A week ago I took the plunge from Comcast to Verizon FIOS. It largely was a step backwards (lousy channel guide, no page down (With 800+ channels, that is a huge issue!) etc)... But last night I turn on the DVR and Verizon FIOS came of age. They have a new channel guide beats Comcast, has page down and is just so nice. Comcast actually took 3 channels away from a 1/2 screen channel guide to show you advertising! Did I see a drop in my cable bill? Nope. The FIOS one is FULL SCREEN, and you can filter to only HDTV channels.
I have the 15/2 plan, but for the torrents as of late, have had a hard time matching Comcast. I've gotten impressive speeds, but Comcast seemed to sustain them more. Of course, torrents are not a reliable benchmark method.
I had a low GPA myself. I was almost a victim of the dot.com error, where tech talent = big bucks. I tried to balance the two while taking courses. My studies suffered, but I managed to graduate. When I was graduating I was with a company that I'd been with part time for 6 months, and I was well liked. That got me converted to full time and my employment was secure.
I've since worked at other places and explained my low GPA as a combination of that, and the fact tht I was learning technology beyond my course work. I learned PHP, then databases, all the while being self-taught. By the time I got to those courses that used those technologies, I was doing great, but the courses that were concurrent to my own learning are the cause of the low GPA.
Now I am in charge of a software engineering department. I do interviews. And let me tell you there is a sore lack of qualified candidates. Most are missing effective communication skills. Most can't present themselves adequately for the position. If you want to interview with me, leave it off. I'll ask you the questions that I think you need to have the answers to for the job. I also don't care I your arts/humanities credits dragged you down. Nail the interview, and you can make the GPA irrelevant.
That being said, if you can't present yourself as an incredible asset, repeat.
I expect to be modded down again for another dissenting opinion, but such is the case when there is no good science to settle the argument either way. The mob applies leverage and attempts science by consensus (History shows that consensus has almost always started out wrong to begin with).
I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle [google video] AND Inconvienent Truth.
I have to say, other than a nice graph of carbon dioxide and temperature, the rest of the film was science by consensus. "90% of scientists now agree". Furthermore, Al only makes the statement that "the relationship between the [two lines] is a complicated one". With that one line, he avoids the actual science of global warming. It allows him to gloss over any kind of investigation of solar activity, dissolved CO2 levels in the oceans, the ratio of CO2 to other green house gasses. Yes, there is more than one, but Al never mentions that. Instead he only shows the PPM increase, and not a percentage increase. He also fails to go into why the upper atmosphere is not increasing in temperature whereas ground temps are (hint: solar radiation heats the ground more effectively than green house gasses)
What we have, and everyone has to admit this, is the only real correlation is our ability to measure CO2 in PPM, and an increase in temperatures (at the same time an increase in solar activity). Anyone with statistics experience will tell you correlation is not causation. We simply have to wait for the many factors to fluctuate so we can tease out the real relationship.
I love the environment and animals (I was going to be a park ranger), but I call BS (Bad Science) when I see it. How embarrassing will it be in 50 years, when we've passed a local solar maximum and things are back to normal? Until our confidence [and understanding] is so high in the matter, we shouldn't be legislating first and asking questions later.
Perhaps you could help me with something. That sig of mine, and some other comments I've made has really drawn comments like yours. Its not that a book is for sale, but the topic of the book that seems to be drawing the ire. For the record, I am not affiliated with the book in any way.
If the topic was global warming, I don't think it's be invoking such an emotional response. The fact that someone draws upon the history of the country for an issue that invades everyones lives and affects 15-30% of their bottom line is somehow not up for discussion? Are you afraid to find out you're wrong? Do you know you are wrong but don't want others to find out too? I simply don't see why people are so negative about the topic when they can just ignore it and continue on with their own life. But instead, they seem to find it necessary to stop and berate me and the idea that maybe the IRS is collecting money it shouldn't.
So please tell me why you found it necessary to reply the way you did. Don't say whether you think I'm right or wrong, just say why you felt so strongly.
Heim UFT calls for a neutral electron. Could this be it? Honestly, I don't know, and its be nice to hear from someone more acquainted with physics than myself.
.. that burnout is a built in ROI calculator for the individual, then its probably a good mesure for the companyy as well.
Here we have two projects. An ass-old- buggy, poorly written code base and the new one that is just starting. I dread the old code base, because it brings on immediate burn-out. The return is so little for that code base that we've stopped developing it except for easy enhancements and bug fixes.
Other times I've experienced burn out is when you just go too hard at a goal that is too far away. It is better to take things into small steps that can be checked off. I also find that when you have the option to work in one project with little changes, it is best not to linger. Instead, let the change requests stack up. Then hit the code base hard, and thereby forcing yourself to feel productive as you check each one off.
But nothing still keeps me more motivated than seeing the $$ behind the work. Early on each feature has a profit margin to it. By the time you're in a maintenance cycle, you're doing it to keep the software functioning as it should. Its not nearly as sexy.
The other thing is the right tools. Having to deal with asinine tools negates your agility to get the changes implemented timely. You should be able to focus on things from a customer perspective and not how hard it is to implement. A good tool is worth its licensing fees many times over. (I'd include a shameless plug for Qt from TrollTech, or Perforce, but I'm not going to;-) )
Yesterday (or Monday?), I participated in comments to an article about IRS taxing income from games, and I covered a lot of tax history, as well as made some comments that got me labeled a tax protestor andmy informative post full of cites was modded a as troll(0).
Today I am back to fill you in again on the history of the income tax. What I am about to tell you is established fact and not "tax protester" rhetoric. Its agreed upon history.
Up until 1930-45, the US was almost entirely financed by protective tariffs. There was a lot of debate of what to tax at what rate. There were some arguments that the protective tariffs allowed some insutries to profit to heavily. All the in-fighting in the government was about whether sugar or cotton or some other product should be taxed. There were other small sources of funding, but that was mainly it.
