Let's forget for a moment that you said "discovers" instead of "invented". Someone who invents a method of turning scrap metal to gold isn't going to patent their invention. That would be crazy as the price of gold would instantly collapse down to rough parity with base metals unless the method is prohibitively expensive, in which case the price of gold will still drop to about a quarter of what it is today. If the method is economical at current gold prices, the person inventing such a method will almost certainly keep it a trade secret and make a fortune selling gold at a rate that doesn't collapse the market. From a profit motive perspective, that method would be infinitely preferable to patenting the process then trying to create a market for cheap gold. It might make good plumbing, and work well in all kinds of anti-corrosive coatings, etc. But it would take a long time, possibly long enough that the patent would expire, to build up such a market.
That's the way they teach it in elementary school, but the Puritans were not exactly the most religiously tolerant folks. They did face laws in England restricting the ways religion could be practiced, but they didn't want to overturn the legal principles of state controlling religion, they just wanted to change the specifics of the law so that everyone would be forced to practice their way. When they set up in the Americas they promptly got to work enforcing religion as law. You may remember such examinations of their society as _The Scarlet Letter_ and historical events such as the Salem witch trials.
It's only ever treated as "international territory" when it's a convenient fiction for the host nation. No nation that I'm aware of has a problem arresting people that it wants to arrest off planes that are just passing through. The US and other western nations certainly don't.
Oh, forgot to ask. While you were heroically performing your pro bono extra-judicial killing would you have thrown in his teenage son, also free of charge?
Perhaps. Probably? Wouldn't it be nice if there were some sort of system by which evidence could be presented and and people could defend themselves before some sort of impartial authority who could judge them. Perhaps throw in a group of their peers to render a verdict.
Don't forget that the US recently killed two of its own citizens in two separate drone strikes: Anwar al Awlaki and his 16 year old son. Aside from allegations that he was involved in terrorist conspiracy, metaphorically (and maybe literally) demading "Death to the US" is his only proven offence.
Ultimately how fast any method will work depends mostly on the user. How organized they are and how well they remember commands and directory and filenames and how fast they type or how fast they are at picking out icons, etc. Also how willing they are to try different things since pretty much any process that someone knows well is "fast and easy" compared to a "slow and difficult" process that they don't know well.
I'm not kidding myself, and I do think the right click option is often slower, so your first sentence is perfectly in agreement with me (although it's obvious that was an error on your part from the rest of your post). Thing is, it's not a static, simple "right-clicking is faster" vs "typing is faster". For one things, I think you're underestimating how fast people who are used to typing these commands can type them. Then, of course the matter of starting point. Clearly if you're in a gui using mode, and the icon for the file is right there in front of you and you don't have a terminal open and in focus it's faster to right click since to use the terminal, you'd have to mouse click it open (unless you use keyboard shortcuts) or at least into focus first anyway. On the other hand, if you're already in a terminal and plan to stay there, you have to potentially minimize the terminal, then right click and open the iso, then use the mouse to bring the terminal back. This is all assuming that the iso file is right there on the desktop and easily found. If you know the file name and location of the ISO, you can, especially using tab completion, probably type it in faster than you can navigate to it visually by opening up a series of file navigator windows. Ditto if it's on the desktop and it's very cluttered so that you have to search for the icon. Also, it depends on what you want to do with the file afterwards. Lots of GUI methods of doing this stuff like to hide implementation details for "convenience". In other words, the actual mount point is frequently obfuscated somehow and you have to take additional steps to find it. If you don't need to know what the mount point is, that doesn't matter, but if you need to use it at the command line after, or navigate to it through some gui-based programs, you do need to know.
Basically, there's a whole web of circumstances, many based on other personal preferences, that determine which method is "faster". And, of course, the unlimited resources assumed by GUI methods aren't always available. If you don't have a lot of bandwidth available, and you're ssh'd into a remote system rather than vnc'd knowing how to type the command is far, far faster than a method that simply isn't available. You're pretty much always better off if you know multiple ways to accomplish your goal and can choose the one that's best for your particular situation.
