" I agree its slow, but its designed for passing bits of information securely, not huge files."
That's not entirely true. In fact, one of the benfits of Freenet is that large files can actually come in faster than they would from a website if they're popular enough and close to your node. In some cases, you could even have parts of the file already in your datastore when you went looking for the file, thus making it come in as fast as your hard drive can read.
" Freenet is a piece of crap. Every 6 months the author pops up, talks about freedom, grabs some publicity"
First of all, Freenet is a brilliant piece of technology that pushes the edges of computer science and anonymity theory. Secondly, Freenet has no "author", but it does have a founder. Ian, for your information, is readily available via the mailing lists. He's a good guy and answers questions quickly and honestly.
"but you know what he never does? Make his god damned p2p network work."
Heh. First of all, much of the coding is done by 'Toad', who is not Ian. Secondly, the network works just fine most of the time. Thirdly, it's not even 1.0 - moron - which means it's still alpha/beta/testing. Odd how I can download several GB worth of content in a day with a spider running, yet you're somehow unable to get anything working. Let's see - works fine for me, doesn't work for you. The common component of all your troubles with Freenet is you. It's not easy to set up because there hasn't been a ton of effort put forth to make it easy to set up just yet. Why should there be? With the underlying technology changing so fast, it would be utter stupidity to concentrate on making a user interface which could very well be worthless in a month. I'm sorry it's not as easy as a Mac, and I'm sorry you're incapable of getting it up and running at the present time, but I would encourage you to try back at a time when the interface has been idiot-proofed.
"there's no search mechanism, and its been that way for years."
Well, this is a simple misunderstanding of the way Freenet works. Implementing a search engine defies logic when you look at how the network operates. Tell you what, read through all the whitepapers, take a look at the underlying principles of Freenet, and design a search engine that somehow manages to work properly without giving up everyone's anonymity, overloading every node around your's, and using up enough bandwidth to choke off a small segment of the network. Do that, and you'll be a much-revered hero to the Freenet community.
"I ran a frenet node on a huge pipe (direct connection to sprint) for a year and was never able to load more then a few web pages with it."
And what did you try in the mean time to work through that? Did you email the mailing lists? Did you search the documentation? Did you ask any questions? Did you try re-seeding? Did you do anything at all besides bitch and complain on slashdot? I would suspect that would be a 'no'.
"As it stands now, Freenet is totally worthless."
Of course it is - now go run along and play with Kazaa.
Ok, let me tell you how it does work in a Capitalist society:
You either offer us what we want at a fair price, or we tell you to take that garbage and cram it up your arse. At that point, you go out of business, and someone else comes along and offers us what we want at a fair price.
Welcome to Capitalism 101, I'll be your instructor - my name is Reality.
"They'd need to install a DSLAM in your community, then connect the voice part in to the via fiber CO. I don't know whether the telcos actually do this, or even if there is some reason why its not feasible to site the DSLAM out off the CO."
I forget the technical name of the equipment, but I know they're called 'mini' and 'micro' DSLAMs, and they generally run them to areas that are fairly well built up, but not quite built up enough for their own CO. I'm about 30,000 ft or so from my CO (according to Verizon), though I've been to the CO and it's probably no more than 20,000 ft air miles-wise. They must have done some ridiculous wiring for my area, or the database is a bit off. Either way, neither Verizon, nor Covad wants to touch my neighborhood with DSL from the existing CO. My only hope is that Verizon decides to throw a micro-DSLAM in the box about a mile down the road from my house. If they do that, I should have no problem getting 384 or 768k upstream. At that point, I'd tell Comcast to kiss my ass and jump ship.
When they put the micro DSLAM in near where I used to work, our DSL options went from 'no better than 1.5/144' to offering everything but the 7.1 downstream service. Where I now work is only about 5,000 ft from the CO, and we're in the process of moving to a 1.1 SDSL. I'd kill to get that sort of service.
"Seriously, I have 3 or 4 options right now for broadband. If comcast is going to monitor my usage then I'll decide to go elsewhere for service. The only way they'll stop this kind of activity is if they lose customers by doing it."
That's super, but I have one option: Comcast. I'm nowhere near close enough to the CO for DSL, and unless they decide to run fiber to the small neighborhood in which I live (yeah, right), my only option for a long, long time is going to continue to be Comcast. I hate it, it sucks, and I'm annoyed by it. What can I do about it? Nothing.
" Is there any precedent for an open-ended extension of the voting period?"
USC Title III Ch1, Sec 2goes into effect if the election results for a given state are not certified by December 12th, in a Presidential election. At that point, the legislature of the states without certified results may, as described by the Constitution (Article II Sec 1) decide who their electors will be (and thus, who will receive their electoral college votes).
"I just don't see online voting as a great advance for the republic."
Those who are too lazy, apathetic, ill-informed, impatient, or just plain stupid to vote for the leaders of this country at a polling place probably should not be doing so anyway. I, for one, applaud these individuals for not forcing their collective inadequacies upon the rest of us by making uninformed or poor decisions. Reducing the election of the leaders of the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world to the equivelent of a CNN online poll would be one of the biggest mistakes every made by this nation.
"And then you get arrested, because the NSA can track any DDOS attacks without much trouble."
