Your argument makes no sense, because the money that the person gets for his work is still exchanged for his time and effort and investment, and it can be exchanged for other people's productive output. US dollars are worth 1% of what they were worth in 1913, but even at 1% things can be bought because of increase of productivity.
My argument makes no sense, because one of his main arguments makes no sense. That was the point. He argues that US money, not backed by gold, are not actually money and therefore being paid in dollars does not constitute the receipt of taxable income. My point was simply that if income in fiat currency has no value as he seems to believe, attempting to keep it rather than paying a portion as income tax is either pointless or hypocritical.
The "Click of Death" I know of affected Iomega Zip drives. The way I heard it there was a design flaw where the read/write head could overextend and damage itself. The really insidious thing was that the damaged head, when accessing a disk, could damage the disk in such a way that, when the disk was read in an undamaged zip drive, it would cause the read/write head to overextend and damage itself. It made it essentially an infectious problem. Throw a zip disk in a damaged drive and the disk would subsequently damage another drive if you put the disk in it. I think it only occurred with some drives, however.
The problem I see with Irwin Schiff's anti-tax argument is that if money that isn't backed by gold is worthless, what's the problem with paying a percentage of what you earn to the government? If it's worthless, then you lose nothing by paying. Now, ideally, there would have been a constitutional amendment to clarify how taxes should be paid, but this is not one of those cases where the spirit of the constitution is being violated. Irwin Schiff outright refused to pay his income tax, and went to prison for it. If he really wanted to protest, he should have bought some gold coins and tried to pay his income tax with those, and then he might have a case if the government refused them.
Um, huh? On reading your above post, then reading your previous reply to me, I've realized that you seem to be under some sort of misapprehension about what I'm saying. Perhaps you think I'm the poster I originally replied to? What _I_ am saying, is that the concerns girlintraining listed: cold, low oxygen, and heating due to atmospheric resistance are more or less a non-issue with basic protective gear (an insulated pressure suit). I gave the Concorde as an example of something that heated up to temperatures that would be tolerable for the jumper (with the protective suit) and pointed out that the jumper wouldn't even manage to reach those conditions, so they should be fine.
Sorry, but everything in that post was stuff that some people actually, seriously believe. Makes it hard to tell when it's a joke. It would be nice if every crazy person out there were just kidding around, but most of the time, they're just crazy.
Concorde's crusing altitude was about 55,000 feet, or 17,000 meters. This guy stepped out at almost twice that altitude, with zero velocity.
And reached a maximum speed of Mach.75. That wouldn't even generate enough heat to burn bare skin (although obviously you couldn't safely expose bare skin to those conditions). The point is that there's no way he's going to turn into a "brilliant fireball" as the GGP post suggested. A little insulation, which is needed for the cold anyway, and the heat is not a problem. The Concorde example was just to demonstrate a high upper limit on what could possibly be expected for his jump.
Engine diagnostics maybe. The majority of work for car mechanics is still plain old mechanical stuff. Diagnosing complicated engine problems is something most mechanics barely ever have to do. When they do, they can usually do it by the sound of the engine or some deductive reasoning based on the symptoms. When it's a deeper mystery, most mechanics will simply refer it to the one mechanic in the area who really does have the deep diagnostic skills. They don't mind losing the work so much when 90+ percent of what they do is just replacing obviously damaged or worn components: tires, brake pads/shoes, rotors/drums, calipers/cylinders, hub/bearing, control arm, tie rod, ball joint, CV axle, brake cable, radiator, alternator, water pump, fan motor, belt, hose, headlight, window regulator, sensor, coil, spark plugs, ignition wires, oxygen sensors, fuel pumps, etc. etc.
The "reporter" lured Aldrin to a hotel under false pretenses, wasting his whole day. Then he ambushed him, making ridiculous demands. I found a brief snippet from the video, immediately before the punch and I've transcribed what I heard below: "...you're the one who said you walked on the moon when you didn't. Calling the kettle black, if I ever thought I would say that" "Would you get it away from me!" "You're a coward, and a liar, and a thief..." Then comes the punch. That doesn't really seem like responding to and honest question with unprovoked violence to me. Heck, even Sibrel himself sent a letter of apology (according to Sibrel, anyway) to Aldrin.
I have no idea what to say to the rest of your post. Hollow, artificial moon, built by the same people who built the (extremely small and unimpressive compared to their work on the moon) pyramids at Giza? You just never know quite what to say to that kind of thing. Backing away slowly while smiling reassuringly seems to be the only way to go.
Asteroids, Satellites, and space shuttles don't just "fall" from that height. They're already going very, very fast (at least 25,000 km/h) before they hit the atmosphere. There's no way this guy would ever manage to go that fast even if he were dropping from the height of LEO (to be clear, I just mean dropping from the height of, not actually being in LEO). For an idea of what kind of heating he could experience, the Concorde apparently got up to around 120 degrees celcius at its nose travelling at Mach 2. That's clearly too hot for bare skin, but it's not much of a problem for an insulated pressure suit for just a few minutes (and it probably wouldn't even be that long), and his goal of Mach 1 will be pretty hard to reach, let alone Mach 2.
