You can't change or fight the law within a corrupt legal framework -- force is the only option, but, of course, a last resort.
And the framers of the constituion knew this too. Thus the seperation of powers. The Legislative branch makes the laws, and the Judical is charged with enforcing them or striking them down. These are two systems that were desgined to operate independatly of each other. There is no reason in the world why Congress could not pass an unconstitutional law (they do it all the time) but that is why we have courts and judges.
The extreme case that you pose has happend many times in history, and it has never been stopped by civil disobediance, or even killing those carrying out the laws. In those extrodinary circumstances where the law is so perverted and unjust it takes outright civil (if not world) war to stop such things.
Please explain how my statement is falacious. It wasn't meant to be a logical conclusion, it's more like a premise for my other argument. I think it is pretty safe to assume that when the founder fathers created the framework of our government they did it with the intent of preserving as much liberty as possible, even to the extent of making governing difficult.
OK, I went to that site. It's just an ad for some guys book. I also couldn't find anything about limiting liberty. It seems his thesis is that the entire public school system in this country was started by robber barons to sell stuff. He also looses credibility for the fact that none of the outrageous statements on the site are backed up by links or sources; I guess I'd have to buy the book for that. Oh, the irony.
One other thing: I don't live in school. Maybe you do, but the school system is not the system I was refering to in my previous post.
Two different incidents, both in Yorkshire in the last few days, both involving disturbing theives at work. One man was shot dead, another was attacked with a screwdriver.
The reason crimes like that aren't on the news in the US is because 1) that isn't really news, and 2) except in the cases of searching for suspects publicity is the wrong thing to do in these cases.
We did have a similar incident a few years back where a man was attacked by 4 youths on a subway with screwdrivers, fortunately the intended victim was armed. This event actually was national publicised and the unsuccesful attack had the effect of actualy lowering the crime rate for a brief period. What do you suppose the effect of publicising succesful crimes would be?
I guess it's not such a good thing only criminals are allowed to carry guns in GB. Oops.
In Texas at least a you are justified in using force (even deadly force if necesary) in self defense against a police officer if they are using undue force against you and you are not otherwise resisting arrest.
You are not legally or morally justified in using force aginast a police officer attempting to make a legal arrest. In the case of an unjust law the time to make your stand is not when you are being arrested, but when you are tried in court. This is both your legal and moral obligation.
If the law required killing jews, assasinating police officers would not change the law. Killing police officers *might* save a few lives (and could only be justified if you were only killing officers attempting to enforce this law), but would not get the law changed. So most of the jews would eventually be dead anyway.
Agreed that liberty must be defended, but we currently live with a system that is designed to protect our liberties, and provide redress for wrongs. As long as the system is intact and functioning violence is neither necesary nor justified. Violence is only justified when there is not a non-violent solution.
Those children lucky enough to even have two parents are still waiting for them both to get home from work.
And yet countless studies have shown that the benefit of having two incomes is offset by the additional costs incured for most families of avergae income. Children are only forced to live in parentless households by their parents. We have created some kind of false standard to measure people by, if you don't have a career you aren't making a contribution. Even as recently as the 1970's society recognized that a mother made a great contribution by staying home and raising the children.
Our parents saw a little more adult material growing up than their parents, and we more than our own. What takes place in GTA would have been unthinkable even to market to adults 20 years ago.
"Adult" material isn't being forced on anybody. It is certainly more accessable than it was 20 years ago, but it is still up to the parent to keep it away from their kids _if_they_so_choose_ If people are choosing to expose themselves to more adult material that is more a reflection on idivudual attitudes than society. That the material is more available today is a reflection on the shift in societal values.
I know for some kids, it didn't work out as well, given the rash of school shootings a year or so ago. Can that be bleamed on video games?
Unfortunately for your argument and contrary to what CNN would have you believe, schools are actually safer than ever. A child is more likely to be beaten to death by abusive parents than killed in a school shooting.
The First Ammendment is the first ammendment for a reason. Once you take away people's right to say *anything* complete corruption of the system is not far behind. The unaltered right to speak one's mind and be exposed to others doing the same -- no matter how grotesque their thoughts, or art, or protest may be to you -- is _required_ for a democracy to survive.
But it is a far more difficult task to attack many different targets at once.
It's only difficult if you make it difficult. If your datacenter is in your garage it hardly takes an infantry division to wreck it. If you only need one bomb/commando/missle per target you only need 10 bomds to take out ten targets. On the other hand of you need ten bombs, commandos and missles to take out each target you will probably have a difficult time taking out just one or two.
In the US, banks are robbed at the rate of about 8,000 a year. Assuming most of these happen during the time the bank is open that's about 2 bank robberies an hour somewhere in the US. I'd call that a breach of security. So, how many bank robberies have you seen reported in the news lately?