That would be a quick and easy way to get the NSA shut down. The NSA's charter specifically prohibits them from purposefully intercepting and/or using domestic communications. The CIA faces similar restrictions. This is because we don't want the KGB wandering around in dark suits looking for some disloyal comrads to disappear. The FBI might eventually track you down, but that would be weeks or months after the fact. A joint operation with the FBI and the Secret Service (which wouldn't make any sense, but then again, the Secret Service are pretty much taking over just about anything they want to these days) would likely yield faster results. In that case, we'd be talking about days or weeks instead of months. If they can't certify the election results before December 12th, then Title III goes into effect and the legislatures of the states whose elections you messed with can simply choose the electors who will represent the state. This would not bode well for a place such as Florida, where the legislature is overwhelmingly Republican, assuming you were trying to help elect someone who is not a Republican.
"the goverment issues national voting cards which are free, and highly secure... In fact, ever since their introduction, they have already displaced drivers licenses and military issue cards as the preferred id for liquor stores, banks, etc"
And does the card tie your vote to your identity? Seems like that'd be a super way to make sure the party in power remains in power - simply track down and intimidate/beat/threaten/kill a bunch of those who opposed you in the last "election".
"Its about time people realize that the world was never meant to be a place full of free stuff to take whenever you want it. This idea that its your right to do whatever the hell you want, and when a mega corporation tries to stop you they are suddenly infringing on your god given rights is ridiculous."
I think the problem that I, and some others have with a situation like this is that the law was bought and paid for by Mega Corps. Aside from the fact that no company has any right buying off legislators (campaign contributions? give me a break...), we're turning civil matters into criminal matters, removing even the appearance of distinction between large companies and government. No longer do the movie companies have to bring up civil cases against copyright infringers. Now, with the help of a few bought-and-paid-for politicians, they can get the taxpayers to foot the bill for punishing the infringers. A secondary issue to that is the fact that the distinction between infringement for commercial gain and non-commercial infringement is rapidly evaporating.
Personally, I would have no problem at all if the company that owns the copyright to the film in question were to fire off a lawsuit against the man whose obvious and unmistakable intent was to create a copy of that film. Instead, rather than go through that trouble, the film industry as a whole has essentially bribed members of the legislature to create a criminal offense from a civil matter, thus removing virtually all the burden of copyright enforcement from the copyright holder.
I don't particularly care for copyrights and patents. I think it was a pretty good idea at one time, but I think that it's gotten way out of hand. The concepts behind intellectual property are now being used more often to stifle scientific and artistic growth, rather than to promote it. That being said, I still support the civil enforcement of copyrights by the rightful holder thereof. What I don't support is bribery, pandering, or the criminalization of civil offenses without good reason. This guy brought a camera into a movie theatre and tried to create a copy of a film. Why is it that we're ready and willing to give him more jail time than someone who beats the hell out of his wife? Why is it that we'll send this guy to jail for essentially trespassing across the front lawn of the MPAA? Why are the tax dollars of the people of California being (ab)used to fund the prosecution of a civil offense? These are my problems with this situation, and I suspect it's where much of where other peoples' problem comes from as well.
" I find it funny that you would answer minor criticisms such as the grandparent, but not a lengthy one such as this post"
Longer posts take more time and effort to dissect and properly answer. What's funny is that you take a lack of instantaneous response as evidence of a non-response. The long and short of it is, I'll respond when I'm damn good and ready.
"Okay... Show me how to trim half from these programs (2003 budget numbers):"
I'll do you one better, I'll eliminate about 90 - 95% of your total here. Seeing as our Constitution enumerates the powers given to the Federal government, while specifically stating that all other powers are inherently reserved for either the states or the people, please show me how the Social Security program is constitutional. Should the states each decide to undertake the creation of a social security program, they're welcome to do so. However, the Federal government has no right to do so, and is therefore doing so illegally. Please don't talk to me about the wonderful benefits of having a Federal social security program, as I remember quite clearly that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Once you've eliminated Social Security from the bill, along with all the other programs and such that are unconstitutional, the interest on the debt is reduced to nearly zero within a few years, as you can pay down the national debt instead of building it up in record amounts as our resident President is doing.
The ability of the Federal government to borrow money was intended to be used only in emergency situations, such as in time of war. These days, it's quickly becoming miraculous to even begin to talk about not borrowing money for the Federal government. If the government shutdowns a few years ago taught us anything, it's that we've gone way too far in our government spending. Social Security is a non-refundable, mandatory, interest-free loan to the Federal government. It's one of those things that looked real good for those eating out of trashcans in the 1930s, but which actually turns out to screw us all in the end.
"Why do all the Supreme Court justices pay income taxes?"
Because their government has threatened them with lengthy jail terms if they refuse. I believe I'm right, but I continue to pay my taxes. Why? Because I cannot afford to be wrong.
"even most libertarian states require some money to operate."
They certainly do, and the Constitution provides the means for legal taxation to ensure the government has all the money it needs. If the government has grown to such a size that it can no longer sustain itself via legal means, the solution should not be to throw more money at it, nor extract money from citizens by threat of imprisonment. The reason the government is as large as it is is because it has usurped authority and responsibilities from the states and individual citizens in violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, amoung others. I'll bet if we went over every inch of the Federal government with a fine-tooth Constitutional comb, we'd be able to cut the Federal budget in half simply by eliminating aspects which are illegal to begin with.
