That's true. However, you've just entered The Hard Part of this whole plan. How do we withhold that tax?
Most gas stations are parts of larger companies. I assume Bob's Mobil on Route 5 buys its gas from the Big Mobil Corporation. Can Bob's Mobil tell Big Mobil Corporation "Yeah, you can just go ahead and take the tax out of my gas bill, because I'm not paying it anymore."?
There are some small gas stations who don't have that problem. But when the IRS calls up Joe's Gas and Burgers, will he stand his ground? And if he does, to the point where they are banging on his front door, will state government officials be there defending him, or will they let it happen?
Creating a low-tax unintrusive state is not a bad plan, but I think their end goal - opting out of federal regulations - is a little too ambitious for what I think they can accomplish.
How are you with circuitry? There's a series of "Electronic Project Lab" toys you can get that give you a whole bunch of components - resistors, capacitors, light bulbs, etc - and teach you how to build circuits with them. You're encouraged to experiment on your own.
Here's the 60 in One set. I've never heard of this retailer, so I'm not recommending them, but the page is a good guide to what you can do with it. You can also do a Google search which hooks you up with all the different sets they make.
Re:Highway funds only persuasive to some states
on
The Free State Project
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The threat to withold highway funds is only persuasive to some states: those states which have more roads, per capita, then their tax base would ordinarily support.
But if the federal government withholds your highway funds, they still make you pay your taxes to support them. In other words, even if you're paying more into the highway system than you're getting out, it's still a better deal than getting NOTHING out. So it's persuasive to every state whose citizens pay federal taxes - i.e. every state in the country.
You don't exist. Go away. (Trying to ssh under an invalid username....)
It's funny, but in all seriousness, isn't that poor security? If somebody's trying to come up with a username/password combination by brute force, aren't you cutting their job down by a square root or so by telling them if the username is valid? Sure, that kind of bruteforcing is hard to do anyway, but I'd prefer for the software just to answer yes or no to the user/pass combination.
Company monitors webmail accounts? 1. Get a remote Unix account with inbound SSH access. 2. Install tinyproxy or your favorite http or SOCKS proxy on port X of the remote host. 3. Set up an ssh tunnel from port 8080 on your workstation to port X on the remote host. 4. Tell your browser to use a proxy sitting on localhost port 8080. 5. Hit www.hotmail.com and your company won't be able to read a single byte of it. (Barring serious ssh vulnerabilities.)
ISS network administrators have determined that controls built into KaZaA Version 2 prohibit administrators from imposing bandwidth limitations.
Can someone explain how this is possible? When I was at Rutgers, they had hard caps on each dorm computer's uploading and downloading per day and per week. If you went over it, you were shut off from the Internet for one week. How can Kazaa prevent administrators from monitoring how much bandwidth each student uses and cutting off those who use too much?
Does that number represet the total possible board states? Because if the goal is to create the perfect game, a lot of those states might never be reached.
How is it fun to play against a machine that's so strong you can't possibly win?
That raises another point, actually. It hasn't been proven that the "perfect chess game" doesn't exist. It's possible that someone could publish a book that consisted of an opening move for white, and the response to every situation that black could create from there, which would lead to mate for white every time.
If that happens, the whole game of chess is going to become pointless, because anyone with that book - or enough of it memorized - is going to be unbeatable. Sure, you could throw the book away, but as you played, you'd know that what you were doing could be flat out wrong - no better than not blocking your tic-tac-toe opponent when he/she has 2 in a row.
So why does he do it? For political reasons of course. Make himself look good - fighting for the little guy - but there's zero chance that he'll actually need to put his neck on the line and accomplish anything. Nice gig.
Indeed. Actions like this, and the ensuing positive media coverage, are great for his campaign, and cost him exactly $0. Candidates not already IN office don't get this kind of opportunity. So they have to spend money to get name recognition. Good thing campaign spending restrictions have passed, otherwise incumbents might get challenged once in a while.
Hmm, if they are going to try to hold me to thier disclaimer, maybe I should send them a message with a disclaimer saying that by continuing to send any email to my address they are agreeing to pay me $500 per message & $1000 for any bit of personal info they share with thier "marketing partners."