Re:Cheap geographical redundancy, not $$$ gimmicks
on
Escape from Data Alcatraz
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If your enemy is joe with a back-hoe, then you're better off with three geographically dispersed, less secure sites. Wouldn't you agree?
No, I wouldn't agree. What we are talking about is a battle of probabililties. The most likely vulnerabilities can be protected against at one site more cheaply than multiple sites. The "backhoe" attack is easily defended against with seperate entry points to different wire centers.
One very good reason for disparate location is regional events out of your control. It is difficult to protect yourself from a massive power outage affecting most of Califonia, or natural disaster. Even if your facility has power, etc required support services may not be available. Your site may have 14 days of diesel fuel in the basement, but how long are your NOC monkeys going to watch the screens if they can't be relieved because all the roads are closed?
I fully support having multiple redundant locations, but that is no excuse for doing them cheaply.
On the other hand, if you have two locations and each one is not able to seperately withstand foreseeable negative events what do you do when they are both affected? What if a hurricane takes out you east coast and an earthquake hits the west? Each facility still needs to be as independatly survivable as possible, otherwise you don't really have redundancy, you just have "extra".
This isn't really insightful. There are quite a few posts here talking about the foolishness of puuting all of one's eggs in one basket. This may be true for real eggs and baskets, but in the world of data centers, not quite so.
Imagine at the two extremes, this secure facility and a small building in an industrial park. For the cost of this facility you could build many smaller less secure facilities, but each of them would be trivially destroyed.
While it is certainly true that three secure hosting facilities is better than one secure hosting facility, one secure hosting facility is still better than three less secure ones.
Geographic diversity of cheap systems is the answer most most applications.
A server that costs one third as much and fails three times as often isn't a bargin. Even if said cheap server only fails twice or one and half times as often you will still end up paying more in the long run.
As for DNS, I believe that the root servers run on E10K's and similar, if you consider that equipment cheap then I's like to have your job.
ATM security is based on more than your PIN number. It has two foundations: PIN number and the card. Therefore, you need to have the card (physical media) and the PIN number.
What's more, to use an ATM you must physically key in the PIN, there is no way to automate a brute force attack against the keypad at an ATM. Additionally most ATMs will swallow your card after a certain number of wrong PINs (3 at my bank) so you aren't going to have much luck guessing.
You'd be surprised how many people write their PIN on the back of the card, or somewhere else in their wallet, but it happens enough that the signature panel on my card bears the warning, "Do not write your PIN on your card" That's why banks impose daily limits on how much money can be withdrawn through ATMs.
I don't think the mint sells quarters at all. That's why the seignoirage is not the same as "profit" I think the money goes to the federal reserve and is distributed to banks.
Technically the mints and BEP don't operate at a "profit" or "loss" since the Federal Reserve bears the cost of making money. The Fed isn't making a "profit" either, because as new money goes into circulation it replaces old money and meets any demand for incresed liquidity:
"Typically, most of the newly printed currency replaces currency destroyed by the Reserve Banks because it is unfit for further circulation. The remainder is printed to meet expected increases in the demand for currency. The Federal Reserve pays the BEP the cost of printing new currency and arranges and pays the cost of transporting the currency from the BEP facilities in Washington, D.C., and Fort Worth, Texas, to the Federal Reserve cash offices across the country. From 1990 to 2000, the number of Federal Reserve notes in circulation increased 57 percent, which represents an average annual growth rate of 4.6 percent."
There is a word for mints operating at a profit. They're called counterfiters. Are you laboring under the assumption that Quarters are 25x as expensive to make as pennies? Does it cost $1 to print singles and $100 to print hundreds? The cost of minting a penny or printing a bill is irrelevant.
The amount of money in circulation is fairly balanced and well controlled. If the Gov't just minted money when it wanted more, in addition to lower taxes we would have runaway inflation.
I don't think you saw what you thought you saw. The US Mint has nothing to do with paper money. The US Mint makes coins (hence the name). The Bureau of Engraving and Printing makes paper currency. Unlike coins all paper currency in the US is made in one place.
The Bureau is also where you would send mutilated paper money to have it examined. Note that if you _clearly_ have more than 50% of a bill you can take it to a bank and redeem it for full face value. If you have less than 50% and can prove the rest was destroyed, or an indeterminate amount you can send it to the Bureau and they will examine it.
This link has more information:
http://www.bep.treas.gov/section.cfm/8/39
Sart your own S corp. I don't know who told you $100, but it depends on your state. In Texas it is about $350. Check on your state website, the Texas Secretary of State has a Word template on the website that you fill out and send in with a check and viola! Unless you are going to do something complicated it is easiest to incorporate in your own state.
