You hear it all the time... "I am willing to take more time going through airport security, since it will make the skies safer." This, along with many other one-liners roll our forefathers over.
The fools who said that in the first place were thinking of lines for metal detectors. If after the DB Cooper incident the government had gone straight to baggage inspections, crazy liquids policies, random pat-down searches, no-fly lists, and the like, people would have freaked. Now that the frog is well and truly boiled, objecting to full-body scans and random intrusive physical searches makes you a kook or a criminal.
For that matter, there should probably be another level of simplified 1040EE to catch the next most common group of complications that are beyond an EZ.
There is; form 1040A, the "short form", plus Schedule L as noted by others.
Things don't really get messy, though, until you have to do schedule C. The 1040 long form + Schedules A and B is long, but not too complex. Schedule C is an f'ing nightmare because of having to figure out each category of expense, plus possibly worrying about depreciation (if the expense doesn't qualify for Section 179, anyway), inventory (if you have it), etc.
It's hard to predict. I have no kids and single. I should have '0'. However I started out work with 2. I've been increasing each year. Between mortgage deduction, student loans, etc etc. I'm up to 4 now and I'm still getting money back from the US.
It can be hard to predict (if your income varies a lot, e.g. contractor, salesperson on commission), but not for those reasons. If you have a home you can calculate how much mortgage interest and student loan interest you're going to be paying. That should be the lion's share of the deductions, you can probably just ballpark the rest. Then you can use a tax program or the Deductions and Adjustments worksheet (or do the math from scratch if you're a masochist) to figure out the number of personal allowances to claim.
I noticed a few people up above slightly confused about where Iceland is, based on misleading map projections. But WCBS radio (New York) this morning certainly gets the fail-prize for World Geography; their commentator noted how a volcano erupting "halfway around the world" was canceling flights from New York to London.
Nice going, guys. All the Londoners stuck in the airport who were listening now have an even worse opinion of American geographical knolwegde.
The short circuit case is something like cmpi 0, foo;; assuming foo is in a register beq elseclause ld r15, foo;; r15 is arbitrary cmpi 0, r15 beq elseclause
The non-short-circuit case is something like ld r15, foo cmpi cr1, 0, foo cmpi cr2, 0, r15 cror cr1,cr2;; condition register or beq cr1, elseclause
In the non-short-circuit case, not only is one branch dropped (though a cror is added), but the compare of the pointer and the load of its contents overlap. The earlier POWER architectures didn't have speculative execution; it may be that this makes no difference with current chips.
3) Mortgage-interest deduction encourages people to buy as much house as they can afford, and encourages owning over renting to the detriment of other investments.
That one's the third rail of the tax code. Try to touch that and your political career risks getting zapped into oblivion. Note that Wyden isn't touching it. In principal I dislike it, in practice I've already bought the house and I'd be pretty ticked if it went away. Since its existence contributes to the cost of housing, eliminating it would cause another real-estate crisis, and we're not over the last one yet.
Doesn't it annoy 45% of Americans that the government holds $2k of their money, giving it back in April? There must be a better way!
If you can predict your income and deductions and set your withholding (W-4) or pay your estimated taxes appropriately, you can end up with a near-zero refund or liability at the end of the year. Most of it isn't the IRSs fault; people either don't bother to do this or want the big check. It doesn't help that if your end-of-year liability is too high, you can be liable for a penalty as well.
Now, if the LOC would archive/., the historians would know there was a Little Dark Age in the early part of the 21st century (and this post would be evidence that the denizens of the Little Dark Age even knew they were living in such a time).
When the historians of the 50th century unearth the records of/., they'll realize the Final Dark Age came upon humans in the early part of the 21st century, and that while many saw something happening, none realized the extent. And then they'll click their mandibles in sorrow over what could have been, and move on to the next planet.
Really? So you haven't noticed that a sports car and a Suburban have wildly different braking distance, or that when the road is wet things change.
Expand the "point" to a "zone" that accommodates 90% (or more) of passenger vehicles. That zone will most likely be less than 50 feet in length. Bus and truck drivers should already be aware of their unique braking scenarios.
At 1.0g, you can decelerate from no more than 39mph in 50 feet. Most cars can't do 1.0g even in perfect conditions, and most people don't like to do full-deceleration stops all the time. And what happens when it's raining... or when a bus is behind you?
False. Obstructing Traffic and Delaying Traffic are still on the books.
Delaying traffic is 39:4-56 "No person shall drive or conduct a vehicle in such condition, so constructed or so loaded, as to be likely to cause delay in traffic or accident to man, beast or property."