As for taxation, I think a consumption tax is the best way to go about it. Think about this for a moment: you're suggesting we should tax the wealthy more than the poor. I would agree with this entirely. My question for you is this: who buys more, and who buys expensive things? Joe Sixpack makes $30,000 a year, and is (presumably) spending that money on a bunch of little things for the family and such. As such, his spending habits are limited to buying a maximum of $30,000 worth of stuff. We could define certain necessary items as non-taxable, like simple foods. From there, the consumption tax takes form. Joe Sixpack buys a $19,000 Honda, and pays a tax on it. Joe Millionaire buys a Jaguar, a Porsche, an H2, and a small jet. He pays a tax on each of those items, which, when based upon the value of each, turns out to run far in excess of Joe Sixpack's tax. Thus, the wealthy are indeed taxed more (assuming they choose to take advantage of being wealthy), and the little people don't have to worry about April 15th killing their rent money.
There are far more things to discuss when it comes to a comprehensive taxation system, but I think the overall simplification and fairness of a consumption tax, as opposed to an income tax, far outweighs the difficulties of moving to a totally new system.
In the end, I continue to support the elimination of the (unconstitutional) Income Tax, in favor of a more fair tax plan, a vastly reduced Federal government, and perhaps even a might bit of fiscal discipline.
As for my previous post, I would assume at least one issue you'd raise would be with regards to Lincoln. I wouldn't bother with that one; you wouldn't understand/care if you're not a Southerner by birth as well as by heart.:)
They control the appointment of new Justices. So long as the current court remains intact (no one steps aside or dies), neither of the other two branchs has any control over its composition. Ask FDR about this one.;)
"They control the entire makeup of the lower federal court system, and could thus effectively remove all of the SC's appellate jurisdiction (robbing it of the means to hear the vast majority of cases)"
Article III, Section 2 would seem to disagree with your assertion that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction could be removed. From that section:
"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact"
To remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in all cases, you'd have to ensure that no one ever appealed any court decision to the Supreme Court.
"They control all the money"
And thus, the crux of the issue here. Then again, the Constitution also states in Article III, Section 1 that their compensation (paycheck) cannot be decreased during their time in office. This goes back to the point in number 1, about the SCOTUS being effectively non-dependent upon either of the other two branchs.
"They have the military"
This is the kicker here. It's the one wildcard in this whole mess. Were the Supreme Court to issue an order/ruling which is then negated by military action of some kind, it would signal the end of our Republic. The ultimate battle would be in the hearts and minds of the soldiers and commanders themselves. Do you follow a lawful order from the Supreme Court? Or do you follow the (presumably unlawful) order of your commander in chief? Most military folks are fiercly loyal to the CnC (heh, I just made that up), but this type of question would really tear up a lot of people. If the government were to endure such an event sans revolution, I think it would be little more than a puppet of a small group of individuals. It is at that point that the Great Experiment would be completed, albeit as an utter failure.
If this day comes, I can only hope that I've long since died. I don't know that I could live through something as aweful as this happening to the nation I love so dearly.
" it would be crazy -- and completely out of character -- for the SC to directly contradict a Constitutional amendment."
It would be unprecidented, but it's not as though the SCOTUS hasn't used word games to get amendments to mean new things (or not to mean new things, as the case may be). Look at the 16th Amendment. The SCOTUS held multiple times that it confers no new taxation powers upon the Congress, but merely defines the Income Tax as an indirect excise tax. Thus, the entire purpose for the Amendment (to get around that pesky Constitution thingy so we can grab peoples' cash) is negated. But don't worry, the Income Tax is only temporary. The Federal government stated this repeatedly so as to get the amendment passed. Luckily for us, the Federal government always keeps its promises. If you have any doubts about this, just take a trip out to the open plains and talk to some Native Americans; if you can find some that are still alive.
"If the SC ever just decided to nullify an amendment in such a way, we would basically have to abolish or drastically limit the court's power."
For the Supreme Court to take such a drastic step, I believe we would have to have far larger problems at hand to create such a situation. When the time comes that Supreme Court finds it necessary to take the drastic step of killing an amendment, I think judicial tyranny will be the least of our worries.
"The head tax idea is interesting but extremely unlikely."
The head tax argument is just one of many arguments against the Income Tax. The shady history of the 16th Amendment, the arguments against an indirect excise tax being applicable to in
I fail to see how this is the case, unless you're a fan of big government and a socialist state. If you'd like to send all your money to the Federal government in the hopes that it'll provide for your every need, feel free. Personally, I see the Federal government as an out-of-control, digustingly large, billions-bleeding behemoth hell-bent on making itself as powerful and omnipresent as possible. The original intent of the Federal government was to act as a sort of UN for the several states. In cases where states might fight over an issue, the Federal government was given the authority (enumerated powers) to ensure relations between the states remained as civil as possible. Thanks to Lincoln, amoung others, we've obliterated any semblence of states' rights, fiscal discipline, personal responsibility, or adherence to the intent of the Constitution.