That was one of my first thoughts. Although kerosene is kind of toxic too, although nowhere near as bad as hydrazine. The main problem though is that LOx is nowhere near what you'd consider storable for a long period of time like hydrazine. Also, hydrazine has a higher specific impulse than kerosene (at least when used with an oxidiser, not sure about when used as a monopropellant). Since it is a monopropellant, and since it ignites on its own when mixed with an oxidizer that also means simpler, potentially lighter rockets. Frankly I'm not sure you can replace it with anything less toxic because the fact that it's so reactive is one of the reasons it's useful, but chemicals that reactive are going to be almost invariably toxic.
Why is this insightful. Hydrazine is horrible stuff. Alternatives would be great for safety and be practically useful, since it opens up more places you can launch rockets from.
Well, the first line isn't even necessary if you've done it before, so only one line of "nerdy crap" is actually needed. If you have a terminal open and don't have some sort of crippling hand injury it's faster than the right-click option (although probably not faster than the double click option). Frankly, most of the time I use the mouse to do it these days unless I have to use a terminal (for example ssh'd into a remote box), but that doesn't lead me to deride it as "nerdy crap".
J. Edgar Hoover, the founding leader of the FBI is generally believed to have operated in just such a manner. I've heard it referred to as "tyranny by index cards".
Actually, just started a re-read on the repot and at the start of chapter 5:
Those who made that decision were unaware of the recent history of problems concerning the O-rings and the joint and were unaware of the initial written recommendation of the contractor advising against the launch at temperatures below 53 degrees Fahrenheit and the continuing opposition of the engineers at Thiokol after the management reversed its position.
So, the Rogers Commission report quite explicitly states that the Thiokol management went from saying there was a problem to saying there wasn't one, while their engineers continued to tell them there was a problem. So that seems to contradict the claims you made pretty directly.
The Rogers Commission report is 204 pages. Since you're making kind of extraordinary claims (that the working engineers essentially conspired to snow management about the safety of the solid rocket boosters), do you mind telling us what pages to look on?
That's a pretty poor translation. Look, you were trying to absolve management of all responsibility by claiming that they were being misinformed by their engineers who suddenly and unexpectedly changed their story at the last moment. For starters, that just wasn't true. It was a colder day than they'd ever tested in. They had a range of acceptable temperatures, and the temperature that day wasn't in that range. It was _too cold_. There's no simple way around the fact that, to launch a giant controlled explosion outside operating parameters, you need consensus from your engineers. When you don't get it, you can't just say "you're changing your story, I'm launching anyway!"
In fact, even if your assertion that the engineers suddenly changed their story was true (it wasn't, conditions changed, as I pointed out), then that would throw the previous assertions that launching was safe into doubt as well. In that case, only a fool would launch.
Translation: I'm putting the responsibility for the launch on the heads of those responsible for making the decisions.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Presumably though, if you can delay your taxes long enough, you don't have to pay them because you're dead, although I assume your estate will have to pay them. Also, if you can find clever ways to delay paying your taxes, you can essentially wait around for a new loophole to exploit to emerge or for tax rates to get very low, since these things tend to move in cycles. That's a bet that you might lose, of course, but it's still a tax option that the majority of people don't have.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
From _The Two Towers_ Book III chapter 3:
Do I want it? Do I want it?' said Grishnakh, as if puzzled; but his arms were trembling. 'What would I give for it? What do you mean?'
'We mean,' said Pippin, choosing his words carefully, 'that it's no good groping in the dark. We could save you time and trouble. But you must untie our legs first, or we'll do nothing, and say nothing.'