Then communism rose, and the idea of "each according to his ability" was used. This of course was income. Those who had large ones could more easily afford the import tariffs, so it was concluded that the poor were bearing the worst of the things. Congress wanted to tax these people less, and the only way to do so was to repeal the tariffs. The tariffs made up 20-40% of the shelf price of a product, depending on the product. (Yes, congress actually wanted to reduce tax burdens on the poor at one time, unlike today where every man, woman and child pays at least 15% of their income)
At the time, it was sold as a wealth redistribution scheme. The 2% of the population that held 80% of the money was seen as obscene and they should be able to tax the unearned income of these individuals. (Unearned income is money you don't trade labor for, i.e. dividends, capital gains, etc). The problem was that in 1895, the supreme court overturned a revenue act on the basis it was unconstitutional. Direct taxes have to be apportioned to the states (the states are responsible for collecting & paying the bill, where each state is billed according to population, it is up to each state how to collect it). The reading of the revenue act was not clearly worded and so it was overturned.
The 16th amendment was drafted to do away with future acts being overturned. Here is where you get multiple interpretations, some can be labeled as "tax protester". IRS contends that it allows for a new, un-apportioned direct tax. In reading supreme court decisions and the congressional record, I have to say that this is probably not the case, as one revision of the amendment had "as direct" in it, but was promptly voted down. What the courts said in response can be found in Brushaber vs Union Pacific and Stanton vs Baltic Mining (Both 1916). (I will not quote these here, as I was lamblasted for "using quotes out of context", so I encourage everyone to look them up and read them in their entirety.) Again, their wording is confusing, but it is settled that it didn't create a new un-apportioned tax, but one that is to be enforced as indirect (excise). The implications of that statement is what most people clamor over between those who think the status quo is correct where everything is taxable by the feds, or those who see the rulings as restricting what can be taxed. The latter contend it is only a bit of subterfuge that keeps most people in the dark. Its a long road to go down, but regardless, you'll learn a LOT about this country and its history.
So as someone who knows far more than most people (and both sides of the story) I have to say "Good job income tax! You're really delivering on your promises of wealth redistribution!" (sarcasm). Clearly the rich will always find ways to get richer. If it is talent or luck or whatever, there always seems to be a 2% that owns the bulk of the wealth.
That wacky website, and its author, have been sued 3 times by the DOJ/IRS. Each time, they failed to shut down him, his site, and his claims, unlike other "protesters" like Schiff.
There is a book called "Constitutional Income: Do you have any?" which is written by an Idaho law maker which examines the legislative intent at the time the 16th was invoked. If true, what could be considered income is changed. As the law reads "income derived from [sources]", one is left to ponder if derived from is the same as "including", or if what is being called for by "derived" is a subset of special sources from which the superset is then listed. According to this book (which draws heavily from the congressional record) that is indeed the case - that congress wanted to be as far-reaching but knew it actuality it was limited. We have since forgotten how limited it originally was.
There is another book "The Great Income Tax Wars" that casts Congress's own doubt on its ability to pass and sustain the tax on incomes. Of course, it portrays Brushaber as sustaining the income tax, as you do, and it did, however what seems to be neglected is the idea that the court didn't castrate the effectiveness.
Going back to the "Constitutional Income" book, it is revealed that through later decisions, the income tax is enforced differently in the different districts. Why this is is simple. Its too complicated for the courts to be consistent, but is simple enough to rule on without too much consideration.
Getting back to what is "income", clearly there's contention because the statues are written in such a way that it isn't clear who needs to be filing w-4s and paying social security. It is at serious odds of what is practiced in this country. You have the IRS telling everyone they need a SSN, and the SSA saying that not everyone needs a SSN The primary peice of evidence here is the definition of United States in 26 USC 7701, vs 26 USC 4601. Clearly, the 4601 includes the 50 states (for liquor and tobacco taxes et al), so why not use the same definition in 7701, which would enlarge the scope? Unless, there was some limitation on the authority...
As I've read all the decisions myself, I can say that as I have quoted them, that nothing is misinterpreted or applied,or overtuned in relevant part.
There however is the problem that the court history is filled with legal fictions or those actually subject to the tax in the parties. It is not filled with individuals. The only one I know of is Cheek, and that was a failure to file case that was decided in the favor of the individual.
Well, you call me antitax hobbiest, then you say I favor taxation, just not the IRS/income tax.
Taxes are completely legitimate and 100% needed. We need a military, we need federal task forces, we need a federal government, but for only those powers mentioned in the consitution. We don't need socialism (fair share (aka "each according to his ability" is from the communist manifesto), and we don't need state socialism. (State socialism is when the governemnt takes taxes our of your pay check then distributes it to states as it sees fit, for things like environmental programs, roads, and other federal funding) I say, just drop that part of the tax and let the state pick it up instead. Otherwise, you get additional federal control not allowed by the consitution. ("We'll tax your citizens and then prevent you from getting the money back!")
The FDR comment is made because he enlarged the idea of what the government is responsible for, and moving us further to a socialist country. Social Security is the big idea here, that the government is somehow made responsible for your well-being. A far cry from "promote the general welfare". It says promote, not "provide for"...
And I did mean "proponents". The FairTax legislation wording is weak, its workings are weak. Its consequences are unknown. There is a lot more trust required for me to back that than I have for the government. I like the current regime because it is at least well understood. That is why I also back tariff-only funding. That is well understood and there is plenty of history to ensure those in charge can implement it safely.
BTW, I've read that FAQ, and I've done battle with Mr. Evans many times. He is the one citing irrelevant cases. Its absurd. I read these cases for hours, only to find that his cite doesn't even back up what he claims. Its good practice with learning you can'tr trust anyone and you have to read for yourself.
Download this file: http://ctc.schtuff.com/taxusnot_repository_zip (I had to add.zip to the file I downloaded) And extract the FriviouslArgumentsRefusted20050314.doc file, and read away.