The Constitution is hardly a practical document. It rarely delves into details, and largely prefers to state a general idea or principle. It does this because it is a statement of principles. It describes an ideal state in which power is always balanced, poor leadership by a few is irrelevant, extremism can be nullified, and where the people truly are the ultimate authority. The system we have now shows that with 200 years, a fist-full of wars, and a willingness to bludgeon the masses with extreme and misleading concepts repeatedly, you can pervert even the most beautiful government.
If Article I, Section 8 allowed Congress to pass the income tax as it exists today, and create the IRS as it exists today, then please explain the necessity for the 16th Amendment. If Article I, Section 8 authorized the system we have in place, the 16th Amendment would never have been proposed, let alone ratified. Ratification of the 16th Amendment was also conditional on its being a temporary measure, as opposed to a cash cow for a massive Federal Totalitarianocracy.
You're also forgetting Article I, Section 2, which states:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers..."[Emph Mine]
You're also forgetting Article I, Section 9, which states:
"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."[Emph Mine]
The Founding Fathers specifically stated in two seperate places that the Congress may not lay direct tax, except in proportion to the census. They couldn't have been more clear if they'd carved it into Jefferson's skull and stuck his head on a pike in the middle of Philly.
You could always argue that the 16th Amendment repealed these parts of the Constitution, but it does no such thing. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has already taken care of settling any dispute you and I might have about this. They did so in 1916, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US [1916], in which they held that the 16th Amendment did not alter Article 1, Sections 2 and 9, and that its only result is that the Income Tax remains an indirect tax. (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. , 240 US 112 [1916])
"So what?", you're probably saying. "They can still collect an indirect income tax." You're absolutely correct that Congress may impose an indirect income tax. Unfortunately for the IRS and personal income tax fans, the Supreme Court clearly defined an indirect tax in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 200 US 107 [1911], in which it held that:
"Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable . . . it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."[Emph Mine]
Whoops, there it goes. You may find it hard to argue with that, but the Supreme Court would respectfully disagree. If someone has the money to take such a case all the way to the Supreme Court, we might all get a huge (as in 100%) refund from Uncle Sam in the next few years. The US Federal government was never intended to be the behemoth it currently is. Once we stop sending it all our money, we'll find that many other problems go away as well. It's tough to drop a billion dollars on a police-state inducing program (TIA, CAPPS/II, MATRIX) when your discretionary budget is smaller than a billion dollars.
"That is really just an academic question though - you've got to play the cards your dealt, and we've got to deal with the federal income tax system, as much as it sucks."
This would be true if we lived in a totalitarian regime. We, however, live in a representative republic governed by principles, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Thus, one is quite welcome to challenge or attempt to change laws with which they disagree. This can be accomplished via court action, congressional lobbying, or state-initiated Constitutional Amendment. To challenge the income tax via the courts is perhaps the most interesting of the three. To do so successfully, one would have to convincingly argue to the Supreme Court that it effectively has the power to nullify Constitutional Amendments which are intrinsically counter to the fundamental principles contained within the Constitution proper.
An extreme example of this would be the unlikely situation in which a Constitutional Amendment were passed declaring women to be the property of their husband or, lacking one, their father. Thus, any and all rights normally given to a human being would be usurped by the will of their 'owner'. The question becomes, could the Supreme Court declare that such an amendment runs so contrary to the principles of the Constitution that the amendment, itself, is unconstitutional? As much as one would like to say that it can, you then call into question whether there is any check on the power of the Supreme Court, but I digress.
One would also have to convince the SCOTUS that a blanket income tax is effectively a head tax. One cannot survive without income; thus, one's very existence is taxable (head tax). The latter argument is far easier than the former, primarily because it doesn't create a constitutional crisis, relating to the seperation and balance of powers.
"Only guy I knew who was a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA."
I'm a member of both the ACLU and the ACU (American Conservative Union). Does that count? Both of them are all for getting government off my back, and that's fine by me. I believe that both fight hard to defend our Constitution from the treasonous politicians and other officials, even though they can sometimes be at odds with one another on a particular issue. I'm not alone, either; Bob Barr is a well-known conservative who frequently does work for both the ACU and the ACLU. What it took to bridge the two organizations was a terrorist act commited by zealots followed by terrorist acts commited by our government in response thereto.
I cannot think of a more inappropriate response to the murder of three thousand people than the wholesale destruction of the values, ideals, and liberties by which they lived, in their name.
Why bother? Is this just to show how well you can rig benchmarks with enough driver vetting and settings tweaking? All you have to do to get the Tom's results is to take every other reviewer's work, reduce the AMD chips' performance a bit, add to the Intel chips' performance a bit, and then create a conclusion to support Intel's total dominance, power, and magnificance, regardless of what the (tweaked/rigged) benchmarks show.
Slashdot Mirror
" I agree its slow, but its designed for passing bits of information securely, not huge files."
That's not entirely true. In fact, one of the benfits of Freenet is that large files can actually come in faster than they would from a website if they're popular enough and close to your node. In some cases, you could even have parts of the file already in your datastore when you went looking for the file, thus making it come in as fast as your hard drive can read.
" Freenet is a piece of crap. Every 6 months the author pops up, talks about freedom, grabs some publicity"
First of all, Freenet is a brilliant piece of technology that pushes the edges of computer science and anonymity theory. Secondly, Freenet has no "author", but it does have a founder. Ian, for your information, is readily available via the mailing lists. He's a good guy and answers questions quickly and honestly.