'My dear tender little fools,' hissed Grishnakh, 'everything you have, and everything you know, will be got out of you in due time: everything! You'll wish there was more that you could tell to satisfy the Questioner, indeed you will: quite soon. We shan't hurry the enquiry. Oh dear no! What do you think you've been kept alive for? My dear little fellows, please believe me when I say that it was not out of kindness: that's not even one of Ugluk's faults.'
'I find it quite easy to believe,' said Merry. 'But you haven't got your prey home yet. And it doesn't seem to be going your way, whatever happens. If we come to Isengard, it won't be the great Grishnakh that benefits: Saruman will take all that he can find. If you want anything for yourself, now's the time to do a deal.'
Grishnakh began to lose his temper. The name of Saruman seemed specially to enrage him. Time was passing and the disturbance was dying down. Ugluk or the Isengarders might return at any minute.
'Have you got it either of you?' he snarled.
'Gollum, gollum!' said Pippin.
'Untie our legs!' said Merry.
They felt the Orc's arms trembling violently. 'Curse you, you filthy little vermin!' he hissed. 'Untie your legs? I'll untie every string in your bodies. Do you think I can't search you to the bones? Search you! I'll cut you both to quivering shreds. I don't need the help of your legs to get you away C and have you all to myself!'
Suddenly he seized them. The strength in his long arms and shoulders was terrifying. He tucked them one under each armpit, and crushed them fiercely to his sides; a great stifling hand was clapped over each of their mouths. Then he sprang forward, stooping low. Quickly and silently he went, until he came to the edge of the knoll. There, choosing a gap between the watchers, he passed like an evil shadow out into the night, down the slope and away westward towards the river that flowed out of the forest. In that direction there was a wide open space with only one fire.
After going a dozen yards he halted, peering and listening. Nothing could be seen or heard. He crept slowly on, bent almost double. Then he squatted and listened again. Then he stood up, as if to risk a sudden dash. At that very moment the dark form of a rider loomed up right in front of him. A horse snorted and reared. A man called out.
Grishnakh flung himself on the ground flat, dragging the hobbits under him; then he drew his sword. No doubt he meant to kill his captives, rather than allow them to escape or to be rescued; but it was his undoing. The sword rang faintly, and glinted a little in the light of the fire away to his left. An arrow came whistling out of the gloom: it was aimed with skill, or guided by fate, and it pierced his right hand. He dropped the sword and shrieked. There was a quick beat of hoofs, and even as Grishnakh leaped up and ran, he was ridden down and a spear passed through him. He gave a hideous shivering cry and lay still.
Fair enough that you'd forget you said it. Having a spear passed through you is a bit traumatic. That movie did slander you quite badly, implying that all you cared about was eating some hobbits when you really had some much bigger ambitions.
Anyway, I don't think we should ban 401K plans and the like, and I agree generally that taxes shouldn't be paid on investments unless they're either paying dividends or you're somehow exchanging them for a profit. I just thought that most people were ignoring the fact that the article had mentioned that big stockholders were able to get money from their stocks without selling them. The full impl
Fair enough. They do get sent to forward air bases and are used for dropping paratroopers. I don't think dropping paratroopers into enemy territory is a tactic the US military uses any more because it's dominated by a risk averse philosophy and pretty much only takes part in asymmetric warfare where it vastly overpowers the enemy. So that role is pretty much limited to training exercises. That could change however. These aren't just cargo planes, they're _military_ cargo planes, so the plan should always be that they'll be ready to put on the front lines even if, right now, they're always operating in thoroughly controlled airspace.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Yes, they have to be paid back, but one question involved there is when they have to be paid back. Grishnakh specifically stated: "My dear tender little fools...", no, wait, wrong Grishnakh. This one said: "Stock certificates are worthless pieces of paper that only become worth something when you convince some other sucker to buy them from you for more than you paid for them." The fact that you can use them as collateral for a loan like that means that you can get money out of them way before you need to sell them. And the loan could be set up so that you don't even need to start paying it back for years. Not to mention that you don't have to pay tax on money you spend to pay certain types of interest. So, if the loan is structured so you never have to pay any of the capital and just have to pay interest, you could conceivably take out the loan against stock, then each financial term (I don't know if it would be yearly or quarterly or monthly or whatever) sell some stock to pay the interest on the loan. Then, when it's time to pay your capital gains tax, you take a deduction on the money you spent servicing the interest on the debt. As long as the interest you pay on the loan is less than what you would pay for taxes, you could save money and avoid paying taxes.
