In my opinion the most important reason for guns is self defense. With a gun, a 90-pound woman is on equal footing with any attacker who has a gun, and has the advantage over any attacker without one -- provided that she knows how to use it properly and is willing to kill rather than be raped/murdered/whatever. I believe that the right to defend oneself is an inalienable right -- it's the life part of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
Do guns cause or exacerbate other problems? Yes. You have to take the bad with the good. People are free to use alcohol and this causes problems, too, but I don't think most people in the U.S. are in favor of prohibition of alcohol. I'm sure there are better examples that will occur to me after I press Submit.
A gun for self-defense is like insurance -- you hope you won't need it, but you want it there in the unfortunate case that you do. It is simply impossible for the police to protect everyone at all times. I'm sure there are plenty of guns=glory people out there, but I think they are the idiot minority.
I agree, except that many areas have very little competition for ISPs, and the average customer cannot tell if the traffic is being prioritized/throttled. All they see is that ISP's voip service works great while the competing Skype sounds awful.
I am as free market as they come, but the free market is known not to work in monopoly/oligopoly situations or where consumers cannot make rational choices. We regulate food because the average consumer can't tell if the strawberries are contaminated with salmonella.
Well, at least he's thinking of how sso could be implemented well. Everyone else in the entire thread seems to think we will sit in the dark ages with 100 usernames and passwords to keep track of.
A cynic might say that we've already seen "an onslaught of mangled data analysis, with data being taken out of context, the results published to some blog, and people making policy decision based on those blog postings" by the academics.
Unless you mess with superconductors regularly, you probably haven't come across any WIRED transmission method that doesn't incorporate a degree of loss.:) Although I'll grant you that for short distances it's often so small as to be negligible.
I think they're going about it all wrong. Children are much more distracting to drivers in my experience. I can't count the number of times I have almost wrecked trying to pick up a pacifier, etc.
London should prohibit driving with children in the car. It's an inconvenience for parents, but it's a safety issue. Likewise car radios should be banned.
Well, that's true to some extent. However, I prefer to think of it as a rational extrapolation of what technological progress has accomplished to date. That is, there are very few technological problems I can see that humans haven't been able to develop some solution to, given enough time. Nobody seems to have any problem with extrapolating various doomsday scenarios based on NO technological progress, but as soon as you want to assume some sort of progress, everyone screams "magic". Can I tell you for sure that a breakthrough will occur, or when? No. However, I think that the probabilities strongly favor it.
Turning it around, aren't you taking it as an article of faith that another cheap energy source (besides oil) ISN'T possible within a few generations? You're making the same assumptions based on knowledge you don't have (knowledge of advancements.) For that matter, the term 'assumption' kind of implies that I don't have the knowledge.:)
I hear all sorts of reasons why it's not possible today, or within 10 or 20 or 30 years -- and many of those are very valid and I know we can't do it today! However, what annoyed me is that the original poster seemed to imply this was simply the law of the universe -- that energy is scarce -- and that we've just been lucky for a couple hundred years to have a good source. I disagree. There's lots of indications that there are a energy sources out there that can produce much larger amounts of energy than what the human race is currently using, if we can just figure out how to tap them.
I'm very impressed you're studying physics -- you must be very wise in the ways of the world. It's even more impressive that you can look so far into the future and predict that no breakthroughs will happen. I guess we should tell all those PHDs with (collectively) millions for budgets on energy research that Anonymous Coward, probably a physics undergrad or grad student, has it all figured out and they should go home.
I clearly said that fusion wouldn't use elemental hydrogen, but your studies should have indicated that Deuterium and Tritium are isotopes of hydrogen.
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. The point is that cheap energy is technically possible (after oil), and that humans will invent it because there will be a need for it as oil becomes more scarce and expensive. If not fusion, then fission will become cheaper, or some other technology. One reason that we haven't invented it yet is because we already have cheap energy so there's not as much incentive. Humans have been off researching microchips and other things instead (many of which will probably help with energy research).
Again, take a look at the world of 1909. If I have to get used to living a more modest existence, it will be because the US is unable to compete in the world, not because of a lack of energy or any other item that it's physically possible to produce.