"but you know what he never does? Make his god damned p2p network work."
Heh. First of all, much of the coding is done by 'Toad', who is not Ian. Secondly, the network works just fine most of the time. Thirdly, it's not even 1.0 - moron - which means it's still alpha/beta/testing. Odd how I can download several GB worth of content in a day with a spider running, yet you're somehow unable to get anything working. Let's see - works fine for me, doesn't work for you. The common component of all your troubles with Freenet is you. It's not easy to set up because there hasn't been a ton of effort put forth to make it easy to set up just yet. Why should there be? With the underlying technology changing so fast, it would be utter stupidity to concentrate on making a user interface which could very well be worthless in a month. I'm sorry it's not as easy as a Mac, and I'm sorry you're incapable of getting it up and running at the present time, but I would encourage you to try back at a time when the interface has been idiot-proofed.
"there's no search mechanism, and its been that way for years."
Well, this is a simple misunderstanding of the way Freenet works. Implementing a search engine defies logic when you look at how the network operates. Tell you what, read through all the whitepapers, take a look at the underlying principles of Freenet, and design a search engine that somehow manages to work properly without giving up everyone's anonymity, overloading every node around your's, and using up enough bandwidth to choke off a small segment of the network. Do that, and you'll be a much-revered hero to the Freenet community.
"I ran a frenet node on a huge pipe (direct connection to sprint) for a year and was never able to load more then a few web pages with it."
And what did you try in the mean time to work through that? Did you email the mailing lists? Did you search the documentation? Did you ask any questions? Did you try re-seeding? Did you do anything at all besides bitch and complain on slashdot? I would suspect that would be a 'no'.
"As it stands now, Freenet is totally worthless."
Of course it is - now go run along and play with Kazaa.
"Doesn't work that way in a Capatalist society."
Ok, let me tell you how it does work in a Capitalist society:
You either offer us what we want at a fair price, or we tell you to take that garbage and cram it up your arse. At that point, you go out of business, and someone else comes along and offers us what we want at a fair price.
Welcome to Capitalism 101, I'll be your instructor - my name is Reality.
It might have been nice if you'd also taken the time to blot out the person to whom you were speaking.
:)
ZolaOnAOL is about to get 12 million instant messages from total strangers.
"They'd need to install a DSLAM in your community, then connect the voice part in to the via fiber CO. I don't know whether the telcos actually do this, or even if there is some reason why its not feasible to site the DSLAM out off the CO."
I forget the technical name of the equipment, but I know they're called 'mini' and 'micro' DSLAMs, and they generally run them to areas that are fairly well built up, but not quite built up enough for their own CO. I'm about 30,000 ft or so from my CO (according to Verizon), though I've been to the CO and it's probably no more than 20,000 ft air miles-wise. They must have done some ridiculous wiring for my area, or the database is a bit off. Either way, neither Verizon, nor Covad wants to touch my neighborhood with DSL from the existing CO. My only hope is that Verizon decides to throw a micro-DSLAM in the box about a mile down the road from my house. If they do that, I should have no problem getting 384 or 768k upstream. At that point, I'd tell Comcast to kiss my ass and jump ship.
When they put the micro DSLAM in near where I used to work, our DSL options went from 'no better than 1.5/144' to offering everything but the 7.1 downstream service. Where I now work is only about 5,000 ft from the CO, and we're in the process of moving to a 1.1 SDSL. I'd kill to get that sort of service.
"Now what am I supposed to cook my eggs on????"
Might I suggest this?
"Seriously, I have 3 or 4 options right now for broadband. If comcast is going to monitor my usage then I'll decide to go elsewhere for service. The only way they'll stop this kind of activity is if they lose customers by doing it."
That's super, but I have one option: Comcast. I'm nowhere near close enough to the CO for DSL, and unless they decide to run fiber to the small neighborhood in which I live (yeah, right), my only option for a long, long time is going to continue to be Comcast. I hate it, it sucks, and I'm annoyed by it. What can I do about it? Nothing.
"No, that would have caused a cascade failure in the deflector array."
Couldn't we just reverse the shield polarity? That's been a die-hard reliable solution in the past.
" Is there any precedent for an open-ended extension of the voting period?"
USC Title III Ch1, Sec 2goes into effect if the election results for a given state are not certified by December 12th, in a Presidential election. At that point, the legislature of the states without certified results may, as described by the Constitution (Article II Sec 1) decide who their electors will be (and thus, who will receive their electoral college votes).
"I just don't see online voting as a great advance for the republic."
Those who are too lazy, apathetic, ill-informed, impatient, or just plain stupid to vote for the leaders of this country at a polling place probably should not be doing so anyway. I, for one, applaud these individuals for not forcing their collective inadequacies upon the rest of us by making uninformed or poor decisions. Reducing the election of the leaders of the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world to the equivelent of a CNN online poll would be one of the biggest mistakes every made by this nation.
"And then you get arrested, because the NSA can track any DDOS attacks without much trouble."