I don't know if that's what actually happens. Maybe it's impossible to get away with a tax dodge like the one I describe above. Seems like that, or a variation on it would be possible though, especially when such a massive chunk of the law is the tax code and most of that chunk consists of special exceptions and exemptions. Anyway, as I said about stocks, if a mechanism exists to get a monetary payment out of it, then the implications of that method need to be fully explored before you can say it is or isn't income. I've just veered into the realm of speculation because I don't fully understand all the implications of these loans. In that, I'm no different than you. We're all stumbling around in the dark expounding on the shallow parts of this we do understand and ignoring the inconvenient details we don't.
In addition to that, after the recent bank bailouts, I think the question of who eventually pays if the stock value doesn't grow forever and the loan comes due with worthless collateral has already been answered. The person who has been living like a billionaire with no technical income and no taxes ends up no worse off than most of us, or maybe even simply defaults on the loan holding a bunch of cash and the bank left with worthless collateral gets bailed out with public money from the taxes the billionaire never paid because the system let them float their taxes.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Let's not ignore that, as the article points out, there's a loophole method of getting money from these investments in the form of loans using them as collateral. If a mechanism exists to get a monetary payment out of it, then the implications of that method need to be fully explored before you can say it is or isn't income.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's forget for a moment that you said "discovers" instead of "invented". Someone who invents a method of turning scrap metal to gold isn't going to patent their invention. That would be crazy as the price of gold would instantly collapse down to rough parity with base metals unless the method is prohibitively expensive, in which case the price of gold will still drop to about a quarter of what it is today. If the method is economical at current gold prices, the person inventing such a method will almost certainly keep it a trade secret and make a fortune selling gold at a rate that doesn't collapse the market. From a profit motive perspective, that method would be infinitely preferable to patenting the process then trying to create a market for cheap gold. It might make good plumbing, and work well in all kinds of anti-corrosive coatings, etc. But it would take a long time, possibly long enough that the patent would expire, to build up such a market.
Just to nitpick a bit, isn't Saudi Arabia a ferocious kingdom rather than a ferocious dictatorship?
That's the way they teach it in elementary school, but the Puritans were not exactly the most religiously tolerant folks. They did face laws in England restricting the ways religion could be practiced, but they didn't want to overturn the legal principles of state controlling religion, they just wanted to change the specifics of the law so that everyone would be forced to practice their way. When they set up in the Americas they promptly got to work enforcing religion as law. You may remember such examinations of their society as _The Scarlet Letter_ and historical events such as the Salem witch trials.
It's only ever treated as "international territory" when it's a convenient fiction for the host nation. No nation that I'm aware of has a problem arresting people that it wants to arrest off planes that are just passing through. The US and other western nations certainly don't.
Oh, forgot to ask. While you were heroically performing your pro bono extra-judicial killing would you have thrown in his teenage son, also free of charge?
Perhaps. Probably? Wouldn't it be nice if there were some sort of system by which evidence could be presented and and people could defend themselves before some sort of impartial authority who could judge them. Perhaps throw in a group of their peers to render a verdict.
Don't forget that the US recently killed two of its own citizens in two separate drone strikes: Anwar al Awlaki and his 16 year old son. Aside from allegations that he was involved in terrorist conspiracy, metaphorically (and maybe literally) demading "Death to the US" is his only proven offence.
Ultimately how fast any method will work depends mostly on the user. How organized they are and how well they remember commands and directory and filenames and how fast they type or how fast they are at picking out icons, etc. Also how willing they are to try different things since pretty much any process that someone knows well is "fast and easy" compared to a "slow and difficult" process that they don't know well.