That's a damn good idea! Any lawyers want to give their take on it? I guess you'd have to be able to prove you'd sent that....
I believe you are wrong. There is still the possibility for the classic man-in-the-middle attack:
Alice: Hey Bob, are you out there? Eve: Uh yeah, this is me Bob, that's the ticket. Alice: OK Bob, let's do our secure key exchange. Eve: Sure thing, Alice.
Alice and Eve now have a secure channel between them.
Bob: Alice? Eve: That's me. Bob: Let's exchange keys. Eve: Yeah, let's do that. That way no one will be able to intercept our traffic.
Bob and Eve now have a secure channel between them.
Bob: I love you, Alice. Eve: Well, it's a good thing that you told me over the secure channel. But alas, I am in love with someone else. You know who would make a good lover for you? Eve. She's just your type. Bob: Gee, thanks Alice.
Alice: I love you, Bob. Eve: Sorry baby, I've found someone better.
Reminds me of another famous lawsuit against the music industry. Would you believe I got a check for $2 Milli Vanilli's record company just by sending in proof that I owned one of their albums? Ah, those were the days.
Why would the music industry collude to fix prices to prevent stores like Walmart from controlling music sales if they didn't think they would have had to lower wholesale prices?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but there actually is a serious answer to that question: WalMart makes buying music a pain in the ass. Have you bought a CD there recently? They've got the best prices, yes. But their selection sucks, and if they do have what you want, it's probably between two things that don't belong anywhere near it alphabetically. The staff are there to ring up purchases and find general categories of merchandise, not to be knowledgeable about music. Ask them if they have the new CD by your favorite band, and the best they can tell you is "CD's are over there."
Go to an mainstream music store a la Sam Goody, and the situation gets slightly better. The staff knows where in the store you'll find a certain CD, and if the album is popular enough, they'll know whether it's in stock or not. Go to a real independent joint, and you're likely to get a clerk who knows exactly which of your favorite band's CD's are in stock, and when the ones that aren't are coming in. And, assuming they find you cool enough to talk to, they'll probably be interested to hear your opinions on the albums.
That kind of treatment makes people keep wanting to buy music, and is therefore good for the music industry. If WalMart were to put independent music stores out of business, people would, on the whole, buy less music. And that's one good reason for having a MAP program.
Like I said, I don't entirely disagree with you, but there is another side to the story.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Atkins. I nearly failed biology, and organic chemistry is something I only encounter in bad dreams. And my diet? Well, I think all nutritionists can agree that it sucks.
This is a thread about the politics of scientific research funding. One of the most-read magazines in American recently ran a cover story that made certain allegations directly related to this topic. So I posted a link. No FUD.
For the most part, I agree. The fact that a guy is a dick doesn't justify silencing him. However, I think most people don't know the stuff I noted in my post.
Ever since the 1970's, the US government has been recommending a diet high in grains and low in fat. Up until then, they were recommending things like beef and eggs a lot. The New York Times Magazine about 2 months ago did a really good story (all your free reg are belong to us) about how nutritionists questioning the low-fat diet - most prominently Dr. Atkins of the famous Atkins Diet - have been denied government funding, even though they have a pretty good case.
I seriously recommend that NY Times story, though. If they're right, it's beyond a scandal.
Pope=Reactionary establishment fanatic Galileo=Persecuted bearer of unpopular scientific truth
Not really. Galileo's main crime was, essentially, being a jerk. The Pope (Urban VIII I believe) had several close advisors who were open the idea of heliocentricism. But when Galileo published his Dialogue on the Two Chief Worldsystems, which was intended as an evenhanded look at the two points of view, the geocentric position was taken by a character named Simplicio. (Which, in Italian just as in English, sounds a lot like "simpleton".)
If you've read any Socratic dialogues, you know that they basically consist of Socrates talking to a patsy, who puts forth points which are one by one shattered by Socrates. Galileo's dialogue was a lot like that, except that a lot of Simplicio's statements were near-verbatim quotes of the Pope.
In response to this insult, the Pope cracked down on people questioning the Aristotelian model of the universe. So not only is Galileo's modern reputation incorrect, in fact he set back his own cause a few years.
