I was contrasting doping as an intrinsic activity (done with one's own body) as opposed to "people using bench-shirts and other individuals", which you called out as rendering a record "pointless" because they couldn't accomplish it themselves. Obviously, doping allows one to accomplish something with one's own body.
Biological advantages are incredibly pertinent when talking about world records. You can't just hand-wave them away by saying an Olympic shot-putter wouldn't do well in a marathon. Was the shot-putter a prospect for holding a world record in the marathon or in shot put? That is to say, your point would only be logically consistent if there was only one single world record for "sports". As in, one person was nominated champion of all athletics. Since that is not the case, biological advantages certainly come into play as they benefit particular individuals in particular sports.
My point is that there is always inherent unfairness in sports and it seems pointless to try to eliminate it. I even gave an example where the attempt to equalize the competitors has resulted in unethical positions being taken by sports authorities.
I also am going to call out your rejection of records for certain tactics in competition: it's arbitrary. I agree with you that it's lame to have people running in front of you to draft behind, but no one seems to think that having a higher intrinsic lactate threshold or longer legs is "unfair" or resulting in a "fabricated record". Hell, or "being male" as the world sporting associations have all tacitly admitted is such an advantage that being female needs to be a protected class. If we're going to allow that distinction as an "unfair advantage", then where do we draw the line?
Personally, I would suggest just recording all the objective data points and allow everyone to determine who was the world record holder based on their own criteria. Are you the world record holder in the non-amphetamine doping, non-bird-leg genetic haplogroup, male, 175–180 cm tall, under 35 age class for a marathon run on a course that ended more than 50% of the distance from the starting point on a day where it was between 15 and 20 C? Okay, what about amphetamine-using females in the 18–23 age group who ran on a circuit course with more than 400m elevation delta?
It's not like we can't handle that kind of data parsing these days via interactive apps.
We aren't going to agree about this, because you are insistent upon conflating the social policy spectrum with the economic policy spectrum when they are orthogonal.
Consider gay rights. A "few" years ago, support for gay rights was reserved for the likes of anarchists like Emma Goldman. Now, the cultural/legal shift is all over but the whining. The Democrats were on the leftist/liberal aspect of this. So, despite your claim that there is no "left" in this country, there is indeed a true social "left" as demonstrated by this cultural revolution.
Unless you are shilling for one of the two main particular political parties, why not present objectively true statements? Here, I'll help you out: Eisenhower came into office when the top marginal tax bracket had a tax rate of 92%. He presided over having that lowered to a 91% rate... and helped to lower the deficit while still embarking on a crash program to expand our nuclear weapons program. Subsequently, LBJ lowered the top tax rate from that 91% to 77%. Who looks more Republican now?
Oh, wait, I only took a single fact out of context, and we didn't discuss LBJ's mammoth "Great Society" social programs (economic leftist) and warmongering (is "being from Texas" a pole on the warmongering political spectrum?)
Furthermore, to take your cherry-picked choice of "universal healthcare", you should probably provide a cite indicating that Eisenhower supported such a social program because apparently 100% of modern Democrats support this. I think you'll face an uphill battle trying to paint him as a Democrat given this excerpt from his message to Congress:"For most Americans, insurance--private, voluntary insurance-provides a sound and effective method of meeting unexpected hazards which may be beyond the capacity of the individual to bear. [...] I recommend, consequently, the establishment of a Federal health reinsurance service to encourage private health insurance organizations in offering broader benefits to insured individuals and families and coverage to more people."
My point is to illustrate that the economic and social policy spectra are indeed orthogonal, that the Overton Window shifts, and therefore qualitative comparison statements like yours are misleading and/or disingenuous unless qualified to the point of being objective comparisons of fact. Otherwise, I could claim that all modern GOP presidents, including GWB, were basically Democrats because they are all deficit-spending Keynesians as opposed to the GOP of the pre-FDR era. Or that all modern Democratic presidents are basically Republican because they don't support slavery. Such a debate devolves to cherry-picking comparison points—typically outside of historical context—and it is absurd.