I'm not kidding myself, and I do think the right click option is often slower, so your first sentence is perfectly in agreement with me (although it's obvious that was an error on your part from the rest of your post). Thing is, it's not a static, simple "right-clicking is faster" vs "typing is faster". For one things, I think you're underestimating how fast people who are used to typing these commands can type them. Then, of course the matter of starting point. Clearly if you're in a gui using mode, and the icon for the file is right there in front of you and you don't have a terminal open and in focus it's faster to right click since to use the terminal, you'd have to mouse click it open (unless you use keyboard shortcuts) or at least into focus first anyway. On the other hand, if you're already in a terminal and plan to stay there, you have to potentially minimize the terminal, then right click and open the iso, then use the mouse to bring the terminal back. This is all assuming that the iso file is right there on the desktop and easily found. If you know the file name and location of the ISO, you can, especially using tab completion, probably type it in faster than you can navigate to it visually by opening up a series of file navigator windows. Ditto if it's on the desktop and it's very cluttered so that you have to search for the icon. Also, it depends on what you want to do with the file afterwards. Lots of GUI methods of doing this stuff like to hide implementation details for "convenience". In other words, the actual mount point is frequently obfuscated somehow and you have to take additional steps to find it. If you don't need to know what the mount point is, that doesn't matter, but if you need to use it at the command line after, or navigate to it through some gui-based programs, you do need to know.
Basically, there's a whole web of circumstances, many based on other personal preferences, that determine which method is "faster". And, of course, the unlimited resources assumed by GUI methods aren't always available. If you don't have a lot of bandwidth available, and you're ssh'd into a remote system rather than vnc'd knowing how to type the command is far, far faster than a method that simply isn't available. You're pretty much always better off if you know multiple ways to accomplish your goal and can choose the one that's best for your particular situation.
That was one of my first thoughts. Although kerosene is kind of toxic too, although nowhere near as bad as hydrazine. The main problem though is that LOx is nowhere near what you'd consider storable for a long period of time like hydrazine. Also, hydrazine has a higher specific impulse than kerosene (at least when used with an oxidiser, not sure about when used as a monopropellant). Since it is a monopropellant, and since it ignites on its own when mixed with an oxidizer that also means simpler, potentially lighter rockets. Frankly I'm not sure you can replace it with anything less toxic because the fact that it's so reactive is one of the reasons it's useful, but chemicals that reactive are going to be almost invariably toxic.
Why is this insightful. Hydrazine is horrible stuff. Alternatives would be great for safety and be practically useful, since it opens up more places you can launch rockets from.
Well, the first line isn't even necessary if you've done it before, so only one line of "nerdy crap" is actually needed. If you have a terminal open and don't have some sort of crippling hand injury it's faster than the right-click option (although probably not faster than the double click option). Frankly, most of the time I use the mouse to do it these days unless I have to use a terminal (for example ssh'd into a remote box), but that doesn't lead me to deride it as "nerdy crap".
J. Edgar Hoover, the founding leader of the FBI is generally believed to have operated in just such a manner. I've heard it referred to as "tyranny by index cards".
Actually, just started a re-read on the repot and at the start of chapter 5:
Those who made that decision were unaware of the recent history of problems
concerning the O-rings and the joint and were unaware of the initial
written recommendation of the contractor advising against the launch
at temperatures below 53 degrees Fahrenheit and the continuing
opposition of the engineers at Thiokol after the management reversed
its position.
So, the Rogers Commission report quite explicitly states that the Thiokol management went from saying there was a problem to saying there wasn't one, while their engineers continued to tell them there was a problem. So that seems to contradict the claims you made pretty directly.
The Rogers Commission report is 204 pages. Since you're making kind of extraordinary claims (that the working engineers essentially conspired to snow management about the safety of the solid rocket boosters), do you mind telling us what pages to look on?
