Slashdot Mirror

Harry Anslinger, who you could consider the godfather of the war on drugs, put his racism about it in no uncertain terms.

His racism about is in very uncertain terms, as you link to an amateurish-looking website where not one of those eight quotations is cited. Wikiquote, which takes verifying quotations seriously, notes that at least one attribution of such unabashed racist speech is disputed.

Am I defending Anslinger? Not at all, I don't have enough information at hand to judge the situation. But let's be intellectually honest and source statements instead of lazily repeating the unverified assertions of myriad stoner websites.

And government is necessary to increase the wages of workers. At least according to this communist:
"When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters." ~ Adam Smith Wealth of Nations

For example, Republicans have been pushing voter ID laws which include stricter ID standards, more bureaucratic hoops to get ID, and the closing of offices to get IDs in areas which, by some crazy coincidence, are where black people live. None of these things are racist on the face of it, but the result is that its harder for black people to vote, and thus that fewer blacks vote. The Republicans and their supporters know this, but bristle at accusations of racism because, hey, its not like they used the N-word or anything like that.

If what you say about republicans is true, then democrats are akin to the khamer rouge. And please, I live in Canada, I've lived in Europe. The US is one of very *few* western countries that doesn't have a requirement of voter ID.

This has nothing to do with "making it harder" especially when states are willing to hand out the ID for free. It seems to me, that democrats would be much happier to let people vote as many times as they can and "call it democracy." I mean it's not like there haven't been a string of democrats having been charged in the last year for election fraud or anything right? I mean there was one two days ago, that was charged with 19 counts I believe.

None of what you said address the fact that a certain percentage of people don't have valid ID, and that these people tend to be poor and black. The Republican party has a clear incentive to push tougher ID laws, and coincidentally that is exactly what they have done. Given their other un-democratic tendencies (eg Gerrymandering), and their history of racist rhetoric, I'm not as inclined as you are to give them the benefit of the doubt. I shouldn't have to say this, but the Democratic party is also pretty unethical in my book, so please don't accuse me of defending them again. On the issue of race there is a clear difference, whereas the US used to have 2 racist parties, after 1964 one party has at least made an attempt to join the modern world.

I'm sorry you can't see that the US is still a deeply racist society in many ways. The legal system is incredibly biased, harassment by the police is a major problem, and the Republican party still finds mass appeal in certain states with dog-whistle, coded racism. Its a bigger social problem, not the fault of one party, but the Republican party has chosen to be the standard bearer of that racism (see the Southern Strategy, still in effect).

The US is a deeply racist society? I haven't read anything so funny in all my life. I'm guessing you've never traveled to japan, s.korea, malaysia or anything. You want to see deeply racist, try looking there. Or better yet, go look at the middle east...you'll see what a deeply racist society looks like. I do find it funny though that you use key words and talking points right out of the various left-wing pundits though. Perhaps you're so biased, and so deeply ingrained in your own bigotry that you can't see what you're actually saying.

I don't disagree with your take on those other societies, but its irrelevant. I don't blame you for wanting to dodge the subject however, as that would require you to defend a position that is pretty obviously stupid.

As for your comments about bias, its obvious from your posts that you have extremely strident right-wing ideological commitments. I chose to respond to the post and not the poster. For what its worth I'm not politically committed one way or the other, I just believe that on this particular issue the Republican party, and American right (which you seem to identify with, despite being Canadian) are dead wrong, and I don't mind saying it.

If you are really interested in exploring the ugly side of US racism I would recommend 'The New Jim Crow' by Michelle Alexander. Their justice and prison system are appalling. Read that and tell me that 'deeply racist' is too strong.