My favorite is how mercenaries are always called "contractors", with the nature of their contract left unexplained. You're left to wonder how all these people who are presumably there to hang drywall based on their title keep getting in so much trouble.
That's fair enough. It's not running blind. On the other hand, no-one has run that far down this particular pier before. It might not be so easy to tell if that last 40 feet of planking is rotten or not.
Well, the original estimate was 30 feet, but then I increased that estimate to 40 feet. Then I figured that since I hadn't fallen into the water after one extension of my estimate, I could extend the estimate to 80 feet.
If you think engineers can safely build a nuclear reactor and operate it for 40 years, why is 80 years different if they can demonstrate strong engineering judgement?
If I can safely run 40 feet along a pier without falling into the water, why is 80 feet any different?
Well, it's a classic example that some people think is cut and dried. It's actually a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes justification for finding against someone for distributing anti-draft pamphlets under the espionage act. As such, I tend to automatically find any argument that refers to the idea to be suspect until proven otherwise.
Nobody said that computer PROFESSIONALS would not still have the words trojan, backdoor, rootkit, etc because they have a need to know specifics and thus need more specific words
And yet, here you are telling a bunch of nerds, many of whom are computer PROFESSIONALS, what the prefix cyber means.
Words and prefixes can in fact have multiple meanings. They're usually related in some way, but sometimes the meanings can be completely different. In the case of "cyber", it comes from "cybernetics" which comes from Greek. Today, the term nebulously refers to computers in general, electronics, and electronic communications. Your attempts to pigeonhole the term are quite amusing. I can only assume that you're quite young or have very limited experience.
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre has always been a bit of a gray area from a legal point of view. Not really the concrete example of prohibited speech that most people seem to think. Bomb threats are less of a gray area since they're a form of threat and threats of violence are pretty clearly beyond the pale. I'm not going to go into slander except to say that I understand why the concept exists, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the concept. I find it disturbing that exposure of trade secrets would be anything more than a civil matter, and, of course, it should only be prohibited for those who have obtained them by being entrusted with them and agreeing not to reveal them or those who have obtained them through some sort of burglary or infiltration. As for insider trading, that's not a matter of speech. Rather it's the specific action of making trades based on insider knowledge that's a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument makes no sense, because the money that the person gets for his work is still exchanged for his time and effort and investment, and it can be exchanged for other people's productive output. US dollars are worth 1% of what they were worth in 1913, but even at 1% things can be bought because of increase of productivity.
My argument makes no sense, because one of his main arguments makes no sense. That was the point. He argues that US money, not backed by gold, are not actually money and therefore being paid in dollars does not constitute the receipt of taxable income. My point was simply that if income in fiat currency has no value as he seems to believe, attempting to keep it rather than paying a portion as income tax is either pointless or hypocritical.
The "Click of Death" I know of affected Iomega Zip drives. The way I heard it there was a design flaw where the read/write head could overextend and damage itself. The really insidious thing was that the damaged head, when accessing a disk, could damage the disk in such a way that, when the disk was read in an undamaged zip drive, it would cause the read/write head to overextend and damage itself. It made it essentially an infectious problem. Throw a zip disk in a damaged drive and the disk would subsequently damage another drive if you put the disk in it. I think it only occurred with some drives, however.
The problem I see with Irwin Schiff's anti-tax argument is that if money that isn't backed by gold is worthless, what's the problem with paying a percentage of what you earn to the government? If it's worthless, then you lose nothing by paying. Now, ideally, there would have been a constitutional amendment to clarify how taxes should be paid, but this is not one of those cases where the spirit of the constitution is being violated. Irwin Schiff outright refused to pay his income tax, and went to prison for it. If he really wanted to protest, he should have bought some gold coins and tried to pay his income tax with those, and then he might have a case if the government refused them.
Ah, ok. I think I misinterpreted you then.
In case you didn't notice, the GP isn't a communist, the GP is a troll.
Um, huh? On reading your above post, then reading your previous reply to me, I've realized that you seem to be under some sort of misapprehension about what I'm saying. Perhaps you think I'm the poster I originally replied to? What _I_ am saying, is that the concerns girlintraining listed: cold, low oxygen, and heating due to atmospheric resistance are more or less a non-issue with basic protective gear (an insulated pressure suit). I gave the Concorde as an example of something that heated up to temperatures that would be tolerable for the jumper (with the protective suit) and pointed out that the jumper wouldn't even manage to reach those conditions, so they should be fine.
Sorry, but everything in that post was stuff that some people actually, seriously believe. Makes it hard to tell when it's a joke. It would be nice if every crazy person out there were just kidding around, but most of the time, they're just crazy.
Concorde's crusing altitude was about 55,000 feet, or 17,000 meters. This guy stepped out at almost twice that altitude, with zero velocity.
And reached a maximum speed of Mach .75. That wouldn't even generate enough heat to burn bare skin (although obviously you couldn't safely expose bare skin to those conditions). The point is that there's no way he's going to turn into a "brilliant fireball" as the GGP post suggested. A little insulation, which is needed for the cold anyway, and the heat is not a problem. The Concorde example was just to demonstrate a high upper limit on what could possibly be expected for his jump.