Income has always been taxable. Yeap. You called me a protestor, but yet I say income is taxable. So now I know I have your attention. Income is no where defined in the Constitution or the statutes. "Taxable income" and gross income are, but it is only a vague circular reference to "income". In 1862, there was a tax on income, without the 16th amendment. This tax was only on the federal government. This is what is meant when the courts say "did not extend to new or unexpected subjects". Clearly, the 16th never brought anything new under the umbrella of things taxable. But it also did not create a new direct yet apportioned tax. If anything is being taxed and not through the states, then it is indirect. Excise taxes are indirect, and are the lawful subject of the income tax.
This is the only way to resolve the tax with the statement: "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580
This is 1943, and there has been no change to the character of "income" at or since.
I have read all the citations, and they all do check out. But you insist that they have been overturned or are irrelevant. You must provide citations for your claims, as I have done.
At that point though, you are using negotiable instruments because there is no set exchange rate. Dollars and checks (orders to xfer dollars) are non-negotiable.
As an ammature tax historian, I can tell you that from inception though 1945 the US has relied on protective tariffs for primary funding. The problem was, it was always hard to raise funds in a hurry. So the US never was rich, but it was also always operating in a surplus. However industries would force the squabbling over which products, (sugar, cotton, etc) should be taxed more. Then near the turn of the century, an income tax became a Democratic and Populist party platform issue. They wanted to alleviate (yes, ALLEVIATE) the tax burdens of the poor, because some 30-40% of an imported item's cost was tariffs. The idea was to tax the rich (at this point the rich were making $5k a year, equiv. to about $85k today). The 80-90% of the nation's money was in the hands of about 2% of the population.
There was a problem though. The Supreme court had just struck down a tax on income because the wording made it appear direct. This was not permitted by the constitution (and still isn't), so it was struck down. So in 1909-1913, the 16th amendment was proposed. What the 16th amendment did, was to instruct all persons (and the courts) that the income tax is a uniform excise tax, and is not a tax on income directly. It wasn't expected to be ratified but politics is politics, and it was questionably ratified in 1913. Then we found ourselves with WWI, and huge bills. Still the income tax remained a minor source of funding, but it was learned that it was quick and easy for raising revenues.
Then the great depression followed. FDR increased the role of the government, and it was the income tax that allowed him to pay for all those dam socialist projects.
Fast forward to WWII, where there was a huge marketing campaign (google "donald duck pays his taxes") and such. It was your "patriotic duty" to pay your taxes (note, there was no law for most individuals, and there still isn't).
The IRS is probably more feared in America than Al-Queda. That is the way they like it. They destroy lives to make examples and keep others in fear of them. If you do some research on youtube, you can find some horror stories. In response, there is a movement called "Fair Tax" which is promoting exactly what you suggest, a sales tax on every item sold, in the US. Proponents of the fair tax are often misguided because they think: 1) they will "defund" the IRS. But someone still has to collect the tax! 2) it will somehow make the tax more visible than it already on our paychecks 3) that they actually owe the income tax that they currently pay. (and the list goes on)
Article 1 section 2: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
Article 1 section 8: 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
16th amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
If you keep flipping back and forth, between article 1 section 2 and the 16th amendment, you see that the 16 amendment conferred no new power or created no new tax!!
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580
"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege." United States Supreme Court, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it..." "[Taxation of "income" is] in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it" (That is, if the "income" tax ever comes to be administered as something other than an excise, or on something unsuited to an excise, the rule of apportionment must be applied.) United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . .." United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects..." United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
There are two ways to design an app - bottom up or top down, but most everyone agrees that no app can be 100% of either. It is a continuum, and the properly point of that continuum is dependent on the application being built. The same is true for management. If the department's work isn't extraordinarily technical, then why have a guy who knows assembly leave.
But I think what we have here is fear mongering from those that are currently leading without understanding the tech. Eventally, those who do know the tech and are in charge of implementing the plans get promoted. Therein you have a conflict. The don't-knows fight to keep control and not lose their jobs to the know-it-alls.
There is a caveat for the know it alls though, and that is micromagaging. Also, managing people is completely different from managing code bases. If you don't have good people skills, you will fail (as my last boss did - he couldn't manage but could program extremely well. A year later he lost his director status and was forced back into programming.)
I think that an extremely technical person can succeed, provided that he doesn't involve himself too much with details and has those inter-personal skillz.
I myself am in this situation. After programming for 10 years, I finally got appointed last week to the directorship for the department. I am replacing a person (who is moving laterally int he company) who did not have the same level of technical knowledge and would constantly confuse terms and could never get the verbiage right. This often created problems in his execution of inter-company contracts, where his contacts did not know how he was mis-using terms.
So there you have it. It is a mixed bag. It should be decided on an individual level and not a matter of common practice.
As a tax history enthusuast, I san certainly say that the moment the consitution doed was in 1913. We questioably ratifies the 16th amendment, and established the Federal Reserve, which is neither Federal nor a Reserve. The income tax propoents were the populists (communists) and democrats. The fact is they wanted to tap into the 1% of the population that had 80% of the country's wealth. In reality this "ability to pay" is nothing more than communism's "each according to his ability". In fact, the public should have no right to any portion of my lawfully earned money. (Prior to the income tax, the Federal government was paid for by tariffs, emergency finding was doen inthe form of bonds, or, as they did once after the civil war, direct taxation of property) On top of the income tax fiasco, the Federal Reserve allowed for fiath based lending. Eventually in the 70's Nixon fully pulled us off the metal backed currency. Your "Federal Reserve Notes" (FRN) (not a "Dollar" as many call them) are only of value when people agree to the number printed on them. If confidence in the American economomy was to fall, so would the value of a dollar. (your FRN today is actually woth $0.04 of a 1913 dollar) There are alternatives though like the liberty dollar (a silver backed currency), legal tender). Many people don't know that up until the federal reserve there were many local currencies and it was not such a problem because people to do so lived locally. "Notes" were often traded which were representations of metals on hold at the bank. Whomever held the note could get an equivelent amount of metal. This concept then went from 100% backing to 85% to 0%.