To be an S corp you'll need to get an Employer ID Number from the IRS (Fill out a form) then file for S corp status (another form).
Advantages of an S corp:
1. not double taxed, the net income is passed on to the shareholders as ordinary income, the corp pays no income tax, but as an indiviudal you will pay tax on this income (not medicare or SS)
2. No self employment tax you are not self employed, you work for the corporation. You will have to pay yourself a "resonable" salary, and take witholding, but this is the only money you pay SS and medicare, etc. on, not company's profit.
3. you can do stuff like buy computers (any legitamate business expenses) and that reduces the amount of taxes you pay on item 1.
example:
Your company bills you out at $100/hr. Your salary is a reasonable $35/hr. You pay income tax, medicare, ss, etc. and your company pays and extra 7% on these $35/hr. The company makes $60/hr this money can be spent on all of your expenses, and whatever is left at the end of the year you pay regular income tax on only. The company can also set up a SEP or other retirement plan (basically a company funded IRA) which is passed to you as tax free income and is a deduction for the company.
This is what I did this year after I got laid off, of course YMMV. Antohter advantage of soing it this way is you can have multiple clients, etc. and don't have to do any extra paperwork.
You can probably get by without a lawyer, but I would definately talk to a good CPA, they can steer you in the right direction help fill out forms correctly etc.
www.irs.gov has all the forms you'll need and lots of FAQ's. Just remeber that the IRS regs, like any law, are open to a certain amount of interpretation and the answers in some of those FAQs is really just how the IRS interprets the reg. Again check with your CPA.
The only way IE could be vulnerable to this kind of exploit is if it relied on the content-type in the header and _ignored_ the file extension. The whole point of the "vulnerablity" is that IE doesn't display the _actual_ extension, but instead it displays what it is told by the MIME header.
Si if Netscape et al are not affected by this vulnerability it is precisly because they are doing what Michael is accusing Microsoft of doing: ignoring the content-type all together and relying on the file extension.
Do you see any millionaire's sons on death row anywhere in the USA?
Certainly some of the big Mafia guys could have afforded better justice? Was Al Capone a millionare? I think so. How about any of the Dons that have been jailed in the last few years? Even many of the Mafia trigger men were more than millionares.
Even OJ Simpson who's wealth supposedly kept him out of jail couldn't protect him from a civil suit that sent him into bankruptcy.
+ If you seriously took PayPal as a trust system, you deserve what comes to you. They verify that there's a person there with a bank account and credit card. They can't verify that that person is good and honest. Duh.
Except when they don't. PayPal claims to "verify" the person at the other end of the transaction. True they do not make any claims about the security of any other transactions with that individual, but they "claim" to be able to recover funds from "verified" sellers, that is the point of "verification". PayPal has had numerous complaints where they are completely unable (or unwilling) to recover monies when they should be able to under their own policies. In these cases the wronged party should pursue other means of satisfaction (credit card chargebacks).
A question for you: If PayPal is mearly a method of tranferring money (like Western Union) why do they refer to customers as "buyers" and "sellers" instead of "senders" and "recievers"?
But feel free not to use it. I just can't see how blindly sending a money order through US Mail to some eBay guy is any better.
I guess you don't have the "mental capacity to understand" the postal service then. If I send a Postal Money Order to someone and they rip me off, that's called Mail Fraud. It's a federal crime and the USPS has these guys called Postal Inspectors that investigate such things. Also, the Post Office will be able to track where the Money Order was deposited, and if fraud was commited recover the funds. I can even get a copy of the deposited Money Order from the Post Office once it has been cashed. If you are interested in learn more about "mail" the Post Office even has a website at www.usps.gov
The USPS also has a service called Pay@Delivery which is similar to COD, but electronic.
The point is that there are enough ways to securly send money to someone and not get ripped off, even if you don't know the other person.
Interesting that PayPal has this to say on the "Fraud Prevention Tips For Buyers" page:
We are always available to assist you with suspicious transactions. If you have concerns about a transaction, Contact Us before you complete the sale.
See, PayPal wants buyers to treat them as a trusted intermediary, they just don't want the responsibility.
A PayPal is an account-based system that lets people securely send online payments to anyone with an email address using their credit card or bank account.[emphasis added]
I guess that makes the sender the "real customer"
Q What is the Buyer Complaint Process?
A PayPal's Buyer Complaint Process helps protect PayPal members when a merchant does not deliver goods as promised. If you have been unable to resolve a dispute with a seller, you may file a Buyer Complaint Form (go to the Security Center link in the footer of any PayPal page) to initiate an investigation. PayPal will investigate your complaint and attempt to recover any funds you are owed. You will be entitled to the return of any funds PayPal is able to collect on your behalf. However, fund recovery is not guaranteed.