But 'Unsafe Operation' IS a moving violation, and it has been given to people in an intersection on a red light.
I can find no statute entitled "Obstructing Traffic", nor "Unsafe Operation". But just because someone has been given a ticket doesn't mean the law actually covers the action they've been ticketed for.
It's just over the top how they are trying to infuse "funky" into their products, like they are over-compensating for their historically straight-laced nerdy-businessman image.
A staple of sitcom humor is an adult trying to use the slang that his kids use in order to sound "cool". Never works, of course. This is pretty much the same thing.
So a read from a NULL pointer produces junk data (actually interrupt machine code) and a write is fatal.
IIRC, the first two words of the AIX page 0 are 0xdeadbeef 0xbadfca11. Because of the way the AIX function pointers work, calling page 0 results in the PC being set to 0xdeadbeef and R2 to 0xbadfca11, and the register dump (for the misaligned PC) immediately tells you what you did wrong. (The reason AIX page 0 is readable is for a specific compiler optimization -- the case "if (foo && *foo)" and its cousins. If page 0 is guaranteed readable, the short circuit can be ignored and a branch avoided)
As for " how to turn any NULL pointer into a root exploit"... not. First you have to be able to map page zero, and then the NULL pointer read must be a function pointer. The author says "it's quite common that a NULL pointer dereference is, or can be easily turned into, a NULL function pointer dereference", but that seems a bit handwavy to me.
In my state (NJ), you have committed a moving violation if you are in the intersection when the light is red (unless you are turning right). I think it's a matter of selective enforcement that most officers won't ticket someone if the light was yellow when they entered it.
It's a matter of there being no such law. While NJ is a "restrictive yellow" state (meaning you must stop on yellow if safely able to do so), there is no law making it illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red, if you entered on yellow or green.
There were several newspaper articles about this in one city (DC, I think) a few years back.
D.C. had a fun one. They had a light which normally showed a flashing yellow. Sometimes it would turn to a solid yellow, then a red. It had a camera by it, which naturally made a fortune.
I read somewhere once about a scheme to make intersections safer by marking a "point of no return" line prior to an intersection. The idea is that if the light turns yellow (or is yellow) prior to the point of no return, you have room to stop (assuming you're going the speed limit). If you've passed the marking, then it would be more dangerous to stop (and end up in the middle of the intersection) rather than continue through the intersection.
Said point would be good for exactly one sort of vehicle under one set of conditions.
The yellow light exists as a convenience. They could just as well do away with it completely and have a period of time where all directions have a red light.
You always need the yellow, and often need both. The yellow light is necessary because it takes a nonzero amount of distance to stop. Without the yellow light, the situation will often come up that the light turns red while a car is unable to stop before entering the intersection. The all-red period allows for traffic which entered late in the cycle time to clear the intersection. If you have good visibility and can assume people won't just act like Pavlov's dogs and floor it on green with a car in their way, you don't really need it... but often neither assumption holds in real life. (The visibility issue is mostly for higher-speed intersections where approaching traffic might be able to see the green light before they see the intersection itself)
but the fact remains that being in the intersection when the light turns red is technically illegal in every state in the nation. You may want to read your state's driver's manual to educate yourself on this point.
Score -1, wrong, unless the nation involved is not the US. In Louisiana it is illegal to enter on yellow and exit on red, but legal to enter on green and exit on red. In every other state I've checked, it is legal to enter on green or yellow and exit on red. Entering when there isn't sufficient room on the other side to clear is forbidden in some municipalities, but that does not make it illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red.
True, however you're supposed to stop when the light turns yellow unless you can't do so safely.
This varies by state and country. But the US Federal standard in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is that the yellow light is simply a warning of an upcoming red light.
The yellow light is just meant as a margin of error before the traffic starts going in the other direction. You're most certainly not supposed to count on the length of the yellow to clear the intersection before the red light.
The "intersection clearance interval" is the all-red period.
Go on, I challenge you to name any presidents to have actually worked their way from the bottome, where most of us live, up to the top.
Reagan; your saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Carter Ford (born to a wealthy father who did not raise him, served in the navy during WWII) Nixon (though he started in law, which you might not count) Eisenhower
Obama was political from almost day one, as was LBJ, and the Bushes and Kennedy were born to money.
It appears they failed to account for the fact that these sensors will be embedded in a device with a case of plastic made in China. Any time the phone gets warm it's going to outgas right into the sensor and alarm.
The problem is the difference between virtual (photoshopped) child porn and real child porn sometimes is hard to see. You don't want somebody to be able to say it's photoshopped, therefore not real child porn and get away with it. So generalize and make all porn showing (real, photoshopped or drawn) children illegal. Seems a good solution to me.