I have learned that you cannot trust governments. They are concentrations of power and wealth, and make themselves targets for those who which control or attain power & wealth. As such, governments must be of very limited control Nothing, no matter how remote it seems at inception, will eventually be leveraged to its fullest extext, and most likely you. We all know torture is wrong, that everyone has a right to a speedy trial. But we deny those for "terorists" How long until you are a terrorist too? We passed the income tax on income when americans made $500-$1000/yr. We taxed incomes over $4000 at 5%, with exemptions of $1000 and $2000 (unmarried, married). Who today is not touched by the income tax? Only those making less than $600. And the first bucket is 15%!!!. And so ens my case that government should be one of absolutes, and that that can be no slippery slope "it doesn't affect me" engaged in.
FTA: They do have limitations. While the bluegills have successfully detected at least 30 toxic chemicals, they cannot reliably detect germs. And they are no use against other sorts of attacks -- say, the bombing of a water main, or an attack by computer hackers on the systems that control the flow of water.
Seriously people, did the author have to cover this base? I mean, who has ever heard of precognition in bluegills? Who would ever expect precognition in a fish? The purification process is designed to kill germs... so it is useless to state that. This is just continuing the fear mongering.
I personally think they have precognition, but its that we are incapable of understanding their attempts to communicate that is the problem. We need to fund research into this, else the terrorits win!!!
Fish are actually very skilled white-hat hackers. Their only problem is a lack of an adequate input device(they have no fingers!!)
The government through government schooling has bread the pinnacle of government agendas: The citizen who spies on himself. If fact it is so successful that in the absence of a government monitoring device, that the citizen will create one just for being monitored.
I have been told that in Russia people must register with the government any time they leave their local jurisdiction for more than 3 days. When the USSR collapsed, there was no registration. But the people cried out for it. How was the government to provide for them if they didn't register?
Now I ask how does the government know you're not a criminal or terrorist unless you constantly monitor yourself can can funrish records upon request? How much trouble will you be in if you can't explain gaps in your monitoring?
Would it have been so bad to just require the government to funrish a document called a court order? Such a document would have been able to protect the coproration by making their actions compulsed by the federal government. But instead they complied, beyond the law. I doubt any company would have gotten into trouble for saying "Respectfully, we decline until there is a warrant or court order"
It is after all the duty of every person to make sure the agent of the government that that are dealing with is acting within his authority.
Churchill v. S.A.D. No. 49 Teachers Ass'n., 380 A.2d 186 (Me. 1977) "[P]ublic bodies or officers may exercise only that power which is conferred upon them by law. The source of that authority must be found in the enabling statute either expressly or by necessary inference as an incidence essential to the full exercise of the powers specifically granted," 380 A.2d, at 192.
Continental Casualty Co., v. United States, 113 F2d. 284 (5th Cir. 1940) "Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority."
Country Gas Service, Inc. v. United States, 405 F.2d 147 (1st Cir. 1969): "The narrow issue presented by this case is whether the revenue agent had authority to make a binding agreement * * * The exclusive procedure for compromising tax liabilities is set forth in Int. Rev. Code of 1954 7122. This section explicitly reposes such authority in 'the Secretary or his delegate', and such delegation stops at the district level. Since the exclusive means of compromise established by 7122 was not utilized in this case, any arrangement taxpayer made with agent McInnis had no legal standing," 405 F.2d, at 149-50.
Nonetheless, no matter how "important, conspicuous, and controversial" the issue, and regardless of how likely the public is to hold the Executive Branch politically accountable, post , at 31, an administrative agency's power to regulate in the public interest must always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from Congress. Food & Drug Administration et al v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 529 US 120
Flavell v. Dept. of Welfare, City and County of Denver, 355 P.2d 941 (Colo. 1960): "It follows that a collateral attack may be made here for 'acts or orders [of administrative officers or agencies] which do not come clearly within the powers granted or which fall beyond the purview of the statute granting the agency or body its powers [such orders] are not merely erroneous, but are void' * * * 'They [officers or agencies] are without power to act contrary to the provisions of the law or the clear legislative intendment, or to exceed the authority conferred on them by statute," 355 P.2d, at 943.
Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1981) "Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation," 644 F.2d, at 1383.
Outboard Marine Corp. v. Thomas, 610 F.Supp. 1234, 1242 (N.D. Ill. 1985): "Acting without statutory power at all, or misapplying one's statutory power, will result in a finding that such action was ultra vires."
Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 75 S.Ct. 790 (1955): "Agencies, whether created by statute or Executive Order, must of course be free to give reasonable scope to the terms conferring their authority. But they are not free to ignore plain limitations on that authority," 349 U.S., at 345.
Sittler v. Board of Control of Michigan College of Mining and Technology, 333 Mich. 681, 53 N.W.2d 681 (1952): " 'The extent of the authority of the people's public agents is measured by the statute from which they derive their authority, not by their own acts and assumption of authority.' " 'Public officers have and can exercise only s
Was a memory storage system that consisted of liquid mercury. A speaker at one end would cause waves to travel the length of the vat of mercury. At the other end, it was measured by a inducer(microphone) and re applified then sent back to the speaker. If you wanted to change a bit, you had to wait for it to come around and short it to ground, or inroduce a tone. Your amount of memoery was limited by the length of your tube and the viscosity of the mercury.
Slashdot Mirror
I had the same deal. My friend who is .25 mi from me, had it 2 months before I could, but they are doing it as fast as they can...