So PayPal does claim to investigate and attempt to recover money lost in fraudulent transactions. If they do not do this, they are not fullfilling their agreement. According to most of the compaints, and indeed the local BBB, PayPal has historically been unreachable, unhelpful, and downright shitty when it comes to people who have been ripped off. This certainly constitutes enough cause for a credit card chargeback.
Of course there is also the part about "verifying" sellers that don't really exist. PayPal actually does fill a certain role of a trust system, they claim to verify that certain users are who they say they are. Other that the ability to do chargebacks there is no reason for this verification. So why do you think it exists? If I go to Western Union and wire money they are obligated to deliver it to the right person and keep a record of that transaction. If that transaction fails I am entitled to my money back. If a Money Order is stolen or deposted fraudulently I am likewise entitled to a refund.
We are hearing complaints where PayPal is not responding to complaints or is acknowledging legitimate customer complaints and failing to recover funds from "verified" sellers. If this is indeed the case then PayPal is failing in their duty and service and you should dispute the charges with your card company.
What you will find it what PayPal already knows: your card company will be happy to grant your chargeback and leave PayPal on the hook.
Gosh, from what you are saying it sounds like the US twisted everyone's arm to get them onboard with the ISS. If the US had wanted our own space station we certainly could have done that, but the ISS is supposed to be buit and run by a coalition of countries. Like Canada the US has already made the agreed upon contirbution and then some. The US has been picking up the slack for the Russians for some time now. At this point no one wants to spend more money, and everyone will hae to make sacfrifices. It seems perfectly fair that those that made the smallest contributions should make the biggest sacrifice.
Why do you think the ISS had such a great effect on the US economy. Surely any effect on the economy would have been greater if it was the USSS and not the ISS. AFAIK the parts of the ISS made by the other countries were made in those countries, and not by some US government "approved" list of contractors.
The fact of the matter is that the ISS is now costing more and taking longer than anyone anticipated. The US is not going to bear all of that cost ourselves, if Canada does not want to pay in dollars, they will pay in the form of reduced access to the station.
This is dead on. The US budgeted over $25 Billion for the station (I'm not sure if that includes the use of the Shuttle) compared to Canada's $1.5 billion. Now there are huge cost overruns to the tune of $5-10 billion and the US has said we aren't going to pay it. A lot of these overruns are due to the Russians not pulling their weight, but I don't hear Canada eager to pick up the extra tab.
The nations have already agreed to rules for bringing non-astronauts on board, so why doesn't Canada shell out a couple of million to Russia for a ride on a Soyuz.
The last time I sent money with PayPal, they asked me why, what I was paying for, if it eas an auction, what the winning bid was etc.
PayPal wants you to believe that they aren't involved in the transaction, but they are. They don't want any liablity, and they don't want any responsibility (the CEO is an avowed libertarian and doesn't believe in government regulation). In the future I'll do my business on-line without PayPal.
You agree to give your money to paypal, paypal gives it to the third party.
You give PayPal the money in exchange for a service if paypal does not provide the service you have a legitimate dispute and you can probably get your money back from the CC company. PayPal knows this, and that is why it is a violation of the PayPal TOS to file a dispute with your credit card company. If you dispute the charges, PayPal will be screwed if they can't get the money back from the other party. Of course we would alll agree that this is fair, but PayPal would much rather that _you_ be screwed.
PayPal encourages all buyer purchase disputes to be filed and resolved through the PayPal dispute resolution process, and reserves the right to terminate or restrict account privileges of buyers who file chargeback complaints without attempting to resolve the complaints through PayPal.
Of course by the time you've gone through the PayPal dispute process it will probably be too late to dispute the charge with your bank.
Did you mean to type 10:66? Certainly you aren't claiming that the UK has not had to repel an invading force in the last 900 years. That would be a silly assertion, even if you don't consider open, armed rebellions as "invasions" there's always the Battle of Britain, and lets not forget the Falklands.
FWIW here's a list of current territorial disputes from the CIA fact book:
Northern Ireland issue with Ireland (historic peace agreement signed 10 April 1998); Gibraltar issue with Spain; Argentina claims Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas); Argentina claims South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; Mauritius and the Seychelles claim Chagos Archipelago (UK-administered British Indian Ocean Territory); Rockall continental shelf dispute involving Denmark and Iceland; territorial claim in Antarctica (British Antarctic Territory) overlaps Argentine claim and partially overlaps Chilean claim; disputes with Iceland, Denmark, and Ireland over the Faroe Islands continental shelf boundary outside 200 NM
Where do these reviewers come from? This review reads like a 5th grade book report.
