The IRS has pretty clear guidelines about who is a "contractor" versus who is an "employee".
The IRS auditors are understaffed and overloaded. Google has deep enough pockets to hire enough attorneys and auditors to make them wish that they hadn't bothered. No, the IRS is going to spend their limited time and money on softer and easier targets that are more likely to pay up quickly, not a large and politically well connected company like Google.
It wasn't so much that porn was bad, it was just that the juxtaposition of porn and all the other stuff is a bit off-putting
Surely it must have crossed their minds at some point to swap the porn for the Disney content in the "on demand" service. After all, it's the sort of humor that the recording room staff can appreciate.
I don't believe in good and evil, just ignorant and wise, smart and dumb, people who don't know what they are doing will do "evil" inane violent shit.
Then you're deluding yourself. Has it not occurred to you that there exist people in this world who kill merely for their own pleasure? In fact, not only do they enjoy killing but they know exactly what they're doing and even that society considers it to be "wrong" and yet they do it anyway. What else would you call that if not "evil"? If you don't believe in evil, then why not play the Ouija board just for the hell of it (pun intended) because evil doesn't exist, right? What could possibly go wrong, it's all fake right? Wrong.
But that's as close to original research as you can get with the average student.
And there's nothing really wrong with that. The goal should be to take the best example from the scholarly literature on whatever question is being assigned to the students and then to compare the responses, with appropriate adjustments for grade level, age and experience, with that "ideal" and grade the papers accordingly. It's highly improbable that a high school student will even approximate, much less equal or exceed, the best works of scholarship on Hamlet, but that's not the point. The point is for students to demonstrate some minimum level of initial skill and then to have improvement of the course of the instructional period. Originality is less important than ensuring that each student reaches their fullest potential.
then why do they also need to "spend billions of dollars every year lobbying".
The United States is large country with a large economy and the corporations which began here have long since expanded to include globe spanning interests and concerns. It takes a large and stable professional class, although still much smaller than the population at large, to maintain, protect and expand the hegemony of the 1% at the top. This requires billions of dollars a year yes, but given the size of the US economy, which alone reaches into the trillions, never mind the overseas assets, it's still a very profitable venture. Remember, the 1% wouldn't be doing all of this if it wasn't worth doing.
time wasted on maintaining both, or switching your abstraction layer to one that supports all the new things, will probably take about as much time as if you'd just programmed it against the Native API
That's highly debatable. There's a reason why adapters or "abstraction layers" if you will are popular with software developers. It's not the right answer in every case, but the collective experience of millions of developers working over many decades has proven the concept to be useful. At the very least, it's something that ought to be considered whenever a third party service or library is introduced into your system. A good developer learns to keep their options open and adapters or abstraction layers help to preserve the flexibility necessary to achieve that. In software development, few things are worse than the case of "coincidental" coupling or "accidental" complexity. Instead, be deliberate in your decisions as a developer and understand the choices that you're making. It's alright to make a trade-off but make sure that you're getting more in return for whatever you're giving up in exchange. That's my advice anyway.
The "I'm right because I have more guns" position has made us Americans so many friends internationally.
"The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both."
I think you underestimate the British security services. Do you really think that putting a mannequin in the back of a limo and then driving Assange out through the Chunnel in a delivery van "while they're not looking" has even the slightest chance of success? The entire London areas is covered in security cameras and sensors and there are hundreds of security personnel and law enforcement, with thousands more available on short notice, arranged in concentric layers around the embassy. An ant couldn't escape the Ecuadorian embassy without the British seeing it, so how much less Assange? There will be no "sneaking out" for Assange, it's either official safe passage out or he doesn't go.
If i were Ecuador i would sneak him out a week or so before they announce that he is going to be leaving
The Ecuadorian embassy is under round the clock surveillance by police and the security services plus downtown London is absolutely bursting with security cameras and sensors that continuously monitor all vehicle and pedestrian traffic. It's hard to believe that Ecuador could "sneak him out" without tipping off the surveillance. No, the only way that Assange can leave now is under official diplomatic transport approved by the British government and that's becoming increasingly unlikely as this whole affair drags on.
when abnormal trades occur as a secondary effect of other's mistakes, abort them.
I disagree. All trades should be final with no refunds, do-overs, or reversals. If the algo traders want to play with fire then it's their job to make sure that they don't get burned. They want the benefits of their high frequency trades without taking responsibility when their bets go bad. That's bullshit and the NYSE and other exchanges shouldn't allow it.
