Flash is not "ascending the future-bound ladder" - if anything, it's a step backwards to a time before the Internet, when proprietary systems ruled. The real problem with Flash is that it's proprietary. This flies in the face of what has made the Internet successful. By pushing Flash, you are participating in creating the next great software monopoly, right alongside Microsoft. Sure, there are benefits to monopolies, but there are downsides too. Many people on Slashdot are more aware of the downsides than most -- more aware than you, apparently. You just want something to add multimedia to your website, but you haven't fully understood the impact this is having on the Internet as a whole.
Look, my entire point behind this tirade of mine is that this kind of thinking is what gives us Enron, Halliburton, Spiro Agnew, and Watergate and it grows into all out war.
You have causation backwards when it comes to war. "Innocent" things like housewives' SUVs create demand for oil; the huge energy market creates a demand for a company like Enron; war happens because we can't afford to ignore Middle Eastern tyrants who have oil, the way we ignore African tyrants who don't have oil; companies like Halliburton help administer the war and its aftermath.
Back to your main point, companies like Enron and Halliburton love using accountants to bamboozle the IRS, including drowning them in paperwork. So the approach you're describing is equally likely to be where it all starts, particularly if you're drowning the IRS with information that you don't actually need to file.
But I hear where you're coming from. It's just that different people tend to react to these kind of things in different ways. I don't think it's so easy to claim that one way or the other is right, unless of course you've actually paid accountants and lawyers to research the issue, in which case all you can say is that you have a legal opinion that says you're right, but chances are the other guy can get a legal opinion to say he's right, too. It's moral relativism, law-school style.
This might fix the problen a lot quicker than simply ignoring it and letting them think we need more rules.
Uh-oh, you're beginning to retreat into a fantasy world...;o)
I don't think the OP's really saying he's "getting away with something". He's just saying that for the amounts involved, it's not worth dealing with. This is less of an issue of "cheating on your taxes" and more of a question of being effective. Sure, you could spend your life filling out paperwork, but there are more important things to do.
BTW, if the OP is being truthful that he only makes about $100 a year from this, the IRS won't care either, so he's not cheating anyway. Which brings home the point that you should really get professional advice about this stuff, if you have a question, rather than either wasting time reporting stuff you don't need to, or wasting time worrying about not reporting stuff you don't need to.
... isn't releasing Tom Cruise upon the world punishment enough?
well, yes and we replied with celine dion...
Yes, that's one area where Canada beat the US, definitively! It's like Canada invented sonic beam weapons a decade or two ahead of the US. I mean, you can ignore a Tom Cruise movie that's playing on TV, but when Celine Dion is singing, nothing short of an industrial-quality soundproof booth will save you!
Re the Sudafed-buying thing, my g/f told me that recently when buying Sudafed at CVS (in the NY metro area), she was not required to show ID; whereas at Target, she was. Thanks for the HIPAA information, now I'm going to go hassle Target about it just on principle.
But we *can* think of causes for them to change. Local differences in the curvature or geometry of the universe, for example, which we might have inadvertently built into our theories. For all we know, something like that could explain dark energy and/or dark matter. Assuming laws are constant throughout the universe is understandable, but we shouldn't forget that it might not actually be valid.
That's because you're an Anonymous Coward, i.e. you have no name. Without a name, you cannot think. The first step to recovery is to give yourself a name. Then, you will know who you are, and you will begin to be able to relate your notion of self to the world around you. But you're not getting any of this, are you...
Since the statement was made at a specific time prior to the end of the universe (assuming the universe ends), it's reasonable to make sure that all future data is included in that statement, too. Besides, as I pointed out, "All the experimental data in the universe" isn't sufficient to prove a theory, and that's what most of my comment was explaining. So what part of that didn't you understand?
All true. And in fact, it's probably naive of me to expect that many physical theories will hold throughout the entire universe for its entire life. Laws would certainly have been different near the time of the big bang, for example.
Sure. But would it be good science, in this case? There still aren't really any positive indications that string theory (or brane theory, or whatever) is even remotely on the right track. If foundational assumptions turn out to be false, then a more rational approach may be to start looking for different theories, perhaps ones that have, I dunno, some testable connection to observable reality?