And, as a side note, do you really think we'll pump the last drop of oil out of the ground on, say, Jan 3 2015 and then we'll just be screwed? Oil prices will gradually continue to increase as it becomes more expensive to produce, and as that happens, more resources will go into energy research.
As I said to the original poster, I can't ever convince you of this. But keep your messages and read them in 20 years and you'll convince yourself. Technology can't solve all of the world's problems (and when it solves some it causes others) but energy is one problem we'll lick sooner or later. And when we do it will probably cause some other problem that our children or grandchildren will think is unsolvable.
Oh, and I don't believe I ever said that we would use zero oil. A high-energy-density chemical fuel is the clear (and only for the foreseeable future) choice for airplanes. Note that high-energy-density chemical fuels can be made through other means than geologic, but it's not particularly cost-effective to do so right now.
Well, you can keep calling names all you like, but you're still wrong.
I do understand, probably better than you (I'm not a specialist in the field, but you clearly aren't), the immense engineering obstacles in the way of using nuclear fusion as an energy source for humans to use. (Directly, not via solar panels.) That's why I said "I'm not saying it will be licked in 20 years". I take it that your position is that nuclear fusion is impossible, or at best so far off that it's of no hope to us? I'd love to see some reasons for this position. How about 100 years, smartass? Think of what we had in 1909, and note that the rate of advancement has not been steady but has continually increased.
Hydrogen is absolutely a fuel for nuclear fusion. Two hydrogen atoms fuse into one helium atom and the leftover mass is released as energy. It's how the sun works -- I suppose I was too subtle on that point. There's a very abundant element on the earth that contains hydrogen. Since I was too subtle last time, I will not keep you in suspense -- it's water, which has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in each molecule. The amount of energy it takes to separate these is small compared to the amount of energy you get from fusing them into helium. (I'll try to find a reference for you if you like). That said, it's not that simple, of course, and any working fusion design wouldn't necessarily work with elemental hydrogen. If it were easy, it would already be done.
Hmm, the electrical grid. Boy, that's a tough one. It's a shame that there's nothing on the horizon, like superconductivity, that would help with electricity transmission. Even without that, "Various estimates of existing copper reserves available for mining vary from 25 years to 60 years, depending on core assumptions such as the growth rate." per a reference on Wikipedia. So there's some time, even presuming a steady growth rate, before copper shortages become a problem. Some thought might also bring you to the conclusion that other things can be used to conduct electricity and that copper is simply the cheapest and most effective one to use now.
Again, I didn't say that finding another cheap energy source is easy, simply that it's possible and will be accomplished eventually.
You're right. Once oil runs out, there's certainly nothing out there like nuclear fusion possible. Why, if ANYONE can walk out in the sunlight and point to a working fusion source of energy, I'd be shocked.
And fuel is certainly a problem. I mean, how can you find hydrogen around here?
I'm not saying we'll lick fusion in 20 years. I'm just saying there are plenty of alternatives.
I just love how people like you assume that no technological progress will be made and that the problems of today will be the same as the problems in 50 years, only worse.
We haven't "cracked the energy problem" because energy has been cheap and plentiful enough not to need to, for the most part. Now that people are worried about it, it will happen, although it will take time. (Also, I think it would be incorrect to say that no energy advances have been made since 1960.)
We'll have plenty of problems in 50 years, but it won't be the things that people are worrying about today (with a few exceptions). I grew up in the cold war era -- how many people are worried every day about nuclear war now? Do you still think we're all likely to 'splode any second? No, now it's that we'll take our stupid lines and extrapolate out on the graph for 100 years without any regard for technological progress to X or Y horrible fate.
I will never convince you, but you'll convince yourself eventually. Save your post for a few years and re-read it.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Absolutely definitely make backups!
But don't 'archive' data -- keep your 'archive' data together with your 'live' data. When you back up your 'live' data, back up your 'archive' data as well. When you move your 'live' data to a new machine, move your 'archive' data as well.
Each new generation of storage is usually at least double the capacity of the previous one, so you don't normally have a problem with running out of space.
I think the issue is that people are thinking about this incorrectly. You don't really want to 'archive' this data -- keep it with you! Keep it with all of the data that you are using day to day and back it up and move it along with that.