I think this "former GOP president would now be considered a modern Democrat" meme (usually Eisenhower or Reagan) is either deliberately disingenuous or ill-informed.
Got a lot of calls from modern Democrats for crash nuclear weapons program expansions? Maybe these calls are from the pro-life wing of the Democratic party that's in favor of government deregulation and privatization.
The assertion made by this meme isn't any more apt than trying to claim all modern Democratic presidents could be mistaken for Republicans because the Democrats were on the wrong side of history by being the pro-slavery party while the Republicans made abolition a key plank.
Both parties have changed significantly over the past 100 years, and not for the better.
And yet from today's perspective, Eisenhower could be mistaken for a Democrat.
And yet from a right / left linear political description, Hitler and Stalin were polar opposites.
You don't necessarily have to subscribe to the Political Compass approach, but it's patently obvious that the social and economic spectrums of politics are orthogonal. Anyone who tries to persuade to believe only the left/right alternatives exist is probably running for office in a first past the post voting system.
Both modern Democrats and modern Republicans are highly in favor of the authoritarian, interventionalist state. Federalism used to be a differentiating factor, but no longer.
So, I take it you're in favor of doping because that's an individual, intrinsic activity.
Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Biology is inherently unfair. The Kenyans who keep setting these records have a genetic advantage (they are from a particular tribe), and males have such an advantage over females in many sports that natural females whose unaltered bodies hypersecrete testosterone are forced to undergo surgery/hormone therapy in order to become "female enough" to be allowed to compete. Yes, forcing dangerous medical interventions upon healthy individuals in the name of righteousness.
At some point, these idealists have become twisted, unethical Torquemadas, a parody of themselves wherein at least some of the dopers are on better moral ground than they are.
True. But rigged demos do NOT trump theory. Call me when Rossi allows third parties to completely fabricate the experimental apparatus rather than being forced to submit to using his black box.
Otherwise, Occam says this is probably just another Tilley Electric Vehicle. I predict "mechanical breakdowns" will occur any time the Rossi black boxes are forced to operate under controlled observation long enough for their concealed power supplies to become exhausted. Just like the Tilley vehicle did when it was demoed on the race track.
Beware any "inventor" who claims patent protection is insufficient and he must rely on secrets/black boxes instead.
Yes, I know, who RTFA around here anyway? Well, I was intrigued by the concept so I wanted to see some images of products, prototypes, mockups... hell, I would have even settled for scammy kickstarter-type "product renderings".
Instead, it's just a wall of text. That wall of text is useless without pictures.
Your mistake is believing that your rights flow from the government, rather than the Bill of Rights specifically stipulating things the government cannot do.
Your inverted perspective is precisely the reason many founders were against the Bill of Rights: they feared that people would eventually lose sight of the fact that the Constitution whitelists powers for the government, rather than whitelisting rights for the People.
Their point was since the Constitution stipulates powers for the government, and, for example, restricting freedom of speech was not an enumerated power, it is obvious that the government has no power to restrict freedom of speech. Thus, the Bill of Rights is superfluous because we, the People, already naturally had these (and many other) rights.
The Constitution has no enumerated power that allows the government to "enable companies to exist in the first place". We already had the right to form companies, build houses, live, work, and pursue happiness without requiring the blessing and forbearance of the federal government. You know, because they have no power over any of that (c.f. the reminders given by Amendments IX and X).
Before you knee-jerk, take note of the fact that I have not argued in favor of companies restricting employee speech. Rather, I take issue with your dangerously flawed understanding of our rights.
If it is in an area that has not other internet options then yes, the correct answer is not to buy the house unless you plan to rent it out or some such.
Truth. Last time I moved, I spent a weekend in my new house without power or internet. It was harder to deal with the lack of internet than the lack of electricity.
I wouldn't live anywhere I couldn't get internet access inside the domicile.
...tying a school's resources to the results of a standardized test, they're encouraging the school to do anything possible to up the marks on the test.
Yes, heaven forbid any person or organization ever face any negative repercussions for underperforming. Hell, we should probably *reward* them with extra money for producing such poor results with the insane amount we gave them already.