That would be a quick and easy way to get the NSA shut down. The NSA's charter specifically prohibits them from purposefully intercepting and/or using domestic communications. The CIA faces similar restrictions. This is because we don't want the KGB wandering around in dark suits looking for some disloyal comrads to disappear. The FBI might eventually track you down, but that would be weeks or months after the fact. A joint operation with the FBI and the Secret Service (which wouldn't make any sense, but then again, the Secret Service are pretty much taking over just about anything they want to these days) would likely yield faster results. In that case, we'd be talking about days or weeks instead of months. If they can't certify the election results before December 12th, then Title III goes into effect and the legislatures of the states whose elections you messed with can simply choose the electors who will represent the state. This would not bode well for a place such as Florida, where the legislature is overwhelmingly Republican, assuming you were trying to help elect someone who is not a Republican.
"the goverment issues national voting cards which are free, and highly secure... In fact, ever since their introduction, they have already displaced drivers licenses and military issue cards as the preferred id for liquor stores, banks, etc"
And does the card tie your vote to your identity? Seems like that'd be a super way to make sure the party in power remains in power - simply track down and intimidate/beat/threaten/kill a bunch of those who opposed you in the last "election".
"I have some drawings of Seven in a sexy wild west outfit if you think they would help."
They wouldn't, but some photographs of her changing into that outfit definitely would.
"Its about time people realize that the world was never meant to be a place full of free stuff to take whenever you want it. This idea that its your right to do whatever the hell you want, and when a mega corporation tries to stop you they are suddenly infringing on your god given rights is ridiculous."
I think the problem that I, and some others have with a situation like this is that the law was bought and paid for by Mega Corps. Aside from the fact that no company has any right buying off legislators (campaign contributions? give me a break...), we're turning civil matters into criminal matters, removing even the appearance of distinction between large companies and government. No longer do the movie companies have to bring up civil cases against copyright infringers. Now, with the help of a few bought-and-paid-for politicians, they can get the taxpayers to foot the bill for punishing the infringers. A secondary issue to that is the fact that the distinction between infringement for commercial gain and non-commercial infringement is rapidly evaporating.
Personally, I would have no problem at all if the company that owns the copyright to the film in question were to fire off a lawsuit against the man whose obvious and unmistakable intent was to create a copy of that film. Instead, rather than go through that trouble, the film industry as a whole has essentially bribed members of the legislature to create a criminal offense from a civil matter, thus removing virtually all the burden of copyright enforcement from the copyright holder.
I don't particularly care for copyrights and patents. I think it was a pretty good idea at one time, but I think that it's gotten way out of hand. The concepts behind intellectual property are now being used more often to stifle scientific and artistic growth, rather than to promote it. That being said, I still support the civil enforcement of copyrights by the rightful holder thereof. What I don't support is bribery, pandering, or the criminalization of civil offenses without good reason. This guy brought a camera into a movie theatre and tried to create a copy of a film. Why is it that we're ready and willing to give him more jail time than someone who beats the hell out of his wife? Why is it that we'll send this guy to jail for essentially trespassing across the front lawn of the MPAA? Why are the tax dollars of the people of California being (ab)used to fund the prosecution of a civil offense? These are my problems with this situation, and I suspect it's where much of where other peoples' problem comes from as well.
" I find it funny that you would answer minor criticisms such as the grandparent, but not a lengthy one such as this post"
Longer posts take more time and effort to dissect and properly answer. What's funny is that you take a lack of instantaneous response as evidence of a non-response. The long and short of it is, I'll respond when I'm damn good and ready.
Have a nice day.
"The basic "need" for it is the desire of government"
:)
"I need it because I desire it" seems to be the underlying principle for the vast majority of the Omnibus spending bill.
"Okay... Show me how to trim half from these programs (2003 budget numbers):"
I'll do you one better, I'll eliminate about 90 - 95% of your total here. Seeing as our Constitution enumerates the powers given to the Federal government, while specifically stating that all other powers are inherently reserved for either the states or the people, please show me how the Social Security program is constitutional. Should the states each decide to undertake the creation of a social security program, they're welcome to do so. However, the Federal government has no right to do so, and is therefore doing so illegally. Please don't talk to me about the wonderful benefits of having a Federal social security program, as I remember quite clearly that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Once you've eliminated Social Security from the bill, along with all the other programs and such that are unconstitutional, the interest on the debt is reduced to nearly zero within a few years, as you can pay down the national debt instead of building it up in record amounts as our resident President is doing.
The ability of the Federal government to borrow money was intended to be used only in emergency situations, such as in time of war. These days, it's quickly becoming miraculous to even begin to talk about not borrowing money for the Federal government. If the government shutdowns a few years ago taught us anything, it's that we've gone way too far in our government spending. Social Security is a non-refundable, mandatory, interest-free loan to the Federal government. It's one of those things that looked real good for those eating out of trashcans in the 1930s, but which actually turns out to screw us all in the end.
"Why do all the Supreme Court justices pay income taxes?"
Because their government has threatened them with lengthy jail terms if they refuse. I believe I'm right, but I continue to pay my taxes. Why? Because I cannot afford to be wrong.
"even most libertarian states require some money to operate."