Every time a petition goes up which the Obama Administration doesn't like, which seems like a regular occurrence these days, be it legalization of marijuana or now this TSA proposal, it gets shut down by the operatives in the White House. Let me make it perfectly plain to those of you who aren't seeing this: Obama is a true product of the cutthroat and revenge oriented Chicago style of American machine politics. Consider his background prior to being elected President, that of an east coast lawyer who never worked an honest job in his whole life and has ZERO respect for business or private enterprise. He speaks about "transcending" politics and bringing people together, while stabbing enemies and even friends in the back when they aren't looking. Obama is a silver-tounged devil, plain and simple, and the thugs who work for his administration are ever ready to do whatever it takes to get rid of those whom they add to their "enemies list". In this much at least the Obama Administration makes Bush and his cronies look like rank amateurs.
Are there no allowances to be made for different lifestyle and cultural choices, independent of what sort of health care system exists? For example, we Americans eat lots of red meat, high fructose corn syrup and trans fats or at least some of us do because approximately 2/3 of all US adults are now overweight with a substantial percentage of those being obese. No matter what the quality of health care system, those independent choices are going to worsen American health outcomes as compared to say Japan or other nations where highly refined carbohydrates and meat are less available. Thus, It's a mistake, in my estimation, to attribute longer lifespans or better health outcomes solely to the health care system because it tends to make the American system look worse than it actually is while at the same time making others look better than they really are. These factors are known to be difficult to control for when making comparisons to other health care systems.
BTW: many Americans are well aware of the problems in the average emergency room. In fact, it's often better, if you have a choice, to arrange for treatment at a private clinic or even an urgent care facility instead. Their wait times tend to be much shorter, because they only admit paying patients, and for the price of a few hundred dollars cash or credit you can have your broken bones set, bullet fragments removed, wounds stitched and even receive minor surgeries. If you still require more extensive treatment, they can send you on to the hospital afterwards, but without being admitted through the emergency room which again lowers overall costs. Good care at reasonable prices can be found here in the US, provided that one knows where to look and how to ask.
By who's measure? The people to whom I've spoken all complained about nearly every aspect of their experience from the time spent waiting, to the way the doctor set their broken arm, to the cleanliness of the facilities, you name it. I suppose that it's possible that I just happened to meet only those few people who had bad experiences, but I doubt it. The bottom line was that people were dissatisfied with the care that they received. They thought that it could have been much better had they gone instead to the private clinic and paid out of pocket. Now, the doctors might say that the care was good if the arm healed and didn't get infected along the way, but that doesn't take into account the patients' experience. Who gets to decide whether or not the care was "good quality"? It would seem that the one who pays the bill decides that. In a country that mandates socialized medicine, they probably don't care if you thought the doctor was a butcher as long as you recovered, but would you chose to go back to that same doctor again if you were paying the bill yourself? I'd think not.
It's all as silly as needing a license to cut hair.
You will observe that in both cases, medicine and cosmetology, the practitioners lobbied for the own licensing and regulation so as to restrict entry into their respective professions. It' reasonable to have some licensing for medical care, and possibly even for cosmetology, but many qualified people choose not to enter the medical profession due to the overly restrictive licensing rules designed by the existing doctors to severely limit supply and protect the wages of existing members at the expense of consumers who bear the costs of an uncompetitive market for health care services enforced by overly restrictive government regulation.
They also are very highly rated by the citizens of those countries.
Have you actually lived or spent time in a country with such a system? Canada perhaps or maybe somewhere in Europe? While it's true that one can always find some satisfied patients, even in otherwise flawed systems, my impression after having spoken to many Europeans and particularly to Italians and Russians is that for most people socialized medicine results in a lower standard of care. For example, regular services may be of lesser quality or one might have to wait weeks or even months to receive them or else pay bribes to get decent service. At the high end of the spectrum, advanced or experimental treatments are generally unavailable unless one has money and even then such care often necessitates foreign travel. The United States is a common choice in these instances because the standard of care is excellent and the choices of drugs, devices and procedures are almost unlimited and highly available to those who can afford to receive them. Socialized medicine does control costs, but the standard of care often suffers as a result. What's the point of paying taxes for a socialized health system when one still has to go to the "checkbook" clinic to receive a decent standard of care in a timely fashion? I'm not arguing that the US system isn't in need of changes, but we would do well not to repeat the mistakes of Britain or Italy or any number of other socialized medical systems when considering what sorts of changes to make.