A week ago I took the plunge from Comcast to Verizon FIOS. It largely was a step backwards (lousy channel guide, no page down (With 800+ channels, that is a huge issue!) etc)... But last night I turn on the DVR and Verizon FIOS came of age. They have a new channel guide beats Comcast, has page down and is just so nice. Comcast actually took 3 channels away from a 1/2 screen channel guide to show you advertising! Did I see a drop in my cable bill? Nope. The FIOS one is FULL SCREEN, and you can filter to only HDTV channels.
I have the 15/2 plan, but for the torrents as of late, have had a hard time matching Comcast. I've gotten impressive speeds, but Comcast seemed to sustain them more. Of course, torrents are not a reliable benchmark method.
I had a low GPA myself. I was almost a victim of the dot.com error, where tech talent = big bucks. I tried to balance the two while taking courses. My studies suffered, but I managed to graduate. When I was graduating I was with a company that I'd been with part time for 6 months, and I was well liked. That got me converted to full time and my employment was secure.
I've since worked at other places and explained my low GPA as a combination of that, and the fact tht I was learning technology beyond my course work. I learned PHP, then databases, all the while being self-taught. By the time I got to those courses that used those technologies, I was doing great, but the courses that were concurrent to my own learning are the cause of the low GPA.
Now I am in charge of a software engineering department. I do interviews. And let me tell you there is a sore lack of qualified candidates. Most are missing effective communication skills. Most can't present themselves adequately for the position. If you want to interview with me, leave it off. I'll ask you the questions that I think you need to have the answers to for the job. I also don't care I your arts/humanities credits dragged you down. Nail the interview, and you can make the GPA irrelevant.
That being said, if you can't present yourself as an incredible asset, repeat.
I expect to be modded down again for another dissenting opinion, but such is the case when there is no good science to settle the argument either way. The mob applies leverage and attempts science by consensus (History shows that consensus has almost always started out wrong to begin with).
I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle [google video] AND Inconvienent Truth.
I have to say, other than a nice graph of carbon dioxide and temperature, the rest of the film was science by consensus. "90% of scientists now agree". Furthermore, Al only makes the statement that "the relationship between the [two lines] is a complicated one". With that one line, he avoids the actual science of global warming. It allows him to gloss over any kind of investigation of solar activity, dissolved CO2 levels in the oceans, the ratio of CO2 to other green house gasses. Yes, there is more than one, but Al never mentions that. Instead he only shows the PPM increase, and not a percentage increase. He also fails to go into why the upper atmosphere is not increasing in temperature whereas ground temps are (hint: solar radiation heats the ground more effectively than green house gasses)
What we have, and everyone has to admit this, is the only real correlation is our ability to measure CO2 in PPM, and an increase in temperatures (at the same time an increase in solar activity). Anyone with statistics experience will tell you correlation is not causation. We simply have to wait for the many factors to fluctuate so we can tease out the real relationship.
I love the environment and animals (I was going to be a park ranger), but I call BS (Bad Science) when I see it. How embarrassing will it be in 50 years, when we've passed a local solar maximum and things are back to normal? Until our confidence [and understanding] is so high in the matter, we shouldn't be legislating first and asking questions later.
I am sure that TrollTech's HQ in Norway has absolutely no influence on this... Or, inversely, will this have some effect on TrollTech?
It can't just be a coincidence that TrollTech sprouts up and US loses its position. TT vs MS... I know which one I prefer!
Perhaps you could help me with something. That sig of mine, and some other comments I've made has really drawn comments like yours. Its not that a book is for sale, but the topic of the book that seems to be drawing the ire. For the record, I am not affiliated with the book in any way.
If the topic was global warming, I don't think it's be invoking such an emotional response. The fact that someone draws upon the history of the country for an issue that invades everyones lives and affects 15-30% of their bottom line is somehow not up for discussion? Are you afraid to find out you're wrong? Do you know you are wrong but don't want others to find out too? I simply don't see why people are so negative about the topic when they can just ignore it and continue on with their own life. But instead, they seem to find it necessary to stop and berate me and the idea that maybe the IRS is collecting money it shouldn't.
So please tell me why you found it necessary to reply the way you did. Don't say whether you think I'm right or wrong, just say why you felt so strongly.
Thanks.
Linky
Heim UFT calls for a neutral electron. Could this be it? Honestly, I don't know, and its be nice to hear from someone more acquainted with physics than myself.
.. that burnout is a built in ROI calculator for the individual, then its probably a good mesure for the companyy as well.
;-) )
Here we have two projects. An ass-old- buggy, poorly written code base and the new one that is just starting. I dread the old code base, because it brings on immediate burn-out. The return is so little for that code base that we've stopped developing it except for easy enhancements and bug fixes.
Other times I've experienced burn out is when you just go too hard at a goal that is too far away. It is better to take things into small steps that can be checked off. I also find that when you have the option to work in one project with little changes, it is best not to linger. Instead, let the change requests stack up. Then hit the code base hard, and thereby forcing yourself to feel productive as you check each one off.
But nothing still keeps me more motivated than seeing the $$ behind the work. Early on each feature has a profit margin to it. By the time you're in a maintenance cycle, you're doing it to keep the software functioning as it should. Its not nearly as sexy.
The other thing is the right tools. Having to deal with asinine tools negates your agility to get the changes implemented timely. You should be able to focus on things from a customer perspective and not how hard it is to implement. A good tool is worth its licensing fees many times over. (I'd include a shameless plug for Qt from TrollTech, or Perforce, but I'm not going to
Yesterday (or Monday?), I participated in comments to an article about IRS taxing income from games, and I covered a lot of tax history, as well as made some comments that got me labeled a tax protestor andmy informative post full of cites was modded a as troll(0).
Today I am back to fill you in again on the history of the income tax. What I am about to tell you is established fact and not "tax protester" rhetoric. Its agreed upon history.
Up until 1930-45, the US was almost entirely financed by protective tariffs. There was a lot of debate of what to tax at what rate. There were some arguments that the protective tariffs allowed some insutries to profit to heavily. All the in-fighting in the government was about whether sugar or cotton or some other product should be taxed. There were other small sources of funding, but that was mainly it.