No, because the goal is to come up with a theory that explains or models the possible behaviors in a particular universe. The reason parallel universes are relevant to that is because a single universe doesn't represent every sequence of events that is possible in that universe. However, other universes that don't share the properties of the universe you're interested in, aren't relevant -- unless you're trying to come up with a theory that applies across all possible universes/realities, but that's probably asking a bit much!
I think you're quite right. The problem, though, is that we really don't know how else to do this kind of science at this point. We've reached the edges of our ability to test theories, not just for want of bigger particle accelerators, but also because of more fundamental issues -- we're inside the universe, and there's no fundamental reason that we should be able to figure out exactly how it universe works, from the inside, any more than a creature inhabiting the two-dimensional surface of a balloon can figure out that the balloon's surface is supported by air pressure in a three-dimensional space.
So in a sense, string theory is just the cover story that scientists use to continue conducting research. It's something to focus energy around, like the space program was for 1960's America. Eventually maybe we'll hit on some experimental data or a less unconstrained idea which gives us a clue as to how to proceed.
Not so fast -- for a start, you'd need all data from the universe's future, too. But even then, you still won't have proved your theory, unless you count all possible parallel universes too. Even if every event in the history of the universe fails to falsify a theory, it is still possible that you just got lucky, and nothing ever happened in such a way as to disprove the theory. Of course, I'll concede that in that situation, you've got a pretty useful theory and the errors it contains are moot for someone living in the universe in question.
I haven't RTFA (site is returning a database error), but the biggest criticism of string theory so far has been that there aren't many good ways to falsify it, i.e. disprove it, which makes it somewhat suspect as a scientific theory. Having a way to do a test that could disprove it is, in a sense, very good news for the theory. (Besides, you can't ever prove a scientific theory, you can only support it with evidence and fail to disprove it with tests.)
OTOH, a test that actually does disprove string theory could be very bad news for string theorists. But you can bet there'll be a lot of scrambling to rejigger the theory after a failed test...
"A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered." So no, none of the things you mention are pyramid schemes.
The article's point is not that the economy within SL is a pyramid scheme itself, but rather that "withdrawing money from the Benchmark-backed virtual world is about as hard as cashing out of a pyramid scheme". In particular, he's referring to the alleged $220m "GDP" of SL, most of which is almost certainly not convertible to real dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be fun to watch some ambitious state Attorney General go after Microsoft with the RICO Act.
Flash is not "ascending the future-bound ladder" - if anything, it's a step backwards to a time before the Internet, when proprietary systems ruled. The real problem with Flash is that it's proprietary. This flies in the face of what has made the Internet successful. By pushing Flash, you are participating in creating the next great software monopoly, right alongside Microsoft. Sure, there are benefits to monopolies, but there are downsides too. Many people on Slashdot are more aware of the downsides than most -- more aware than you, apparently. You just want something to add multimedia to your website, but you haven't fully understood the impact this is having on the Internet as a whole.
Because pseudoephedrine is used to make methamphetamines.
You have causation backwards when it comes to war. "Innocent" things like housewives' SUVs create demand for oil; the huge energy market creates a demand for a company like Enron; war happens because we can't afford to ignore Middle Eastern tyrants who have oil, the way we ignore African tyrants who don't have oil; companies like Halliburton help administer the war and its aftermath.
Back to your main point, companies like Enron and Halliburton love using accountants to bamboozle the IRS, including drowning them in paperwork. So the approach you're describing is equally likely to be where it all starts, particularly if you're drowning the IRS with information that you don't actually need to file.
But I hear where you're coming from. It's just that different people tend to react to these kind of things in different ways. I don't think it's so easy to claim that one way or the other is right, unless of course you've actually paid accountants and lawyers to research the issue, in which case all you can say is that you have a legal opinion that says you're right, but chances are the other guy can get a legal opinion to say he's right, too. It's moral relativism, law-school style.
Uh-oh, you're beginning to retreat into a fantasy world... ;o)
George Bush set a bad example for the rest of the world, now they're copying his tactics.
I don't think the OP's really saying he's "getting away with something". He's just saying that for the amounts involved, it's not worth dealing with. This is less of an issue of "cheating on your taxes" and more of a question of being effective. Sure, you could spend your life filling out paperwork, but there are more important things to do.
BTW, if the OP is being truthful that he only makes about $100 a year from this, the IRS won't care either, so he's not cheating anyway. Which brings home the point that you should really get professional advice about this stuff, if you have a question, rather than either wasting time reporting stuff you don't need to, or wasting time worrying about not reporting stuff you don't need to.