You would think the DVD-RW format would sound like the perfect solution. Unfortunately, there are some limitations. Probably the biggest issue right now is that not all DVD video players or DVD-ROM drives can play these discs. The other problem is recording video. This format does not support efficient encoding of video using variable bit rates. This limits the recording speed to only 1x and it can take a good 1 or 2 hours to write a DVD movie.
You would think there would be a better solution. So did a few other companies. These companies got together and formed the DVD+RW Alliance. The DVD+RW Alliance was originally formed by Dell, HP, Mitsubishi Chemical, Philips, Ricoh, Sony, Thomson Multimedia and Yamaha. You can see that this group was made up of leaders in the optical storage industry as well as in many other aspects of computing. Their solution was the DVD+RW format.
If these companies would give _me_ free equipment, I guarantee reviews that are at least written by someone with a better grasp of the written language.
Slashdot Mirror
And the framers of the constituion knew this too. Thus the seperation of powers. The Legislative branch makes the laws, and the Judical is charged with enforcing them or striking them down. These are two systems that were desgined to operate independatly of each other. There is no reason in the world why Congress could not pass an unconstitutional law (they do it all the time) but that is why we have courts and judges.
The extreme case that you pose has happend many times in history, and it has never been stopped by civil disobediance, or even killing those carrying out the laws. In those extrodinary circumstances where the law is so perverted and unjust it takes outright civil (if not world) war to stop such things.
OK, I went to that site. It's just an ad for some guys book. I also couldn't find anything about limiting liberty. It seems his thesis is that the entire public school system in this country was started by robber barons to sell stuff. He also looses credibility for the fact that none of the outrageous statements on the site are backed up by links or sources; I guess I'd have to buy the book for that. Oh, the irony.
One other thing: I don't live in school. Maybe you do, but the school system is not the system I was refering to in my previous post.
The reason crimes like that aren't on the news in the US is because 1) that isn't really news, and 2) except in the cases of searching for suspects publicity is the wrong thing to do in these cases.
We did have a similar incident a few years back where a man was attacked by 4 youths on a subway with screwdrivers, fortunately the intended victim was armed. This event actually was national publicised and the unsuccesful attack had the effect of actualy lowering the crime rate for a brief period. What do you suppose the effect of publicising succesful crimes would be?
I guess it's not such a good thing only criminals are allowed to carry guns in GB. Oops.
You are not legally or morally justified in using force aginast a police officer attempting to make a legal arrest. In the case of an unjust law the time to make your stand is not when you are being arrested, but when you are tried in court. This is both your legal and moral obligation.
If the law required killing jews, assasinating police officers would not change the law. Killing police officers *might* save a few lives (and could only be justified if you were only killing officers attempting to enforce this law), but would not get the law changed. So most of the jews would eventually be dead anyway.
Agreed that liberty must be defended, but we currently live with a system that is designed to protect our liberties, and provide redress for wrongs. As long as the system is intact and functioning violence is neither necesary nor justified. Violence is only justified when there is not a non-violent solution.
And yet countless studies have shown that the benefit of having two incomes is offset by the additional costs incured for most families of avergae income. Children are only forced to live in parentless households by their parents. We have created some kind of false standard to measure people by, if you don't have a career you aren't making a contribution. Even as recently as the 1970's society recognized that a mother made a great contribution by staying home and raising the children.
Our parents saw a little more adult material growing up than their parents, and we more than our own. What takes place in GTA would have been unthinkable even to market to adults 20 years ago.
"Adult" material isn't being forced on anybody. It is certainly more accessable than it was 20 years ago, but it is still up to the parent to keep it away from their kids _if_they_so_choose_ If people are choosing to expose themselves to more adult material that is more a reflection on idivudual attitudes than society. That the material is more available today is a reflection on the shift in societal values.
I know for some kids, it didn't work out as well, given the rash of school shootings a year or so ago. Can that be bleamed on video games?
Unfortunately for your argument and contrary to what CNN would have you believe, schools are actually safer than ever. A child is more likely to be beaten to death by abusive parents than killed in a school shooting.
The First Ammendment is the first ammendment for a reason. Once you take away people's right to say *anything* complete corruption of the system is not far behind. The unaltered right to speak one's mind and be exposed to others doing the same -- no matter how grotesque their thoughts, or art, or protest may be to you -- is _required_ for a democracy to survive.
It's only difficult if you make it difficult. If your datacenter is in your garage it hardly takes an infantry division to wreck it. If you only need one bomb/commando/missle per target you only need 10 bomds to take out ten targets. On the other hand of you need ten bombs, commandos and missles to take out each target you will probably have a difficult time taking out just one or two.
