganda posts really annoy me.

I actually agree with Dave that most rich people deserve their money as they
have worked hard for it.... probably comes from being annoyed with Denmarks
60% taxes which distributes the wealth and assures a very high standard for
the "unlucky", "the least productive members of society", the "financially
challenged" or whatever politically correct term for "poor" is... but which
sadly also assures that some people never bother to make an effort at
supporting themselves.
It sucks parting with 50-60% of your income, hehe.. but then again it
probably sucks even more to not have free education, free hospitals, social
wellfare for all and all the other benefits that it gets us ;)

Mikkel

Yes, surely I jest. But comparing Bill Gates to a "worker" was a kind of
a joke as well, I hope... The man has never really had to work for a
living, coming from a privileged background.

Oh, I'm not saying he's not a smart businessman - but a real inventor he
is not, and making a lucky business deal with IBM (after all, if it had
succesfully kept its pc's from being cloned Gates would not be rich) -
that's luck and outside influences, not your product being so ***y
brilliant.
Apart from that, the products that made Microsoft - BASIC, (Q)DOS and
Windows - were hardly their original idea (See: Kemeny, Xerox Alto, CP/M
etc etc). Gates is a reactive copier and a smart marketer (who basically
seeks world domination thru other people's ideas), but if one equates
being (basically) a cloner with ingenuity, it's time for a rethink, imho.

About $ 50+ billion's worth, I guess. Think for just one moment of the
lives you could save with that amount. Would it not be worth to save
even one child's life, instead of Bill having $ 10 billion instead of $
59.000.000.000?

That's a good point. But since current governments doesn't really come
into it (after all, Bill can simply BUY a country and go solo anyway..),
it's doubtful such action would go through official channels anyway...

However, it would be interesting to have a referendum and let a people
democratically decide how much personal $ would be "enough".

Well, lets' extrapolate from that: Why should you keep $ 59.000 million?
(and nobody, certainly not Gates, worked THAT hard in his/her life to
deserve so much. A lot of people do bone-breaking jobs and don't even
earn $ 20 a month, for all their life).  You won't be needing that much
for yourself anyway - too much to spend it all.

My point is that after a certain point (imho, about $ 1 million) there's
generally no *real* need for further financial improvement. Gates or
Jobs don't need to work for the money anymore in the real sense. After a
certain point, even they might realize what they want is success, not
the money itself.

But in my view, after the financial need is cared for, there's not much
against capping off further earnings above $ 1 million and putting the
remainder into the community. That would also mean less financial
problems for said community, less taxes, and if you ever get below the $
1 million line for some reason, you'd be allowed to work back up to
millionaire status again. It's just the part *above* the million that
usually gets excessive.
In other words, in my view it's perfectly OK to work towards being a
millionaire, but being allowed to be a billionaire while just about half
the world is starving is excessive. It's out of balance. Koyaanisquatsi,
so to speak.

Unequal distribution of wealth, my man, *IS* greed, pure and simple.
It's greed incarnate. You have more money than you really need, and you
want even more, putting the consequences to other people's lives aside.
If that's not greed, I don't know what is.

Well, I think Bill is too rich for his own (and other people's) good. If
he were forced (through a Robin Hood hacker or otherwise) to lose 90 per
cent of his money to the starving masses - which are FAR too common on
this earth - I think the world as a whole would be a better place. Bill
would still be a billionaire, after all. And all those starving people
would suddenly have a fighting chance to start a worthwhile enterprise
of their own. Currently, they don't. That's a loss to us all.

Regards, Ruud

PS. And I still maintain we shouldn't pirate Live for Speed, despite all
the above, btw   ;)

I know Americans are spoon-fed into believing that capitalism is the way
to go. Most of them just don't hear otherwise all their life. In Europe,
right between the US and Russia, we tend to have a slightly more
balanced point of view without rejecting private enterprise per se.

Capitalism, just like totalitarian communism, isn't the be-all and
end-all of human socio-economic structures. It's a way to make money,
but not a good way to base the whole society on since it will eat all
resources it can find if not kept in tight control (see Enron et al for
most recent example). That's why I think capitalism should be confined
to the enterprise, not the government.

Well, you could argure how much he 'created' anything, since other
people had already created the things he sold (CP/M ->DOS, BASIC,
Alto/Mac -> Windows). 'He copied a product and was very successful doing
that' would be more of an accurate reflection.

Heh. Wait and see. If Gates gets his way, you will literally be paying a
Microsoft tax every time you turn on your computer or do anything where
digital equipment is involved. Never, never, never underestimate
Microsoft's ability or willingness to suck up your money - even when you
would not be willing to pay for it.
If Microsoft is not kept in check, this will happen. It partly already
does. Licensing 6.0 only vaguely sets the tone of what MS wants.

It's not Microsoft's success I have a problem with. I have some of their
Mac programs before they became a behemoth, and some of them are pretty
much ok. It's the way it (partly) stole its way to success, and the
things it will do to stay successful, including stifling all innovation
at competitors' companies. These guys are not playing nice, and have no
qualms about getting even more at the expense of you and me.