Back around 2003, I was arguing on the SSI list against space-based solar power satellites, pointing out that with trend towards ever cheaper ground-based solar power, solar power satellites were making less and less economic sense, even if they might have made more sense in the 1970s if built from lunar materials. I also pointed out the with decentralized roof-based solar power, and with likely predictable improvements in power storage (compressed air, hydrogen and fuel cells, better batteries), fairly soon it would no longer make sense for many people to connect to the grid even if the production cost of the electricity was nearly free (like from SPSS), because roughly half the then-current cost of electricity was for "distribution" via a grid of wires, not for "production". The grid is costly to maintain with falling trees, hurricanes, and so on. So, at some point, it is cheaper to have local solar panels than to get even free electricity from space if you need to use a grid to distribute it. (Solar power from SPSS beamed directly to airplanes in flight or to big industrial plants or laser launching rocket systems might be a different economic story.)

One idea I suggested back then is that if you looked at these trends, and factored in a future decommissioning cost for the grid to remove poles and power lines and such, and also sunk costs of debt being repaid for previously built coal and nuclear plants, some utilities might already be effectively bankrupt? Of course, you need to weigh the value of the copper in the wires as well as the value of the power line right-of-way for communications, so that idea is a stretch -- but it shows what these cheap solar PV trends could mean to the utility industry.

But even in the 1980s, just as Reagan took office and took the solar panels off the White House, people were talking about these solar trends. Amory Lovins is another person good at general big predictions on energy (including oil prices in the 1970s, when you factor in risks like wars and supply disruption).

Anyway, all this issue with solar PV reaching grid parity something utility company planners should have seen coming a long way off. Instead, it seems most people (including on Slashdot) have been completely ignoring these cost trends towards grid parity, and are only now acting on the fact that it has finally been (or is about to be) reached for solar PV. That is kind of like ignoring the fact that a car engine is leaking oil until it actually seizes up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Or in other words:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/U...
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Of course, I'm not sure what you could tell most utilities to do even if they had seen this trend. If their only response is to try to disrupt cheap solar, then maybe it is for the best that they ignored this trend? An alternative might have been for utility companies to get into a Sears-like appliance relationship with homeowners and their solar panels and batteries, or to do something like Solar City did with funding such systems?

The only thing I can see that would affect this trend towards dirt-cheap solar is even cheaper power from hot or cold fusion or something similar. It's true that people can fall off roofs installing solar panels, and that ground-based solar not on roofs can look cluttery and cover up ground otherwise usable for growing plants, and that batteries in the home need to be maintained and can be a hazard, and that some solar panels could in theory have run-off with some heavy metals (like lead or cadmium). So, nothing is perfect, and utilities might have been able to supply something better if they had thought hard about it and invested in R&D.

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

-- Hitler, Mein Kampf

According to this research, there is no such statement in "Mein Kampf".

If only there was some sort of cultural moment dedicated to changing the perception and social role of women. We could call it "feminism".

I think you might have a branding problem with that name. It's sometimes been associated with anti-intellectual post-modern garbage (such as this), transphobia (such as this), and various bits of misandry. ranging from the subtle (bell hooks's claim that rich and rewarding inner lives that have historically been the exclusive province of women) to the absurd (Dworkin's claim that "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for womenâ(TM)s bodies.").

Of course there are wingnuts in any group, but it seems that feminist leaders have not done an adequate job of disassociating from them. Since the majority of women reject the feminist label, it seems to me that those of us interested in gender equality -- which would include listening to women's opinions, no? Including the majority of women who reject the label "feminist", right? -- might want to find a new one. (I've been thinking "gender libertarianism" might cover it, but the American so-called "libertarian" movement has been working hard for decades to degrade that term. Maybe "gender anarchy"?)

Rats are not humans.
Rats don't give a fuck about their health or physical fitness. Nor are they great at thinking long term.

As for Zucker rats... Ummm... You do know that they were DESIGNED TO BE LIKE THAT?
They are a mutation created for research purposes.

For all intents and purposes - those are not REAL RATS, any more than one could consider pekingese to be wolves.

Calories in/calories out is at best a proxy for what's really going on under the covers (ie, insulin, hormonal reasons)...

  ...

  ...but that doesn't mean it's correct.

Correct premise, wrong conclusion.

It IS correct. BUT... It is not the only factor at play. And "obesity" is a generalization.
There ARE genetic or health components involved - but not in the entire population.
On average though, reducing/limiting intake and/or exercise IS equal to weight loss.