In the US, banks are robbed at the rate of about 8,000 a year. Assuming most of these happen during the time the bank is open that's about 2 bank robberies an hour somewhere in the US. I'd call that a breach of security. So, how many bank robberies have you seen reported in the news lately?
No, I wouldn't agree. What we are talking about is a battle of probabililties. The most likely vulnerabilities can be protected against at one site more cheaply than multiple sites. The "backhoe" attack is easily defended against with seperate entry points to different wire centers.
One very good reason for disparate location is regional events out of your control. It is difficult to protect yourself from a massive power outage affecting most of Califonia, or natural disaster. Even if your facility has power, etc required support services may not be available. Your site may have 14 days of diesel fuel in the basement, but how long are your NOC monkeys going to watch the screens if they can't be relieved because all the roads are closed?
I fully support having multiple redundant locations, but that is no excuse for doing them cheaply.
On the other hand, if you have two locations and each one is not able to seperately withstand foreseeable negative events what do you do when they are both affected? What if a hurricane takes out you east coast and an earthquake hits the west? Each facility still needs to be as independatly survivable as possible, otherwise you don't really have redundancy, you just have "extra".
Imagine at the two extremes, this secure facility and a small building in an industrial park. For the cost of this facility you could build many smaller less secure facilities, but each of them would be trivially destroyed.
While it is certainly true that three secure hosting facilities is better than one secure hosting facility, one secure hosting facility is still better than three less secure ones.
Geographic diversity of cheap systems is the answer most most applications.
A server that costs one third as much and fails three times as often isn't a bargin. Even if said cheap server only fails twice or one and half times as often you will still end up paying more in the long run.
As for DNS, I believe that the root servers run on E10K's and similar, if you consider that equipment cheap then I's like to have your job.
What's more, to use an ATM you must physically key in the PIN, there is no way to automate a brute force attack against the keypad at an ATM. Additionally most ATMs will swallow your card after a certain number of wrong PINs (3 at my bank) so you aren't going to have much luck guessing.
You'd be surprised how many people write their PIN on the back of the card, or somewhere else in their wallet, but it happens enough that the signature panel on my card bears the warning, "Do not write your PIN on your card" That's why banks impose daily limits on how much money can be withdrawn through ATMs.
Technically the mints and BEP don't operate at a "profit" or "loss" since the Federal Reserve bears the cost of making money. The Fed isn't making a "profit" either, because as new money goes into circulation it replaces old money and meets any demand for incresed liquidity:
"Typically, most of the newly printed currency replaces currency destroyed by the Reserve Banks because it is unfit for further circulation. The remainder is printed to meet expected increases in the demand for currency. The Federal Reserve pays the BEP the cost of printing new currency and arranges and pays the cost of transporting the currency from the BEP facilities in Washington, D.C., and Fort Worth, Texas, to the Federal Reserve cash offices across the country. From 1990 to 2000, the number of Federal Reserve notes in circulation increased 57 percent, which represents an average annual growth rate of 4.6 percent."
Unless you are giving you brother more than $10,000 a year it isn't taxable.
There is a word for mints operating at a profit. They're called counterfiters. Are you laboring under the assumption that Quarters are 25x as expensive to make as pennies? Does it cost $1 to print singles and $100 to print hundreds? The cost of minting a penny or printing a bill is irrelevant.
The amount of money in circulation is fairly balanced and well controlled. If the Gov't just minted money when it wanted more, in addition to lower taxes we would have runaway inflation.
I don't think you saw what you thought you saw. The US Mint has nothing to do with paper money. The US Mint makes coins (hence the name). The Bureau of Engraving and Printing makes paper currency. Unlike coins all paper currency in the US is made in one place.
The Bureau is also where you would send mutilated paper money to have it examined. Note that if you _clearly_ have more than 50% of a bill you can take it to a bank and redeem it for full face value. If you have less than 50% and can prove the rest was destroyed, or an indeterminate amount you can send it to the Bureau and they will examine it.
This link has more information:
http://www.bep.treas.gov/section.cfm/8/39
Sart your own S corp. I don't know who told you $100, but it depends on your state. In Texas it is about $350. Check on your state website, the Texas Secretary of State has a Word template on the website that you fill out and send in with a check and viola! Unless you are going to do something complicated it is easiest to incorporate in your own state.
To be an S corp you'll need to get an Employer ID Number from the IRS (Fill out a form) then file for S corp status (another form).
Advantages of an S corp:
1. not double taxed, the net income is passed on to the shareholders as ordinary income, the corp pays no income tax, but as an indiviudal you will pay tax on this income (not medicare or SS)
2. No self employment tax you are not self employed, you work for the corporation. You will have to pay yourself a "resonable" salary, and take witholding, but this is the only money you pay SS and medicare, etc. on, not company's profit.