That is because you are an authoritarian pig. If it's hard to distinguish between validly-criminal activities and activities which are benign but look similar, then the right answer in a free society is for the authorities to work harder to find the distinction. Not to make the authorities job easier by outlawing anything which looks similar.
It depends on your definition of child porn I guess, but the picture of a girl sucking someones dick sure does look like child porn to me. Or didn't you know that cartoons are banned as well?
Cartoons are not banned in the United States, or so sayeth the Supreme Court (on several occasions, as the politicians keep trying to say otherwise). Anyway, that "girl" is actually 40 years old and merely has a developmental disorder, so banning her use in pictures would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilites act.
If this were a court rather than the FTC, it's be a textbook case of "dismissed based on failure to state a claim". May as well sue Ford for "profiting from selling ground transportation".
All of these things would be less of an issue with some kind of professional standards body in the IT realm. Unfortunately, too many people I know think this is evil and doesn't allow the full brilliance of their talent to shine. I don't think that's valid...lawyers sure like the Bar Association and doctors like the AMA. These organizations give them the power to influence laws and maintain educational standards...exactly what we need.
And exactly which members of our profession would sit upon this august body? The ones who like to write code, design software, build systems, etc? Or the ones who like to make rules about which line a brace goes on, extend meetings by complaining about trivia, and wield authority over others?
Lawyers can have a good professional organization because the skillset of running a professional organization and the skillset of a lawyer aren't that disparate. Doctors and the AMA don't always get along that well. A similar organization for IT or for programmers would just give the pointy-haired among us a new way to lord it over the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
The fools who said that in the first place were thinking of lines for metal detectors. If after the DB Cooper incident the government had gone straight to baggage inspections, crazy liquids policies, random pat-down searches, no-fly lists, and the like, people would have freaked. Now that the frog is well and truly boiled, objecting to full-body scans and random intrusive physical searches makes you a kook or a criminal.
There is; form 1040A, the "short form", plus Schedule L as noted by others.
Things don't really get messy, though, until you have to do schedule C. The 1040 long form + Schedules A and B is long, but not too complex. Schedule C is an f'ing nightmare because of having to figure out each category of expense, plus possibly worrying about depreciation (if the expense doesn't qualify for Section 179, anyway), inventory (if you have it), etc.
It can be hard to predict (if your income varies a lot, e.g. contractor, salesperson on commission), but not for those reasons. If you have a home you can calculate how much mortgage interest and student loan interest you're going to be paying. That should be the lion's share of the deductions, you can probably just ballpark the rest. Then you can use a tax program or the Deductions and Adjustments worksheet (or do the math from scratch if you're a masochist) to figure out the number of personal allowances to claim.
I noticed a few people up above slightly confused about where Iceland is, based on misleading map projections. But WCBS radio (New York) this morning certainly gets the fail-prize for World Geography; their commentator noted how a volcano erupting "halfway around the world" was canceling flights from New York to London.
Nice going, guys. All the Londoners stuck in the airport who were listening now have an even worse opinion of American geographical knolwegde.
The short circuit case is something like
;; assuming foo is in a register ;; r15 is arbitrary
;; condition register or
cmpi 0, foo
beq elseclause
ld r15, foo
cmpi 0, r15
beq elseclause
The non-short-circuit case is something like
ld r15, foo
cmpi cr1, 0, foo
cmpi cr2, 0, r15
cror cr1,cr2
beq cr1, elseclause
In the non-short-circuit case, not only is one branch dropped (though a cror is added), but the compare of the pointer and the load of its contents overlap. The earlier POWER architectures didn't have speculative execution; it may be that this makes no difference with current chips.
That one's the third rail of the tax code. Try to touch that and your political career risks getting zapped into oblivion. Note that Wyden isn't touching it. In principal I dislike it, in practice I've already bought the house and I'd be pretty ticked if it went away. Since its existence contributes to the cost of housing, eliminating it would cause another real-estate crisis, and we're not over the last one yet.
If you can predict your income and deductions and set your withholding (W-4) or pay your estimated taxes appropriately, you can end up with a near-zero refund or liability at the end of the year. Most of it isn't the IRSs fault; people either don't bother to do this or want the big check. It doesn't help that if your end-of-year liability is too high, you can be liable for a penalty as well.
When the historians of the 50th century unearth the records of /., they'll realize the Final Dark Age came upon humans in the early part of the 21st century, and that while many saw something happening, none realized the extent. And then they'll click their mandibles in sorrow over what could have been, and move on to the next planet.