You need to learn how to bypass HR and get your resume in front of the person who's actually making the hiring decision. Typically, this is the senior IT guy who's been working at the company for many years and knows were all of the bodies are buried. Learn the techniques of The Laidoff Ninja and don't let HR guards stand in your way. Plan your application as a ninja would plan his assault on the castle. The ninja doesn't ask the guard at the gate to please let him inside, he slips passed them and penetrates the keep silently and unseen. By the time the gate guards (HR) realize that they've been skillfully cut out of the deal it's too late and the ninja has found his new patron.
Excuse me, but this woman isn't a douchebag. It takes courage for someone who was so close to Mr. Zuckerberg and his inner circle at Facebook to stand up and ask some of the same serious questions that we outsiders have been shouting, mostly unheard, for years now. Frankly, having an account on Facebook, a website run by a company that's committed to ending all privacy, has always struck me as borderline crazy. Also, did you read the part about the "master password"? The one that allowed her to see everything on anyone's page regardless of their "privacy settings"? What wouldn't the Chinese government pay for such a password, even if it only worked for mere hours after it was compromised? I've always suspected that something like that "master key" existed, at least for top-level Facebook insiders, but to my knowledge this is the first time that it has been corroborated in public by someone who was, until very recently, in a position to know. If this isn't enough to scare you, then you don't know your history. If I were a foreign spy master I would be doing just about anything to recruit agents inside of Facebook. Surely there are at least a few nerds working there who, after having bedded a stunning operative of their preferred sex, could be convinced to provide useful intelligence in return for continued "service". The East Germans were notorious for their skill in this sort of operation during the Cold War and they even kept their own "Facebook". Although in that case, it was the government and their informants updating the profiles, not the "users". It's a shame how easily most people forget the lessons of the past.
If the IRS is allowed to impose fines and penalties for tax return issues shouldn't they have the same fines and penalties imposed on them for accepted fraudulent tax returns?
The IRS subject to the same rules as you or I? LOL, never happen. The IRS has long enjoyed effective immunity to any penalties, no matter how incompetent they are , while penalizing the average taxpayer mercilessly for even the smallest and most innocent mistakes. All of this due to a tax code which even US Senators and Congressmen have conceded on numerous occasions is needlessly complicated, contradictory and nonsensical. Under such circumstances errors or disputes are practically inevitable. BTW, if you think that ObamaCare is going to save our health care system, just look at the US Tax Code for a preview of what happens when the government tries to run something, whether that be collecting taxes or managing health care (which is arguably even more complex than collecting taxes); it's a complete clusterfuck every time.
I'd suggest asking a tax accountant about the option of "underwithholding" to the tune of $1500 for this next year
Doing what you suggest is probably illegal and may, depending upon how much is "under-withheld" or under reported (if self-employed), result in penalties if the difference between what should have been withheld or paid and what was actually withheld or paid exceeds a certain threshold (penalties begin after about $1,000 difference or so and climb from there). Also, it says specifically on the W-4 instructions that claiming allowances to which you're not entitled, regardless of whether or not they result in the "correct" amount of witholding, is unlawful. Trying to "hack" your tax filings to the IRS is a really bad idea. They can follow you to the ends of the earth, seize your assets and your bank accounts, and generally make your life extremely difficult.
There are still some reasons to be hopeful. First, most judges are NOT very sympathetic to plaintiff attorneys representing pornographers, so they're looking for something, anything, to get those cases out of their courtrooms. This makes many judges very sympathetic to even the most amateur Motion to Quash Subpoenas filed by pro-se Does or indeed just about any other motion that would give them an excuse to dismiss the case and get the aforementioned smut peddlers the hell out of their courtroom. If more people would take an hour or so to fill out and file some of these motions to quash their subpoenas or even just to dismiss the case, they might find that judges are sympathetic to their requests, amateur though they may be.
Slashdot Mirror
The IRS has pretty clear guidelines about who is a "contractor" versus who is an "employee".
The IRS auditors are understaffed and overloaded. Google has deep enough pockets to hire enough attorneys and auditors to make them wish that they hadn't bothered. No, the IRS is going to spend their limited time and money on softer and easier targets that are more likely to pay up quickly, not a large and politically well connected company like Google.