That's a pretty poor translation. Look, you were trying to absolve management of all responsibility by claiming that they were being misinformed by their engineers who suddenly and unexpectedly changed their story at the last moment. For starters, that just wasn't true. It was a colder day than they'd ever tested in. They had a range of acceptable temperatures, and the temperature that day wasn't in that range. It was _too cold_. There's no simple way around the fact that, to launch a giant controlled explosion outside operating parameters, you need consensus from your engineers. When you don't get it, you can't just say "you're changing your story, I'm launching anyway!"
In fact, even if your assertion that the engineers suddenly changed their story was true (it wasn't, conditions changed, as I pointed out), then that would throw the previous assertions that launching was safe into doubt as well. In that case, only a fool would launch.
Translation: I'm putting the responsibility for the launch on the heads of those responsible for making the decisions.
Presumably though, if you can delay your taxes long enough, you don't have to pay them because you're dead, although I assume your estate will have to pay them. Also, if you can find clever ways to delay paying your taxes, you can essentially wait around for a new loophole to exploit to emerge or for tax rates to get very low, since these things tend to move in cycles. That's a bet that you might lose, of course, but it's still a tax option that the majority of people don't have.
From _The Two Towers_ Book III chapter 3:
Do I want it? Do I want it?' said Grishnakh, as if puzzled; but his arms were trembling. 'What would I give for it? What do you mean?'
'We mean,' said Pippin, choosing his words carefully, 'that it's no good groping in the dark. We could save you time and trouble. But you must untie our legs first, or we'll do nothing, and say nothing.'
'My dear tender little fools,' hissed Grishnakh, 'everything you have, and everything you know, will be got out of you in due time: everything! You'll wish there was more that you could tell to satisfy the Questioner, indeed you will: quite soon. We shan't hurry the enquiry. Oh dear no! What do you think you've been kept alive for? My dear little fellows, please believe me when I say that it was not out of kindness: that's not even one of Ugluk's faults.'
'I find it quite easy to believe,' said Merry. 'But you haven't got your prey home yet. And it doesn't seem to be going your way, whatever happens. If we come to Isengard, it won't be the great Grishnakh that benefits: Saruman will take all that he can find. If you want anything for yourself, now's the time to do a deal.'
Grishnakh began to lose his temper. The name of Saruman seemed specially to enrage him. Time was passing and the disturbance was dying down. Ugluk or the Isengarders might return at any minute.
'Have you got it either of you?' he snarled.
'Gollum, gollum!' said Pippin.
'Untie our legs!' said Merry.
They felt the Orc's arms trembling violently. 'Curse you, you filthy little vermin!' he hissed. 'Untie your legs? I'll untie every string in your bodies. Do you think I can't search you to the bones? Search you! I'll cut you both to quivering shreds. I don't need the help of your legs to get you away C and have you all to myself!'
Suddenly he seized them. The strength in his long arms and shoulders was terrifying. He tucked them one under each armpit, and crushed them fiercely to his sides; a great stifling hand was clapped over each of their mouths. Then he sprang forward, stooping low. Quickly and silently he went, until he came to the edge of the knoll. There, choosing a gap between the watchers, he passed like an evil shadow out into the night, down the slope and away westward towards the river that flowed out of the forest. In that direction there was a wide open space with only one fire.
After going a dozen yards he halted, peering and listening. Nothing could be seen or heard. He crept slowly on, bent almost double. Then he squatted and listened again. Then he stood up, as if to risk a sudden dash. At that very moment the dark form of a rider loomed up right in front of him. A horse snorted and reared. A man called out.
