Look, this is hardly the correct thread for arguing this particular issue, but the long and short of it is that your information is wrong. Start here:
This binding-yet-completely-ignored interpretation means that although Congress can collect a tax from the States based on the average income of each person in that State, it still cannot collect this kind of tax directly from an individual.
First and foremost, you need to go back to the ruling as a whole, rather than just snipping the particular sound-bites you think agree with your proposal.
Secondly, you need to stop getting your information on taxes from tax resistance organizations. There's a reason Kent Hovind is in jail, you know--and it's not because he was "kidnapped." He broke the law.
Lastly--and most fundamentally, if you're a Christian--you would do well to consider Matthew 22:15-22, especially in conjunction with Rom 13:1-7. At no point does your scripture make allowances for whether or not a tax imposed by Caesar is "legal," or "fair"--your Bible simply says "Pay it, or suffer the consequences."
"Kidnapping" is capture or transport without lawful authority. The state has lawful authority. Therefore, your argument is based on a (deliberate, I suspect) equivocation, and is invalid.
Though you may or may not agree with the concept of government, as it stands now our government has the lawful authority to assess and exact taxes. Therefore, taxes are legal (whatever your opinion of their morality), as is arrest for non-payment.
Rape is "not violence?" I never said that--but it is a not uncommon result of being arrested. Don't like it? Stay your ass out of jail.
Actually, NASA is not funded under threat of violence. It is funded under threat of arrest and imprisonment for evasion of taxes--the violence only comes in if the tax evader initiates violence.
In other words--pay your taxes and don't point guns at the revenuers. It's rude, and likely to land you in substandard federal housing (with very substandard room-mates, most of whom are named "Big Lance" and think you'd look fetching in fishnet).
Seriously, at this point there is no purpose to going to the moon for the US. We don't have the tech (or the budget) to set up a self-sufficient base, much less a colony. The transport costs for supplies are too expensive. Personnel would have to be rotated off--at additional cost of money, resource, and risk to their safety.
What we need to do is develop and send some form of unmanned, containerized, modular base, that can autonomously set itself up and start producing power, oxygen, and water. Once that is in place, we have a considerable step towards a self-sufficient base, and even a first "baby-step" towards a colony.
If we're not planning on having people live there eventually, then what's the damn point?
Google found another case of enhanced disbarment--Anthony E. Ramos, a lawyer in Florida, was issued an enhanced disbarment for misappropriations from a trust fund, in addition to several other grievous misprisions. (Cite)
Yes, I can imagine plenty of situations where a president might commit an act that, while technically illegal, prevents more harm than it causes. By the same token, I cannot imagine any such situation that could not be horribly abused.
Warrantless wiretaps could catch criminals, but it is precisely the penchant for abusing authority that we, as human beings, have that led to laws requiring a court order for warrants. Bush has abused that authority, and in doing so has broken the law.
Warrantless wiretaps may be useful for preventing crimes and terrorism... but only in the hands of a saint. Bush is no saint, and neither is McCain.
Thanks, Goobergunch and Jor-Al. I don't have mod points, but please accept a hearty thank you.
This does, however, make for yet another significant difference between the two candidates. I don't see anything in Article II of the U. S. Constitution that allows for warrantless wiretapping, but I think that all of us can agree that the United States Constitution is a broad framework for government, rather than an exhaustive point-by-point guide.
The warrantless wiretaps may, technically, be illegal (indeed, they probably are). Can anyone here imagine a situation where a technically illegal act by the President prevents more harm than it causes?
He not only makes predictions about technology (which is a feasible endeavor, though fraught with difficulties), but also about the universe that the technology will interact with. Predicting that brain scan technology will improve is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Predicting that we will map out hundreds of specialized areas within the brain is a prediction that is completely off the wall, because we don't know enough about brain function to know if all areas are specialized.
The comparison is not to intentionally obfuscated code, but to organized and documented code. Haphazard code is quite a bit more difficult than clearly written code.
No. They support Bluetooth for connections to a local PC, but all networking protocols are cellphone-style networks. The only possible exception is MDS, but I think that has to go over a cell tower, too.
I know this data is encrypted, but does it meet the encryption requirements laid down for electronic medical records in HIPAA?