It wasn't so much that porn was bad, it was just that the juxtaposition of porn and all the other stuff is a bit off-putting
Surely it must have crossed their minds at some point to swap the porn for the Disney content in the "on demand" service. After all, it's the sort of humor that the recording room staff can appreciate.
I don't believe in good and evil, just ignorant and wise, smart and dumb, people who don't know what they are doing will do "evil" inane violent shit.
Then you're deluding yourself. Has it not occurred to you that there exist people in this world who kill merely for their own pleasure? In fact, not only do they enjoy killing but they know exactly what they're doing and even that society considers it to be "wrong" and yet they do it anyway. What else would you call that if not "evil"? If you don't believe in evil, then why not play the Ouija board just for the hell of it (pun intended) because evil doesn't exist, right? What could possibly go wrong, it's all fake right? Wrong.
If it's long enough to masturbate, it's objectionable.
So like what, a few seconds or so?
Quick, someone send it to the Houses of Parliament! An intact brain there will revolutionise our system of government!
Unfortunately, it appears that the brain was removed from the skull in several large pieces.
But that's as close to original research as you can get with the average student.
And there's nothing really wrong with that. The goal should be to take the best example from the scholarly literature on whatever question is being assigned to the students and then to compare the responses, with appropriate adjustments for grade level, age and experience, with that "ideal" and grade the papers accordingly. It's highly improbable that a high school student will even approximate, much less equal or exceed, the best works of scholarship on Hamlet, but that's not the point. The point is for students to demonstrate some minimum level of initial skill and then to have improvement of the course of the instructional period. Originality is less important than ensuring that each student reaches their fullest potential.
then why do they also need to "spend billions of dollars every year lobbying".
The United States is large country with a large economy and the corporations which began here have long since expanded to include globe spanning interests and concerns. It takes a large and stable professional class, although still much smaller than the population at large, to maintain, protect and expand the hegemony of the 1% at the top. This requires billions of dollars a year yes, but given the size of the US economy, which alone reaches into the trillions, never mind the overseas assets, it's still a very profitable venture. Remember, the 1% wouldn't be doing all of this if it wasn't worth doing.
time wasted on maintaining both, or switching your abstraction layer to one that supports all the new things, will probably take about as much time as if you'd just programmed it against the Native API
That's highly debatable. There's a reason why adapters or "abstraction layers" if you will are popular with software developers. It's not the right answer in every case, but the collective experience of millions of developers working over many decades has proven the concept to be useful. At the very least, it's something that ought to be considered whenever a third party service or library is introduced into your system. A good developer learns to keep their options open and adapters or abstraction layers help to preserve the flexibility necessary to achieve that. In software development, few things are worse than the case of "coincidental" coupling or "accidental" complexity. Instead, be deliberate in your decisions as a developer and understand the choices that you're making. It's alright to make a trade-off but make sure that you're getting more in return for whatever you're giving up in exchange. That's my advice anyway.
people, please learn what you give up for so-called 'free things'.
People are free to be as stupid as they want to be. The way I see it, such people are the rightful prey of the shysters running these schemes.
The "I'm right because I have more guns" position has made us Americans so many friends internationally.
"The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both."
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince, 1513
I think you underestimate the British security services. Do you really think that putting a mannequin in the back of a limo and then driving Assange out through the Chunnel in a delivery van "while they're not looking" has even the slightest chance of success? The entire London areas is covered in security cameras and sensors and there are hundreds of security personnel and law enforcement, with thousands more available on short notice, arranged in concentric layers around the embassy. An ant couldn't escape the Ecuadorian embassy without the British seeing it, so how much less Assange? There will be no "sneaking out" for Assange, it's either official safe passage out or he doesn't go.
If i were Ecuador i would sneak him out a week or so before they announce that he is going to be leaving
The Ecuadorian embassy is under round the clock surveillance by police and the security services plus downtown London is absolutely bursting with security cameras and sensors that continuously monitor all vehicle and pedestrian traffic. It's hard to believe that Ecuador could "sneak him out" without tipping off the surveillance. No, the only way that Assange can leave now is under official diplomatic transport approved by the British government and that's becoming increasingly unlikely as this whole affair drags on.
And then all the other trading houses would have to accept their own mistakes, fat-fingered trades and so on
Which is as it should be. No reversals, no my-bads, no exceptions. It's better that way.
when abnormal trades occur as a secondary effect of other's mistakes, abort them.