My home workstation still has files from 15 years ago on it. I've replaced the computer many times, had a few hard drives fail, etc. but I've always restored both current and 'archive' data from backups and kept going.
I'm not calling you a liar, but I wonder how many people will be influenced by your comment. A few things to note:
a) You don't give the name of the town for others to look up info. b) This is one person's (your boss's) opinion of how well the publicly-owned utilities work in this town. Others in the town might have a different view. c) This is second-hand information. d) Even if publicly-owned utilities work spectacularly well in this town, how well do they work on average?
I'm for publicly owned utilities in some cases and for privately-owned utilities in other cases. I think people need to get all of the info rather than making decisions based on hearsay and only listening to things that further their existing political agendas.
This is GREAT! I can't WAIT for all of the folks who threw away their teflon pans to start throwing away all of their gadgets! Dumpster-diving here I come!
When on the road there is only one thing that is important and that is safety. In that case, you'd better ban children in the car. From my experience, they're far more distracting than any cell phone conversation. And require everyone to drive tanks -- none of this unsafe fuel-efficient crap. Safety is the only thing that's important!
Look, there's a certain amount of risk you're going to have to accept if you want to drive (or wake up in the morning). Talking on my cell phone, or talking to a passenger, or transporting my child, or eating the occasional burger while driving, or listening to the radio or an audiobook all fall into the 'acceptable risk' category for me. If they don't for you, that's fine, but if you're prepared to ban the first thing on the list in the name of safety I'm not sure why you should stop there.
My mother was killed in an auto accident -- nobody was drunk, and nobody was talking on a cell phone. It was just bad weather and bad luck. I know that driving is the most dangerous thing I do regularly, but I still do it because it's an acceptable risk.
"I really can't blame you if you're from west africa or something, but try to track with me here:
There is such a thing as free speech, and americans, including this guy, expect it."
You obviously understand that what CNN did was legal and constitutional. However, the guy I originally responded to apparently didn't, which is why I felt compelled to paste the first amendment. Apologies to my parent poster, but it really burns my ass when people ruin what is potentially a good position ("It is unreasonable for an employer to retaliate against an employee for what he/she does on personal time," for example) with something that's easily refuted (claiming first amendment rights where they clearly don't apply). Such a stance practically means you're working for your opponent, since you're damaging your position so much.
On a separate note, the fact that your parent post doesn't respect some of the members here doesn't mean that he doesn't respect all of them. Or, maybe he just posts here because he's always looking for an argument, like me and the guy in your excellent Monty Python quote.
In the US, the first amendment only covers what the government does, not a nongovernmental entity like CNN. Of course, that does not mean that they aren't assholes for firing him, but it doesn't violate constitutional freedom of speech. Emphasis mine:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sorry, but *that's* backwards. Take a look at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls , line 123. It shows that, for 2003, the top 5% of wage earners (those earning $130,080 or more) paid 54% of all income taxes and had an average tax rate of 20.74%. The top 50% paid 96.5% of income taxes, meaning that the bottom 50% kicked in 3.5%.
Now, this is only income tax (other taxes like FICA are not progressive) but I'm hard pressed to see how "rich" people are taxed less in any respect (and I put that in quotes because you'd be amazed who the government considers rich!) The "rich" are taxed equally or more, both in terms of absolute dollars and in terms of percentage, on *everything*. The fact that there are now tax breaks on dividends doesn't negate this. If you'd like to prove me wrong, simply find me any tax that someone making $30K a year has to pay and someone making $100K a year doesn't.
I'm well aware that many people get money from means other than wages, but it still doesn't change the result that the "rich" pay more taxes. That's the whole point behind a progressive taxation system. You may want to argue that the "rich" should pick up more of the burden than they are -- and you can strike up a reasonable debate there -- but you cannot truthfully claim that the rich pay less taxes than the poor.
Slashdot Mirror
Why pay for channels? Pay for shows. Tags are the new "channels"; we're not dividing up VHF frequencies any more.
My thoughts are that I like to eat beef!
You're trolling, but I'll bite.