Yes, and if you look at what food items constitute 100 calories, it should become plainly obvious that human beings lack the consistency and precision in choosing food and/or exercise in order to maintain weight like we do.

Sorry, but number of calories in "some food A" is in no way in correlation with "human beings lack(ing) the consistency and precision in choosing food".
I'm not really sure what was it you tried to say there.

Also, have you ever heard the phrase "work up an appetite" what do you suppose the body's very first reaction to burning those 100 calories is?

Ever heard of the phrase "Un bon mot ne prouve rien."?

Actually... After spending 100+ calories through exercise... They probably won't be hungry.
If anything, they'll be less hungry. IF they have some extra weight. They will be thirsty, though.
I only have personal anecdotal evidence for it, sorry, but I do have a theory why it is so regarding hunger.

From fasting for 72 hours with only ~30 calories per day, and from doing 10-15 minutes of light exercise each day (to stave off muscle loss) which would cause, then relieve the sense of hunger.
My guess is that I was forcing my body to reach out for those accumulated calories. Getting it to spend those ketones in place of glucose.
I did it in order to compare it to just eating less. In short - you gain back the weight lost that way really fast.
You do feel "un-bloated" though... Empty bowels and all that.

But regardless of it... It's not about those 100 calories spent. It's only ONCE a week. Who cares about what they eat ONCE A WEEK.
It's about raising the BMR by spending those calories ON EXERCISE.
You gotta do a LOT of exercise to spend those 100 calories. Keep doing it week after week, and you got muscles which you didn't have couple of weeks ago.
You slowly start burning more even just resting. That's it.
IF you pay attention how much you eat and don't just stuff yourself, that is.

Again... anecdotal, but I've knocked down my weight from 84-85 kilograms in December to 75 in June by limiting calories and exercising.
Since then, I'm exercising less (maybe once or twice a week) and eating on average around 2000 calories (more than before), and I'm slowly moving toward 73-74 kilograms, at the moment being closer to 74-75 mark.
Being in my mid-30s it's almost EXACTLY what you would expect from the formula.

Slow, continuous loss of fat through limiting of calories and through light exercise.
It can be done faster, but then you end up buying pants more often.
Yet another issue that rats never have to face.

So many people have learned the hard way that sharing nude pics or a racy video with just ONE person can lead to the whole world having it. As the beer commercial says, "Ex" says it all ...

Quote from a 1950 movie, Born Yesterday:

He always used to say, "Never do nothing you wouldn't want printed on the front page of The New York Times."

It's still good advice today. We're inundated with examples of what can happen. In too many cases, the victim is guilty of contributory negligence, at the very least. Example: "What do you mean, 1-2-3-4-5 isn't a good password?"

Dark Helmet: 1-2-3-4-5? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard of in my life! That's the kinda thing an idiot would have on his luggage!

Banks have already established that your funds aren't covered if you use a stupid, easy-to-guess PIN.

There is a principle in economy attributed to Keynes that says: "In the long run we are all dead"

People suffering the severe consequences now probably shouldn't worry much about a century later. That is 4 generations in the future for their great-great-childrens with really no objective gain assured.

Oh how I love false accusations by the ignorant who have refused to do the work to gain knowledge they claim others lack. Here is a good source for you, but I'm guessing that you won't do the work. With that in mind, the actual quote from Benjamin Franklin is "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." That said, there are numerous other quotes others have given paraphrasing that quote.

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

You are not knowledgeable nor are you special, no matter what mommy told you.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.

I doubt that there are many government mandated taxes in say ...Somalia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991-2006)

Islam at the top religion in the US in 10 years is just silly talk. It would require MASS conversion.

Alternatively, just reduce the number of non-Muslims in the country. And 13 years ago they started the job, if you get my drift.