Don't become an apologist for unethical behavior. If a school is bad at educating students (its sole reason for existence), then it should be culled.
Carrots alone are insufficient. The need for the stick exists as well.
Unless they've gone Unix-style, because then they would be zombies.
I hate that the Linux kernel has no way to kill a process that refuses to accept the signal to die because it is in permanent iowait while simultaneously holding resource locks. Yes, I'm looking at you, Samba Team chumps who coded cifsclient. You have taken down too many systems and forced too many hard resets.
Our sense of smell is the sense running at the lowest level. It's wired straight into the brain in the shortest path of any sense.
This is why the peanut butter smell test can help diagnose Alzheimer's disease. I would expect nontraumatic loss of smell to highly positively correlate with damage to the structures of the temporal lobe (amygdala, basal ganglia, etc). This is where memory lives (in all its forms).
Smell is a pretty raw sense, as opposed to say, vision, which is highly processed by many different cortical systems and areas. I would therefore expect it to yield the best raw cerebral status metadata.
Loads of people want to check whether their friends and neighbours cars are legal.
Is this a cultural thing? Around here we definitely wouldn't be doing that to our "friends" and we would only do that to neighbors we actively hate to the point of almost being willing to frame them for crimes.
Can you explain this from a cultural perspective?
I can explain our cultural perspective: we generally dislike the government, so we would have to hate someone pretty badly in order to find it attractive to harm them by helping the government. Furthermore, this also seems offensive culturally because it represents meddling in others' affairs. Certainly not something one would do to a friend.
XPrivacy gives extremely fine grained control to what an app can use or cannot use. However, I'd not consider this part of Android proper, though it should be.
Just another plug for XPrivacy. It's excellent. I use it in combination with AFWall to whitelist which apps can get through the Android iptables firewall. XPrivacy will handle network access control, but I'm a belt and suspenders kind of guy.
Especially given that in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election the SNP only polled 45% of the popular vote, which interestingly is pretty much the same proportion of the vote they got in the referendum. They didn't have a democratic mandate for the referendum in 2011 and giving them one was stupid. Even stupider was allowing to drag on for years, should have been quick and in say 2012.
Nah, the stupid thing was to let it be a simple majority vote of 50%+1.
Weighty decisions, such as changing the fundamentals of a political system (including basic laws/Constitutions/political unions/etc) really do need to require a supermajority in order to add hysteresis to the system. It's just untenable to have a razor thin majority decide matters like this, because it could vacillate too easily.
No one would would have been sweating if the vote had set a threshold of 2/3 majority.
Your entire attack vector is obviated by the fact that these people are probably mostly paying with plastic. If so, you have their real names anyway. Attack there rather than some esoteric sampling attack based on the analysis of called names.
Besides, if you're going so deep into pattern analysis that you fear the effects of calling a pseudorandom name, I *guarantee* you there are better identifier proxies... most notably time of day/order type correlation, which is likely to be far more stable and restricted than the spectrum of pseudorandom name choices you fear. I wouldn't care if I were randomly called Enzo or Charles, but I would never order a pumpkin spice latte. I'd probably order an Americano 98% of the time, and I probably place my order within the same 20 minute window each day. So, which is likely to be a better identifier?
Or they could just coopt the goddamn barista and get them to compares faces/dates present at the CIA vs field surveillance photos. Which is probably the best solution, and completely sidesteps your abstruse attack vector.
Why would the attacker choose to do it "the hard way"?
...as if I'm wasting my time checking slashdot for...news for nerds, stuff that matters.
Which, thanks to Taco's reprehensible decision in 2001 to cover the terrorist attacks on this site, "news for nerds, stuff that matters" was subsequently redefined to mean "anything that increases pageviews, usually nontechnical, politically controversial, rehashed stories pulled from Digg/Reddit".
In Korea, email may be for old people, but here Slashdot is for "old people" who started reading pre-2000 and who are too set in our ways to move on to the current nerd zeitgeist. Oh, and the subset of the above who have adblock enabled, because otherwise this site is fucking awful.