Then communism rose, and the idea of "each according to his ability" was used. This of course was income. Those who had large ones could more easily afford the import tariffs, so it was concluded that the poor were bearing the worst of the things. Congress wanted to tax these people less, and the only way to do so was to repeal the tariffs. The tariffs made up 20-40% of the shelf price of a product, depending on the product. (Yes, congress actually wanted to reduce tax burdens on the poor at one time, unlike today where every man, woman and child pays at least 15% of their income)
At the time, it was sold as a wealth redistribution scheme. The 2% of the population that held 80% of the money was seen as obscene and they should be able to tax the unearned income of these individuals. (Unearned income is money you don't trade labor for, i.e. dividends, capital gains, etc). The problem was that in 1895, the supreme court overturned a revenue act on the basis it was unconstitutional. Direct taxes have to be apportioned to the states (the states are responsible for collecting & paying the bill, where each state is billed according to population, it is up to each state how to collect it). The reading of the revenue act was not clearly worded and so it was overturned.
The 16th amendment was drafted to do away with future acts being overturned. Here is where you get multiple interpretations, some can be labeled as "tax protester". IRS contends that it allows for a new, un-apportioned direct tax. In reading supreme court decisions and the congressional record, I have to say that this is probably not the case, as one revision of the amendment had "as direct" in it, but was promptly voted down. What the courts said in response can be found in Brushaber vs Union Pacific and Stanton vs Baltic Mining (Both 1916). (I will not quote these here, as I was lamblasted for "using quotes out of context", so I encourage everyone to look them up and read them in their entirety.) Again, their wording is confusing, but it is settled that it didn't create a new un-apportioned tax, but one that is to be enforced as indirect (excise). The implications of that statement is what most people clamor over between those who think the status quo is correct where everything is taxable by the feds, or those who see the rulings as restricting what can be taxed. The latter contend it is only a bit of subterfuge that keeps most people in the dark. Its a long road to go down, but regardless, you'll learn a LOT about this country and its history.
So as someone who knows far more than most people (and both sides of the story) I have to say "Good job income tax! You're really delivering on your promises of wealth redistribution!" (sarcasm). Clearly the rich will always find ways to get richer. If it is talent or luck or whatever, there always seems to be a 2% that owns the bulk of the wealth.
That wacky website, and its author, have been sued 3 times by the DOJ/IRS. Each time, they failed to shut down him, his site, and his claims, unlike other "protesters" like Schiff.
There is a book called "Constitutional Income: Do you have any?" which is written by an Idaho law maker which examines the legislative intent at the time the 16th was invoked. If true, what could be considered income is changed. As the law reads "income derived from [sources]", one is left to ponder if derived from is the same as "including", or if what is being called for by "derived" is a subset of special sources from which the superset is then listed. According to this book (which draws heavily from the congressional record) that is indeed the case - that congress wanted to be as far-reaching but knew it actuality it was limited. We have since forgotten how limited it originally was.
There is another book "The Great Income Tax Wars" that casts Congress's own doubt on its ability to pass and sustain the tax on incomes. Of course, it portrays Brushaber as sustaining the income tax, as you do, and it did, however what seems to be neglected is the idea that the court didn't castrate the effectiveness.
Going back to the "Constitutional Income" book, it is revealed that through later decisions, the income tax is enforced differently in the different districts. Why this is is simple. Its too complicated for the courts to be consistent, but is simple enough to rule on without too much consideration.
Getting back to what is "income", clearly there's contention because the statues are written in such a way that it isn't clear who needs to be filing w-4s and paying social security. It is at serious odds of what is practiced in this country. You have the IRS telling everyone they need a SSN, and the SSA saying that not everyone needs a SSN The primary peice of evidence here is the definition of United States in 26 USC 7701, vs 26 USC 4601. Clearly, the 4601 includes the 50 states (for liquor and tobacco taxes et al), so why not use the same definition in 7701, which would enlarge the scope? Unless, there was some limitation on the authority...
As I've read all the decisions myself, I can say that as I have quoted them, that nothing is misinterpreted or applied,or overtuned in relevant part.
There however is the problem that the court history is filled with legal fictions or those actually subject to the tax in the parties. It is not filled with individuals. The only one I know of is Cheek, and that was a failure to file case that was decided in the favor of the individual.
Well, you call me antitax hobbiest, then you say I favor taxation, just not the IRS/income tax.
Taxes are completely legitimate and 100% needed. We need a military, we need federal task forces, we need a federal government, but for only those powers mentioned in the consitution. We don't need socialism (fair share (aka "each according to his ability" is from the communist manifesto), and we don't need state socialism. (State socialism is when the governemnt takes taxes our of your pay check then distributes it to states as it sees fit, for things like environmental programs, roads, and other federal funding) I say, just drop that part of the tax and let the state pick it up instead. Otherwise, you get additional federal control not allowed by the consitution. ("We'll tax your citizens and then prevent you from getting the money back!")
The FDR comment is made because he enlarged the idea of what the government is responsible for, and moving us further to a socialist country. Social Security is the big idea here, that the government is somehow made responsible for your well-being. A far cry from "promote the general welfare". It says promote, not "provide for"...
And I did mean "proponents". The FairTax legislation wording is weak, its workings are weak. Its consequences are unknown. There is a lot more trust required for me to back that than I have for the government. I like the current regime because it is at least well understood. That is why I also back tariff-only funding. That is well understood and there is plenty of history to ensure those in charge can implement it safely.
BTW, I've read that FAQ, and I've done battle with Mr. Evans many times. He is the one citing irrelevant cases. Its absurd. I read these cases for hours, only to find that his cite doesn't even back up what he claims. Its good practice with learning you can'tr trust anyone and you have to read for yourself.
.zip to the file I downloaded)
Download this file: http://ctc.schtuff.com/taxusnot_repository_zip (I had to add
And extract the FriviouslArgumentsRefusted20050314.doc file, and read away.