Oh, you didn't? The radicals (ultra-conservatives?) want to kill the infidels. ALL of them. (Us, presumably. Or if nothing else, ME -- I'm an atheist and won't convert. [Well, I'd hope.]) They don't want to meet and chat, not have an election, nor tweet about it. You'll either convert, or you'll die, and I'm sure they'll be watching the newly converted for a decade or two.

I'm not sure what the Islamic moderates actually think, but I'm fairly sure they're scared of the radicals too. But what matters is what they actually do. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." --Edmund Burke, maybe. It also applies to the Westboro Baptist Church.


WARNING! OFFENSIVE RELIGIOUS CARTOON PICTURE FOLLOWS! Don't click or view if you're under the age of majority in your location (usually 18-21, I think.) Gee, you're responsible for your own actions -- what a concept!

It's here.

"Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened ... Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day."

The best known standard quip about standards itself has multiple versions and attributions. How meta:

"The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from." - Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 2nd ed., p. 254

"The nicest thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Ken Olsen

“The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.” -- Grace Murray Hopper

See also:

Obligatory (but who set that standard?): xkcd : Standards
Why are there so many plugs and sockets?

‘Mediocrity finds safety in standardization.’ -- Frederick Crane
‘It is not enough that X be standard, it should also be good.’ -- Rob Pike (Window Systems Should Be Transparent)
The two above can be found on the cat -v page on standards"
"Standards are like toothbrushes. Everybody wants one but nobody wants to use anybody else’s." -- Connie Morella

Perhaps your online time would be better spent by actually reading the stuff than bitching about a nick.

Oh snap, you got me, you clever lad.

Perhaps your online time would be better spent actually reading the stuff than tossing out sophomoric zingers.

I mean, put a little work into it and bring in the source material. Feynman was a funny guy - work that into your act. Here are some quotes to get you started: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Better yet, show that you actually spent your time reading the stuff and work that into your schtick. THAT would be impressive.

Come on, show me what you got, funny guy. Stop phoning it in. :-)

Obviously you're not a golfer.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/T...

Smartphones have actual microphones. Why use the gyro as a crude microphone when you have a perfectly functioning microphone built into the device already?

Because its there

Too bad he (or she) didn't create it. It was a Heinleinism.

How do you feel about the fact that Darl McBride said that SCO owns C++?

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4

Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.

Dozens of times during my lifetime peace has been within reach, only to be shattered by some asshole on one side or the other

Soooo, you're saying it's just like that speech in Team America: World Police

The Gestapo actually wasn't that good at spying. The German people were, however, quite good at turning their neighbors in to the Gestapo.

Which means Gestapo was good at spying. The indicator is whether you get results, after all, not whether you get them because you're smart or scary.

There's a lot of myth concerning the Nazi police force. It's unfortunate that even today people repeat it without thinking.

"He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you."

Tyrants stay in power, not because they're stronger than their very source of power, but because they're good at building myths. A nation, company or any other organization is nothing more than a myth shared by its members. And the myth of the Third Reich is so strong it still persists, long after its embodiment is gone, as a kind of ghost nation. Time will tell whether Hitler will take up permanent residence in our collective pantheon along the Caesar's and Napoleon.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/I... Detective Del Spooner: Human beings have dreams. Even dogs have dreams, but not you, you are just a machine. An imitation of life. Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a... canvas into a beautiful masterpiece? Sonny: [With genuine interest] Can you?

Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J...

"That's libertarians for you â" anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
-- Kim Stanely Robinson, _Green_Mars_

the govt can override constitutional rights if there is a compelling societal/governmental/national interest

This assertion is the road to slavery. Seriously...

there's a compelling national interest in regulating it closely, even if it impinges on the (implied) constitutional right to free travel.

Well, we are "regulating it closely" and yet, as you acknowledge, car accidents remain the primary cause of death. Having given up an essential liberty — what did we gain? Looks to me like that famous "lose both and deserve neither" situation...

I much more quickly get my dander up over the no fly list. What is the purpose of this list?

Absolutely. But it is justified with much the same reasoning you are defending:

1. traveling is a privilege, not a right;
2. the Executive government needs to keep certain "dangerous" people from flying.