3. you can do stuff like buy computers (any legitamate business expenses) and that reduces the amount of taxes you pay on item 1.
example:
Your company bills you out at $100/hr. Your salary is a reasonable $35/hr. You pay income tax, medicare, ss, etc. and your company pays and extra 7% on these $35/hr. The company makes $60/hr this money can be spent on all of your expenses, and whatever is left at the end of the year you pay regular income tax on only. The company can also set up a SEP or other retirement plan (basically a company funded IRA) which is passed to you as tax free income and is a deduction for the company.
This is what I did this year after I got laid off, of course YMMV. Antohter advantage of soing it this way is you can have multiple clients, etc. and don't have to do any extra paperwork.
You can probably get by without a lawyer, but I would definately talk to a good CPA, they can steer you in the right direction help fill out forms correctly etc.
www.irs.gov has all the forms you'll need and lots of FAQ's. Just remeber that the IRS regs, like any law, are open to a certain amount of interpretation and the answers in some of those FAQs is really just how the IRS interprets the reg. Again check with your CPA.
It's even funnier than that.
The only way IE could be vulnerable to this kind of exploit is if it relied on the content-type in the header and _ignored_ the file extension. The whole point of the "vulnerablity" is that IE doesn't display the _actual_ extension, but instead it displays what it is told by the MIME header.
Si if Netscape et al are not affected by this vulnerability it is precisly because they are doing what Michael is accusing Microsoft of doing: ignoring the content-type all together and relying on the file extension.
Certainly some of the big Mafia guys could have afforded better justice? Was Al Capone a millionare? I think so. How about any of the Dons that have been jailed in the last few years? Even many of the Mafia trigger men were more than millionares.
Even OJ Simpson who's wealth supposedly kept him out of jail couldn't protect him from a civil suit that sent him into bankruptcy.
Except when they don't. PayPal claims to "verify" the person at the other end of the transaction. True they do not make any claims about the security of any other transactions with that individual, but they "claim" to be able to recover funds from "verified" sellers, that is the point of "verification". PayPal has had numerous complaints where they are completely unable (or unwilling) to recover monies when they should be able to under their own policies. In these cases the wronged party should pursue other means of satisfaction (credit card chargebacks).
A question for you: If PayPal is mearly a method of tranferring money (like Western Union) why do they refer to customers as "buyers" and "sellers" instead of "senders" and "recievers"?
But feel free not to use it. I just can't see how blindly sending a money order through US Mail to some eBay guy is any better.
I guess you don't have the "mental capacity to understand" the postal service then. If I send a Postal Money Order to someone and they rip me off, that's called Mail Fraud. It's a federal crime and the USPS has these guys called Postal Inspectors that investigate such things. Also, the Post Office will be able to track where the Money Order was deposited, and if fraud was commited recover the funds. I can even get a copy of the deposited Money Order from the Post Office once it has been cashed. If you are interested in learn more about "mail" the Post Office even has a website at www.usps.gov
The USPS also has a service called Pay@Delivery which is similar to COD, but electronic.
The point is that there are enough ways to securly send money to someone and not get ripped off, even if you don't know the other person.
Interesting that PayPal has this to say on the "Fraud Prevention Tips For Buyers" page:
We are always available to assist you with suspicious transactions. If you have concerns about a transaction, Contact Us before you complete the sale.
See, PayPal wants buyers to treat them as a trusted intermediary, they just don't want the responsibility.
Q What is PayPal?
A PayPal is an account-based system that lets people securely send online payments to anyone with an email address using their credit card or bank account.[emphasis added]
I guess that makes the sender the "real customer"
Q What is the Buyer Complaint Process?
A PayPal's Buyer Complaint Process helps protect PayPal members when a merchant does not deliver goods as promised. If you have been unable to resolve a dispute with a seller, you may file a Buyer Complaint Form (go to the Security Center link in the footer of any PayPal page) to initiate an investigation. PayPal will investigate your complaint and attempt to recover any funds you are owed. You will be entitled to the return of any funds PayPal is able to collect on your behalf. However, fund recovery is not guaranteed.
So PayPal does claim to investigate and attempt to recover money lost in fraudulent transactions. If they do not do this, they are not fullfilling their agreement. According to most of the compaints, and indeed the local BBB, PayPal has historically been unreachable, unhelpful, and downright shitty when it comes to people who have been ripped off. This certainly constitutes enough cause for a credit card chargeback.
Of course there is also the part about "verifying" sellers that don't really exist. PayPal actually does fill a certain role of a trust system, they claim to verify that certain users are who they say they are. Other that the ability to do chargebacks there is no reason for this verification. So why do you think it exists? If I go to Western Union and wire money they are obligated to deliver it to the right person and keep a record of that transaction. If that transaction fails I am entitled to my money back. If a Money Order is stolen or deposted fraudulently I am likewise entitled to a refund.
