Why is someone who uses legal tax exemptions the one to blame? How about the congresspukes who add 4,000 pages of exemptions, credits and penalties to the tax code every year?
Taxes are not merely intended to take in revenue. You don't need 80,000 pages to do that. The principal purpose of the tax code is to control, or at least influence "behavior". And we all know what the IRS is for.
Tyranny is a small price for safety. But we still have a long way to go to eradicate all the things that bad people can use to hurt and kill good people. I mean, they haven't even collected all the guns and pressure cookers. It's will be a long time before they get around to all the sharp and jagged rocks.
This is what an oem or manufacturer says when it's to their benefit and almost nobody else's. Who can prove them wrong? All they need is one or two feedbacks suggesting it and technically, they're not lying. Most people don't want to have to engineer their own cooling solution and wonder if it will be adequate or overkill.
Unfortunately, the government has a near perfect rate of failure on such endeavors, from an economic perspective. Government subsidies are based on arbitrary, ideological and wishful thinking. OTOH, venture capitalists generally have a 5-10% success rate. They assume the risks, they reap the benefits of successes, and they drop failures when it's clear they will fail.
If you think this is an example of the proper role of government, I'd like to hear some examples of what you think the government should NOT be directly involved in.
Agreed. I don't see where the FCC gets off trying to regulate any kind of closed-circuit transmission, as long as it doesn't interfere with over-the-air transmission.
Why are we talking about non-lethal defensive measures? These people aren't peaceful protesters who are getting a little out of hand. They are predatory, blood-thirsty profiteers.
While I don't agree with some of the scenarios in the article (a bit simplistic), I have always been astonished at the laissez-faire approach the Federal Government has always had toward the internet and the WWW. I can only explain it by their ineptitude. Not their libertarian philosophy. As a whole, the Government really never "got it" nor understood the potential until it was too late. Now that it's too late, their hoping that it's not too late. Typical.
... Anyone know how you calculate G-forces in this kind of acceleration?
No details provided but I'd assume you can vary the current with a high degree of [computer] control. Increasing the inertia gradually, rather than an instantaneous kinetic release of steam.
Step 2 is blocking foreign (and domestic) IP addresses they arbitrarily deem related to illegal or threatening activities. They got the idea from China.
If I were a pirate, the risk from these devices would not deter me. What have I got to lose? However, the risk of being blown in to a fine pink mist might deter me. And the act of being blown in to a fine pink mist certainly would.
Slashdot Mirror
The guy sure had prunes.
RIP
Why is someone who uses legal tax exemptions the one to blame? How about the congresspukes who add 4,000 pages of exemptions, credits and penalties to the tax code every year?
Taxes are not merely intended to take in revenue. You don't need 80,000 pages to do that. The principal purpose of the tax code is to control, or at least influence "behavior". And we all know what the IRS is for.
Politicians like this are the reason we have guns.
...
Seriously. It would seem to indicate that they have a very serious problem with their science.
Wait a second. You mean it's STILL not settled?!!
SHEESH!!
EVERYTHING is a privilege to be enjoyed in proportion to wealth. You're kidding yourself if you think it can ever be any other way.
If I give enough of my money the Government or the UN, as they ask, they're going to do something about this? They're going to control the weather?
I may not be a climatologist and I can't argue the science either way, but I do know BULLSHIT when I hear it.
Tyranny is a small price for safety. But we still have a long way to go to eradicate all the things that bad people can use to hurt and kill good people. I mean, they haven't even collected all the guns and pressure cookers. It's will be a long time before they get around to all the sharp and jagged rocks.
The whole idea is not to get you to buy one. It's to get the Government to mandate that you buy one. Or no gun at all.
All the money I have in the bank and my 401K ... is ... well, ... "virtual".
What do the penguins know that the rest of us don't?
The World just experienced a discernible brain drain.
R.I.P., Steve.
Next to the word "visionary" in the dictionary will be his photo.
"It's what our customers asked for"
This is what an oem or manufacturer says when it's to their benefit and almost nobody else's. Who can prove them wrong? All they need is one or two feedbacks suggesting it and technically, they're not lying. Most people don't want to have to engineer their own cooling solution and wonder if it will be adequate or overkill.
National Felix Unger day.
Unfortunately, the government has a near perfect rate of failure on such endeavors, from an economic perspective. Government subsidies are based on arbitrary, ideological and wishful thinking. OTOH, venture capitalists generally have a 5-10% success rate. They assume the risks, they reap the benefits of successes, and they drop failures when it's clear they will fail.
If you think this is an example of the proper role of government, I'd like to hear some examples of what you think the government should NOT be directly involved in.
What's Next? BACON?!!
=:-O
Like me.
Agreed. I don't see where the FCC gets off trying to regulate any kind of closed-circuit transmission, as long as it doesn't interfere with over-the-air transmission.
Why are we talking about non-lethal defensive measures? These people aren't peaceful protesters who are getting a little out of hand. They are predatory, blood-thirsty profiteers.
What's wrong with .50 BMG M2 machine guns? Effective range, 2000 M.
While I don't agree with some of the scenarios in the article (a bit simplistic), I have always been astonished at the laissez-faire approach the Federal Government has always had toward the internet and the WWW. I can only explain it by their ineptitude. Not their libertarian philosophy. As a whole, the Government really never "got it" nor understood the potential until it was too late. Now that it's too late, their hoping that it's not too late. Typical.
No details provided but I'd assume you can vary the current with a high degree of [computer] control. Increasing the inertia gradually, rather than an instantaneous kinetic release of steam.
This is just step 1.
Step 2 is blocking foreign (and domestic) IP addresses they arbitrarily deem related to illegal or threatening activities. They got the idea from China.
No speaka de inglish.
How would this be enforced on FOSS? What's to stop me from removing this from the code and recompiling (like I would even have to do that).
BINGO!! That's where the authority belongs. Not with the Federal Government or ((shudder)) the U.N.
If I were a pirate, the risk from these devices would not deter me. What have I got to lose? However, the risk of being blown in to a fine pink mist might deter me. And the act of being blown in to a fine pink mist certainly would.