Triple DES--more recently AES. Either of which satisfies HIPAA regulations. Hell, DES satisfies HIPAA, so that's not a very high barrier there.
AC, chill. He's right--I could have gone ahead and learned what I wanted to. But as I said before, it's cool: I may not have formal training in music, but I have enough skill to do what I want.
AC was trolling, but in one sense he's right--I could have still gone ahead and gone after what I wanted. But it's cool--I've got some songs out on the internet, and I still have fun with the tech stuff.
Hmmm... I have to disagree. First find out what they're passionate about (if anything at this age). If they're young enough to be undecided, then you can go with what you like--but be prepared to completely change course if they discover something else.
My dad is an industrial engineer, so I got the whole math/science schtick, with a Heathkit computer and lots of stuff to build. However, when I turned 10, I turned on to music. Music is still a passion of mine... but unfortunately, Dad didn't understand how I felt about it, so he was still pushing for the hard sciences. I never even learned to read standard notation, much less the music theory I wanted to take in high school.
Needless to say, this caused some friction, and to this day my passion for music is a lot greater than my knowledge for music.
Instead of a MitM attack, would it be possible to do a "proxy-in-the-middle" attack?
* User opens up to read email/connect to their bank account/something secure.
* DNS returns IP of evil impersonator (EI) instead of Real Computer (RC).
* User requests connection from EI. EI transparently proxies that connection to RC, while listening for the password that authenticates the key exchange.
* Profit! Or would it be?
I can't imagine this kind of hole not already being covered, but it seems like it would be feasible without some form of encryption on the initial password itself.
Slashdot Mirror
And you are simply handwaving. Hope your wrist--and your asshole--don't get sore.
Look, this is hardly the correct thread for arguing this particular issue, but the long and short of it is that your information is wrong. Start here:
This binding-yet-completely-ignored interpretation means that although Congress can collect a tax from the States based on the average income of each person in that State, it still cannot collect this kind of tax directly from an individual.First and foremost, you need to go back to the ruling as a whole, rather than just snipping the particular sound-bites you think agree with your proposal.
Secondly, you need to stop getting your information on taxes from tax resistance organizations. There's a reason Kent Hovind is in jail, you know--and it's not because he was "kidnapped." He broke the law.
Lastly--and most fundamentally, if you're a Christian--you would do well to consider Matthew 22:15-22, especially in conjunction with Rom 13:1-7. At no point does your scripture make allowances for whether or not a tax imposed by Caesar is "legal," or "fair"--your Bible simply says "Pay it, or suffer the consequences."
"Kidnapping" is capture or transport without lawful authority. The state has lawful authority. Therefore, your argument is based on a (deliberate, I suspect) equivocation, and is invalid.
Though you may or may not agree with the concept of government, as it stands now our government has the lawful authority to assess and exact taxes. Therefore, taxes are legal (whatever your opinion of their morality), as is arrest for non-payment.
Rape is "not violence?" I never said that--but it is a not uncommon result of being arrested. Don't like it? Stay your ass out of jail.
Actually, NASA is not funded under threat of violence. It is funded under threat of arrest and imprisonment for evasion of taxes--the violence only comes in if the tax evader initiates violence.
In other words--pay your taxes and don't point guns at the revenuers. It's rude, and likely to land you in substandard federal housing (with very substandard room-mates, most of whom are named "Big Lance" and think you'd look fetching in fishnet).
Yes. Buy my "Moon Real Estate," or I'l eat your liver with fava beans and a nice chianti. :P
Precisely. Based on current knowledge, there's no economic benefit in going to the moon, whether it's a "day trip" or a colony.
But if we ever discover that there is an economic advantage, my proposal is (IMhO) more workable than manned missions.
It's ... OK, never mind.
Seriously, at this point there is no purpose to going to the moon for the US. We don't have the tech (or the budget) to set up a self-sufficient base, much less a colony. The transport costs for supplies are too expensive. Personnel would have to be rotated off--at additional cost of money, resource, and risk to their safety.
What we need to do is develop and send some form of unmanned, containerized, modular base, that can autonomously set itself up and start producing power, oxygen, and water. Once that is in place, we have a considerable step towards a self-sufficient base, and even a first "baby-step" towards a colony.
