As if the system is fair. I'm sure if you asked a judge if you are innocent until proven guilty, they will quickly say you are. But if you ask if you are innocent of each element of the alleged crime, the judge will probably hold you in contempt. Fair system, don't you think?
He later said that he actually got PPP working over it recently. He had to set up a custom PPP server with relaxed timeouts. "DNS alone saturated the line for minutes. 56 bit PING times were in the 5000ms range. The web 'just didn`t work' with that kind of latency. App protocols time out too. Wheeeee!:-)"
It very well could be the device went from being read and write to read *or* write. I guess we all hope it at least becomes read only (ROM). In the case of the log drive, perhaps it became write only (WOM).
Of course, I'm kidding. But it reminds me of the Signetics incident as reported on Wikipedia:
Out of frustration with the long and seemingly useless chain of approvals required of component specifications, during which no actual checking seemed to occur, an engineer at Signetics once created a specification for a write-only memory and included it with a bunch of other specifications to be approved. This inclusion came to the attention of Signetics management only when regular customers started calling and asking for pricing information. Signetics published a corrected edition of the data book and requested the return of the 'erroneous' ones.
I see all the make fun comments and all the comments that condemn the idea but is there anyone on Slashdot brave enough to come out in favor of it? Just curious.
I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over.
Forget trying to hide your camera. This guy has a big $8,000 camera he tries to get into court. The bailiff doesn't know if he has sworn an oath to any constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ETi2HZtp0
Oh well, too bad it's fake (a.k.a. flim-flam). Actually, that's not water. The devices are being exposed to a solution of chloral-floral-carbons or something similar. Notice they never demonstrate the phone in a pool or ocean, just a bin of clear liquid we are to assume is H2O that is really CFC."
"But that's the problem. It can't mean direct, unapportioned to the individual."
A purely honest question: why not?
The primary purpose of the Constitution is to protect the individual's life, liberty, and private property. The income tax as applied to individuals puts that all on its head. Whether the rate is 0% for some or 100% for others, the implication is that all income, first and foremost, is owned by the government. The government just benevolently allows us to keep some.
When we speak of "direct, unapportioned, graduated, individual taxes," we see that the Constitution (as amended) authorizes it. Reading the record of the formation and debate of the amendment clearly indicates that a direct, unapportioned, and graduated tax was precisely what was intended. Reading the court cases of the people who argue to the contrary clearly demonstrate that is precisely what was intended.
No. Only the decision would lead me to the above conclusion, not the events leading up to it or the descending statement. I am not suggesting that the descent has a legal bearing, it should not. But it proves that what I'm asserting was considered then. It should be revisited over and over until the mistake by the deciding judge has been corrected.
And this is why I am so vehemently opposed to arguments such as yours: they are based not in fact, not in law, not in truth, but solely and simply in the assertion that "I reject it, therefore it is not so." Please understand that I do not oppose you--I firmly and fully believe that you developed or adopted the arguments that you use in good faith, and that you sincerely and honestly believe them to be accurate. But no matter your sincerity and honesty, you have been deceived (as have so many before you) that black is white.
Actually, it's the courts who have decided that black is white. So it's the law but it's not truth.
"That is why trial by jury is at the heart of our system of government (not just the heart of our system of justice)."
The same document that guarantees the right to trial by jury also allows for trial by bench, should the party being accused request such. If one rejects judicial hearings that do not involve a jury, then one perforce rejects the very document that authorizes them.
That's not exactly how tax court works, though. People are regularly shoehorned into a class groupings and must take offers from the tax court based on previous cases that have similar aspects or risk bigger fines. They're basically bullied into settling.
Inertia, I am quite aware that you find the tax codes repugnant. I'm not fond of them myself, I will gladly admit. But I am also aware that if I reject the tax codes, then I must also reject the Constitution, because that is the legal basis for those codes. I cannot reject the Constitution, therefore I cannot reject the tax codes.
What do you mean, the Constitution is all or nothing now? No, you can actually have it both ways because nobody ever said the Constitution was perfect. We can reject contradictory stipulations like slavery and direct unapportioned taxation and keep the rest.
With respect, I understand what you're saying. I see the text and I understand that argument. After all, what else could "without apportionment" mean? But that's the problem. It can't mean direct, unapportioned to the individual. It just can't, regardless of the decision of a lawyer wearing a robe on a platform (aka "judge").
The reason it has been allowed is because the juries are asleep or being side-stepped. We need to wake up and correct this mistake by interpreting the 16th Amendment correctly or repealing it because it's being abused by our servant government.
That is why trial by jury is at the heart of our system of government (not just the heart of our system of justice).
Slashdot Mirror
As if the system is fair. I'm sure if you asked a judge if you are innocent until proven guilty, they will quickly say you are. But if you ask if you are innocent of each element of the alleged crime, the judge will probably hold you in contempt. Fair system, don't you think?