Boy, subtlety in humor really is a lost art around here... Reread the grandparent!
Aren't you going to tell us to get off your lawn?
No, he meant that someone who has to brag about their /. uid doesn't really qualify as cool.
Re the Sudafed-buying thing, my g/f told me that recently when buying Sudafed at CVS (in the NY metro area), she was not required to show ID; whereas at Target, she was. Thanks for the HIPAA information, now I'm going to go hassle Target about it just on principle.
But we *can* think of causes for them to change. Local differences in the curvature or geometry of the universe, for example, which we might have inadvertently built into our theories. For all we know, something like that could explain dark energy and/or dark matter. Assuming laws are constant throughout the universe is understandable, but we shouldn't forget that it might not actually be valid.
That's because you're an Anonymous Coward, i.e. you have no name. Without a name, you cannot think. The first step to recovery is to give yourself a name. Then, you will know who you are, and you will begin to be able to relate your notion of self to the world around you. But you're not getting any of this, are you...
Since the statement was made at a specific time prior to the end of the universe (assuming the universe ends), it's reasonable to make sure that all future data is included in that statement, too. Besides, as I pointed out, "All the experimental data in the universe" isn't sufficient to prove a theory, and that's what most of my comment was explaining. So what part of that didn't you understand?
...or alternatively, you give him developers and he gives back nothing. IOW, he chews up developers (and doesn't even spit them out!)
I took the "void" as being a comment on maybe his morals or the content of his personality.
All true. And in fact, it's probably naive of me to expect that many physical theories will hold throughout the entire universe for its entire life. Laws would certainly have been different near the time of the big bang, for example.
Sure. But would it be good science, in this case? There still aren't really any positive indications that string theory (or brane theory, or whatever) is even remotely on the right track. If foundational assumptions turn out to be false, then a more rational approach may be to start looking for different theories, perhaps ones that have, I dunno, some testable connection to observable reality?
No, because the goal is to come up with a theory that explains or models the possible behaviors in a particular universe. The reason parallel universes are relevant to that is because a single universe doesn't represent every sequence of events that is possible in that universe. However, other universes that don't share the properties of the universe you're interested in, aren't relevant -- unless you're trying to come up with a theory that applies across all possible universes/realities, but that's probably asking a bit much!
I think you're quite right. The problem, though, is that we really don't know how else to do this kind of science at this point. We've reached the edges of our ability to test theories, not just for want of bigger particle accelerators, but also because of more fundamental issues -- we're inside the universe, and there's no fundamental reason that we should be able to figure out exactly how it universe works, from the inside, any more than a creature inhabiting the two-dimensional surface of a balloon can figure out that the balloon's surface is supported by air pressure in a three-dimensional space.
So in a sense, string theory is just the cover story that scientists use to continue conducting research. It's something to focus energy around, like the space program was for 1960's America. Eventually maybe we'll hit on some experimental data or a less unconstrained idea which gives us a clue as to how to proceed.
Not so fast -- for a start, you'd need all data from the universe's future, too. But even then, you still won't have proved your theory, unless you count all possible parallel universes too. Even if every event in the history of the universe fails to falsify a theory, it is still possible that you just got lucky, and nothing ever happened in such a way as to disprove the theory. Of course, I'll concede that in that situation, you've got a pretty useful theory and the errors it contains are moot for someone living in the universe in question.
I haven't RTFA (site is returning a database error), but the biggest criticism of string theory so far has been that there aren't many good ways to falsify it, i.e. disprove it, which makes it somewhat suspect as a scientific theory. Having a way to do a test that could disprove it is, in a sense, very good news for the theory. (Besides, you can't ever prove a scientific theory, you can only support it with evidence and fail to disprove it with tests.)
OTOH, a test that actually does disprove string theory could be very bad news for string theorists. But you can bet there'll be a lot of scrambling to rejigger the theory after a failed test...
"A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered." So no, none of the things you mention are pyramid schemes.
The article's point is not that the economy within SL is a pyramid scheme itself, but rather that "withdrawing money from the Benchmark-backed virtual world is about as hard as cashing out of a pyramid scheme". In particular, he's referring to the alleged $220m "GDP" of SL, most of which is almost certainly not convertible to real dollars.