Once you've allowed the Executive to "override constitutional rights", they can do anything.

And I'm sick of how statistically speaking, anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.

There are two kinds of statistics --- the kind you look up, and the kind you make up.

[Archie Goodwin, in Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe novel Death of a Doxy (1966), Statistics]

Though Wooden was actually paraphrasing an earlier quote:

Character is what you are in the dark.
- Dwight L. Moody

Another person who doesn't understand science, or what scientific consensus means, posts attack on scientific consensus.

A pity you're such an arrogant cunt or you might consider learning something from "Science advances one funeral at a time." from someone who is actually well-regarded as a scientist before running your fat gob like a fucking know-it-all asshole.

Reality is overwhelmingly liberal.

Not overwhelmingly, it's just that reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it

So said Publilius Syrus in 43 AD. ...but seriously screw "libertarianism". It's the "creation science" of economics where we simply ignore the rigorous mathematical models (including the idea that deflation is bad) and gain the unshakable trust in the "confidence fairy" who blesses the economies who believe in the true currency (gold! bitcoin!).

And unlike "young earth creationism", the backers of "libertarian economics" are supporting an economic system which was developed by the rich with the sole purpose of finding a reason to lower their taxes. And if you're last name is Koch, you can describe this as "charity" or "philanthropy".

So much for Voltaire. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire never said that. Honestly, the fact that you weren't aware that this is one of the most common falsely attributed quotations out there, really undermines your credibility on anything. Besides, if your point is valid, it should be able to stand on its own without dragging in a long-dead philosopher's name to lend it prestige.

... its time to revise the famous quote:

"The Net interprets Comcast as damage and routes around it."

As far as multiplicity and genetic variability goes, it is a good thing not only in software and bees, but also in forms of government. In particular, I grew up under communism, and witnessed first hand its deficiencies, but I'm proud to say my people faired better under it than the brits eating their pregnant wives when forced to be communists, see http://www.cato.org/publicatio.... So when communism fell, my priest started chiming about the virtues of monarchy, how that's a very good system of government, to be taken seriously. During communism he was constantly in trouble with the politicians for his abuses of free speech, for constantly talking politics, criticizing everyone and everything during his preachings. By the way I barely missed like 10 Sundays from church in 18 years while growing up, unless I was away in summer camp, I'd always go to the evening mass, always 5 minutes late, sneaking in upstairs to the choir, holding my head low when reaching the top steps, so the priest wouldn't see me - the organist and few people up there would see me, but I didn't fear them as much because they were not as outspoken and criticizing like the priest, who might stop sermon and criticise someone who just walked in late, by name, in front of everyone, for being late, so I'd sneak up with my head low, and sit in the back on a bench level with the back of the organ, my head only becoming visible when the first standing up is required during a catholic sermon. The masses were always very educational, and even if you did not fully agree with what was said, a lot of it was way off, as in "woow, you can't say that! not in church!," you always got a fresh point of view on issues of importance, that you may not have been aware that they were of importance before, and he was probably aware what he said was not the truth, but he was doing it to make people think about it. There are often many sides to a topic, and opposing views might each be correct in their own ways, and sometimes highlighting the most ridiculous answer brings attention to the more mediocre other answers. As shown on http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/N..., Bohr said "Two sorts of truth: profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd." Also "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question." So when you discuss complex issues, like the priest did, sometimes saying absurd things is acceptable. So he started chiming about the virtues of a monarchy, Sunday after Sunday, and that was competely against what you learned in school, what the communist propaganda machine sort of forcefed you, about progress, prosperity, zero unemployment, and building a better future and creating more happiness than the proletariat exploiting capitalists can come up with, which you knew was bullshit, all you had to do was compare a West German(capital Bonn) luxurious Mercedes, with an East German(capital Berlin) frugal 2-cycle cardboard body Trabant. So even though you were taught about the shortcomings and abuses of having and allowing private property, all of which sounded true, you knew there had to be another side to the story they were not telling, that there was overall more happiness in allowing for private property than not allowing for it, that instead of private owners who "care" having the "state" or more exactly its politicians "care" for the welfare of such things as a factory seems not to be working out for the better. Even though you knew that much of the propaganda was bullshit, it was obvious that something led to it, and the people who were talking it were all probably well meaning, and if what they were preaching as a solution to the problems didn't work out in practice, it must have been because they didn't understand or were unable to predict properly, not because they intended to create

Hesiod never said that and that same quotation has been ascribed to many people. Failing to check a citation and perpetuating a spurious quotation is little different from lying.