:)
They certainly do, and the Constitution provides the means for legal taxation to ensure the government has all the money it needs. If the government has grown to such a size that it can no longer sustain itself via legal means, the solution should not be to throw more money at it, nor extract money from citizens by threat of imprisonment. The reason the government is as large as it is is because it has usurped authority and responsibilities from the states and individual citizens in violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, amoung others. I'll bet if we went over every inch of the Federal government with a fine-tooth Constitutional comb, we'd be able to cut the Federal budget in half simply by eliminating aspects which are illegal to begin with.
As for taxation, I think a consumption tax is the best way to go about it. Think about this for a moment: you're suggesting we should tax the wealthy more than the poor. I would agree with this entirely. My question for you is this: who buys more, and who buys expensive things? Joe Sixpack makes $30,000 a year, and is (presumably) spending that money on a bunch of little things for the family and such. As such, his spending habits are limited to buying a maximum of $30,000 worth of stuff. We could define certain necessary items as non-taxable, like simple foods. From there, the consumption tax takes form. Joe Sixpack buys a $19,000 Honda, and pays a tax on it. Joe Millionaire buys a Jaguar, a Porsche, an H2, and a small jet. He pays a tax on each of those items, which, when based upon the value of each, turns out to run far in excess of Joe Sixpack's tax. Thus, the wealthy are indeed taxed more (assuming they choose to take advantage of being wealthy), and the little people don't have to worry about April 15th killing their rent money.
There are far more things to discuss when it comes to a comprehensive taxation system, but I think the overall simplification and fairness of a consumption tax, as opposed to an income tax, far outweighs the difficulties of moving to a totally new system.
In the end, I continue to support the elimination of the (unconstitutional) Income Tax, in favor of a more fair tax plan, a vastly reduced Federal government, and perhaps even a might bit of fiscal discipline.
As for my previous post, I would assume at least one issue you'd raise would be with regards to Lincoln. I wouldn't bother with that one; you wouldn't understand/care if you're not a Southerner by birth as well as by heart.
"They control the composition of the SC "
;)
They control the appointment of new Justices. So long as the current court remains intact (no one steps aside or dies), neither of the other two branchs has any control over its composition. Ask FDR about this one.
"They control the entire makeup of the lower federal court system, and could thus effectively remove all of the SC's appellate jurisdiction (robbing it of the means to hear the vast majority of cases)"
Article III, Section 2 would seem to disagree with your assertion that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction could be removed. From that section:
"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact"
To remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in all cases, you'd have to ensure that no one ever appealed any court decision to the Supreme Court.
"They control all the money"
And thus, the crux of the issue here. Then again, the Constitution also states in Article III, Section 1 that their compensation (paycheck) cannot be decreased during their time in office. This goes back to the point in number 1, about the SCOTUS being effectively non-dependent upon either of the other two branchs.
"They have the military"
This is the kicker here. It's the one wildcard in this whole mess. Were the Supreme Court to issue an order/ruling which is then negated by military action of some kind, it would signal the end of our Republic. The ultimate battle would be in the hearts and minds of the soldiers and commanders themselves. Do you follow a lawful order from the Supreme Court? Or do you follow the (presumably unlawful) order of your commander in chief? Most military folks are fiercly loyal to the CnC (heh, I just made that up), but this type of question would really tear up a lot of people. If the government were to endure such an event sans revolution, I think it would be little more than a puppet of a small group of individuals. It is at that point that the Great Experiment would be completed, albeit as an utter failure.
If this day comes, I can only hope that I've long since died. I don't know that I could live through something as aweful as this happening to the nation I love so dearly.
" it would be crazy -- and completely out of character -- for the SC to directly contradict a Constitutional amendment."
It would be unprecidented, but it's not as though the SCOTUS hasn't used word games to get amendments to mean new things (or not to mean new things, as the case may be). Look at the 16th Amendment. The SCOTUS held multiple times that it confers no new taxation powers upon the Congress, but merely defines the Income Tax as an indirect excise tax. Thus, the entire purpose for the Amendment (to get around that pesky Constitution thingy so we can grab peoples' cash) is negated. But don't worry, the Income Tax is only temporary. The Federal government stated this repeatedly so as to get the amendment passed. Luckily for us, the Federal government always keeps its promises. If you have any doubts about this, just take a trip out to the open plains and talk to some Native Americans; if you can find some that are still alive.
"If the SC ever just decided to nullify an amendment in such a way, we would basically have to abolish or drastically limit the court's power."
For the Supreme Court to take such a drastic step, I believe we would have to have far larger problems at hand to create such a situation. When the time comes that Supreme Court finds it necessary to take the drastic step of killing an amendment, I think judicial tyranny will be the least of our worries.
"The head tax idea is interesting but extremely unlikely."
The head tax argument is just one of many arguments against the Income Tax. The shady history of the 16th Amendment, the arguments against an indirect excise tax being applicable to in
"income taxes are good ideas"
I fail to see how this is the case, unless you're a fan of big government and a socialist state. If you'd like to send all your money to the Federal government in the hopes that it'll provide for your every need, feel free. Personally, I see the Federal government as an out-of-control, digustingly large, billions-bleeding behemoth hell-bent on making itself as powerful and omnipresent as possible. The original intent of the Federal government was to act as a sort of UN for the several states. In cases where states might fight over an issue, the Federal government was given the authority (enumerated powers) to ensure relations between the states remained as civil as possible. Thanks to Lincoln, amoung others, we've obliterated any semblence of states' rights, fiscal discipline, personal responsibility, or adherence to the intent of the Constitution.