Really? So you haven't noticed that a sports car and a Suburban have wildly different braking distance, or that when the road is wet things change.
At 1.0g, you can decelerate from no more than 39mph in 50 feet. Most cars can't do 1.0g even in perfect conditions, and most people don't like to do full-deceleration stops all the time. And what happens when it's raining... or when a bus is behind you?
Delaying traffic is 39:4-56
"No person shall drive or conduct a vehicle in such condition, so constructed or so loaded, as to be likely to cause delay in traffic or accident to man, beast or property."
I can find no statute entitled "Obstructing Traffic", nor "Unsafe Operation". But just because someone has been given a ticket doesn't mean the law actually covers the action they've been ticketed for.
A staple of sitcom humor is an adult trying to use the slang that his kids use in order to sound "cool". Never works, of course. This is pretty much the same thing.
IIRC, the first two words of the AIX page 0 are 0xdeadbeef 0xbadfca11. Because of the way the AIX function pointers work, calling page 0 results in the PC being set to 0xdeadbeef and R2 to 0xbadfca11, and the register dump (for the misaligned PC) immediately tells you what you did wrong. (The reason AIX page 0 is readable is for a specific compiler optimization -- the case "if (foo && *foo)" and its cousins. If page 0 is guaranteed readable, the short circuit can be ignored and a branch avoided)
As for " how to turn any NULL pointer into a root exploit"... not. First you have to be able to map page zero, and then the NULL pointer read must be a function pointer. The author says "it's quite common that a NULL pointer dereference is, or can be easily turned into, a NULL function pointer dereference", but that seems a bit handwavy to me.
Doesn't matter. What's important is that you have root.
It's a matter of there being no such law. While NJ is a "restrictive yellow" state (meaning you must stop on yellow if safely able to do so), there is no law making it illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red, if you entered on yellow or green.
D.C. had a fun one. They had a light which normally showed a flashing yellow. Sometimes it would turn to a solid yellow, then a red. It had a camera by it, which naturally made a fortune.
Said point would be good for exactly one sort of vehicle under one set of conditions.
You always need the yellow, and often need both. The yellow light is necessary because it takes a nonzero amount of distance to stop. Without the yellow light, the situation will often come up that the light turns red while a car is unable to stop before entering the intersection. The all-red period allows for traffic which entered late in the cycle time to clear the intersection. If you have good visibility and can assume people won't just act like Pavlov's dogs and floor it on green with a car in their way, you don't really need it... but often neither assumption holds in real life. (The visibility issue is mostly for higher-speed intersections where approaching traffic might be able to see the green light before they see the intersection itself)
Score -1, wrong, unless the nation involved is not the US. In Louisiana it is illegal to enter on yellow and exit on red, but legal to enter on green and exit on red. In every other state I've checked, it is legal to enter on green or yellow and exit on red. Entering when there isn't sufficient room on the other side to clear is forbidden in some municipalities, but that does not make it illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red.
This varies by state and country. But the US Federal standard in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is that the yellow light is simply a warning of an upcoming red light.
The "intersection clearance interval" is the all-red period.
Reagan; your saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
Carter
Ford (born to a wealthy father who did not raise him, served in the navy during WWII)
Nixon (though he started in law, which you might not count)
Eisenhower
Obama was political from almost day one, as was LBJ, and the Bushes and Kennedy were born to money.
It appears they failed to account for the fact that these sensors will be embedded in a device with a case of plastic made in China. Any time the phone gets warm it's going to outgas right into the sensor and alarm.
That is because you are an authoritarian pig. If it's hard to distinguish between validly-criminal activities and activities which are benign but look similar, then the right answer in a free society is for the authorities to work harder to find the distinction. Not to make the authorities job easier by outlawing anything which looks similar.
Cartoons are not banned in the United States, or so sayeth the Supreme Court (on several occasions, as the politicians keep trying to say otherwise). Anyway, that "girl" is actually 40 years old and merely has a developmental disorder, so banning her use in pictures would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilites act.
If this were a court rather than the FTC, it's be a textbook case of "dismissed based on failure to state a claim". May as well sue Ford for "profiting from selling ground transportation".
And exactly which members of our profession would sit upon this august body? The ones who like to write code, design software, build systems, etc? Or the ones who like to make rules about which line a brace goes on, extend meetings by complaining about trivia, and wield authority over others?
Lawyers can have a good professional organization because the skillset of running a professional organization and the skillset of a lawyer aren't that disparate. Doctors and the AMA don't always get along that well. A similar organization for IT or for programmers would just give the pointy-haired among us a new way to lord it over the rest.