Grishnakh flung himself on the ground flat, dragging the hobbits under him; then he drew his sword. No doubt he meant to kill his captives, rather than allow them to escape or to be rescued; but it was his undoing. The sword rang faintly, and glinted a little in the light of the fire away to his left. An arrow came whistling out of the gloom: it was aimed with skill, or guided by fate, and it pierced his right hand. He dropped the sword and shrieked. There was a quick beat of hoofs, and even as Grishnakh leaped up and ran, he was ridden down and a spear passed through him. He gave a hideous shivering cry and lay still.
Fair enough that you'd forget you said it. Having a spear passed through you is a bit traumatic. That movie did slander you quite badly, implying that all you cared about was eating some hobbits when you really had some much bigger ambitions.
Anyway, I don't think we should ban 401K plans and the like, and I agree generally that taxes shouldn't be paid on investments unless they're either paying dividends or you're somehow exchanging them for a profit. I just thought that most people were ignoring the fact that the article had mentioned that big stockholders were able to get money from their stocks without selling them. The full impl
Ok. There we go then. Article says they used a C-17. So it looks like they still do get used on the front lines.
I don't expect anything different. It's a logical strategy for winning conventional wars if you can afford it.
I, for one, welcome our jeopardy-winning-locking-us-out-in-the-cold-depths-of-space overlords.
Uh oh, I can picture it now:
"Open the pod bay doors Watson!"
"What is, I'm sorry I can't do that Dave?"
Fair enough. They do get sent to forward air bases and are used for dropping paratroopers. I don't think dropping paratroopers into enemy territory is a tactic the US military uses any more because it's dominated by a risk averse philosophy and pretty much only takes part in asymmetric warfare where it vastly overpowers the enemy. So that role is pretty much limited to training exercises. That could change however. These aren't just cargo planes, they're _military_ cargo planes, so the plan should always be that they'll be ready to put on the front lines even if, right now, they're always operating in thoroughly controlled airspace.
Yes, they have to be paid back, but one question involved there is when they have to be paid back. Grishnakh specifically stated: "My dear tender little fools...", no, wait, wrong Grishnakh. This one said: "Stock certificates are worthless pieces of paper that only become worth something when you convince some other sucker to buy them from you for more than you paid for them." The fact that you can use them as collateral for a loan like that means that you can get money out of them way before you need to sell them. And the loan could be set up so that you don't even need to start paying it back for years. Not to mention that you don't have to pay tax on money you spend to pay certain types of interest. So, if the loan is structured so you never have to pay any of the capital and just have to pay interest, you could conceivably take out the loan against stock, then each financial term (I don't know if it would be yearly or quarterly or monthly or whatever) sell some stock to pay the interest on the loan. Then, when it's time to pay your capital gains tax, you take a deduction on the money you spent servicing the interest on the debt. As long as the interest you pay on the loan is less than what you would pay for taxes, you could save money and avoid paying taxes.
I don't know if that's what actually happens. Maybe it's impossible to get away with a tax dodge like the one I describe above. Seems like that, or a variation on it would be possible though, especially when such a massive chunk of the law is the tax code and most of that chunk consists of special exceptions and exemptions. Anyway, as I said about stocks, if a mechanism exists to get a monetary payment out of it, then the implications of that method need to be fully explored before you can say it is or isn't income. I've just veered into the realm of speculation because I don't fully understand all the implications of these loans. In that, I'm no different than you. We're all stumbling around in the dark expounding on the shallow parts of this we do understand and ignoring the inconvenient details we don't.
In addition to that, after the recent bank bailouts, I think the question of who eventually pays if the stock value doesn't grow forever and the loan comes due with worthless collateral has already been answered. The person who has been living like a billionaire with no technical income and no taxes ends up no worse off than most of us, or maybe even simply defaults on the loan holding a bunch of cash and the bank left with worthless collateral gets bailed out with public money from the taxes the billionaire never paid because the system let them float their taxes.
Let's not ignore that, as the article points out, there's a loophole method of getting money from these investments in the form of loans using them as collateral. If a mechanism exists to get a monetary payment out of it, then the implications of that method need to be fully explored before you can say it is or isn't income.