Natural for zOS
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 18 May 2010 09:56 On Tue, 18 May 2010 04:31:19 +0200, Fritz Wuehler <fritz(a)spamexpire-201005.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: >That's debatable. The world has gotten to the point pretty much everything >is illegal. I doubt even the best intentioned individual can make it >through a few hours without breaking a law here and there. Vernor Vinge has a Hugo winning SF novel with a chapter which is mainly background for the story. This planet starts ubiquitous law enforcement. Everything falls apart, as nanotechnology, computers, and everything enforce all laws - including contradictory laws. This is fiction, but interesting. And I pretty much believe it. A more realistic example is in the USSR where organized crime enabled commerce to work around the government controls. Most of us would be more comfortable if all rules like this were straight-forward and correct. But real life isn't straight-forward. While I pay for my music and software, I am guilty of driving 6 mph over the speed limit on most public roads. The lowest-common-denominator speed limits are low, and I adjust my speed because I don't want tickets. It isn't about "it's the law" for me in driving speed. States recognize that taxing garage sales doesn't make sense - mainly by refusing to enforce sales tax laws, but sometimes by explicitly excluding them because they aren't feasible. ==== Moving into a bit of politics - my wife's reaction to illegal immigrants is "what part of illegal don't you understand". But I am of the strong opinion that people who say that are fooling themselves. History shows that when people get scared (the recession, 9/11), they try to grab their old life by blaming those with other cultures. It's not about "illegal", and they don't believe economists who say immigrants are a net economic gain, nor agencies that say 2/3 of the immigrants in the U.S. are here legally. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Bill Gunshannon on 18 May 2010 11:59 In article <q365v591ich9k49cpicdscpvrbvm47j259(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> writes: > > ==== > Moving into a bit of politics - my wife's reaction to illegal > immigrants is "what part of illegal don't you understand". But I am > of the strong opinion that people who say that are fooling themselves. > History shows that when people get scared (the recession, 9/11), they > try to grab their old life by blaming those with other cultures. It's > not about "illegal", and they don't believe economists who say > immigrants are a net economic gain, nor agencies that say 2/3 of the > immigrants in the U.S. are here legally. while agree 100% with her assessment, I have a much bigger question for everybody who is following this debate. Why is a Mexican who comes over the border immediately an illegal while we have Canadians who spend more time in this country than in their own and; a) pay no taxes b) keep their Canadian car registration (thus avoiding road taxes) even though the time limit in every state I know if is 30-60 days before re-registration is required etc..... bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: starwars on 18 May 2010 13:50 docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > In article <5c3c69f58750984d6f3770cfd69153e5(a)msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, > Fritz Wuehler <fritz(a)spamexpire-201005.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > >> >Everybody knows there is no legal way to run z/OS on anything but IBM > >> >hardware. But there has been no enforcement. > >> > >> That there has been no enforcement in no wise diminishes the illegal > >> status of the act. > > > >That's debatable. The world has gotten to the point pretty much > everything is illegal. > > How very brave of you to publicaly violate the law in such a manner! > What you posit is a world where there are only two kinds of actions, > 'illegal' and 'illegal without enforcement'. No, you misunderstand: I simply observe the state of affairs is deplorable and getting worse. As Mr. Spock said, "In an insane world, a sane man will appear insane" of somesuch.
From: Anonymous on 19 May 2010 07:12 In article <66868bf3fd8df6e43bbbc7d112e1e08e(a)tatooine.homelinux.net>, starwars <nonscrivetemi(a)tatooine.homelinux.net> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >> In article <5c3c69f58750984d6f3770cfd69153e5(a)msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, >> Fritz Wuehler <fritz(a)spamexpire-201005.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: >> >> >Everybody knows there is no legal way to run z/OS on anything but IBM >> >> >hardware. But there has been no enforcement. >> >> >> >> That there has been no enforcement in no wise diminishes the illegal >> >> status of the act. >> > >> >That's debatable. The world has gotten to the point pretty much >> everything is illegal. >> >> How very brave of you to publicaly violate the law in such a manner! >> What you posit is a world where there are only two kinds of actions, >> 'illegal' and 'illegal without enforcement'. > >No, you misunderstand: I simply observe the state of affairs is deplorable >and getting worse. As Mr. Spock said, "In an insane world, a sane man will >appear insane" of somesuch. I thought I understood perfectly. If 'pretty much everything is illegal' then 'posting that things are pretty much illegal'... and yet you posted! (as for 'things are getting worse'... haven't folks been saying something along those lines ever since decipherable recorded history can be found?) DD
From: Anonymous on 19 May 2010 07:29
In article <skh5v5p49nv183btqitkgh1preu4c4sphn(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Tue, 18 May 2010 16:42:26 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>Ignoring, for the nonce, the Accepted Wisdom of 'for illegal aliens even >>the worst day Over Here is better than the best day Back Home' perhaps the >>best disincentive is economic: get caught hiring illegals for work, lose >>your license to do business, with appropriate 'detention' of office >>equipment (computers, file cabinets, bank ledgers, etc.) >> >>Oh... they had good, fake papers? All right, let Justice use a gentle >>hand and have your license to do business suspended for only six months... >>with appropriate 'detention' of office equipment (etc). > >Making small business liable for both believing papers are valid and >for laws against discriminating is pretty expensive. Businesses profit from hiring illegals, businesses should bear the cost for the unlawful action... unless the alternative of 'jail for everyone!' is invoked. A business does not, from my knowledge, employ illegals because the illegals know more stuff or do a better job; the illegals get hired because they work for less money (increasing the business's profit margin) or they accept conditions which, if remedied to be attractive to legal workers (dust-masks, anyone?), would also increase the business profit margin. The business risks the gain, the business risks the punishment... seems equitable, doesn't it? An alternative is 'humans are liable for working as illegal aliens but businesses, being More Important, aren't... and taxes are for the little people, aren't they?' >If the state >really wants to stop illegal immigration, it should provide smart & >easy validation. Help small business. Make it easy and safe to >hire workers. If the above is true then a conclusion is the state does *not* want to stop illegal immigration... perhaps there's Big Money there. DD |