I don't need to "sally forth", its all online now. :-)
You need to cite, or counter-cite my claims, rather than just giving a wave of the hand.
I don't quote from dissenting or opinions.
Income has always been taxable. Yeap. You called me a protestor, but yet I say income is taxable. So now I know I have your attention. Income is no where defined in the Constitution or the statutes. "Taxable income" and gross income are, but it is only a vague circular reference to "income". In 1862, there was a tax on income, without the 16th amendment. This tax was only on the federal government. This is what is meant when the courts say "did not extend to new or unexpected subjects". Clearly, the 16th never brought anything new under the umbrella of things taxable. But it also did not create a new direct yet apportioned tax. If anything is being taxed and not through the states, then it is indirect. Excise taxes are indirect, and are the lawful subject of the income tax.
This is the only way to resolve the tax with the statement:
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580
This is 1943, and there has been no change to the character of "income" at or since.
I have read all the citations, and they all do check out. But you insist that they have been overturned or are irrelevant. You must provide citations for your claims, as I have done.
At that point though, you are using negotiable instruments because there is no set exchange rate. Dollars and checks (orders to xfer dollars) are non-negotiable.
As an ammature tax historian, I can tell you that from inception though 1945 the US has relied on protective tariffs for primary funding. The problem was, it was always hard to raise funds in a hurry. So the US never was rich, but it was also always operating in a surplus. However industries would force the squabbling over which products, (sugar, cotton, etc) should be taxed more. Then near the turn of the century, an income tax became a Democratic and Populist party platform issue. They wanted to alleviate (yes, ALLEVIATE) the tax burdens of the poor, because some 30-40% of an imported item's cost was tariffs. The idea was to tax the rich (at this point the rich were making $5k a year, equiv. to about $85k today). The 80-90% of the nation's money was in the hands of about 2% of the population.
There was a problem though. The Supreme court had just struck down a tax on income because the wording made it appear direct. This was not permitted by the constitution (and still isn't), so it was struck down. So in 1909-1913, the 16th amendment was proposed. What the 16th amendment did, was to instruct all persons (and the courts) that the income tax is a uniform excise tax, and is not a tax on income directly. It wasn't expected to be ratified but politics is politics, and it was questionably ratified in 1913. Then we found ourselves with WWI, and huge bills. Still the income tax remained a minor source of funding, but it was learned that it was quick and easy for raising revenues.
Then the great depression followed. FDR increased the role of the government, and it was the income tax that allowed him to pay for all those dam socialist projects.
Fast forward to WWII, where there was a huge marketing campaign (google "donald duck pays his taxes") and such. It was your "patriotic duty" to pay your taxes (note, there was no law for most individuals, and there still isn't).
The IRS is probably more feared in America than Al-Queda. That is the way they like it. They destroy lives to make examples and keep others in fear of them. If you do some research on youtube, you can find some horror stories. In response, there is a movement called "Fair Tax" which is promoting exactly what you suggest, a sales tax on every item sold, in the US. Proponents of the fair tax are often misguided because they think:
1) they will "defund" the IRS. But someone still has to collect the tax!
2) it will somehow make the tax more visible than it already on our paychecks
3) that they actually owe the income tax that they currently pay.
(and the list goes on)
Article 1 section 2:
."
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
Article 1 section 8:
8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
16th amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
If you keep flipping back and forth, between article 1 section 2 and the 16th amendment, you see that the 16 amendment conferred no new power or created no new tax!!
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580
"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."
United States Supreme Court, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it..."
"[Taxation of "income" is] in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it" (That is, if the "income" tax ever comes to be administered as something other than an excise, or on something unsuited to an excise, the rule of apportionment must be applied.)
United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . .
United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects..." United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
Learn more, better than I can explain it myself.
There are two ways to design an app - bottom up or top down, but most everyone agrees that no app can be 100% of either. It is a continuum, and the properly point of that continuum is dependent on the application being built. The same is true for management. If the department's work isn't extraordinarily technical, then why have a guy who knows assembly leave.
But I think what we have here is fear mongering from those that are currently leading without understanding the tech. Eventally, those who do know the tech and are in charge of implementing the plans get promoted. Therein you have a conflict. The don't-knows fight to keep control and not lose their jobs to the know-it-alls.
There is a caveat for the know it alls though, and that is micromagaging. Also, managing people is completely different from managing code bases. If you don't have good people skills, you will fail (as my last boss did - he couldn't manage but could program extremely well. A year later he lost his director status and was forced back into programming.)
I think that an extremely technical person can succeed, provided that he doesn't involve himself too much with details and has those inter-personal skillz.
I myself am in this situation. After programming for 10 years, I finally got appointed last week to the directorship for the department. I am replacing a person (who is moving laterally int he company) who did not have the same level of technical knowledge and would constantly confuse terms and could never get the verbiage right. This often created problems in his execution of inter-company contracts, where his contacts did not know how he was mis-using terms.
So there you have it. It is a mixed bag. It should be decided on an individual level and not a matter of common practice.
The turtles evolve in the pond that they have there and take over museum operations???
As a tax history enthusuast, I san certainly say that the moment the consitution doed was in 1913. We questioably ratifies the 16th amendment, and established the Federal Reserve, which is neither Federal nor a Reserve. The income tax propoents were the populists (communists) and democrats. The fact is they wanted to tap into the 1% of the population that had 80% of the country's wealth. In reality this "ability to pay" is nothing more than communism's "each according to his ability". In fact, the public should have no right to any portion of my lawfully earned money. (Prior to the income tax, the Federal government was paid for by tariffs, emergency finding was doen inthe form of bonds, or, as they did once after the civil war, direct taxation of property) On top of the income tax fiasco, the Federal Reserve allowed for fiath based lending. Eventually in the 70's Nixon fully pulled us off the metal backed currency. Your "Federal Reserve Notes" (FRN) (not a "Dollar" as many call them) are only of value when people agree to the number printed on them. If confidence in the American economomy was to fall, so would the value of a dollar. (your FRN today is actually woth $0.04 of a 1913 dollar) There are alternatives though like the liberty dollar (a silver backed currency), legal tender). Many people don't know that up until the federal reserve there were many local currencies and it was not such a problem because people to do so lived locally. "Notes" were often traded which were representations of metals on hold at the bank. Whomever held the note could get an equivelent amount of metal. This concept then went from 100% backing to 85% to 0%.