Arguably? No where in the Constitution is it permitted. Thus, it's forbidden for the feds to do.
Interstate commerce. Absolutely *everything* is interstate commerce, as per Supreme Court rulings thanks to those fucking FDR-era "Progressives".
If instituting this as a tax would be an issue then they would just call the sales tax a regulation or a fine or whatever they please. Voila: instant Constitutionality.
You are operating under a misconception of how our legal system works today. If it hadn't gone cancerous starting during the FDR era, we would still need something like the 18th Amendment to ban production, sale, and possession of a substance. Instead, now we have unelected bureaucrats accomplishing the same effect by putting MDMA on Schedule I without Congress even having to pass a regular law about it. Yep, bureaucrats making new felonies out of thin air as well as wielding supra-Constitutional powers.
...you were saying something about a Constitutional impediment?
Excuse me while I go weep for the death of federalism.
You really undermine your own position when you make farcical statements like that. I would say the overwhelming preponderance of Americans on this site are already evading their state's use tax. Did you remit your sales/use tax due for all your online and other purchases across state lines last year?
As for sales tax evasion, well, it already happens today. The IRS would just use it as an excuse to further demand all of our financial transactions. The feds already got 80% of the whole country's personally identifiable credit card transactions last year (for the purposes of protecting us from fraud, of course, *cough*). Next up in your scheme: "friendly visits" from IRS agents who will graciously allow you to prove your innocence if you like to use cash more than they believe you should!
Despite all that, tax evasion will thrive via black markets.
You either had a failure of imagination or you are just too excited about your proposal.
Slashdot Mirror
I was contrasting doping as an intrinsic activity (done with one's own body) as opposed to "people using bench-shirts and other individuals", which you called out as rendering a record "pointless" because they couldn't accomplish it themselves. Obviously, doping allows one to accomplish something with one's own body.
Biological advantages are incredibly pertinent when talking about world records. You can't just hand-wave them away by saying an Olympic shot-putter wouldn't do well in a marathon. Was the shot-putter a prospect for holding a world record in the marathon or in shot put? That is to say, your point would only be logically consistent if there was only one single world record for "sports". As in, one person was nominated champion of all athletics. Since that is not the case, biological advantages certainly come into play as they benefit particular individuals in particular sports.
My point is that there is always inherent unfairness in sports and it seems pointless to try to eliminate it. I even gave an example where the attempt to equalize the competitors has resulted in unethical positions being taken by sports authorities.
I also am going to call out your rejection of records for certain tactics in competition: it's arbitrary. I agree with you that it's lame to have people running in front of you to draft behind, but no one seems to think that having a higher intrinsic lactate threshold or longer legs is "unfair" or resulting in a "fabricated record". Hell, or "being male" as the world sporting associations have all tacitly admitted is such an advantage that being female needs to be a protected class. If we're going to allow that distinction as an "unfair advantage", then where do we draw the line?
Personally, I would suggest just recording all the objective data points and allow everyone to determine who was the world record holder based on their own criteria. Are you the world record holder in the non-amphetamine doping, non-bird-leg genetic haplogroup, male, 175–180 cm tall, under 35 age class for a marathon run on a course that ended more than 50% of the distance from the starting point on a day where it was between 15 and 20 C? Okay, what about amphetamine-using females in the 18–23 age group who ran on a circuit course with more than 400m elevation delta?
It's not like we can't handle that kind of data parsing these days via interactive apps.
We aren't going to agree about this, because you are insistent upon conflating the social policy spectrum with the economic policy spectrum when they are orthogonal.
Consider gay rights. A "few" years ago, support for gay rights was reserved for the likes of anarchists like Emma Goldman. Now, the cultural/legal shift is all over but the whining. The Democrats were on the leftist/liberal aspect of this. So, despite your claim that there is no "left" in this country, there is indeed a true social "left" as demonstrated by this cultural revolution.