In my opinion the most important reason for guns is self defense. With a gun, a 90-pound woman is on equal footing with any attacker who has a gun, and has the advantage over any attacker without one -- provided that she knows how to use it properly and is willing to kill rather than be raped/murdered/whatever. I believe that the right to defend oneself is an inalienable right -- it's the life part of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
Do guns cause or exacerbate other problems? Yes. You have to take the bad with the good. People are free to use alcohol and this causes problems, too, but I don't think most people in the U.S. are in favor of prohibition of alcohol. I'm sure there are better examples that will occur to me after I press Submit.
A gun for self-defense is like insurance -- you hope you won't need it, but you want it there in the unfortunate case that you do. It is simply impossible for the police to protect everyone at all times. I'm sure there are plenty of guns=glory people out there, but I think they are the idiot minority.
I agree, except that many areas have very little competition for ISPs, and the average customer cannot tell if the traffic is being prioritized/throttled. All they see is that ISP's voip service works great while the competing Skype sounds awful.
I am as free market as they come, but the free market is known not to work in monopoly/oligopoly situations or where consumers cannot make rational choices. We regulate food because the average consumer can't tell if the strawberries are contaminated with salmonella.
Well, at least he's thinking of how sso could be implemented well. Everyone else in the entire thread seems to think we will sit in the dark ages with 100 usernames and passwords to keep track of.
How is parent a troll post? http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml . "Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down."
No wonder he posted anonymously. Some of you freaks will probably moderate me down, too, but I think karma is overrated. :)
A cynic might say that we've already seen "an onslaught of mangled data analysis, with data being taken out of context, the results published to some blog, and people making policy decision based on those blog postings" by the academics.
Wow. You may not live to see tomorrow. Might as well go to a University of Kentucky basketball game wearing Duke colors.
Unless you mess with superconductors regularly, you probably haven't come across any WIRED transmission method that doesn't incorporate a degree of loss. :) Although I'll grant you that for short distances it's often so small as to be negligible.
I skimmed the comments on this article just to find one like yours, whining about "oooh scary radiation". Congratulations!
Note that by your reasoning, you should be equally scared of light bulbs.
I think they're going about it all wrong. Children are much more distracting to drivers in my experience. I can't count the number of times I have almost wrecked trying to pick up a pacifier, etc.
London should prohibit driving with children in the car. It's an inconvenience for parents, but it's a safety issue. Likewise car radios should be banned.
Well, that's true to some extent. However, I prefer to think of it as a rational extrapolation of what technological progress has accomplished to date. That is, there are very few technological problems I can see that humans haven't been able to develop some solution to, given enough time. Nobody seems to have any problem with extrapolating various doomsday scenarios based on NO technological progress, but as soon as you want to assume some sort of progress, everyone screams "magic". Can I tell you for sure that a breakthrough will occur, or when? No. However, I think that the probabilities strongly favor it.
Turning it around, aren't you taking it as an article of faith that another cheap energy source (besides oil) ISN'T possible within a few generations? You're making the same assumptions based on knowledge you don't have (knowledge of advancements.) For that matter, the term 'assumption' kind of implies that I don't have the knowledge. :)
I hear all sorts of reasons why it's not possible today, or within 10 or 20 or 30 years -- and many of those are very valid and I know we can't do it today! However, what annoyed me is that the original poster seemed to imply this was simply the law of the universe -- that energy is scarce -- and that we've just been lucky for a couple hundred years to have a good source. I disagree. There's lots of indications that there are a energy sources out there that can produce much larger amounts of energy than what the human race is currently using, if we can just figure out how to tap them.
By the way, I love your handle.
Wow, you've got a lot of anger built up there.
I'm very impressed you're studying physics -- you must be very wise in the ways of the world. It's even more impressive that you can look so far into the future and predict that no breakthroughs will happen. I guess we should tell all those PHDs with (collectively) millions for budgets on energy research that Anonymous Coward, probably a physics undergrad or grad student, has it all figured out and they should go home.
I clearly said that fusion wouldn't use elemental hydrogen, but your studies should have indicated that Deuterium and Tritium are isotopes of hydrogen.