I have learned that you cannot trust governments. They are concentrations of power and wealth, and make themselves targets for those who which control or attain power & wealth. As such, governments must be of very limited control Nothing, no matter how remote it seems at inception, will eventually be leveraged to its fullest extext, and most likely you. We all know torture is wrong, that everyone has a right to a speedy trial. But we deny those for "terorists" How long until you are a terrorist too? We passed the income tax on income when americans made $500-$1000/yr. We taxed incomes over $4000 at 5%, with exemptions of $1000 and $2000 (unmarried, married). Who today is not touched by the income tax? Only those making less than $600. And the first bucket is 15%!!!. And so ens my case that government should be one of absolutes, and that that can be no slippery slope "it doesn't affect me" engaged in.
FTA:
... so it is useless to state that. This is just continuing the fear mongering.
They do have limitations. While the bluegills have successfully detected at least 30 toxic chemicals, they cannot reliably detect germs. And they are no use against other sorts of attacks -- say, the bombing of a water main, or an attack by computer hackers on the systems that control the flow of water.
Seriously people, did the author have to cover this base? I mean, who has ever heard of precognition in bluegills? Who would ever expect precognition in a fish? The purification process is designed to kill germs
I personally think they have precognition, but its that we are incapable of understanding their attempts to communicate that is the problem. We need to fund research into this, else the terrorits win!!!
Fish are actually very skilled white-hat hackers. Their only problem is a lack of an adequate input device(they have no fingers!!)
The government through government schooling has bread the pinnacle of government agendas: The citizen who spies on himself. If fact it is so successful that in the absence of a government monitoring device, that the citizen will create one just for being monitored.
I have been told that in Russia people must register with the government any time they leave their local jurisdiction for more than 3 days. When the USSR collapsed, there was no registration. But the people cried out for it. How was the government to provide for them if they didn't register?
Now I ask how does the government know you're not a criminal or terrorist unless you constantly monitor yourself can can funrish records upon request? How much trouble will you be in if you can't explain gaps in your monitoring?
Would it have been so bad to just require the government to funrish a document called a court order? Such a document would have been able to protect the coproration by making their actions compulsed by the federal government. But instead they complied, beyond the law.
I doubt any company would have gotten into trouble for saying "Respectfully, we decline until there is a warrant or court order"
It is after all the duty of every person to make sure the agent of the government that that are dealing with is acting within his authority.
Churchill v. S.A.D. No. 49 Teachers Ass'n., 380 A.2d 186 (Me. 1977) "[P]ublic bodies or officers may exercise only that power which is conferred upon them by law. The source of that authority must be found in the enabling statute either expressly or by necessary inference as an incidence essential to the full exercise of the powers specifically granted," 380 A.2d, at 192.
Continental Casualty Co., v. United States, 113 F2d. 284 (5th Cir. 1940) "Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority."
Country Gas Service, Inc. v. United States, 405 F.2d 147 (1st Cir. 1969): "The narrow issue presented by this case is whether the revenue agent had authority to make a binding agreement * * * The exclusive procedure for compromising tax liabilities is set forth in Int. Rev. Code of 1954 7122. This section explicitly reposes such authority in 'the Secretary or his delegate', and such delegation stops at the district level. Since the exclusive means of compromise established by 7122 was not utilized in this case, any arrangement taxpayer made with agent McInnis had no legal standing," 405 F.2d, at 149-50.
Nonetheless, no matter how "important, conspicuous, and controversial" the issue, and regardless of how likely the public is to hold the Executive Branch politically accountable, post , at 31, an administrative agency's power to regulate in the public interest must always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from Congress. Food & Drug Administration et al v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 529 US 120
Flavell v. Dept. of Welfare, City and County of Denver, 355 P.2d 941 (Colo. 1960): "It follows that a collateral attack may be made here for 'acts or orders [of administrative officers or agencies] which do not come clearly within the powers granted or which fall beyond the purview of the statute granting the agency or body its powers [such orders] are not merely erroneous, but are void' * * * 'They [officers or agencies] are without power to act contrary to the provisions of the law or the clear legislative intendment, or to exceed the authority conferred on them by statute," 355 P.2d, at 943.
Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1981) "Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation," 644 F.2d, at 1383.
Outboard Marine Corp. v. Thomas, 610 F.Supp. 1234, 1242 (N.D. Ill. 1985): "Acting without statutory power at all, or misapplying one's statutory power, will result in a finding that such action was ultra vires."
Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 75 S.Ct. 790 (1955): "Agencies, whether created by statute or Executive Order, must of course be free to give reasonable scope to the terms conferring their authority. But they are not free to ignore plain limitations on that authority," 349 U.S., at 345.
Sittler v. Board of Control of Michigan College of Mining and Technology, 333 Mich. 681, 53 N.W.2d 681 (1952): " 'The extent of the authority of the people's public agents is measured by the statute from which they derive their authority, not by their own acts and assumption of authority.' " 'Public officers have and can exercise only s
Was a memory storage system that consisted of liquid mercury. A speaker at one end would cause waves to travel the length of the vat of mercury. At the other end, it was measured by a inducer(microphone) and re applified then sent back to the speaker. If you wanted to change a bit, you had to wait for it to come around and short it to ground, or inroduce a tone. Your amount of memoery was limited by the length of your tube and the viscosity of the mercury.