Yet another reason to attend: http://c4ss.org/stateless-university
Consumer Protection Laws are on your side ... translation: "Fix my phone or I will hurt you."
Modded -1, Brown Noser.
Do not use stolen iPhone with remaining roommate.
Because you are too stupid to buy a cell phone, but you're not stupid enough to vote.
The IRS already causes everyone to live in fear. What's one more thing?
I'm not sure I understand. Could you use a car analogy?
Could you use a car analogy?
a moose once bit my sister
May I suggest that you instead stay put and study Agorism: http://www.agorism.info/
Looks like Apple security may have to break a few more pocket protectors to keep employees in line.
He later said that he actually got PPP working over it recently. He had to set up a custom PPP server with relaxed timeouts. "DNS alone saturated the line for minutes. 56 bit PING times were in the 5000ms range. The web 'just didn`t work' with that kind of latency. App protocols time out too. Wheeeee! :-)"
Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac.
PC: And ... I'm ... a ... PC.
Mac: Wow, PC. You're really slow today.
PC: Yes ... I'm ... running ... AlloSphere ... research ... for ... UCSB ... ... today.
Mac: What exactly is the AlloSphere useful for?
PC: Scientifically, ... it ... is ... an ... instrument ... for ... gaining ... insight ... and ... developing ... bodily ... intuition ... about ... environments ... into ... which ... the ... body ... cannot ... venture: ... abstract, ... higher- ... -dimensional ... information ... spaces, ... the ... worlds ... of ... the ... very ... small ... or ... very ... large, ... and ... the ... realms ... of ... the ... very ... fast ... or ... very ... slow, ... in ... fields ... ranging ... from ... nanotechnology ... to ... theoretical ... physics, ... from ... proteomics ... to ... cosmology, ... from ... neurophysiology ... to ... the ... spaces ... of ... consciousness, ... and ... from ... new ... materials ... to ... new ... media.
Mac: Wow, that ... that sounds pretty amazing.
PC: It ... is.
Mac: Anything else?
PC: 42.
Mac: What does that even mean?
PC: I ... have ... no ... idea.
Do not use otoacoustic emissions system on remaining good ear.
It very well could be the device went from being read and write to read *or* write. I guess we all hope it at least becomes read only (ROM). In the case of the log drive, perhaps it became write only (WOM).
Of course, I'm kidding. But it reminds me of the Signetics incident as reported on Wikipedia:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_Only_Memory
Do not test sonar on dolphin's remaining good ear.
They should switch to using friking lasers!
I see all the make fun comments and all the comments that condemn the idea but is there anyone on Slashdot brave enough to come out in favor of it? Just curious.
Lousy French.
I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over.
Forget trying to hide your camera. This guy has a big $8,000 camera he tries to get into court. The bailiff doesn't know if he has sworn an oath to any constitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ETi2HZtp0
Oh well, too bad it's fake (a.k.a. flim-flam). Actually, that's not water. The devices are being exposed to a solution of chloral-floral-carbons or something similar. Notice they never demonstrate the phone in a pool or ocean, just a bin of clear liquid we are to assume is H2O that is really CFC."
I bet the vast majority of these gold trades were not for child exploitation and laundering.
But what will you bet with?
The primary purpose of the Constitution is to protect the individual's life, liberty, and private property. The income tax as applied to individuals puts that all on its head. Whether the rate is 0% for some or 100% for others, the implication is that all income, first and foremost, is owned by the government. The government just benevolently allows us to keep some.
No. Only the decision would lead me to the above conclusion, not the events leading up to it or the descending statement. I am not suggesting that the descent has a legal bearing, it should not. But it proves that what I'm asserting was considered then. It should be revisited over and over until the mistake by the deciding judge has been corrected.
Actually, it's the courts who have decided that black is white. So it's the law but it's not truth.
That's not exactly how tax court works, though. People are regularly shoehorned into a class groupings and must take offers from the tax court based on previous cases that have similar aspects or risk bigger fines. They're basically bullied into settling.
What do you mean, the Constitution is all or nothing now? No, you can actually have it both ways because nobody ever said the Constitution was perfect. We can reject contradictory stipulations like slavery and direct unapportioned taxation and keep the rest.
With respect, I understand what you're saying. I see the text and I understand that argument. After all, what else could "without apportionment" mean? But that's the problem. It can't mean direct, unapportioned to the individual. It just can't, regardless of the decision of a lawyer wearing a robe on a platform (aka "judge").
The reason it has been allowed is because the juries are asleep or being side-stepped. We need to wake up and correct this mistake by interpreting the 16th Amendment correctly or repealing it because it's being abused by our servant government.
That is why trial by jury is at the heart of our system of government (not just the heart of our system of justice).