Unless you are shilling for one of the two main particular political parties, why not present objectively true statements? Here, I'll help you out: Eisenhower came into office when the top marginal tax bracket had a tax rate of 92%. He presided over having that lowered to a 91% rate... and helped to lower the deficit while still embarking on a crash program to expand our nuclear weapons program. Subsequently, LBJ lowered the top tax rate from that 91% to 77%. Who looks more Republican now?
Oh, wait, I only took a single fact out of context, and we didn't discuss LBJ's mammoth "Great Society" social programs (economic leftist) and warmongering (is "being from Texas" a pole on the warmongering political spectrum?)
Furthermore, to take your cherry-picked choice of "universal healthcare", you should probably provide a cite indicating that Eisenhower supported such a social program because apparently 100% of modern Democrats support this. I think you'll face an uphill battle trying to paint him as a Democrat given this excerpt from his message to Congress: "For most Americans, insurance--private, voluntary insurance-provides a sound and effective method of meeting unexpected hazards which may be beyond the capacity of the individual to bear. [...] I recommend, consequently, the establishment of a Federal health reinsurance service to encourage private health insurance organizations in offering broader benefits to insured individuals and families and coverage to more people."
My point is to illustrate that the economic and social policy spectra are indeed orthogonal, that the Overton Window shifts, and therefore qualitative comparison statements like yours are misleading and/or disingenuous unless qualified to the point of being objective comparisons of fact. Otherwise, I could claim that all modern GOP presidents, including GWB, were basically Democrats because they are all deficit-spending Keynesians as opposed to the GOP of the pre-FDR era. Or that all modern Democratic presidents are basically Republican because they don't support slavery. Such a debate devolves to cherry-picking comparison points—typically outside of historical context—and it is absurd.
I think this "former GOP president would now be considered a modern Democrat" meme (usually Eisenhower or Reagan) is either deliberately disingenuous or ill-informed.
Got a lot of calls from modern Democrats for crash nuclear weapons program expansions? Maybe these calls are from the pro-life wing of the Democratic party that's in favor of government deregulation and privatization.
The assertion made by this meme isn't any more apt than trying to claim all modern Democratic presidents could be mistaken for Republicans because the Democrats were on the wrong side of history by being the pro-slavery party while the Republicans made abolition a key plank.
Both parties have changed significantly over the past 100 years, and not for the better.
And yet from today's perspective, Eisenhower could be mistaken for a Democrat.
And yet from a right / left linear political description, Hitler and Stalin were polar opposites.
You don't necessarily have to subscribe to the Political Compass approach, but it's patently obvious that the social and economic spectrums of politics are orthogonal. Anyone who tries to persuade to believe only the left/right alternatives exist is probably running for office in a first past the post voting system.
Both modern Democrats and modern Republicans are highly in favor of the authoritarian, interventionalist state. Federalism used to be a differentiating factor, but no longer.
So, I take it you're in favor of doping because that's an individual, intrinsic activity.
Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Biology is inherently unfair. The Kenyans who keep setting these records have a genetic advantage (they are from a particular tribe), and males have such an advantage over females in many sports that natural females whose unaltered bodies hypersecrete testosterone are forced to undergo surgery/hormone therapy in order to become "female enough" to be allowed to compete. Yes, forcing dangerous medical interventions upon healthy individuals in the name of righteousness.
At some point, these idealists have become twisted, unethical Torquemadas, a parody of themselves wherein at least some of the dopers are on better moral ground than they are.
The world can burn if it comes down to a choice between that and my antiperspirant.
And, yes, I'm aware of the distinction between an antiperspirant and wholly inadequate deodorant-only.
Experimental results trump theory.
True. But rigged demos do NOT trump theory. Call me when Rossi allows third parties to completely fabricate the experimental apparatus rather than being forced to submit to using his black box.
Otherwise, Occam says this is probably just another Tilley Electric Vehicle. I predict "mechanical breakdowns" will occur any time the Rossi black boxes are forced to operate under controlled observation long enough for their concealed power supplies to become exhausted. Just like the Tilley vehicle did when it was demoed on the race track.
Beware any "inventor" who claims patent protection is insufficient and he must rely on secrets/black boxes instead.