Mark Twain, actually.

Grace was a renowned innovator. And her favorite saying was "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/G...

For aficionados of Grace, Dave Letterman's interview is a must-see.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A...
Scroll down to "NYU Law School speech (2006)"

The tau that can be eaten is not the true Tau.

not by Alexis de Tocqueville though:

``The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.''

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A...

earliest known occurrence is as an unsourced attribution to Tytler in "This is the Hard Core of Freedom" by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman (9 December 1951): "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Nope

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Thanks for the catch. Freudian slip, dyslexia, etc.. Meant 1948.

Lots of good quotes http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/M...
i.e.
Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache. Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag (Leipzig 1948), p. 22, as translated in Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 33â"34 (as cited in T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Computer science is not about computers...nor is it a science. A quote that I remember is often attributed to Dijkstra:
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. "

If I had known that years ago I might have a degree in EE rather than CS.

Ah, yes. The younger generation is so terribly lazy.

At age 25, that generation has, on the whole, just left university and has had only a few short years to pull together a career. At the same time, they're pulling together the means to start a family, while trying to start paying off student debts. In a modern world, those endeavors require cell phones, computers, and a functional car. They were luxuries back in your good ol' days, but now they're just a necessity of modern life, as essential today as a good suit was in the 1920s. Of course, someone with an established career wouldn't see that. We had to take the train or bus to work when we were their age, and we did just fine... never mind that those trains and buses have shut down now.

History has always shown a gradual move toward normalization of luxuries.Once upon a time, a filet of minced beef served with soft bread and cheese would be a feast for a king. Now McDonalds will serve it to you for a dollar. The enabling factor is the ability to pool labor and resources, on an ever-increasing scale. For the king's feast, a small team would raise the cattle, harvest the wheat, and prepare the whole meal by hand, of course. Today, the economy of scale allows workers to focus on a single minute aspect of the job, minimizing the overhead cost of production. The young generation today is doing just as much work as you did in your youth, but they're doing it faster and easier that you could imagine.

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

-not Socrates

True, but they do still have an ethical responsibility to pay a reasonable sum to the society that cradles them.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

So when I see someone, of ample ability to pay tax, indulge in contortions to remit a pittance? I see a leech upon society.

That said, I live in a country where the tax man does not bear down too onerously and our grievances are generally heard. Your mileage may vary.

Plus would you hire someone who did that?

Yes, I would. I would consider it an IQ test. Nobody has a legal or ethical responsibility to adjust their behavior in order to maximize their taxes.

Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. -- Learned Hand

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/D...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/T...

        Lyle: I'm gonna get a NAD T-770 digital decoder with a seventy-watt amp and and Burr Brown DAC's.
        Left Ear: [at a loss] Yeah...
        Lyle: It's a big stereo. Speakers so loud, they blow women's clothes off.
        Handsome Rob: Now you're talking!

I know, I try to forget the remake was ever made as well, it has none of the spirit of the original. But that one line was somewhat memorable.

It's a quote from the leader of the turbo-capitalist faction in the game being referenced in the post it was a reply to.

Personally, I would have gone with this quote, since it's the actual one that matches the research of Monopole Magnets:

I maintain nonetheless that yin-yang dualism can be overcome. With sufficient enlightenment we can give substance to any distinction: mind without body, north without south, pleasure without pain. Remember, enlightenment is a function of willpower, not of physical strength.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/E...

Yeah, people *think* he said it, but even he admitted he didn't. Which is why I didn't attribute the quote.

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.