Re:Interesting...Private Media's Stock Soared
on
The Porn Of Napster
·
· Score: 1
Definitely. And, of course, even if that guy is losing money, he's still benefiting.:)
Which would you have, millions of fans and a few hundred thousand dollars, or thousands of fans and a few million dollars?
You're clearly implying that the latter is the right choice, but I really wonder. Those hair bands on Behind The Music may not be millionaires today, but nobody will ever say they didn't take advantage of their youth.
That it does, but it's still REALLY hard to do right. Sometime some college professor is going to have to do metrical analysis on the work of Notorious BIG, which is extremely complex in terms of rhyme and rhythm. You might have three lines that rhyme with each other but the 3rd is leading into another segment, and the beat in the background follows it too. You should be able to find an mp3 of "Hypnotize" pretty easily if you want to see what I mean....
Slashdot Mirror
That's true. However, you've just entered The Hard Part of this whole plan. How do we withhold that tax?
Most gas stations are parts of larger companies. I assume Bob's Mobil on Route 5 buys its gas from the Big Mobil Corporation. Can Bob's Mobil tell Big Mobil Corporation "Yeah, you can just go ahead and take the tax out of my gas bill, because I'm not paying it anymore."?
There are some small gas stations who don't have that problem. But when the IRS calls up Joe's Gas and Burgers, will he stand his ground? And if he does, to the point where they are banging on his front door, will state government officials be there defending him, or will they let it happen?
Creating a low-tax unintrusive state is not a bad plan, but I think their end goal - opting out of federal regulations - is a little too ambitious for what I think they can accomplish.
How are you with circuitry? There's a series of "Electronic Project Lab" toys you can get that give you a whole bunch of components - resistors, capacitors, light bulbs, etc - and teach you how to build circuits with them. You're encouraged to experiment on your own.
Here's the 60 in One set. I've never heard of this retailer, so I'm not recommending them, but the page is a good guide to what you can do with it. You can also do a Google search which hooks you up with all the different sets they make.
The threat to withold highway funds is only persuasive to some states: those states which have more roads, per capita, then their tax base would ordinarily support.
But if the federal government withholds your highway funds, they still make you pay your taxes to support them. In other words, even if you're paying more into the highway system than you're getting out, it's still a better deal than getting NOTHING out. So it's persuasive to every state whose citizens pay federal taxes - i.e. every state in the country.
You don't exist. Go away. (Trying to ssh under an invalid username....)
It's funny, but in all seriousness, isn't that poor security? If somebody's trying to come up with a username/password combination by brute force, aren't you cutting their job down by a square root or so by telling them if the username is valid? Sure, that kind of bruteforcing is hard to do anyway, but I'd prefer for the software just to answer yes or no to the user/pass combination.
Company monitors webmail accounts?
1. Get a remote Unix account with inbound SSH access.
2. Install tinyproxy or your favorite http or SOCKS proxy on port X of the remote host.
3. Set up an ssh tunnel from port 8080 on your workstation to port X on the remote host.
4. Tell your browser to use a proxy sitting on localhost port 8080.
5. Hit www.hotmail.com and your company won't be able to read a single byte of it. (Barring serious ssh vulnerabilities.)
there are separate judicial systems in England and Wales (both share the same judicial system)
I am lost.
You don't need to drink water in excess of moderation to choke on it. Haven't you ever had water go "down the wrong pipe"?
ISS network administrators have determined that controls built into KaZaA Version 2 prohibit administrators from imposing bandwidth limitations.
Can someone explain how this is possible? When I was at Rutgers, they had hard caps on each dorm computer's uploading and downloading per day and per week. If you went over it, you were shut off from the Internet for one week. How can Kazaa prevent administrators from monitoring how much bandwidth each student uses and cutting off those who use too much?
I gather estimates are around 10^43
Does that number represet the total possible board states? Because if the goal is to create the perfect game, a lot of those states might never be reached.
How is it fun to play against a machine that's so strong you can't possibly win?