Engine diagnostics maybe. The majority of work for car mechanics is still plain old mechanical stuff. Diagnosing complicated engine problems is something most mechanics barely ever have to do. When they do, they can usually do it by the sound of the engine or some deductive reasoning based on the symptoms. When it's a deeper mystery, most mechanics will simply refer it to the one mechanic in the area who really does have the deep diagnostic skills. They don't mind losing the work so much when 90+ percent of what they do is just replacing obviously damaged or worn components: tires, brake pads/shoes, rotors/drums, calipers/cylinders, hub/bearing, control arm, tie rod, ball joint, CV axle, brake cable, radiator, alternator, water pump, fan motor, belt, hose, headlight, window regulator, sensor, coil, spark plugs, ignition wires, oxygen sensors, fuel pumps, etc. etc.
The "reporter" lured Aldrin to a hotel under false pretenses, wasting his whole day. Then he ambushed him, making ridiculous demands. I found a brief snippet from the video, immediately before the punch and I've transcribed what I heard below:
"...you're the one who said you walked on the moon when you didn't. Calling the kettle black, if I ever thought I would say that"
"Would you get it away from me!"
"You're a coward, and a liar, and a thief..."
Then comes the punch. That doesn't really seem like responding to and honest question with unprovoked violence to me. Heck, even Sibrel himself sent a letter of apology (according to Sibrel, anyway) to Aldrin.
I have no idea what to say to the rest of your post. Hollow, artificial moon, built by the same people who built the (extremely small and unimpressive compared to their work on the moon) pyramids at Giza? You just never know quite what to say to that kind of thing. Backing away slowly while smiling reassuringly seems to be the only way to go.
Asteroids, Satellites, and space shuttles don't just "fall" from that height. They're already going very, very fast (at least 25,000 km/h) before they hit the atmosphere. There's no way this guy would ever manage to go that fast even if he were dropping from the height of LEO (to be clear, I just mean dropping from the height of, not actually being in LEO). For an idea of what kind of heating he could experience, the Concorde apparently got up to around 120 degrees celcius at its nose travelling at Mach 2. That's clearly too hot for bare skin, but it's not much of a problem for an insulated pressure suit for just a few minutes (and it probably wouldn't even be that long), and his goal of Mach 1 will be pretty hard to reach, let alone Mach 2.
My favorite is how mercenaries are always called "contractors", with the nature of their contract left unexplained. You're left to wonder how all these people who are presumably there to hang drywall based on their title keep getting in so much trouble.
That was a very illuminating graph.
That's fair enough. It's not running blind. On the other hand, no-one has run that far down this particular pier before. It might not be so easy to tell if that last 40 feet of planking is rotten or not.
Well, the original estimate was 30 feet, but then I increased that estimate to 40 feet. Then I figured that since I hadn't fallen into the water after one extension of my estimate, I could extend the estimate to 80 feet.
If you think engineers can safely build a nuclear reactor and operate it for 40 years, why is 80 years different if they can demonstrate strong engineering judgement?
If I can safely run 40 feet along a pier without falling into the water, why is 80 feet any different?
Considering how many people died from the governments alcohol poisoning program, that seems unlikely.
"How much for just one rib?"
Well, the Concorde flew at 60,000 feet. Of course, the Concorde doesn't fly any more
At this late date, would there be any reason to expect that such things would still be kept secret?
Well, it's a classic example that some people think is cut and dried. It's actually a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes justification for finding against someone for distributing anti-draft pamphlets under the espionage act. As such, I tend to automatically find any argument that refers to the idea to be suspect until proven otherwise.
Nobody said that computer PROFESSIONALS would not still have the words trojan, backdoor, rootkit, etc because they have a need to know specifics and thus need more specific words
And yet, here you are telling a bunch of nerds, many of whom are computer PROFESSIONALS, what the prefix cyber means.
Words and prefixes can in fact have multiple meanings. They're usually related in some way, but sometimes the meanings can be completely different. In the case of "cyber", it comes from "cybernetics" which comes from Greek. Today, the term nebulously refers to computers in general, electronics, and electronic communications. Your attempts to pigeonhole the term are quite amusing. I can only assume that you're quite young or have very limited experience.
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre has always been a bit of a gray area from a legal point of view. Not really the concrete example of prohibited speech that most people seem to think. Bomb threats are less of a gray area since they're a form of threat and threats of violence are pretty clearly beyond the pale. I'm not going to go into slander except to say that I understand why the concept exists, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the concept. I find it disturbing that exposure of trade secrets would be anything more than a civil matter, and, of course, it should only be prohibited for those who have obtained them by being entrusted with them and agreeing not to reveal them or those who have obtained them through some sort of burglary or infiltration. As for insider trading, that's not a matter of speech. Rather it's the specific action of making trades based on insider knowledge that's a problem.
And if you click on the word "cyber" at the top of the article you linked, it takes you to wiktionary where it says:
Etymology
From cybernetic.
Cybernetic comes from Greek meaning "steer" or rudder. It basically means the study of feedback control loops.