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. The point is that cheap energy is technically possible (after oil), and that humans will invent it because there will be a need for it as oil becomes more scarce and expensive. If not fusion, then fission will become cheaper, or some other technology. One reason that we haven't invented it yet is because we already have cheap energy so there's not as much incentive. Humans have been off researching microchips and other things instead (many of which will probably help with energy research).
Again, take a look at the world of 1909. If I have to get used to living a more modest existence, it will be because the US is unable to compete in the world, not because of a lack of energy or any other item that it's physically possible to produce.
And, as a side note, do you really think we'll pump the last drop of oil out of the ground on, say, Jan 3 2015 and then we'll just be screwed? Oil prices will gradually continue to increase as it becomes more expensive to produce, and as that happens, more resources will go into energy research.
As I said to the original poster, I can't ever convince you of this. But keep your messages and read them in 20 years and you'll convince yourself. Technology can't solve all of the world's problems (and when it solves some it causes others) but energy is one problem we'll lick sooner or later. And when we do it will probably cause some other problem that our children or grandchildren will think is unsolvable.
Oh, and I don't believe I ever said that we would use zero oil. A high-energy-density chemical fuel is the clear (and only for the foreseeable future) choice for airplanes. Note that high-energy-density chemical fuels can be made through other means than geologic, but it's not particularly cost-effective to do so right now.
Well, you can keep calling names all you like, but you're still wrong.
I do understand, probably better than you (I'm not a specialist in the field, but you clearly aren't), the immense engineering obstacles in the way of using nuclear fusion as an energy source for humans to use. (Directly, not via solar panels.) That's why I said "I'm not saying it will be licked in 20 years". I take it that your position is that nuclear fusion is impossible, or at best so far off that it's of no hope to us? I'd love to see some reasons for this position. How about 100 years, smartass? Think of what we had in 1909, and note that the rate of advancement has not been steady but has continually increased.
Hydrogen is absolutely a fuel for nuclear fusion. Two hydrogen atoms fuse into one helium atom and the leftover mass is released as energy. It's how the sun works -- I suppose I was too subtle on that point. There's a very abundant element on the earth that contains hydrogen. Since I was too subtle last time, I will not keep you in suspense -- it's water, which has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in each molecule. The amount of energy it takes to separate these is small compared to the amount of energy you get from fusing them into helium. (I'll try to find a reference for you if you like). That said, it's not that simple, of course, and any working fusion design wouldn't necessarily work with elemental hydrogen. If it were easy, it would already be done.
Hmm, the electrical grid. Boy, that's a tough one. It's a shame that there's nothing on the horizon, like superconductivity, that would help with electricity transmission. Even without that, "Various estimates of existing copper reserves available for mining vary from 25 years to 60 years, depending on core assumptions such as the growth rate." per a reference on Wikipedia. So there's some time, even presuming a steady growth rate, before copper shortages become a problem. Some thought might also bring you to the conclusion that other things can be used to conduct electricity and that copper is simply the cheapest and most effective one to use now.
Again, I didn't say that finding another cheap energy source is easy, simply that it's possible and will be accomplished eventually.
You're right. Once oil runs out, there's certainly nothing out there like nuclear fusion possible. Why, if ANYONE can walk out in the sunlight and point to a working fusion source of energy, I'd be shocked.
And fuel is certainly a problem. I mean, how can you find hydrogen around here?
I'm not saying we'll lick fusion in 20 years. I'm just saying there are plenty of alternatives.
I just love how people like you assume that no technological progress will be made and that the problems of today will be the same as the problems in 50 years, only worse.
We haven't "cracked the energy problem" because energy has been cheap and plentiful enough not to need to, for the most part. Now that people are worried about it, it will happen, although it will take time. (Also, I think it would be incorrect to say that no energy advances have been made since 1960.)
We'll have plenty of problems in 50 years, but it won't be the things that people are worrying about today (with a few exceptions). I grew up in the cold war era -- how many people are worried every day about nuclear war now? Do you still think we're all likely to 'splode any second? No, now it's that we'll take our stupid lines and extrapolate out on the graph for 100 years without any regard for technological progress to X or Y horrible fate.