Regards, Ruud

PS. And therefore I'm glad LFS is not one of its products  ;0)

Capitalism cannot and should not ever be a goal to strive for... Do you
really mean to say you find it a good thing that you have to pay to be
treated in a hospital ?? Do you honestly find it fair that only the rich
people can afford a good education ?
YES I want to be able to own my own stuff, I wanna have the chance to be
*** rich, I want free enterprise, I want to feel it is worth it doing an
extra effort and all the other capitalistic stuff, BUT I also want free
hospitals, free education and a fair lower level of poverty... that can only
be reached by applying the politics of most European countries, i.e. a mix
of the various systems not as extreme as the US capitalism or the communism
still ruling some unfortunate countries in the Asian region.

But in my book being rich or being successfull is not a crime in any way. I
think Mr. Gates have the right to choose how he spends his own money,
actually he has already proven to be willing to part with rather large
amounts of his money to worthy causes, so maybe he is a very bad example to
use in this discussion ?

Mikkel

No. You're missing the point. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed
to make loadsamoney or achieve success thru private enterprise. I'm just
saying that when it gets excessive, there are cases where it's better to
intervene.

Saves us all huge amounts of ca$h having boatloads of overly-poor people
being able to suddenly take care of themselves, as well.

Imagine walking through a poverty-stricken death camp and having a
billionaire right next to you saying "but I'm not giving a penny to
these people. I've already donated something last year. I don't want to
fall beneath $ 10 billion and miss out on the latest Rolls and Maybach
models." Then tell me you wouldn't somehow like to take a swing at him.
That's basically what's happening *right now* and that's the kind of
attitude I'm having slight problems with.

It's the people who only care about achieving more personal wealth than
they really need, who imho care little about anyone else. The "greed is
good" and "success at all costs" Enron-type mentality, where getting
*more* of what you already have is put above all else.

Regards, Ruud

PS. And we still shouldn't pirate LFS, should we   ;)

Money has become too much a measure of succes. The ability and
willingness to give away money to those who need it most (not me) would
be a far, far better measure, imho.

That's a rather naive, dangerous and/or undereducated point of view. The
very point that led to slavery, in fact. "They" are inferior, "we" are
not and therefore "we" (the rich) should get to decide how to run the
world. You're tantalisingly close to extolling the views of an
ethnocentric racist here.

Well, the good point of freedom is that I can look down my nose at
anyone I think is dead wrong. I can *understand* their point
intellectually, but that doesn't mean I have to agree.

Part of the point is that half the world is not even able to agree,
disagree or start up some really good enterprise because they are too
busy staying alive for the day. We should be able to change that, imho,
and not blindly follow the idea that more for those who already have
most is always better.

Regards, Ruud

PS. And let's not forget we should not pirate LFS  ;)

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank:+6.19
N2002 Rank:+18.91

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Let's say Bill gives away maybe 2 per cent of his fortune and that's OK
in itself, that's nice. But that still means Bill, being just one man,
has more than $ 57.000.000.000 left while about 57.000.000 human beings
are dying from starvation. That, my friend, is wrong.

And since Bill (and most other billionaires) won't give so much away
that he'd only had, let's say, a paltry $ 99 million left, he is part of
the problem and he, like most of us including myself btw, *is* at fault.

It's not about aquiring wealth, that's just fine with me; it's about
amassing *excessive* wealth while masses of other people are right now
facing their last day of not having anything to eat or drink. Tomorrow,
when we wake up, they will be dead.

Bill, on the other hand, on the same morning their families will have to
discover their loved ones have died a horrible death, will have gained
another $ 5.000.000 or so in interest by doing nothing at all,... just
by being asleep.
Please tell me that's not worth correcting. Please tell me that's not
worth getting just a little bit *angry* about.

Well ehm, seems to me you've answered your own question here   ;) In
case of Microsoft, donating definitely is better since BG is quite rich
enough, btw.

See above. I think it's fine that Bill gives away some of his cash, but
it's an insignificant amount in his case (as with most billionaires).
Besides, he tends to give away copies of Windows to underfunded
institutions/governments, not without some alterior motives methinks.

Regards, Ruud

PS. It's not much but at least it's something: www.thehungersite.com

PS. Maybe we should erect something like the above site to finance GPL
II - grassroots commerce   ;)

   Even Jesus knew poverty couldn't be cured.  If you obsess on the wealth
of others you are wasting time that could be spent bettering your life or
those who are less fortunate.
dave henrie

I certainly wouldn't say I obsess on the wealth of others.  Just a flippant
passing comment.  I see it as a necessary evil.  I've got a decent job and a
lot more money than I used to have but I'm not the money-hungry type.  I've
actually been accused of lacking ambition, but the way I see it, I'm just
not driven by greed like some (most) people.

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

"The Pits"    http://www.theuspits.com/

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--

Yeah, I know it's not Bill personally, just thought it was an amusing
side note

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

"The Pits"    http://www.theuspits.com/

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--

[:o)
--
- Igor -