That raises another point, actually. It hasn't been proven that the "perfect chess game" doesn't exist. It's possible that someone could publish a book that consisted of an opening move for white, and the response to every situation that black could create from there, which would lead to mate for white every time.
If that happens, the whole game of chess is going to become pointless, because anyone with that book - or enough of it memorized - is going to be unbeatable. Sure, you could throw the book away, but as you played, you'd know that what you were doing could be flat out wrong - no better than not blocking your tic-tac-toe opponent when he/she has 2 in a row.
I believe you are wrong. There is still the possibility for the classic man-in-the-middle attack:
Alice: Hey Bob, are you out there?
Eve: Uh yeah, this is me Bob, that's the ticket.
Alice: OK Bob, let's do our secure key exchange.
Eve: Sure thing, Alice.
Alice and Eve now have a secure channel between them.
Bob: Alice?
Eve: That's me.
Bob: Let's exchange keys.
Eve: Yeah, let's do that. That way no one will be able to intercept our traffic.
Bob and Eve now have a secure channel between them.
Bob: I love you, Alice.
Eve: Well, it's a good thing that you told me over the secure channel. But alas, I am in love with someone else. You know who would make a good lover for you? Eve. She's just your type.
Bob: Gee, thanks Alice.
Alice: I love you, Bob.
Eve: Sorry baby, I've found someone better.
Reminds me of another famous lawsuit against the music industry. Would you believe I got a check for $2 Milli Vanilli's record company just by sending in proof that I owned one of their albums? Ah, those were the days.
Go to an mainstream music store a la Sam Goody, and the situation gets slightly better. The staff knows where in the store you'll find a certain CD, and if the album is popular enough, they'll know whether it's in stock or not. Go to a real independent joint, and you're likely to get a clerk who knows exactly which of your favorite band's CD's are in stock, and when the ones that aren't are coming in. And, assuming they find you cool enough to talk to, they'll probably be interested to hear your opinions on the albums.
That kind of treatment makes people keep wanting to buy music, and is therefore good for the music industry. If WalMart were to put independent music stores out of business, people would, on the whole, buy less music. And that's one good reason for having a MAP program.
Like I said, I don't entirely disagree with you, but there is another side to the story.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Atkins. I nearly failed biology, and organic chemistry is something I only encounter in bad dreams. And my diet? Well, I think all nutritionists can agree that it sucks.
This is a thread about the politics of scientific research funding. One of the most-read magazines in American recently ran a cover story that made certain allegations directly related to this topic. So I posted a link. No FUD.
For the most part, I agree. The fact that a guy is a dick doesn't justify silencing him. However, I think most people don't know the stuff I noted in my post.
I knew I should have stuck a :-) to the end of it. Deadpan doesn't work online.
Ever since the 1970's, the US government has been recommending a diet high in grains and low in fat. Up until then, they were recommending things like beef and eggs a lot. The New York Times Magazine about 2 months ago did a really good story (all your free reg are belong to us) about how nutritionists questioning the low-fat diet - most prominently Dr. Atkins of the famous Atkins Diet - have been denied government funding, even though they have a pretty good case.
I seriously recommend that NY Times story, though. If they're right, it's beyond a scandal.
Unless bestiality is more common in your community than in mine, the average stray tomcat has sex with very few women.
If you've read any Socratic dialogues, you know that they basically consist of Socrates talking to a patsy, who puts forth points which are one by one shattered by Socrates. Galileo's dialogue was a lot like that, except that a lot of Simplicio's statements were near-verbatim quotes of the Pope.
In response to this insult, the Pope cracked down on people questioning the Aristotelian model of the universe. So not only is Galileo's modern reputation incorrect, in fact he set back his own cause a few years.
Definitely. And, of course, even if that guy is losing money, he's still benefiting. :)
I think most of the gansta rap well.. sucks,
That it does, but it's still REALLY hard to do right. Sometime some college professor is going to have to do metrical analysis on the work of Notorious BIG, which is extremely complex in terms of rhyme and rhythm. You might have three lines that rhyme with each other but the 3rd is leading into another segment, and the beat in the background follows it too. You should be able to find an mp3 of "Hypnotize" pretty easily if you want to see what I mean....