Yes, I know, who RTFA around here anyway? Well, I was intrigued by the concept so I wanted to see some images of products, prototypes, mockups... hell, I would have even settled for scammy kickstarter-type "product renderings".
Instead, it's just a wall of text. That wall of text is useless without pictures.
Your mistake is believing that your rights flow from the government, rather than the Bill of Rights specifically stipulating things the government cannot do.
Your inverted perspective is precisely the reason many founders were against the Bill of Rights: they feared that people would eventually lose sight of the fact that the Constitution whitelists powers for the government, rather than whitelisting rights for the People.
Their point was since the Constitution stipulates powers for the government, and, for example, restricting freedom of speech was not an enumerated power, it is obvious that the government has no power to restrict freedom of speech. Thus, the Bill of Rights is superfluous because we, the People, already naturally had these (and many other) rights.
The Constitution has no enumerated power that allows the government to "enable companies to exist in the first place". We already had the right to form companies, build houses, live, work, and pursue happiness without requiring the blessing and forbearance of the federal government. You know, because they have no power over any of that (c.f. the reminders given by Amendments IX and X).
Before you knee-jerk, take note of the fact that I have not argued in favor of companies restricting employee speech. Rather, I take issue with your dangerously flawed understanding of our rights.
That just means it's time to rebrand "right to work" as "illegalize taxation by unions" or "freedom not to join a union" laws.
I'm sure a few focus groups can work out a properly calibrated term.
If it is in an area that has not other internet options then yes, the correct answer is not to buy the house unless you plan to rent it out or some such.
Truth. Last time I moved, I spent a weekend in my new house without power or internet. It was harder to deal with the lack of internet than the lack of electricity.
I wouldn't live anywhere I couldn't get internet access inside the domicile.
...tying a school's resources to the results of a standardized test, they're encouraging the school to do anything possible to up the marks on the test.
Yes, heaven forbid any person or organization ever face any negative repercussions for underperforming. Hell, we should probably *reward* them with extra money for producing such poor results with the insane amount we gave them already.
Don't become an apologist for unethical behavior. If a school is bad at educating students (its sole reason for existence), then it should be culled.
Carrots alone are insufficient. The need for the stick exists as well.
What if they never wake up?
They'll be dead.
Unless they've gone Unix-style, because then they would be zombies.
I hate that the Linux kernel has no way to kill a process that refuses to accept the signal to die because it is in permanent iowait while simultaneously holding resource locks. Yes, I'm looking at you, Samba Team chumps who coded cifsclient. You have taken down too many systems and forced too many hard resets.
Our sense of smell is the sense running at the lowest level. It's wired straight into the brain in the shortest path of any sense.
This is why the peanut butter smell test can help diagnose Alzheimer's disease. I would expect nontraumatic loss of smell to highly positively correlate with damage to the structures of the temporal lobe (amygdala, basal ganglia, etc). This is where memory lives (in all its forms).
Smell is a pretty raw sense, as opposed to say, vision, which is highly processed by many different cortical systems and areas. I would therefore expect it to yield the best raw cerebral status metadata.
Parallel Construction.
Loads of people want to check whether their friends and neighbours cars are legal.
Is this a cultural thing? Around here we definitely wouldn't be doing that to our "friends" and we would only do that to neighbors we actively hate to the point of almost being willing to frame them for crimes.
Can you explain this from a cultural perspective?
I can explain our cultural perspective: we generally dislike the government, so we would have to hate someone pretty badly in order to find it attractive to harm them by helping the government. Furthermore, this also seems offensive culturally because it represents meddling in others' affairs. Certainly not something one would do to a friend.
XPrivacy gives extremely fine grained control to what an app can use or cannot use. However, I'd not consider this part of Android proper, though it should be.
Just another plug for XPrivacy. It's excellent. I use it in combination with AFWall to whitelist which apps can get through the Android iptables firewall. XPrivacy will handle network access control, but I'm a belt and suspenders kind of guy.