I disagree. All trades should be final with no refunds, do-overs, or reversals. If the algo traders want to play with fire then it's their job to make sure that they don't get burned. They want the benefits of their high frequency trades without taking responsibility when their bets go bad. That's bullshit and the NYSE and other exchanges shouldn't allow it.
Every time a petition goes up which the Obama Administration doesn't like, which seems like a regular occurrence these days, be it legalization of marijuana or now this TSA proposal, it gets shut down by the operatives in the White House. Let me make it perfectly plain to those of you who aren't seeing this: Obama is a true product of the cutthroat and revenge oriented Chicago style of American machine politics. Consider his background prior to being elected President, that of an east coast lawyer who never worked an honest job in his whole life and has ZERO respect for business or private enterprise. He speaks about "transcending" politics and bringing people together, while stabbing enemies and even friends in the back when they aren't looking. Obama is a silver-tounged devil, plain and simple, and the thugs who work for his administration are ever ready to do whatever it takes to get rid of those whom they add to their "enemies list". In this much at least the Obama Administration makes Bush and his cronies look like rank amateurs.
Are there no allowances to be made for different lifestyle and cultural choices, independent of what sort of health care system exists? For example, we Americans eat lots of red meat, high fructose corn syrup and trans fats or at least some of us do because approximately 2/3 of all US adults are now overweight with a substantial percentage of those being obese. No matter what the quality of health care system, those independent choices are going to worsen American health outcomes as compared to say Japan or other nations where highly refined carbohydrates and meat are less available. Thus, It's a mistake, in my estimation, to attribute longer lifespans or better health outcomes solely to the health care system because it tends to make the American system look worse than it actually is while at the same time making others look better than they really are. These factors are known to be difficult to control for when making comparisons to other health care systems.
BTW: many Americans are well aware of the problems in the average emergency room. In fact, it's often better, if you have a choice, to arrange for treatment at a private clinic or even an urgent care facility instead. Their wait times tend to be much shorter, because they only admit paying patients, and for the price of a few hundred dollars cash or credit you can have your broken bones set, bullet fragments removed, wounds stitched and even receive minor surgeries. If you still require more extensive treatment, they can send you on to the hospital afterwards, but without being admitted through the emergency room which again lowers overall costs. Good care at reasonable prices can be found here in the US, provided that one knows where to look and how to ask.
By who's measure? The people to whom I've spoken all complained about nearly every aspect of their experience from the time spent waiting, to the way the doctor set their broken arm, to the cleanliness of the facilities, you name it. I suppose that it's possible that I just happened to meet only those few people who had bad experiences, but I doubt it. The bottom line was that people were dissatisfied with the care that they received. They thought that it could have been much better had they gone instead to the private clinic and paid out of pocket. Now, the doctors might say that the care was good if the arm healed and didn't get infected along the way, but that doesn't take into account the patients' experience. Who gets to decide whether or not the care was "good quality"? It would seem that the one who pays the bill decides that. In a country that mandates socialized medicine, they probably don't care if you thought the doctor was a butcher as long as you recovered, but would you chose to go back to that same doctor again if you were paying the bill yourself? I'd think not.
It's all as silly as needing a license to cut hair.
You will observe that in both cases, medicine and cosmetology, the practitioners lobbied for the own licensing and regulation so as to restrict entry into their respective professions. It' reasonable to have some licensing for medical care, and possibly even for cosmetology, but many qualified people choose not to enter the medical profession due to the overly restrictive licensing rules designed by the existing doctors to severely limit supply and protect the wages of existing members at the expense of consumers who bear the costs of an uncompetitive market for health care services enforced by overly restrictive government regulation.
They also are very highly rated by the citizens of those countries.
Have you actually lived or spent time in a country with such a system? Canada perhaps or maybe somewhere in Europe? While it's true that one can always find some satisfied patients, even in otherwise flawed systems, my impression after having spoken to many Europeans and particularly to Italians and Russians is that for most people socialized medicine results in a lower standard of care. For example, regular services may be of lesser quality or one might have to wait weeks or even months to receive them or else pay bribes to get decent service. At the high end of the spectrum, advanced or experimental treatments are generally unavailable unless one has money and even then such care often necessitates foreign travel. The United States is a common choice in these instances because the standard of care is excellent and the choices of drugs, devices and procedures are almost unlimited and highly available to those who can afford to receive them. Socialized medicine does control costs, but the standard of care often suffers as a result. What's the point of paying taxes for a socialized health system when one still has to go to the "checkbook" clinic to receive a decent standard of care in a timely fashion? I'm not arguing that the US system isn't in need of changes, but we would do well not to repeat the mistakes of Britain or Italy or any number of other socialized medical systems when considering what sorts of changes to make.
where developers are thrown into a nightmare of an existing project with 100k lines of bad code, and told to implement five new features
Do we get a bonus for submissions that cause the compiler to tap out?