The Constitution is hardly a practical document. It rarely delves into details, and largely prefers to state a general idea or principle. It does this because it is a statement of principles. It describes an ideal state in which power is always balanced, poor leadership by a few is irrelevant, extremism can be nullified, and where the people truly are the ultimate authority. The system we have now shows that with 200 years, a fist-full of wars, and a willingness to bludgeon the masses with extreme and misleading concepts repeatedly, you can pervert even the most beautiful government.
" Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:"
If Article I, Section 8 allowed Congress to pass the income tax as it exists today, and create the IRS as it exists today, then please explain the necessity for the 16th Amendment. If Article I, Section 8 authorized the system we have in place, the 16th Amendment would never have been proposed, let alone ratified. Ratification of the 16th Amendment was also conditional on its being a temporary measure, as opposed to a cash cow for a massive Federal Totalitarianocracy.
You're also forgetting Article I, Section 2, which states:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers..."[Emph Mine]
You're also forgetting Article I, Section 9, which states:
"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."[Emph Mine]
The Founding Fathers specifically stated in two seperate places that the Congress may not lay direct tax, except in proportion to the census. They couldn't have been more clear if they'd carved it into Jefferson's skull and stuck his head on a pike in the middle of Philly.
You could always argue that the 16th Amendment repealed these parts of the Constitution, but it does no such thing. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has already taken care of settling any dispute you and I might have about this. They did so in 1916, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US [1916], in which they held that the 16th Amendment did not alter Article 1, Sections 2 and 9, and that its only result is that the Income Tax remains an indirect tax. (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. , 240 US 112 [1916])
"So what?", you're probably saying. "They can still collect an indirect income tax." You're absolutely correct that Congress may impose an indirect income tax. Unfortunately for the IRS and personal income tax fans, the Supreme Court clearly defined an indirect tax in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 200 US 107 [1911], in which it held that:
"Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable . . . it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."[Emph Mine]
Whoops, there it goes. You may find it hard to argue with that, but the Supreme Court would respectfully disagree. If someone has the money to take such a case all the way to the Supreme Court, we might all get a huge (as in 100%) refund from Uncle Sam in the next few years. The US Federal government was never intended to be the behemoth it currently is. Once we stop sending it all our money, we'll find that many other problems go away as well. It's tough to drop a billion dollars on a police-state inducing program (TIA, CAPPS/II, MATRIX) when your discretionary budget is smaller than a billion dollars.
"That is really just an academic question though - you've got to play the cards your dealt, and we've got to deal with the federal income tax system, as much as it sucks."
This would be true if we lived in a totalitarian regime. We, however, live in a representative republic governed by principles, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Thus, one is quite welcome to challenge or attempt to change laws with which they disagree. This can be accomplished via court action, congressional lobbying, or state-initiated Constitutional Amendment. To challenge the income tax via the courts is perhaps the most interesting of the three. To do so successfully, one would have to convincingly argue to the Supreme Court that it effectively has the power to nullify Constitutional Amendments which are intrinsically counter to the fundamental principles contained within the Constitution proper.
An extreme example of this would be the unlikely situation in which a Constitutional Amendment were passed declaring women to be the property of their husband or, lacking one, their father. Thus, any and all rights normally given to a human being would be usurped by the will of their 'owner'. The question becomes, could the Supreme Court declare that such an amendment runs so contrary to the principles of the Constitution that the amendment, itself, is unconstitutional? As much as one would like to say that it can, you then call into question whether there is any check on the power of the Supreme Court, but I digress.
One would also have to convince the SCOTUS that a blanket income tax is effectively a head tax. One cannot survive without income; thus, one's very existence is taxable (head tax). The latter argument is far easier than the former, primarily because it doesn't create a constitutional crisis, relating to the seperation and balance of powers.
"This has got to be the work of those KDE bastards!"
Not a chance - they're too busy trying to add support for languages that less than 5 people speak; like Bengali.
No time to worry about the gnome, must find obscure Brazilian rain forest language to add!
"Only guy I knew who was a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA."
I'm a member of both the ACLU and the ACU (American Conservative Union). Does that count? Both of them are all for getting government off my back, and that's fine by me. I believe that both fight hard to defend our Constitution from the treasonous politicians and other officials, even though they can sometimes be at odds with one another on a particular issue. I'm not alone, either; Bob Barr is a well-known conservative who frequently does work for both the ACU and the ACLU. What it took to bridge the two organizations was a terrorist act commited by zealots followed by terrorist acts commited by our government in response thereto.
I cannot think of a more inappropriate response to the murder of three thousand people than the wholesale destruction of the values, ideals, and liberties by which they lived, in their name.
!(life > liberty)
"Tom's review is here."
Why bother? Is this just to show how well you can rig benchmarks with enough driver vetting and settings tweaking? All you have to do to get the Tom's results is to take every other reviewer's work, reduce the AMD chips' performance a bit, add to the Intel chips' performance a bit, and then create a conclusion to support Intel's total dominance, power, and magnificance, regardless of what the (tweaked/rigged) benchmarks show.