We are hearing complaints where PayPal is not responding to complaints or is acknowledging legitimate customer complaints and failing to recover funds from "verified" sellers. If this is indeed the case then PayPal is failing in their duty and service and you should dispute the charges with your card company.
What you will find it what PayPal already knows: your card company will be happy to grant your chargeback and leave PayPal on the hook.
Gosh, from what you are saying it sounds like the US twisted everyone's arm to get them onboard with the ISS. If the US had wanted our own space station we certainly could have done that, but the ISS is supposed to be buit and run by a coalition of countries. Like Canada the US has already made the agreed upon contirbution and then some. The US has been picking up the slack for the Russians for some time now. At this point no one wants to spend more money, and everyone will hae to make sacfrifices. It seems perfectly fair that those that made the smallest contributions should make the biggest sacrifice.
Why do you think the ISS had such a great effect on the US economy. Surely any effect on the economy would have been greater if it was the USSS and not the ISS. AFAIK the parts of the ISS made by the other countries were made in those countries, and not by some US government "approved" list of contractors.
The fact of the matter is that the ISS is now costing more and taking longer than anyone anticipated. The US is not going to bear all of that cost ourselves, if Canada does not want to pay in dollars, they will pay in the form of reduced access to the station.
This is dead on. The US budgeted over $25 Billion for the station (I'm not sure if that includes the use of the Shuttle) compared to Canada's $1.5 billion. Now there are huge cost overruns to the tune of $5-10 billion and the US has said we aren't going to pay it. A lot of these overruns are due to the Russians not pulling their weight, but I don't hear Canada eager to pick up the extra tab.
The nations have already agreed to rules for bringing non-astronauts on board, so why doesn't Canada shell out a couple of million to Russia for a ride on a Soyuz.
The last time I sent money with PayPal, they asked me why, what I was paying for, if it eas an auction, what the winning bid was etc.
PayPal wants you to believe that they aren't involved in the transaction, but they are. They don't want any liablity, and they don't want any responsibility (the CEO is an avowed libertarian and doesn't believe in government regulation). In the future I'll do my business on-line without PayPal.
You give PayPal the money in exchange for a service if paypal does not provide the service you have a legitimate dispute and you can probably get your money back from the CC company. PayPal knows this, and that is why it is a violation of the PayPal TOS to file a dispute with your credit card company. If you dispute the charges, PayPal will be screwed if they can't get the money back from the other party. Of course we would alll agree that this is fair, but PayPal would much rather that _you_ be screwed.
PayPal encourages all buyer purchase disputes to be filed and resolved through the PayPal dispute resolution process, and reserves the right to terminate or restrict account privileges of buyers who file chargeback complaints without attempting to resolve the complaints through PayPal.
Of course by the time you've gone through the PayPal dispute process it will probably be too late to dispute the charge with your bank.
Did you mean to type 10:66? Certainly you aren't claiming that the UK has not had to repel an invading force in the last 900 years. That would be a silly assertion, even if you don't consider open, armed rebellions as "invasions" there's always the Battle of Britain, and lets not forget the Falklands.
FWIW here's a list of current territorial disputes from the CIA fact book:
Northern Ireland issue with Ireland (historic peace agreement signed 10 April 1998); Gibraltar issue with Spain; Argentina claims Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas); Argentina claims South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; Mauritius and the Seychelles claim Chagos Archipelago (UK-administered British Indian Ocean Territory); Rockall continental shelf dispute involving Denmark and Iceland; territorial claim in Antarctica (British Antarctic Territory) overlaps Argentine claim and partially overlaps Chilean claim; disputes with Iceland, Denmark, and Ireland over the Faroe Islands continental shelf boundary outside 200 NM
You would think the DVD-RW format would sound like the perfect solution. Unfortunately, there are some limitations. Probably the biggest issue right now is that not all DVD video players or DVD-ROM drives can play these discs. The other problem is recording video. This format does not support efficient encoding of video using variable bit rates. This limits the recording speed to only 1x and it can take a good 1 or 2 hours to write a DVD movie.
You would think there would be a better solution. So did a few other companies. These companies got together and formed the DVD+RW Alliance. The DVD+RW Alliance was originally formed by Dell, HP, Mitsubishi Chemical, Philips, Ricoh, Sony, Thomson Multimedia and Yamaha. You can see that this group was made up of leaders in the optical storage industry as well as in many other aspects of computing. Their solution was the DVD+RW format.
If these companies would give _me_ free equipment, I guarantee reviews that are at least written by someone with a better grasp of the written language.