You need to learn how to bypass HR and get your resume in front of the person who's actually making the hiring decision. Typically, this is the senior IT guy who's been working at the company for many years and knows were all of the bodies are buried. Learn the techniques of The Laidoff Ninja and don't let HR guards stand in your way. Plan your application as a ninja would plan his assault on the castle. The ninja doesn't ask the guard at the gate to please let him inside, he slips passed them and penetrates the keep silently and unseen. By the time the gate guards (HR) realize that they've been skillfully cut out of the deal it's too late and the ninja has found his new patron.
Excuse me, but this woman isn't a douchebag. It takes courage for someone who was so close to Mr. Zuckerberg and his inner circle at Facebook to stand up and ask some of the same serious questions that we outsiders have been shouting, mostly unheard, for years now. Frankly, having an account on Facebook, a website run by a company that's committed to ending all privacy, has always struck me as borderline crazy. Also, did you read the part about the "master password"? The one that allowed her to see everything on anyone's page regardless of their "privacy settings"? What wouldn't the Chinese government pay for such a password, even if it only worked for mere hours after it was compromised? I've always suspected that something like that "master key" existed, at least for top-level Facebook insiders, but to my knowledge this is the first time that it has been corroborated in public by someone who was, until very recently, in a position to know. If this isn't enough to scare you, then you don't know your history. If I were a foreign spy master I would be doing just about anything to recruit agents inside of Facebook. Surely there are at least a few nerds working there who, after having bedded a stunning operative of their preferred sex, could be convinced to provide useful intelligence in return for continued "service". The East Germans were notorious for their skill in this sort of operation during the Cold War and they even kept their own "Facebook". Although in that case, it was the government and their informants updating the profiles, not the "users". It's a shame how easily most people forget the lessons of the past.
If the IRS is allowed to impose fines and penalties for tax return issues shouldn't they have the same fines and penalties imposed on them for accepted fraudulent tax returns?
The IRS subject to the same rules as you or I? LOL, never happen. The IRS has long enjoyed effective immunity to any penalties, no matter how incompetent they are , while penalizing the average taxpayer mercilessly for even the smallest and most innocent mistakes. All of this due to a tax code which even US Senators and Congressmen have conceded on numerous occasions is needlessly complicated, contradictory and nonsensical. Under such circumstances errors or disputes are practically inevitable. BTW, if you think that ObamaCare is going to save our health care system, just look at the US Tax Code for a preview of what happens when the government tries to run something, whether that be collecting taxes or managing health care (which is arguably even more complex than collecting taxes); it's a complete clusterfuck every time.
While I'm a CPA but not a tax accountant
Indeed.
I'd suggest asking a tax accountant about the option of "underwithholding" to the tune of $1500 for this next year
Doing what you suggest is probably illegal and may, depending upon how much is "under-withheld" or under reported (if self-employed), result in penalties if the difference between what should have been withheld or paid and what was actually withheld or paid exceeds a certain threshold (penalties begin after about $1,000 difference or so and climb from there). Also, it says specifically on the W-4 instructions that claiming allowances to which you're not entitled, regardless of whether or not they result in the "correct" amount of witholding, is unlawful. Trying to "hack" your tax filings to the IRS is a really bad idea. They can follow you to the ends of the earth, seize your assets and your bank accounts, and generally make your life extremely difficult.
There are still some reasons to be hopeful. First, most judges are NOT very sympathetic to plaintiff attorneys representing pornographers, so they're looking for something, anything, to get those cases out of their courtrooms. This makes many judges very sympathetic to even the most amateur Motion to Quash Subpoenas filed by pro-se Does or indeed just about any other motion that would give them an excuse to dismiss the case and get the aforementioned smut peddlers the hell out of their courtroom. If more people would take an hour or so to fill out and file some of these motions to quash their subpoenas or even just to dismiss the case, they might find that judges are sympathetic to their requests, amateur though they may be.