Especially given that in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election the SNP only polled 45% of the popular vote, which interestingly is pretty much the same proportion of the vote they got in the referendum. They didn't have a democratic mandate for the referendum in 2011 and giving them one was stupid. Even stupider was allowing to drag on for years, should have been quick and in say 2012.
Nah, the stupid thing was to let it be a simple majority vote of 50%+1.
Weighty decisions, such as changing the fundamentals of a political system (including basic laws/Constitutions/political unions/etc) really do need to require a supermajority in order to add hysteresis to the system. It's just untenable to have a razor thin majority decide matters like this, because it could vacillate too easily.
No one would would have been sweating if the vote had set a threshold of 2/3 majority.
Your entire attack vector is obviated by the fact that these people are probably mostly paying with plastic. If so, you have their real names anyway. Attack there rather than some esoteric sampling attack based on the analysis of called names.
Besides, if you're going so deep into pattern analysis that you fear the effects of calling a pseudorandom name, I *guarantee* you there are better identifier proxies... most notably time of day/order type correlation, which is likely to be far more stable and restricted than the spectrum of pseudorandom name choices you fear. I wouldn't care if I were randomly called Enzo or Charles, but I would never order a pumpkin spice latte. I'd probably order an Americano 98% of the time, and I probably place my order within the same 20 minute window each day. So, which is likely to be a better identifier?
Or they could just coopt the goddamn barista and get them to compares faces/dates present at the CIA vs field surveillance photos. Which is probably the best solution, and completely sidesteps your abstruse attack vector.
Why would the attacker choose to do it "the hard way"?
If you can't provide a cite, my guess would be the lunar mascons are the issue—not the orbital physics.
There are only certain orbits around the moon that are stable.
...as if I'm wasting my time checking slashdot for ...news for nerds, stuff that matters.
Which, thanks to Taco's reprehensible decision in 2001 to cover the terrorist attacks on this site, "news for nerds, stuff that matters" was subsequently redefined to mean "anything that increases pageviews, usually nontechnical, politically controversial, rehashed stories pulled from Digg/Reddit".
In Korea, email may be for old people, but here Slashdot is for "old people" who started reading pre-2000 and who are too set in our ways to move on to the current nerd zeitgeist. Oh, and the subset of the above who have adblock enabled, because otherwise this site is fucking awful.
Since this is GNOME, does anybody have a link to the official list of features that have been removed from this version?
The version feature removal list feature has been removed in this version in order to better serve the Gnome users.
All 6 of them that are left.
Arguably? No where in the Constitution is it permitted. Thus, it's forbidden for the feds to do.
Interstate commerce. Absolutely *everything* is interstate commerce, as per Supreme Court rulings thanks to those fucking FDR-era "Progressives".
If instituting this as a tax would be an issue then they would just call the sales tax a regulation or a fine or whatever they please. Voila: instant Constitutionality.
You are operating under a misconception of how our legal system works today. If it hadn't gone cancerous starting during the FDR era, we would still need something like the 18th Amendment to ban production, sale, and possession of a substance. Instead, now we have unelected bureaucrats accomplishing the same effect by putting MDMA on Schedule I without Congress even having to pass a regular law about it. Yep, bureaucrats making new felonies out of thin air as well as wielding supra-Constitutional powers.
Excuse me while I go weep for the death of federalism.
Tax evasions now impossible
You really undermine your own position when you make farcical statements like that. I would say the overwhelming preponderance of Americans on this site are already evading their state's use tax. Did you remit your sales/use tax due for all your online and other purchases across state lines last year?
As for sales tax evasion, well, it already happens today. The IRS would just use it as an excuse to further demand all of our financial transactions. The feds already got 80% of the whole country's personally identifiable credit card transactions last year (for the purposes of protecting us from fraud, of course, *cough*). Next up in your scheme: "friendly visits" from IRS agents who will graciously allow you to prove your innocence if you like to use cash more than they believe you should!
Despite all that, tax evasion will thrive via black markets.
You either had a failure of imagination or you are just too excited about your proposal.
I just wondered if he felt like trolling, but in a professional context.