If we're not planning on having people live there eventually, then what's the damn point?
+1 Insightful (Unofficial). Out of mod points, darnit.
Google found another case of enhanced disbarment--Anthony E. Ramos, a lawyer in Florida, was issued an enhanced disbarment for misappropriations from a trust fund, in addition to several other grievous misprisions. (Cite)
Obama is also not a saint--but he agrees with the checks and balances, and disagrees with warrantless wiretaps.
Responding to my own post.
Yes, I can imagine plenty of situations where a president might commit an act that, while technically illegal, prevents more harm than it causes. By the same token, I cannot imagine any such situation that could not be horribly abused.
Warrantless wiretaps could catch criminals, but it is precisely the penchant for abusing authority that we, as human beings, have that led to laws requiring a court order for warrants. Bush has abused that authority, and in doing so has broken the law.
Warrantless wiretaps may be useful for preventing crimes and terrorism ... but only in the hands of a saint. Bush is no saint, and neither is McCain.
Thanks, Goobergunch and Jor-Al. I don't have mod points, but please accept a hearty thank you.
This does, however, make for yet another significant difference between the two candidates. I don't see anything in Article II of the U. S. Constitution that allows for warrantless wiretapping, but I think that all of us can agree that the United States Constitution is a broad framework for government, rather than an exhaustive point-by-point guide.
The warrantless wiretaps may, technically, be illegal (indeed, they probably are). Can anyone here imagine a situation where a technically illegal act by the President prevents more harm than it causes?
Just for comparison, I'd like to see what Obama's views are on this issue. Anybody got a link?
I have no mod points, but please accept an honorary "+1, Funny".
Or they'll make a "Vista Lite" that will run on the lower capabilities of UMPCs.
He not only makes predictions about technology (which is a feasible endeavor, though fraught with difficulties), but also about the universe that the technology will interact with. Predicting that brain scan technology will improve is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Predicting that we will map out hundreds of specialized areas within the brain is a prediction that is completely off the wall, because we don't know enough about brain function to know if all areas are specialized.
The comparison is not to intentionally obfuscated code, but to organized and documented code. Haphazard code is quite a bit more difficult than clearly written code.
Since when has "morality" or its lack prevented a slashdotter from complaining?
Ah! Thanks for the correction.
No. They support Bluetooth for connections to a local PC, but all networking protocols are cellphone-style networks. The only possible exception is MDS, but I think that has to go over a cell tower, too.
I know this data is encrypted, but does it meet the encryption requirements laid down for electronic medical records in HIPAA?Triple DES--more recently AES. Either of which satisfies HIPAA regulations. Hell, DES satisfies HIPAA, so that's not a very high barrier there.
AC, chill. He's right--I could have gone ahead and learned what I wanted to. But as I said before, it's cool: I may not have formal training in music, but I have enough skill to do what I want.
AC was trolling, but in one sense he's right--I could have still gone ahead and gone after what I wanted. But it's cool--I've got some songs out on the internet, and I still have fun with the tech stuff.
Hmmm ... I have to disagree. First find out what they're passionate about (if anything at this age). If they're young enough to be undecided, then you can go with what you like--but be prepared to completely change course if they discover something else.
My dad is an industrial engineer, so I got the whole math/science schtick, with a Heathkit computer and lots of stuff to build. However, when I turned 10, I turned on to music. Music is still a passion of mine ... but unfortunately, Dad didn't understand how I felt about it, so he was still pushing for the hard sciences. I never even learned to read standard notation, much less the music theory I wanted to take in high school.
Needless to say, this caused some friction, and to this day my passion for music is a lot greater than my knowledge for music.
Thanks. I know that question fell into the "stupid newbie" category, but I've never taken a look at the process of authentication.
Instead of a MitM attack, would it be possible to do a "proxy-in-the-middle" attack?
* User opens up to read email/connect to their bank account/something secure.
* DNS returns IP of evil impersonator (EI) instead of Real Computer (RC).
* User requests connection from EI. EI transparently proxies that connection to RC, while listening for the password that authenticates the key exchange.
* Profit! Or would it be?
I can't imagine this kind of hole not already being covered, but it seems like it would be feasible without some form of encryption on the initial password itself.