I will never convince you, but you'll convince yourself eventually. Save your post for a few years and re-read it.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Absolutely definitely make backups!
But don't 'archive' data -- keep your 'archive' data together with your 'live' data. When you back up your 'live' data, back up your 'archive' data as well. When you move your 'live' data to a new machine, move your 'archive' data as well.
Each new generation of storage is usually at least double the capacity of the previous one, so you don't normally have a problem with running out of space.
I think the issue is that people are thinking about this incorrectly. You don't really want to 'archive' this data -- keep it with you! Keep it with all of the data that you are using day to day and back it up and move it along with that.
My home workstation still has files from 15 years ago on it. I've replaced the computer many times, had a few hard drives fail, etc. but I've always restored both current and 'archive' data from backups and kept going.
I'm not calling you a liar, but I wonder how many people will be influenced by your comment. A few things to note:
a) You don't give the name of the town for others to look up info.
b) This is one person's (your boss's) opinion of how well the publicly-owned utilities work in this town. Others in the town might have a different view.
c) This is second-hand information.
d) Even if publicly-owned utilities work spectacularly well in this town, how well do they work on average?
I'm for publicly owned utilities in some cases and for privately-owned utilities in other cases. I think people need to get all of the info rather than making decisions based on hearsay and only listening to things that further their existing political agendas.
This is GREAT! I can't WAIT for all of the folks who threw away their teflon pans to start throwing away all of their gadgets! Dumpster-diving here I come!
Look, there's a certain amount of risk you're going to have to accept if you want to drive (or wake up in the morning). Talking on my cell phone, or talking to a passenger, or transporting my child, or eating the occasional burger while driving, or listening to the radio or an audiobook all fall into the 'acceptable risk' category for me. If they don't for you, that's fine, but if you're prepared to ban the first thing on the list in the name of safety I'm not sure why you should stop there.
My mother was killed in an auto accident -- nobody was drunk, and nobody was talking on a cell phone. It was just bad weather and bad luck. I know that driving is the most dangerous thing I do regularly, but I still do it because it's an acceptable risk.
"I really can't blame you if you're from west africa or something, but try to track with me here:
There is such a thing as free speech, and americans, including this guy, expect it."
You obviously understand that what CNN did was legal and constitutional. However, the guy I originally responded to apparently didn't, which is why I felt compelled to paste the first amendment. Apologies to my parent poster, but it really burns my ass when people ruin what is potentially a good position ("It is unreasonable for an employer to retaliate against an employee for what he/she does on personal time," for example) with something that's easily refuted (claiming first amendment rights where they clearly don't apply). Such a stance practically means you're working for your opponent, since you're damaging your position so much.
On a separate note, the fact that your parent post doesn't respect some of the members here doesn't mean that he doesn't respect all of them. Or, maybe he just posts here because he's always looking for an argument, like me and the guy in your excellent Monty Python quote.
In the US, the first amendment only covers what the government does, not a nongovernmental entity like CNN. Of course, that does not mean that they aren't assholes for firing him, but it doesn't violate constitutional freedom of speech. Emphasis mine:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sorry, but *that's* backwards. Take a look at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls , line 123. It shows that, for 2003, the top 5% of wage earners (those earning $130,080 or more) paid 54% of all income taxes and had an average tax rate of 20.74%. The top 50% paid 96.5% of income taxes, meaning that the bottom 50% kicked in 3.5%.
Now, this is only income tax (other taxes like FICA are not progressive) but I'm hard pressed to see how "rich" people are taxed less in any respect (and I put that in quotes because you'd be amazed who the government considers rich!) The "rich" are taxed equally or more, both in terms of absolute dollars and in terms of percentage, on *everything*. The fact that there are now tax breaks on dividends doesn't negate this. If you'd like to prove me wrong, simply find me any tax that someone making $30K a year has to pay and someone making $100K a year doesn't.
I'm well aware that many people get money from means other than wages, but it still doesn't change the result that the "rich" pay more taxes. That's the whole point behind a progressive taxation system. You may want to argue that the "rich" should pick up more of the burden than they are -- and you can strike up a reasonable debate there -- but you cannot truthfully claim that the rich pay less taxes than the poor.